Talk:Intolerance - Revision history

TK at 23:25, November 22, 2008

2008-11-22T23:25:42Z

JBrandonLoberg at 22:55, November 22, 2008

2008-11-22T22:55:27Z

Rocky: /* Necesary? */

2008-04-27T16:27:11Z

Necesary?

Supercereal45: /* Necesary? */

2008-03-16T16:11:39Z

Necesary?

Jros83: New page: == Necesary? == I'm somewhat worried that the part about homosexuality will be misconstrued by certain people as an arbitrary opinion added post facto to force some sort of "agenda," and t...

2007-06-23T20:17:49Z

New page: == Necesary? == I'm somewhat worried that the part about homosexuality will be misconstrued by certain people as an arbitrary opinion added post facto to force some sort of "agenda," and t...

New page

== Necesary? ==
I'm somewhat worried that the part about homosexuality will be misconstrued by certain people as an arbitrary opinion added post facto to force some sort of "agenda," and thus it will invite trolling and vandalization. As it really does not add or detract from the concept of "Intolerance" one way or the other, I propose removing it, so as to not dangle such a morsel in front of the frothy mouths of slathering trolls... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:17, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:25, November 22, 2008
Line 6:		Line 6:
	This page should just be deleted. It is an agenda, not an artical. If it is not deleated, someone should go in there and rewrite it. --[[User:Rocky\|Rocky]]		This page should just be deleted. It is an agenda, not an artical. If it is not deleated, someone should go in there and rewrite it. --[[User:Rocky\|Rocky]]

−	Yesterday i attempted to clean up the article and remove the pointedly anti-homosexual bias (and roundabout reasoning), but as usual, my edits were quickly reversed. Seriously, people...why use a wiki system when others' contributions are unilaterally discarded?[[User:JBrandonLoberg\|JBrandonLoberg]] 17:55, 22 November 2008 (EST)	+	:Yesterday i attempted to clean up the article and remove the pointedly anti-homosexual bias (and roundabout reasoning), but as usual, my edits were quickly reversed. Seriously, people...why use a wiki system when others' contributions are unilaterally discarded?[[User:JBrandonLoberg\|JBrandonLoberg]] 17:55, 22 November 2008 (EST)
		+
		+	:*This is billed as a "Christian/Conservative - Friendly" encyclopedia. Since it is ''God's Commandment'' there cannot be a "pro" argument for Homosexuality, can there? While Christians will pray for all those so misguided, neither will we be seen as condoning or excusing such behavior. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK\|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK\|/Talk]]</font></sup> 18:25, 22 November 2008 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:55, November 22, 2008
Line 5:		Line 5:

	This page should just be deleted. It is an agenda, not an artical. If it is not deleated, someone should go in there and rewrite it. --[[User:Rocky\|Rocky]]		This page should just be deleted. It is an agenda, not an artical. If it is not deleated, someone should go in there and rewrite it. --[[User:Rocky\|Rocky]]
		+
		+	Yesterday i attempted to clean up the article and remove the pointedly anti-homosexual bias (and roundabout reasoning), but as usual, my edits were quickly reversed. Seriously, people...why use a wiki system when others' contributions are unilaterally discarded?[[User:JBrandonLoberg\|JBrandonLoberg]] 17:55, 22 November 2008 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:27, April 27, 2008
Line 3:		Line 3:

	Yes i think that the idea of a intolerance article is rather ironic considering this website is intolerant, please dont try to argue this one, because you can't, you are intolerant. So i agree with the above text, that we should delete it, so that stupid liberals won't voice their opinions and so that we don't all become evil gay people, because then we wouldn't have overpopulation and stuff, so....		Yes i think that the idea of a intolerance article is rather ironic considering this website is intolerant, please dont try to argue this one, because you can't, you are intolerant. So i agree with the above text, that we should delete it, so that stupid liberals won't voice their opinions and so that we don't all become evil gay people, because then we wouldn't have overpopulation and stuff, so....
		+
		+	This page should just be deleted. It is an agenda, not an artical. If it is not deleated, someone should go in there and rewrite it. --[[User:Rocky\|Rocky]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:11, March 16, 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Necesary? ==		== Necesary? ==
	I'm somewhat worried that the part about homosexuality will be misconstrued by certain people as an arbitrary opinion added post facto to force some sort of "agenda," and thus it will invite trolling and vandalization. As it really does not add or detract from the concept of "Intolerance" one way or the other, I propose removing it, so as to not dangle such a morsel in front of the frothy mouths of slathering trolls... [[User:Jros83\|Jros83]] 16:17, 23 June 2007 (EDT)		I'm somewhat worried that the part about homosexuality will be misconstrued by certain people as an arbitrary opinion added post facto to force some sort of "agenda," and thus it will invite trolling and vandalization. As it really does not add or detract from the concept of "Intolerance" one way or the other, I propose removing it, so as to not dangle such a morsel in front of the frothy mouths of slathering trolls... [[User:Jros83\|Jros83]] 16:17, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	Yes i think that the idea of a intolerance article is rather ironic considering this website is intolerant, please dont try to argue this one, because you can't, you are intolerant. So i agree with the above text, that we should delete it, so that stupid liberals won't voice their opinions and so that we don't all become evil gay people, because then we wouldn't have overpopulation and stuff, so....