541
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 25:
Line 25: + + + + + + +
→Warning: YO, ANDY! WHAT-FREAKING-EVER! GO AHEAD AND BAAAAAAAAAAAN MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! LET EVERYBODY KNOW THAT YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO THREATS AND BANS TO DEFEND YOUR POSITION!
:: Your account is also on the verge of being blocked for far too much talk compared to substantive edits. We're building an encyclopedia here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:33, 25 January 2008 (EST)
:: Your account is also on the verge of being blocked for far too much talk compared to substantive edits. We're building an encyclopedia here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:33, 25 January 2008 (EST)
:::Look, Andy. If it makes you feel better, go ahead and ban me. I'm getting really tired of the growing hostility I'm subjected to simply because I point out the incredibly large holes in your "arguments". So stop the silly threats and just get it over with already.
:::Fact is that I contribute to this site, and my contribs are usually well-received. I don't edit here 24/7 (or 12/7, given how I haven't earned the "right" to edit 24/7) but when I do, it's usually good quality. That Periodic Table of Elements (which you ''completely'' overlooked during the contest, even though you had been my Captain and I had asked you to grade it) for example had received praise from a sysop (who had been on the opposing team, even), and God knows it had been lots of work. And yet, things like that apparently aren't enough to avoid getting banned here. Fascinating.
:::You claim that this is a meritocracy, but with all the hostility and implied 90/10 threats, it feels more like a forced labor camp, where people have to make many, many super-high-quality edits to earn the right to voice criticism (and of course, you get to decide what it a quality edit and what is not).
:::I came back even after many pointless and overly long blocks (1 month for my ''one'' silly edit after a long history of good ones for example) because I wanted to believe that I could help improving this site. However, it's becoming clear now that facts and fairness take a back seat to ideology and cheap shots. You exploit the victims of crimes to push your gun control agenda, you belittle famous authors to rant about liberals and homosexuality, you use tragic deaths to claim moral high ground over all of Hollywood. And when people point out that your arguments are all based on your warped perception of reality, you shout "liberal denial" and try to drag the discussion away into tangents. Not even to mention that you (and you alone) constantly get to decide who counts as a conservative and who is just a liberal in denial. How are we supposed to build an encyclopedia when you alone get to decide what is true and factual? This isn't Conservapedia, it's the SchlaflyBlog, nothing more.
::::It's a real pity that this site claims to "educate" when in reality, it simply tries to vilify whoever you oppose and to present your own opinions as indisputable fact.
::::Go ahead. Ban me if you feel like it. Then people will at least know that I don't silently endorse your agenda. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 15:06, 25 January 2008 (EST)