17,394
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 57:
Line 57: − +
cool it
:::I'm not rejecting your credibility on the site, nor am I personally insulting you with my argument; however, because I'm still unsure of the specifics in my edit that were, as you claim to be, "the nastiest of vandalism" that you've ever seen, I have no reason to believe my arguments are not justified. Maybe you can be more specific about what I added in my edit that is, in your mind, purely "imagination?"
:::I'm not rejecting your credibility on the site, nor am I personally insulting you with my argument; however, because I'm still unsure of the specifics in my edit that were, as you claim to be, "the nastiest of vandalism" that you've ever seen, I have no reason to believe my arguments are not justified. Maybe you can be more specific about what I added in my edit that is, in your mind, purely "imagination?"
:::In the meantime, and forever (until moved to archives), I will leave this section here. I believe in the freedom of speech and in ones personal right to defend themselves against [[slander]] - which you appear to be doing by attempting to injure my reputation in this community. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 00:42, 9 November 2009 (EST)
:::In the meantime, and forever (until moved to archives), I will leave this section here. I believe in the freedom of speech and in ones personal right to defend themselves against [[slander]] - which you appear to be doing by attempting to injure my reputation in this community. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 00:42, 9 November 2009 (EST)
::::Freedom of speech does not equal sabotage, especially on this encyclopedia. You invented and inserted a whole string of falsehoods that if any CP reader saw them and trusted them would make our reader looks like a total idiot. The question remains: how much other sabotage have you inserted that we have not noticed? The notion that deliberate deception of our readers is "an open-minded search for the truth" is a disruptive attack on the concept of a trustworthy encyclopeda. One more outburst and you get permanently banned as disruptive. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 01:06, 9 November 2009 (EST)
==Vernon Davis==
==Vernon Davis==
I have restored. Thanks for the vote of confidence. RJ is a good man, try avoiding contacting him. You da man! --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:02, 6 November 2009 (EST)
I have restored. Thanks for the vote of confidence. RJ is a good man, try avoiding contacting him. You da man! --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:02, 6 November 2009 (EST)
:Thanks! I promise to avoid him at all costs. I realize his intentions are in the best interest of Conservapedia, and nothing personal against me. I'll also keep in mind that he is and has much more authority than I do, and he is in fact a very renowned user within [[Conservapedia]]. For that I do respect him and his wisdom as a positive, influential member of the community. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:52, 6 November 2009 (EST)
:Thanks! I promise to avoid him at all costs. I realize his intentions are in the best interest of Conservapedia, and nothing personal against me. I'll also keep in mind that he is and has much more authority than I do, and he is in fact a very renowned user within [[Conservapedia]]. For that I do respect him and his wisdom as a positive, influential member of the community. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:52, 6 November 2009 (EST)