Changes

:::::: FredX, users can talk all they want, as long as they contribute substance at the same time.  It's easy to contribute substance.  It's the reason we're here.  No project can succeed if the participants do nothing but talk.  Try it at work sometime if you don't believe me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: FredX, users can talk all they want, as long as they contribute substance at the same time.  It's easy to contribute substance.  It's the reason we're here.  No project can succeed if the participants do nothing but talk.  Try it at work sometime if you don't believe me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::Andy, consider this: "talk talk talk" is useful if it's being done to convince you, the only person with control over the article, that you're wrong. Talk towards the truth is not useless talk: it's incredibly substantive. As it stands now, it's you, Bugler, and TK versus everyone else on the site. It might be time to recognize that all this talk has the "substance" of proving your error.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:08, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::Andy, consider this: "talk talk talk" is useful if it's being done to convince you, the only person with control over the article, that you're wrong. Talk towards the truth is not useless talk: it's incredibly substantive. As it stands now, it's you, Bugler, and TK versus everyone else on the site. It might be time to recognize that all this talk has the "substance" of proving your error.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:08, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Actually, TK, I couldn't disagree with any of your comments, but for this one - "the truth is the truth, but truth is always in the eye of the beholder, no?".  That's certainly true when it comes to matters of dogma or belief - it's true, we might never agree on what is "true".  But there is much here on Conservapedia that is ''not'' dogma-related, and is simply factually untrue.  To take this particular article as an example, might I ask if you believe the Muslim-related material might not be better presented if gathered into one section, entitled "Speculation on Obama's Muslim beliefs", instead of being scattershot throughout the article, unreferenced, misquoted, and asserted with no validity.  That would actually HELP this debate, yet is certain to be disallowed under a threat of "we don't hide the truth here", yet who's truth is that?  And my mere suggestion of disagreement with this thesis likely marks me as a candidate for a ban.  Certainly it's likely that if I answer one more time in this reasonable debate with you, I will likely be blocked by ASchalfly, Bugler or others - simply for debating.  But how else would I debate my suggestion - the article is locked?  [[User:FredX|FredX]] 14:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Actually, TK, I couldn't disagree with any of your comments, but for this one - "the truth is the truth, but truth is always in the eye of the beholder, no?".  That's certainly true when it comes to matters of dogma or belief - it's true, we might never agree on what is "true".  But there is much here on Conservapedia that is ''not'' dogma-related, and is simply factually untrue.  To take this particular article as an example, might I ask if you believe the Muslim-related material might not be better presented if gathered into one section, entitled "Speculation on Obama's Muslim beliefs", instead of being scattershot throughout the article, unreferenced, misquoted, and asserted with no validity.  That would actually HELP this debate, yet is certain to be disallowed under a threat of "we don't hide the truth here", yet who's truth is that?  And my mere suggestion of disagreement with this thesis likely marks me as a candidate for a ban.  Certainly it's likely that if I answer one more time in this reasonable debate with you, I will likely be blocked by ASchalfly, Bugler or others - simply for debating.  But how else would I debate my suggestion - the article is locked?  [[User:FredX|FredX]] 14:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Talking with enemies ==

== Talking with enemies ==