Changes

Please review [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]] and try again on [[Al Franken]]. By the way, it's better not to use words like "rebut" or "refute" in a way that implies that a liberal is correct and a conservative is wrong, when the matter is in dispute. Maybe Wikipedia would allow that, but not us. Why not say "disagree" or "argue" instead? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] ^{[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]} 07:03, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Please review [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]] and try again on [[Al Franken]]. By the way, it's better not to use words like "rebut" or "refute" in a way that implies that a liberal is correct and a conservative is wrong, when the matter is in dispute. Maybe Wikipedia would allow that, but not us. Why not say "disagree" or "argue" instead? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] ^{[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]} 07:03, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

:Because rather than just disagreeing he cites a number of sources and uses relevant arguments to make a point (one example, refuting claims that Clinton neglected the intelligence community by showing funding increases during the Clinton era etc). I'm sure it is rare, but occasionally a liberal is correct and a conservative wrong, and in these cases it is a refutation. As for personal attacks I did not intend to attack another author, I wanted to state that it seemed odd that an edit contrary to a significant portion of the material presented in the book was made if the editor had read it, and was wondering if the editor had in fact done this. I admit I could have worded it better. Have you read it? If you put politics aside it can be quite funny in some sections. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:11, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

:Because rather than just disagreeing he cites a number of sources and uses relevant arguments to make a point (one example, refuting claims that Clinton neglected the intelligence community by showing funding increases during the Clinton era etc). I'm sure it is rare, but occasionally a liberal is correct and a conservative wrong, and in these cases it is a refutation. As for personal attacks I did not intend to attack another author, I wanted to state that it seemed odd that an edit contrary to a significant portion of the material presented in the book was made if the editor had read it, and was wondering if the editor had in fact done this. I admit I could have worded it better. Have you read it? If you put politics aside it can be quite funny in some sections. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:11, 27 May 2008 (EDT)