Changes

:What I'm seeing is that both sides have several points they seem willing to compromise on and some they simply won't. For example, the posse is adamant that the "Obama will likely be the first muslim president" is important and relavent and they aren't going to let it be removed. On the other hand, maybe they will agree to move the section to the first slot underneath the contents box and just have a mention of the accusations in the top section. Then a series of counterclaims can be added by the clique underneath the current list. To me, that seems like a decent compromise that, while not making everyone happy, will at least help to allieviate some of the tension. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 21:40, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:What I'm seeing is that both sides have several points they seem willing to compromise on and some they simply won't. For example, the posse is adamant that the "Obama will likely be the first muslim president" is important and relavent and they aren't going to let it be removed. On the other hand, maybe they will agree to move the section to the first slot underneath the contents box and just have a mention of the accusations in the top section. Then a series of counterclaims can be added by the clique underneath the current list. To me, that seems like a decent compromise that, while not making everyone happy, will at least help to allieviate some of the tension. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 21:40, 2 December 2008 (EST)

He'll be the first Muslim president in about as precisely a fashion as Bill Clinton was the [[first black president]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] ^{[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]} 21:50, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::He'll be the first Muslim president in about as precisely a fashion as Bill Clinton was the [[first black president]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] ^{[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]} 21:50, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:Ed, I understand you're position and your frustration, but I heard a saying once that "a good compromise is one that leaves everyone angry". The whole point of compromise is that you don't get everything you think you should, and the other side gets the same. The posse aren't going to just let their list be deleted. So instead, you might have to settle for it being moved and adding counter evidence. "let the reader decide" to quote several editors in this debate. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 21:53, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::Ed, I understand you're position and your frustration, but I heard a saying once that "a good compromise is one that leaves everyone angry". The whole point of compromise is that you don't get everything you think you should, and the other side gets the same. The posse aren't going to just let their list be deleted. So instead, you might have to settle for it being moved and adding counter evidence. "let the reader decide" to quote several editors in this debate. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 21:53, 2 December 2008 (EST)

: Thank you Ed, for your participation in this conversation. The more sysops we have talking about this the better. And if someone who likes the current Obama article would propose a compromise, that would be appreciated, I'm sure. We need to start moving toward an ultimate compromise, or all of this is useless.--'' '''[[user:JArneal|<font color="#006666" >JArneal</font>]]''' '' 21:58, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::Thank you Ed, for your participation in this conversation. The more sysops we have talking about this the better. And if someone who likes the current Obama article would propose a compromise, that would be appreciated, I'm sure. We need to start moving toward an ultimate compromise, or all of this is useless.--'' '''[[user:JArneal|<font color="#006666" >JArneal</font>]]''' '' 21:58, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::Philip said: ''Unless Andy agrees with a compromise, this is going nowhere''. Now does he mean, 'unless Andy cuts this Gordian knot'? Well, he has. Andy has made his views quite clear, and these are to support the status quo '''which is a compromise''': none of the points that Philip rages against are presented as facts, just as evidence to be considered. Given Philip's impenitent and rebellious behaviour, one is tempted to interpret  ''Unless Andy agrees with a compromise, this is going nowhere'' as ''Unless Andy does as I say'', which is totally unacceptable. Andy is the Leader of Conservapedia, and his views should be respected as those of teh ultimate arbiter. For Philip to carry on and on and on with this sterile debate is damaging Conservapedia, and leads one to question his motives in doing so. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:40, 3 December 2008 (EST)

:::::Philip said: ''Unless Andy agrees with a compromise, this is going nowhere''. Now does he mean, 'unless Andy cuts this Gordian knot'? Well, he has. Andy has made his views quite clear, and these are to support the status quo '''which is a compromise''': none of the points that Philip rages against are presented as facts, just as evidence to be considered. Given Philip's impenitent and rebellious behaviour, one is tempted to interpret  ''Unless Andy agrees with a compromise, this is going nowhere'' as ''Unless Andy does as I say'', which is totally unacceptable. Andy is the Leader of Conservapedia, and his views should be respected as those of teh ultimate arbiter. For Philip to carry on and on and on with this sterile debate is damaging Conservapedia, and leads one to question his motives in doing so. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:40, 3 December 2008 (EST)

 

 

 

 

Wikipedia has countless thousands of pages of just such arguments stored away, and if this is someone's idea of being productive -- engaging in circular, repetitive and seemingly endless talk, talk, talk -- enjoy yourselves!  My suggestion is that we now call the game, and ignore people with closed minds, who are more interested in liberal political correctness, demanding to be made "right", demanding to be King of the Hill.  --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font>^{<font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font>} 05:24, 3 December 2008 (EST)