3,303
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 58:
Line 58: + +
Conservapedia talk:Obama straw poll (view source)
Revision as of 10:49, December 2, 2008
, 10:49, December 2, 2008→My comment
::''Conservapedia presents the facts and the reader can decide, as with all entries.'' Smething that I have been constantly stating to Philip, only to be met with blank incomprehension and denial. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:38, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::''Conservapedia presents the facts and the reader can decide, as with all entries.'' Smething that I have been constantly stating to Philip, only to be met with blank incomprehension and denial. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:38, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I wonder why Ed Poor doesn't block ''you'' for "personal remarks". And your comment is simply a false claim. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:33, 1 December 2008 (EST)
:::: I wonder why Ed Poor doesn't block ''you'' for "personal remarks". And your comment is simply a false claim. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:33, 1 December 2008 (EST)
:::::And calling me a liar ''isn't'' a personal remark? You really take the biscuit sometimes. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:49, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::The issue is whether or not the statements about Obama are factual and relevant. Simply saying "Conservapedia presents the facts" begs the question - Philip is disputing that on the Obama page Conservapedia is presenting facts. If some evidence and justification is given for why the statements on the Obama page are factual and relevant, then that should be the end of the argument. So far Philip feels that such evidence and justification has not been given. To repeat, this has nothing to do with whether or not Conservapedia ''should'' present facts and let the reader decide, and everything to do with whether or not Conservapedia ''is'' presenting the facts and letting the reader decide. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 17:48, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::The issue is whether or not the statements about Obama are factual and relevant. Simply saying "Conservapedia presents the facts" begs the question - Philip is disputing that on the Obama page Conservapedia is presenting facts. If some evidence and justification is given for why the statements on the Obama page are factual and relevant, then that should be the end of the argument. So far Philip feels that such evidence and justification has not been given. To repeat, this has nothing to do with whether or not Conservapedia ''should'' present facts and let the reader decide, and everything to do with whether or not Conservapedia ''is'' presenting the facts and letting the reader decide. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 17:48, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::::"The facts" would include factual evidence to the contrary, as I suggested [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&oldid=571768#Suggestion_for_compromise a week ago], to no avail. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:44, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::::"The facts" would include factual evidence to the contrary, as I suggested [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&oldid=571768#Suggestion_for_compromise a week ago], to no avail. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:44, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Conservapedia presents evidence. We are not arrogant dogmatists; we present evidence and facts and let the reader make up his mind. Of course, there are some minds that are too closed to be made up. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:49, 2 December 2008 (EST)
== Nuetral light? ==
== Nuetral light? ==