SkipCaptcha
966
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 21:
Line 21: − − ==I swear ...== − This bloody website gets more tyrannically liberal and malignantly collectivistic every day. Conservatism is not about religion or Christianity, it's about individual rights and reduction of the state and here you write a patronising, poorly researched "psychological profile" attacking an already much maligned brilliant woman who advocates all of these things just because she refuses to grovel at the altar of your pathetic little tin god. --[[User:TomBarter|TomBarter]] 21:59, 29 August 2011 (EDT)
Undo revision 907424 by TomBarter (talk)
Although they are mentioned later on in the article, her liberal views on abortion, gay marriage, etc. should be more prominently displayed, preferably in the article's intro. This would be, at the least, keeping with the general format I've seen for articles on liberal people, or people who happen to have liberal views. Also, why are her works listed on the Main Page as if they are useful to the average conservative reader? A work, no matter how "conservative" the tone, or message, if written by a liberal, should not be promoted. If anything, I wonder if that makes it even more...suspicious, that she wrote it that way. [[User:AliceCurtis|AliceCurtis]] 15:32, 4 July 2009 (EDT)
Although they are mentioned later on in the article, her liberal views on abortion, gay marriage, etc. should be more prominently displayed, preferably in the article's intro. This would be, at the least, keeping with the general format I've seen for articles on liberal people, or people who happen to have liberal views. Also, why are her works listed on the Main Page as if they are useful to the average conservative reader? A work, no matter how "conservative" the tone, or message, if written by a liberal, should not be promoted. If anything, I wonder if that makes it even more...suspicious, that she wrote it that way. [[User:AliceCurtis|AliceCurtis]] 15:32, 4 July 2009 (EDT)