Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
14,708
edits
Changes
→Matthew 18:15: reply
:::It's IndependentSkeptic who deserves remonstration. Rather than respond to the point that this subheading was created for, he disrupts the point by posting redundant spam - a blockable offense. It is IndependentSkeptic being incivil. How should people react to such persistent rudeness and incivility? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 18:08, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
:::It's IndependentSkeptic who deserves remonstration. Rather than respond to the point that this subheading was created for, he disrupts the point by posting redundant spam - a blockable offense. It is IndependentSkeptic being incivil. How should people react to such persistent rudeness and incivility? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 18:08, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
::::If what IndependentSkeptic posted is considered spam, then what about Vargas' post <span class="plainlinks">[https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:NishantXavier&diff=1667608&oldid=1667607 here]</span>? Besides, it seemed that IndependentSkeptic posted relevant points while Vargas was just being condescending towards me for daring to discuss mostly valid points he strongly disagrees with. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]'''''</sup> 18:17, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
::::If what IndependentSkeptic posted is considered spam, then what about Vargas' post <span class="plainlinks">[https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:NishantXavier&diff=1667608&oldid=1667607 here]</span>? Besides, it seemed that IndependentSkeptic posted relevant points while Vargas was just being condescending towards me for daring to discuss mostly valid points he strongly disagrees with. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]'''''</sup> 18:17, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
:::::That's about your speed. Denouncing Jesus' words is irrelevant because you "discussed mostly valid points". And then you denounce the translation for "lack of understanding" (not even relevant to its use) even though the editor was a major translation theorist who developed a new category of translation theory. Why would I even bother to look at your three sentences of "points"? It's just "fruit from a poisonous tree". You were just "doubling down" presuming you could sail through with your negative attribution to me made out of whole cloth with no evidence without it be disproven. Isn't that a kind of trolling?
:::::And what about what about? You call my Scripture references spam, even though I/S does the same thing to issue new streams of discussion away from the river every time before the old ones have even finished, while I was building on success after reconciling RobS to one of your major positions, and if not, showed the thinking where you could take steps to get there. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 06:52, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
::::Also RobSmith, I just want to politely, though firmly note that, in your words, IndependentSkeptic "disrupts the point". Your response to my response is shifting the focus to IndependentSkeptic, where I was referring to VargasMilan's conduct. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]'''''</sup> 18:20, 12 July 2020 (EDT)
::::Also RobSmith, I just want to politely, though firmly note that, in your words, IndependentSkeptic "disrupts the point". Your response to my response is shifting the focus to IndependentSkeptic, where I was referring to VargasMilan's conduct. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]'''''</sup> 18:20, 12 July 2020 (EDT)