Changes

Index item - Bible is for Cunts
Line 93: Line 93:  
It seems to me that Karajou has blocked SSchultz for very little cause.  As far as I can tell, SSchultz wasn't lying about anything; he just made the mistaken factual assumption that sections of the ''O'Bannon'' article were copied from Wikipedia.  Naming the primary source when the accusation was made would have alleviated any confusion and the matter would have been closed. --Jimmy 20:32, 5 March 2008 (EST)
 
It seems to me that Karajou has blocked SSchultz for very little cause.  As far as I can tell, SSchultz wasn't lying about anything; he just made the mistaken factual assumption that sections of the ''O'Bannon'' article were copied from Wikipedia.  Naming the primary source when the accusation was made would have alleviated any confusion and the matter would have been closed. --Jimmy 20:32, 5 March 2008 (EST)
 
: I guess you should be careful about making an accusation based on an assumption.  But in any case, SSchultz has indicated elsewhere that he is not wanting to return.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:39, 6 March 2008 (EST)
 
: I guess you should be careful about making an accusation based on an assumption.  But in any case, SSchultz has indicated elsewhere that he is not wanting to return.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:39, 6 March 2008 (EST)
 +
 +
== Index item - Bible is for Cunts ==
 +
 +
I think you should remove this item from the index.  It redirects to the "Bible" page.  The word used carries a sexual meaning that is not appropriate for this site.
1

edit