Difference between revisions of "Talk:Parthian shot"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (Talk:Parthian shot moved to Conservapedia talk:Parthian shot: in-house) |
m (Conservapedia talk:Parthian shot moved to Talk:Parthian shot) |
(No difference)
| |
Revision as of 18:52, December 30, 2007
And disastrously so, I might add. Some kind historian, please fix! Human 02:37, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
I wonder, is it wise to list examples of people pointing out Conservapedia's (percieved) flaws? Additionally, links 2, 3, and 4 are broken because they have been deleted. Lastly, why is this protected? HelpJazz 16:19, 27 December 2007 (EST)
- First, It is appropriate to list examples of Conservapedia editors using the Parthian shot; Second, the links are fixed; Third, the article is now unprotected. --Crocoite 00:53, 28 December 2007 (EST)
- Maybe we should ask Ed Poor about the appropriateness of the examples:
- "Ed Poor doesn't know the first thing about Meteorology or Atmospheric Science. I suggest he go back and start from the basics; Lesson 1) Those white things in the sky? They're called clouds. Can you say clouds?"
- If someone had said that about me I would want it deleted, not put on display. The same goes for Graham's "shot". I can maybe (and that's a big maybe) understand keeping deragatory remarks about Conservapedia, but keeping personal insults?
- I think we should get rid of all of the examples, lest this page become a focus point for anyone who wants to find out what others think are wrong with Conservapedia.
- Thanks for fixing the links and unprotecting. HelpJazz 14:16, 28 December 2007 (EST)
- Maybe we should ask Ed Poor about the appropriateness of the examples: