Changes

A lengthy diatribe was reverted because it opened with the false and unsupported claim that "conservatives" supported retention of the passage, and because the diatribe read like a copy of something published elsewhere.  Only original work, please, and false claims about what "conservatives" think are particularly disfavored here, especially when made by liberals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:52, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

A lengthy diatribe was reverted because it opened with the false and unsupported claim that "conservatives" supported retention of the passage, and because the diatribe read like a copy of something published elsewhere.  Only original work, please, and false claims about what "conservatives" think are particularly disfavored here, especially when made by liberals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:52, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

:I never saw this revert, and it was neither a "diatribe, nor a copy of something published elsewhere, but a compilation  of referenced material, and my own words of description. Moreover, the section opened with the words, "The strongest support for the retention of the pericope de adultera comes from certain conservatives" which is entirely true. As is the fact that liberals love to cut and paste from the Bible, and find Jesus calling adultery "sin" and commanding her to cease practicing it, to be repulsive.  

:I never saw this revert, and it was neither a "diatribe," nor a copy of something published elsewhere, but a compilation  of referenced material, and my own words of description. Moreover, the section opened with the words, "The strongest support for the retention of the pericope de adultera comes from certain conservatives" which is entirely true. As is the fact that liberals love to cut and paste from the Bible, and find Jesus calling adultery "sin" and commanding her to cease practicing it, to be repulsive.  

:Rather than quickly deleting the whole thing, your objection to the opening claim could have easily been rectified by changing conservatives to commentators, and suspicions about plagiarism addressed to me, whom puts a priority upon referencing things.   . 

:Rather than quickly deleting the whole thing, your objection to the opening claim could have easily been rectified by changing conservatives to commentators, and suspicions about plagiarism addressed to me, whom puts a priority upon referencing things.    

Below is the section that was nuked:

:Below is the section that was nuked: [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 09:27, 26 July 2010 (EDT)

==Arguments for retention==

==Arguments for retention==