nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
26,487
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 3:
Line 3: + + + + + +
no edit summary
Yes i think that the idea of a intolerance article is rather ironic considering this website is intolerant, please dont try to argue this one, because you can't, you are intolerant. So i agree with the above text, that we should delete it, so that stupid liberals won't voice their opinions and so that we don't all become evil gay people, because then we wouldn't have overpopulation and stuff, so....
Yes i think that the idea of a intolerance article is rather ironic considering this website is intolerant, please dont try to argue this one, because you can't, you are intolerant. So i agree with the above text, that we should delete it, so that stupid liberals won't voice their opinions and so that we don't all become evil gay people, because then we wouldn't have overpopulation and stuff, so....
This page should just be deleted. It is an agenda, not an artical. If it is not deleated, someone should go in there and rewrite it. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]
:Yesterday i attempted to clean up the article and remove the pointedly anti-homosexual bias (and roundabout reasoning), but as usual, my edits were quickly reversed. Seriously, people...why use a wiki system when others' contributions are unilaterally discarded?[[User:JBrandonLoberg|JBrandonLoberg]] 17:55, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:*This is billed as a "Christian/Conservative - Friendly" encyclopedia. Since it is ''God's Commandment'' there cannot be a "pro" argument for Homosexuality, can there? While Christians will pray for all those so misguided, neither will we be seen as condoning or excusing such behavior. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 18:25, 22 November 2008 (EST)