4
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 3:
Line 3: +
no edit summary
It would have been nice if they could have looked at my properly-sourced edit, but it was removed immediately, and I was blocked by you, apparently for ideological reasons. What happened to being open to all points of view? --[[User:Teamonger|Teamonger]] 22:38, 18 February 2010 (EST)
It would have been nice if they could have looked at my properly-sourced edit, but it was removed immediately, and I was blocked by you, apparently for ideological reasons. What happened to being open to all points of view? --[[User:Teamonger|Teamonger]] 22:38, 18 February 2010 (EST)
:It may have been a "properly-sourced" edit, as you claim, but is it the truth? What I saw was just a repeat of "did God ''really'' do that?", a philosophy taken up by the God-hating crowd since Eden. We don't have to be open to points of view which pushes that sort of thinking. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:42, 18 February 2010 (EST)
:It may have been a "properly-sourced" edit, as you claim, but is it the truth? What I saw was just a repeat of "did God ''really'' do that?", a philosophy taken up by the God-hating crowd since Eden. We don't have to be open to points of view which pushes that sort of thinking. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:42, 18 February 2010 (EST)
:: I see, truth is set in stone for you. So when the Conservpedia guidelines claim, "Unlike Wikipedia, we do not block for ideological reasons", that's just a joke, right? I get it. --[[User:Teamonger|Teamonger]] 00:10, 19 February 2010 (EST)