15
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 3:
Line 3: +
Talk:Essay:Conservapedia's Law (view source)
Revision as of 02:53, June 10, 2009
, 02:53, June 10, 2009no edit summary
:The entry is just as clear as [[Moore's Law]] is, which you seem to understand without difficulty. Why the difficulty here? It's not due to any ambiguity in the entry. By the way, you're wrong about [[gun control]]: the nation is far more conservative on that issue now than 5, 10, 15, or 20 years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
:The entry is just as clear as [[Moore's Law]] is, which you seem to understand without difficulty. Why the difficulty here? It's not due to any ambiguity in the entry. By the way, you're wrong about [[gun control]]: the nation is far more conservative on that issue now than 5, 10, 15, or 20 years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
::I'm not sure if it is as clear as Moore's Law. But my main concern deals more with its lack of support. You make some pretty strong claims, but you need to back them up with concrete examples or sources that prove your argument to be correct. Right now, your essay is lacking this, it is merely an argument without support. It is like an essay that only has an introduction but not a body or a conclusion, so the reader is left thinking: where's the rest? I am very interested in hearing some examples or more proof of what you are arguing as I think it would be rather intriguing. And my mistake on the gun control part - Cjohnston.
== Did I do something wrong? ==
== Did I do something wrong? ==