Difference between revisions of "Debate:Was the media attention needed?"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: I discovered Conservapedia from the media but it has also seems to have attracted unwanted attention. Do you think we really needed all that coverage? --~~~~ == It was needed to spread th...) |
m (corrected spelling) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
== It was needed to spread the gospel of Conservapedia == | == It was needed to spread the gospel of Conservapedia == | ||
| + | I'm sorry... the what? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 23:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
== The attention was needed == | == The attention was needed == | ||
| − | == It should | + | == It should have only been mentioned, not covered == |
== No, but if it was not for it, I would not be here == | == No, but if it was not for it, I would not be here == | ||
| − | == Conservapedia shouldn't | + | == Conservapedia shouldn't have had any media coverage for the sake of protecting pages == |
Revision as of 03:26, March 21, 2007
I discovered Conservapedia from the media but it has also seems to have attracted unwanted attention. Do you think we really needed all that coverage? --Eiyuu Kou 23:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
It was needed to spread the gospel of Conservapedia
I'm sorry... the what? Myk 23:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)