nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
26,487
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 24:
Line 24: − + + + Line 46:
Line 48: + − And there's more. This article needs many, many corrections.
Talk:Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo? (view source)
Revision as of 18:37, June 7, 2010
, 18:37, June 7, 2010ALWAYS sign your posts
::::If there are typos and/or spelling errors, please list them on the talk page. Unless, of course, you lack the machismo to do so! :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 00:53, 7 June 2010 (EDT)
::::If there are typos and/or spelling errors, please list them on the talk page. Unless, of course, you lack the machismo to do so! :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 00:53, 7 June 2010 (EDT)
Grammar/Spelling problems:
== Grammar/Spelling problems: ==
Senor ---> Señor
Senor ---> Señor
Of course, if Senor Dawkins published fine works in the field of Christian apologetics, Senor Dawkins would have great confidence his work could withstand scrutiny and he wouldn't have to spend so much time in his "intellectual bunnyhole" hiding from strong debaters of the opposition.
Of course, if Senor Dawkins published fine works in the field of Christian apologetics, Senor Dawkins would have great confidence his work could withstand scrutiny and he wouldn't have to spend so much time in his "intellectual bunnyhole" hiding from strong debaters of the opposition.
And there's more. This article needs many, many corrections. {{Unsigned|AnnaO}}
:And you're unable to work on other articles, why? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:10, 7 June 2010 (EDT)
:And you're unable to work on other articles, why? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:10, 7 June 2010 (EDT)
::This article is in the forefront right now. There are many errors on it. Keeping this article in the condition its in paints the entire Conservapedia in a bad light. The deflection "work on something else" is weak and garners no enthusiasm for effort elsewhere.
::This article is in the forefront right now. There are many errors on it. Keeping this article in the condition its in paints the entire Conservapedia in a bad light. The deflection "work on something else" is weak and garners no enthusiasm for effort elsewhere.
:::Then why are you so desperate to fix the "errors" in just this article? Is there something about you you're not telling us? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:30, 7 June 2010 (EDT)
:::Then why are you so desperate to fix the "errors" in just this article? Is there something about you you're not telling us? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:30, 7 June 2010 (EDT)