38
edits
Changes
User talk:Harpie snark (view source)
Revision as of 18:18, February 27, 2007
, 18:18, February 27, 2007→Homeschooling: Sources and the Big Question
::: In addition, where do you get "Christian homeschooled" out your source? Wikipedia says Lindh attended formal school until nearly a teenager, and there was nothing "Christian" in Wikipedia's claim of a brief period of homeschooling after that. Moreover, Lindh himself has obviously not been a Christian for many years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:12, 26 February 2007 (EST)
::: In addition, where do you get "Christian homeschooled" out your source? Wikipedia says Lindh attended formal school until nearly a teenager, and there was nothing "Christian" in Wikipedia's claim of a brief period of homeschooling after that. Moreover, Lindh himself has obviously not been a Christian for many years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:12, 26 February 2007 (EST)
::::Sources: Adam Yahiye Gadahn: [http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070122fa_fact_khatchadourian New Yorker] John Walker Lindh: [http://www.blessedcause.org/BlessedCause%20Exclusives%20II/ReelingFromLiesofHM.htm blessedcause.org] Franklin D. Roosevelt: [http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/roosevelt-franklin.htm National Park Service]
::::BTW, the article is [[Homeschooling]], not [[Christian Homeschooling]]. Perhaps you may want to fix that. Either way, all three were Christain and Christian homeschooled as the sources show. But this and my earlier point prompts a bigger question which you seem to be ignoring. If we'd rather not have in the list those who were homeschooled but may be viewed as casting it in a poor light, then let's just come out and say that and not pretend that sources say something other than they do or rely on turns of semantics to contrive justifications for an incomplete list. If our ideas are indeed that strong and compelling, then they can easily withstand being scrutinized in full light of all facts, and to act otherwise by ignoring or dismissing unfavorable facts only undermines our position and claims and invites greater scrutiny. If we're going to not be viewed as a partisan tool we need to accept and acknowledge all facts and let the chips fall where they may. Better to succeed on the strength of our ideas rather than machinations and subterfuge, I'd think, don't you? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 13:18, 27 February 2007 (EST)