Changes

::No, but I am genuinely puzzled. As far as I can see, you coin a phrase ("embraced deceit") out of thin air, create an article about it, and then add a comment that "Embraced deceit is common among liberals, but non-existent among conservatives". And to support this sweeping generalisation you point to the list at [[Deceit]], which is a very one-sided list of examples that is systematically purged of any mention of a deceit that does not fit your agenda. More of a bootstrap technique than anything like evidence for the claim. The article at [[Liberal friendship]] is the same. There is no justification for the assertion that "liberals" treat friendship any differently than "conservatives", and any challenge to your opinion, even any request for evidence to support the assertion, is met with scorn and ejection. It seems a funny way to run an encyclopedia that aims to be trustworthy and to tell the unbiased truth. That's all. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 15:42, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::No, but I am genuinely puzzled. As far as I can see, you coin a phrase ("embraced deceit") out of thin air, create an article about it, and then add a comment that "Embraced deceit is common among liberals, but non-existent among conservatives". And to support this sweeping generalisation you point to the list at [[Deceit]], which is a very one-sided list of examples that is systematically purged of any mention of a deceit that does not fit your agenda. More of a bootstrap technique than anything like evidence for the claim. The article at [[Liberal friendship]] is the same. There is no justification for the assertion that "liberals" treat friendship any differently than "conservatives", and any challenge to your opinion, even any request for evidence to support the assertion, is met with scorn and ejection. It seems a funny way to run an encyclopedia that aims to be trustworthy and to tell the unbiased truth. That's all. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 15:42, 8 March 2008 (EST)