Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,789
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 8:
Line 8: + + + + − I agree: this is not encyclopedia-worth material.+ − [[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]] Line 39:
Line 42: + + + +
→The assertion "Liberals rarely criticize deceit"
::Thank you for the warning, [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]], but as much as I try, I cannot seem to get any bannings! Maybe it is because I keep adding to the "[[User:Human/Classic_Conservapedia|encyclopedia]]" that backs up this '''blog'''. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:03, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
::Thank you for the warning, [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]], but as much as I try, I cannot seem to get any bannings! Maybe it is because I keep adding to the "[[User:Human/Classic_Conservapedia|encyclopedia]]" that backs up this '''blog'''. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:03, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
I agree: this is not encyclopedia-worth material.
[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]
:Liberals here protest too much about this entry on [[deceit]]. In both examples, the deceit by liberals is conclusively proven. But did other liberals who joined in the deceit apologize for it? Not that I'm aware. Show me examples of apologies and I'll add them.
: Additional airtight proofs of deceit can be added. But partisan opinions will not be.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
== Examples ==
== Examples ==
You can't delete fact! That's a legitimate footnote from the case! How is it opinion? Surely it's one judge's opinion, but similarly, all judgments of deceit are someone's opinion!-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 01:12, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
You can't delete fact! That's a legitimate footnote from the case! How is it opinion? Surely it's one judge's opinion, but similarly, all judgments of deceit are someone's opinion!-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 01:12, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
: Ames, I've explained at least a half-dozen times that opinions are not facts. I'm not going to waste more time on this. This is a warning that your account will be blocked if you continue to waste my time or the time of others on this.
: Judge Jones' opinion is nothing more than an opinion. It is not a fact. There was no judgment on the issue you cite here; there was no appeal allowed; and the opinion is not neutral. Do not waste any more of my time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)