58
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 223:
Line 223: − − : Ursus, you're not the first [[liberal]] to try to conceal the truth about [[public school]]s. They don't teach that deceit is wrong, and that statement is relevant because deceit by liberals is pervasive now. If public schools taught that deceit is wrong, then people wouldn't tolerate as much deceit as they do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:21, 4 September 2007 (EDT) − − :: First, thanks for immediately dragging this conversation into the gutter, Aschafly, by calling me a liberal. If you had phrased the actual [[Deceit]] page better, this conversation wouldn't be happening. Why not just put on the page something closer to what you just said? Something mentioning how the public schools are too liberal, manifesting a level of deceit. And is it really that big of a problem for you to actually talk to people about these issues/questions? Do you want good pages, or do you want pet-projects? Just in this one exchange, we've already identified a way to improve the page. Are your pages above that?
→Public Schools: Eliminating some flaming language.
I'll try this again: What does the second sentence of this page (that American public schools do not teach deceit is morally wrong) have to do with defining or describing deceit? That sentence should be eliminated <big>or</big> more institutions ignoring the teaching of deceit should be listed. My previous deletions have been reverted without explanation or citation, description or discussion. Is Conservapedia just a playground for people's pet pages, or are we actually interested in putting something together that correlates with the topics we try to discuss? Until it is addressed in some way, I feel like deleting the sentence is the best course of action, though I would like to see disucssion here before I try again. --[[User:Ursus|Ursus]] 19:07, 4 September 2007 (EDT)
I'll try this again: What does the second sentence of this page (that American public schools do not teach deceit is morally wrong) have to do with defining or describing deceit? That sentence should be eliminated <big>or</big> more institutions ignoring the teaching of deceit should be listed. My previous deletions have been reverted without explanation or citation, description or discussion. Is Conservapedia just a playground for people's pet pages, or are we actually interested in putting something together that correlates with the topics we try to discuss? Until it is addressed in some way, I feel like deleting the sentence is the best course of action, though I would like to see disucssion here before I try again. --[[User:Ursus|Ursus]] 19:07, 4 September 2007 (EDT)
== Reversion ==
== Reversion ==