Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
Line 23: Line 23:  
*Obvious '''nay''', for all the reasons that have been discussed, by many people, here and elsewhere. --[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
 
*Obvious '''nay''', for all the reasons that have been discussed, by many people, here and elsewhere. --[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
 
*Nay.  I'm not well versed in this discussion nor this site, but even after wading through the community portal, it's not clearly expressed what RobS has done incorrectly that violates the policy of the site.  If anything, this seems more a grudge match, something in between a tit-for-tat and a vendetta.  Is Conservapedia really at a point at which ideas for the site can't be discussed?  [[User:IanR|IanR]] 15:22, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
 
*Nay.  I'm not well versed in this discussion nor this site, but even after wading through the community portal, it's not clearly expressed what RobS has done incorrectly that violates the policy of the site.  If anything, this seems more a grudge match, something in between a tit-for-tat and a vendetta.  Is Conservapedia really at a point at which ideas for the site can't be discussed?  [[User:IanR|IanR]] 15:22, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
*As strong of a '''nay''' as one could possibly nay [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 15:22, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
166

edits

Navigation menu