Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Wouldn't you agree that allowing gossip and lacking rules to reduce liberal bias by anonymous editors are disqualifying conditions?
Line 152: Line 152:     
::::You're right - that's my mistake, I meant college paper.  I graduated from the [[University of San Francisco]], a tier 1 Catholic school, so if you'd like to find fault with their methods of grading, be my guest.  But you will be hard pressed to find a school which considers Wikipedia a valid source, or Britannica an invalid source. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:17, 13 December 2009 (EST)
 
::::You're right - that's my mistake, I meant college paper.  I graduated from the [[University of San Francisco]], a tier 1 Catholic school, so if you'd like to find fault with their methods of grading, be my guest.  But you will be hard pressed to find a school which considers Wikipedia a valid source, or Britannica an invalid source. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:17, 13 December 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
::::(edit conflict) OK, Nick, but your argument begs this question:  what would make an online encyclopedia worthy of citation, in your view?  Certainly it is not the volume of entries or its ease of editing.  Wouldn't you agree that allowing gossip and lacking rules to reduce liberal bias by numerous anonymous editors are disqualifying conditions?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 13 December 2009 (EST)
    
Second, to Insufficient.  Why are you even here?  All you have done is debate on this page, even though you've admitted that you don't read the Bible.  It doesn't surprise me that your arguments are poorly formed and illogical, because you've never read the book which is the source of all logic and order.  I suggest you open your mind, take some time to go read the Bible, read some articles here on Conservapedia to learn what your liberal professors don't want you to know, and then come back and we can have some intelligent discussion. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:44, 13 December 2009 (EST)
 
Second, to Insufficient.  Why are you even here?  All you have done is debate on this page, even though you've admitted that you don't read the Bible.  It doesn't surprise me that your arguments are poorly formed and illogical, because you've never read the book which is the source of all logic and order.  I suggest you open your mind, take some time to go read the Bible, read some articles here on Conservapedia to learn what your liberal professors don't want you to know, and then come back and we can have some intelligent discussion. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:44, 13 December 2009 (EST)
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,980

edits

Navigation menu