nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 179:
Line 179: + + + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia talk:Obama straw poll (view source)
Revision as of 02:33, December 3, 2008
, 02:33, December 3, 2008My response to compromise proposal
::To Bolly's defense, Bugler was the first to use the term "clique" in this discussion. And I would gladly be discussing this with Mr. Schlafly if he would participate in this conversation.--'' '''[[user:JArneal|<font color="#006666" >JArneal</font>]]''' '' 21:07, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::To Bolly's defense, Bugler was the first to use the term "clique" in this discussion. And I would gladly be discussing this with Mr. Schlafly if he would participate in this conversation.--'' '''[[user:JArneal|<font color="#006666" >JArneal</font>]]''' '' 21:07, 2 December 2008 (EST)
=== My response to compromise proposal ===
I thank Bolly for attempting to find a compromise. I've never been one to accept compromising the truth with a lie, but this situation is not (as a whole) as black and white as that, so I'm prepared to consider suggestions. However, I would make the following points:
* Unless Andy agrees with a compromise, this is going nowhere.
* I consider my actions and argument so far to already be a huge compromise.
** I, along with most others (including administrators) who have expressed disagreement with the article, would like to see the entire section about Obama being a Muslim removed, along with other improvements. (For example, the statement that Obama referred to the "57 states" is in there as an "insight", not as a blooper.)
** That doesn't mean that there may not be a few valid points in that section that could be kept; just that that section as a whole should not be there.
** Even if that section was to be kept, it should not be given such prominence, including above the table of contents.
** Nevertheless, all I have tried to do ''so far'' is remove three spurious claims from that section. Only removing three spurious claims when I believe the section as a whole should be removed already is in effect a massive compromise. Yet the other side refuses to even accept ''that'' much! And at the same time they have the gall to accuse ''us'' of not accepting compromise!
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:33, 2 December 2008 (EST)