nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 156:
Line 156: + + +
Conservapedia talk:Obama straw poll (view source)
Revision as of 02:14, December 3, 2008
, 02:14, December 3, 2008→Compromise proposals: Some comments before I post my response.
:::::I, too, appreciate Bolly's efforts. The Blue Beret, honestly worn, is not dishonourable headgear. But the solution here, the only acceptable compromise, is for the 'clique' to cease their attempts at absolutist censorship and to accept compromise themselves. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:57, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::I, too, appreciate Bolly's efforts. The Blue Beret, honestly worn, is not dishonourable headgear. But the solution here, the only acceptable compromise, is for the 'clique' to cease their attempts at absolutist censorship and to accept compromise themselves. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:57, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::::::: You have ''still'' not justified the claim of "censorship", despite being called on to do so. As for compromise, see my comments below. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:14, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::::::In that case, regardless of whether 'the clique' agree's with your assessment Bugler, could one of them come forward and offer a potential compromise? Once that's done, we can always debate the terms etc. but the only way forward is a sign that both sides are willing to talk. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 20:00, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::::::In that case, regardless of whether 'the clique' agree's with your assessment Bugler, could one of them come forward and offer a potential compromise? Once that's done, we can always debate the terms etc. but the only way forward is a sign that both sides are willing to talk. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 20:00, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::When side A wishes to present '''both''' sides of an argument, and side B wishes to censor all disagreement with its own view, the only possible compromise is for side B to accept the side A position. Anthing else is capitulationism, defeatism and appeasement. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 20:03, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::When side A wishes to present '''both''' sides of an argument, and side B wishes to censor all disagreement with its own view, the only possible compromise is for side B to accept the side A position. Anthing else is capitulationism, defeatism and appeasement. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 20:03, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::: To me, it sounds like I'm on side A and you're on side B. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:14, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::Do you consider me part of that clique, Bugler? Because I am very opposed to censorship. I just don't want to see opinions posted as facts! I believe that the articles here should be concerned only with the facts, and not opinions. However, I would be willing to compromise. I propose that all opinions and speculations about a topic be placed in a section titled "Opinions" (or something similar) in the article for that topic. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|<font color="#006666" >JArneal</font>]]''' '' 20:06, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::Do you consider me part of that clique, Bugler? Because I am very opposed to censorship. I just don't want to see opinions posted as facts! I believe that the articles here should be concerned only with the facts, and not opinions. However, I would be willing to compromise. I propose that all opinions and speculations about a topic be placed in a section titled "Opinions" (or something similar) in the article for that topic. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|<font color="#006666" >JArneal</font>]]''' '' 20:06, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Prime facie evidence is posted as such, not as established fact. It is the 'clique' that is suggesting, very wrongly, that it is. We in the 'posse' just wish to see the two schools of thought presented with equal esteem, something which seems to stick in the craw of the cliquists, and to provoke them to insulting and intemperate language. I don't see you as connected with the clique, btw. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 20:10, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Prime facie evidence is posted as such, not as established fact. It is the 'clique' that is suggesting, very wrongly, that it is. We in the 'posse' just wish to see the two schools of thought presented with equal esteem, something which seems to stick in the craw of the cliquists, and to provoke them to insulting and intemperate language. I don't see you as connected with the clique, btw. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 20:10, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Much of it has been and still ''is'' posted as established fact. The article until recently said unambiguously "Obama is a Muslim", and it still says that Obama uses the "Muslim pronunciation" of Pakistan. And there's been no evidence of "the two schools of thought [being] presented with equal esteem". Where, for example, is there even the slightest hint that there is no such thing as a "Muslim pronunciation" of Pakistan? As for insulting and intemperate language, try looking in a mirror. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:14, 2 December 2008 (EST)
[unindent] Ok another suggestion: It seems, from my viewpoint, that the Obama article doesn't list many objections that the clique (that's how I'm going to refer to you guys from now on) have proposed. Why not keep the list of proof that the posse has assembled and then underneath (or above or wherever can be agreed is the best place for it) allow the clique to have a list of objections or counterclaims to the above evidence. So that way, the list is not censored and both sections receive the same layout and attention to detail etc. so they are truly equal. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 20:16, 2 December 2008 (EST)
[unindent] Ok another suggestion: It seems, from my viewpoint, that the Obama article doesn't list many objections that the clique (that's how I'm going to refer to you guys from now on) have proposed. Why not keep the list of proof that the posse has assembled and then underneath (or above or wherever can be agreed is the best place for it) allow the clique to have a list of objections or counterclaims to the above evidence. So that way, the list is not censored and both sections receive the same layout and attention to detail etc. so they are truly equal. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 20:16, 2 December 2008 (EST)