Changes

609 bytes added ,  15:34, October 3, 2007
Line 653: Line 653:     
:::::Well, one editor has moved a citation - correctly by the looks of it. How is "supportive" wrong? I'm not trying to be difficult - I just don't get it. What would be a better NPOV form of words in your view? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:12, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
 
:::::Well, one editor has moved a citation - correctly by the looks of it. How is "supportive" wrong? I'm not trying to be difficult - I just don't get it. What would be a better NPOV form of words in your view? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:12, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
:::::: What are you quoting from ... a [[liberal]] article trying to smear [[Conservapedia]]?  And that makes something factual????
 +
 +
:::::: Suppose I changed [[Wikipedia]]'s entry and described Wikipedia as "supportive" of the homosexual lifestyle and abortion-on-demand.  Would you accept that as a proper description at the beginning of its entry?  No, I doubt you would.  Yet [[Wikipedia]] insists on its baseless smears of Conservapedia, which is not "supportive" of any specific position.  Our [[rules]] have been clear from the very beginning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:34, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, 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
126,506

edits