Difference between revisions of "Talk:Queer theory"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(reason to not delete) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
::I quite agree. And even if one can swallow its moral unwholesomeness, it deserves to be deleted for its use of 'lit crit' jargon. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:20, 14 October 2008 (EDT) | ::I quite agree. And even if one can swallow its moral unwholesomeness, it deserves to be deleted for its use of 'lit crit' jargon. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:20, 14 October 2008 (EDT) | ||
| + | :::Au contraire, Bugler. It is not a reason to delete the article, but rather a reason to keep the article as another example of professor values and the homosexual agenda at work. I've rewritten it to take out most of the excessively liberal viewpoint and now think the article reflects reality better. The only thing I wasn't sure about was the Ernest Hemingway point, but but one exception does not a trend make. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 15:55, 19 October 2008 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 19:55, October 19, 2008
If there is any point to that article beyond promoting gender confusion as pervasive, I don't see it. That certainly doesn't seem like any sort of "conservative" viewpoint to me. It seems rather like liberal propaganda.
- I quite agree. And even if one can swallow its moral unwholesomeness, it deserves to be deleted for its use of 'lit crit' jargon. Bugler 16:20, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
- Au contraire, Bugler. It is not a reason to delete the article, but rather a reason to keep the article as another example of professor values and the homosexual agenda at work. I've rewritten it to take out most of the excessively liberal viewpoint and now think the article reflects reality better. The only thing I wasn't sure about was the Ernest Hemingway point, but but one exception does not a trend make. -Foxtrot 15:55, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
- I quite agree. And even if one can swallow its moral unwholesomeness, it deserves to be deleted for its use of 'lit crit' jargon. Bugler 16:20, 14 October 2008 (EDT)