7
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 3:
Line 3: + +
no edit summary
==Editing this site==
==Editing this site==
It's very clear from your userpage that you're liberal, so I would encourage you to shy away from editing Conservapedia - where we present the Conservative perspective, as we have found the liberal perspective to be one based on, amongst other things, [[liberal deceit|deceit]]. In this spirit, obviously your edit [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Kent_Hovind&curid=7493&diff=784700&oldid=762309 here] is unacceptable; regardless of your political perspective - those edits won't be tolerated.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 11:34, 4 June 2010 (EDT)
It's very clear from your userpage that you're liberal, so I would encourage you to shy away from editing Conservapedia - where we present the Conservative perspective, as we have found the liberal perspective to be one based on, amongst other things, [[liberal deceit|deceit]]. In this spirit, obviously your edit [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Kent_Hovind&curid=7493&diff=784700&oldid=762309 here] is unacceptable; regardless of your political perspective - those edits won't be tolerated.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 11:34, 4 June 2010 (EDT)
:I will freely admit so subsribing to a liberal persuasion. The issue I have here is that this is a public encyclopedia. This is not a message board. Feel free to post anything you want on a private forum, but when labeling information as public knowledge (and in addition, "trustworthy"), there is a certain standard by which you should adhere. Even though the reader base for Conservapedia is small, it is indeed growing, and information contained within should at least attempt to remain factual. A Conservative/Evangelical POV is well within the bounds of this site, but please do not lie to an increasing amount of people. Facts can be interpreted by a point of view, not defined by one. You said yourself that deceit is unwarranted, and Kent Hovind's academic merit is far from legitimate. Further, this man is in federal prison for defrauding the IRS. He cannot legally call himself a doctor, and as a convicted liar, his claims of expertise on any subject cannot and should not be cited without independent confirmation.