SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
→Re: Religious people and Donald Trump: Reply to person in the second quadrant.
So, [https://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/06/30/atheism-is-rising-but/ this article from a liberal-leaning anti-Trump website] (as it makes clear [https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/05/23/defining-the-american-interest/ in its About Us page]) is your source in your latest anti-Trump attack on your user page (which claims in effect, "religiously observant Christians were least likely to be seduced by Donald Trump’s “post-truth” style politics in the GOP primary")? You do realize that liberal-biased websites like the one you linked, like the rest of the liberal media, are more likely to lie and make baseless and unsourced claims about the targets of their attacks, right? [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 04:05, 25 September 2018 (EDT)
So, [https://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/06/30/atheism-is-rising-but/ this article from a liberal-leaning anti-Trump website] (as it makes clear [https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/05/23/defining-the-american-interest/ in its About Us page]) is your source in your latest anti-Trump attack on your user page (which claims in effect, "religiously observant Christians were least likely to be seduced by Donald Trump’s “post-truth” style politics in the GOP primary")? You do realize that liberal-biased websites like the one you linked, like the rest of the liberal media, are more likely to lie and make baseless and unsourced claims about the targets of their attacks, right? [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 04:05, 25 September 2018 (EDT)
:Oh, my! I do seem to attract the attention of junior "assistant sysops". Ordinary contributors have better things to do than attack me, and actual admins do too. In fact, there are a few traits that I've noticed in assistants such as yourself and Vargas "embraces the pseudoscience that leavens science too tightly to be trusted"<ref>https://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Parrot#No_Credit_Where_Credit_is_Not_Due</ref> Milan. An example was Vargas bringing me in to a discussion of FredJ with a [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Karajou&diff=1450367&oldid=1450282 comment that actually had nothing to do with me], simply because I had welcomed FredJ and advised him not to use "fact" tags. And, of course, there is your comment above.
:A striking trait that assistants seem to display is the tendency to think that they, and apparently only they, can police the "ideological purity" of the web site. In fact, the admins can control the ideological content of CP; they don't need your help in this regard. Your efforts are plainly on display in the fight over the [[Pussy Riot]] article, in which you seem to accuse me of turning the place into "liberalpedia". Apparently because you believe that anyone who opposes a murderous dictator who imprisons, murders, and poisons dissenters, must be a "leftist", "elitist" or "social justice warrior". I can assure everyone that I have no intention of trying to turn this web site into "liberalpedia".
:Now, to address the most recent claim (just above) that I am citing a "liberal-leaning anti-Trump website", I don't go searching for liberal web sites in order to post references to them here at Conservapedia. The web site that I was citing was taken from footnote number 4 of [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:_Attention_atheists:_You_don%27t_own_the_internet&oldid=1449976 this]. That was put in by Cons. So you'll have to ask him why he was putting in "left-wing" web sites. I figured that, if it's good enough for Cons, it's good enough for Conservapedia, and if he doesn't actually read the articles that he cites, that's his problem.
:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 19:03, 28 September 2018 (EDT)