nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
26,487
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 254:
Line 254: + +
→Pervasiveness: Stop this silly hooey.
::I suggest that liberal bias certainly exists but 1) it has to be carefully identified as a way of presenting information (and NOT as a set of poltiical values; everyone has values); 2) it must be distinguished from other kinds of bias, like leftism (the leftists and liberals fight like crazy on campus); and 3) the article should be as free as possible of any bias so it does not open itself to charges of hypocrisy. in a word, "If you can prove it, CP can use it." [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:32, 19 May 2009 (EDT)
::I suggest that liberal bias certainly exists but 1) it has to be carefully identified as a way of presenting information (and NOT as a set of poltiical values; everyone has values); 2) it must be distinguished from other kinds of bias, like leftism (the leftists and liberals fight like crazy on campus); and 3) the article should be as free as possible of any bias so it does not open itself to charges of hypocrisy. in a word, "If you can prove it, CP can use it." [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:32, 19 May 2009 (EDT)
::I deleted the sections of the article that at present fail Ed Poor's test "If you can prove it". They can be restored when proof is found. An example of the kind of evidence that should be looked at, see the LA Times report on Edwards in October 2007 at [http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/10/breaking-news-j.html LA TIMES on Edwards affair]. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:50, 19 May 2009 (EDT)
::I deleted the sections of the article that at present fail Ed Poor's test "If you can prove it". They can be restored when proof is found. An example of the kind of evidence that should be looked at, see the LA Times report on Edwards in October 2007 at [http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/10/breaking-news-j.html LA TIMES on Edwards affair]. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:50, 19 May 2009 (EDT)
----
*'''If''' I post that "America is the last, best hope for all those clamoring for freedom, we should not, we will not, ''under any circumstances'' fall into that liberal trap of thinking it is necesarry to back up a truism. We are Conservatives, we believe in common sense! What would be next? ''"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their ''Creator'' with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."'' Should we feel the need to support that sentence? Does anyone here actually believe a conservative, Christian encyclopedia needs to offer proof? How silly! We have no obligation, morally or intellectually to play by the liberal's moronic and self-serving "rules". Because we are what we are, I would like to remind everyone, certain "conventions" that have been instituted by the liberal elite will not be conformed to here. Period. If some are worried this will make us look "bad", I say to them: Bad to whom? Liberals? Do we care? No! Stop the madness of conforming to their expectations. ''We hold certain truths to be self-evident, gentlemen.'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 22:37, 19 May 2009 (EDT)