Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,789
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 24:
Line 24: + + + + +
Talk:Essay:Conservapedia's Law (view source)
Revision as of 02:02, June 14, 2009
, 02:02, June 14, 2009final reply
::::I do not deny there are no new legitimate conservative words, just that some you list are not legitimate, which may interfere with your geometric rate of increase argument. But I will reiterate my concerns a final time using as few words as possible: Your argument is weak and lacks clarification and support. - Cjohnston
::::I do not deny there are no new legitimate conservative words, just that some you list are not legitimate, which may interfere with your geometric rate of increase argument. But I will reiterate my concerns a final time using as few words as possible: Your argument is weak and lacks clarification and support. - Cjohnston
:::::You won't deny it, but you won't admit it either. Sounds like you should hold a debate with yourself. Your non-committal comments have not been productive here.
:::::You've posted ten times, all talk. That's in violation of our [[90/10 rule]]. I'll be lenient and block you for only a day but please don't return unless you want to contribute to this encyclopedia in a substantive manner. Godspeed if you go elsewhere to insist on your unchanging viewpoint.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)
== Did I do something wrong? ==
== Did I do something wrong? ==