Conservapedia talk:Panel

That hardly sounds like a panel of objective experts...Palmd001 16:22, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Is it supposed to be? --Huey gunna getcha 16:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I have SERIOUS issues with the "anonymous members" bit. Members in this position should HAVE to be marked as such. --Sid 3050 16:29, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

OOO, OOO, can I be a member? I'll be ever so good! I promise I won't let my high school studies, lack of life experience or religious brain washing get in the way of making good fair decisions! Pwetty Please? MatteeNeutra 16:32, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

It has already been set up as anonymous and it is unlikely to change. CPWebmaster 16:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

So, a few anonymous Panel members could push their own point of view, and once it gets pushed back towards whatever passes as "neutrality" here, the Panel members could declare that this is a major conflict and should be handled... by the Panel. And nobody would of the conflict of interest. How convenient! --Sid 3050 16:45, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

how do we know a panel even exists! This looks serious bent, like a banana republic wiki! --Cgday 18:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Myk 18:19, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

"We do not censor in any way"

It is a shame that many of your editors do not agree with that policy, see http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Soccer&diff=56791&oldid=48604 for one incidence of very silly deletion. If you truly did not censor you would not keep closing the facility to create accounts.