nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
26,487
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 64:
Line 64: + +
→Is this a joke?
Yes, now that I've had a look at it, one does wonder why all of that was removed. Without, as you say, any explanation. Bit strange. Can we have an explanation? --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 20:16, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, now that I've had a look at it, one does wonder why all of that was removed. Without, as you say, any explanation. Bit strange. Can we have an explanation? --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 20:16, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
*Doesn't seem as if we are important enough to be responded to, eh? Most of these people are running about like chickens with their heads cut off, without any proper procedures for communication. --[[User:TK|Terry]] 23:10, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
== Stifled the British coal and newspaper industries? ==
== Stifled the British coal and newspaper industries? ==
I thought this was Conservapedia nbot socialapedia and to claim that her fight against the unions stifled the coal and newspaper industries is nothing more than socialist propaganda. You only have to look at Rupert murdoch tom also realise it was untrue propaganda as, of course, her fight against the unions is what re-invigorated Britain, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 20:26, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
I thought this was Conservapedia nbot socialapedia and to claim that her fight against the unions stifled the coal and newspaper industries is nothing more than socialist propaganda. You only have to look at Rupert murdoch tom also realise it was untrue propaganda as, of course, her fight against the unions is what re-invigorated Britain, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 20:26, 16 March 2007 (EDT)