Changes

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)

:: I don't know whether it's the truth or not, only the apostle Paul knew for sure what he meant by that passage.  But it seems truth must be set in stone for you.  Thus when the Conservpedia guidelines claim, "Unlike Wikipedia, we do not block for ideological reasons", that appears to be just a joke. --[[User:Teamonger|Teamonger]] 00:21, 19 February 2010 (EST)