Difference between revisions of "Talk:Red-letter Christian"
From Conservapedia
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
I agree with the first comment that it was a good article in it's previous form. I see your point Aschlafly, but I think with your changes it seemed too biased in the opposite direction. I've attempted to find a compromise. Any comments? | I agree with the first comment that it was a good article in it's previous form. I see your point Aschlafly, but I think with your changes it seemed too biased in the opposite direction. I've attempted to find a compromise. Any comments? | ||
| + | |||
| + | I've tried again because my previous change clearly wasn't liked. I just think the Aschlafly's version reads as too fierce a condemnation of 'Red-letter Christians' to be taken by a reader as reliable information. If people still prefer Aschafly's version to mine, let's try the Talk Page to discuss other options? | ||
Latest revision as of 01:45, January 2, 2009
Kudos to whoever wrote this article! It's extremely balanced and fair to both sides.
- No, it had too much liberal bias, unfortunately. I repaired it.--Aschlafly 21:46, 12 April 2008 (EDT)
I agree with the first comment that it was a good article in it's previous form. I see your point Aschlafly, but I think with your changes it seemed too biased in the opposite direction. I've attempted to find a compromise. Any comments?
I've tried again because my previous change clearly wasn't liked. I just think the Aschlafly's version reads as too fierce a condemnation of 'Red-letter Christians' to be taken by a reader as reliable information. If people still prefer Aschafly's version to mine, let's try the Talk Page to discuss other options?
