Changes

More filth from the cesspit reverted
Line 879: Line 879:  
::::: I am concerned that you have chosen to censor an element of Lenski's reply. Could you please be more specific. If Lenski's reply contained vulgarities etc this is of note to the argument at hand. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 08:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
 
::::: I am concerned that you have chosen to censor an element of Lenski's reply. Could you please be more specific. If Lenski's reply contained vulgarities etc this is of note to the argument at hand. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 08:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
 
::::::It does seem rather odd that one of his references was omitted. It can hardly be a pornographic site.  In general, what other links are subject to censorship?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 09:30, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
 
::::::It does seem rather odd that one of his references was omitted. It can hardly be a pornographic site.  In general, what other links are subject to censorship?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 09:30, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
−
Mr Schlafly has said that the site concerned has been deemed unacceptable. Further questioning on this point will be deemed disruptive and dealt with accordingly. Thank you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
+
<nowiki>http://www.tinyurl.com/5qjao8</nowiki> [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
 
:It hardly seems fair to censor part of Professor Lenski's full and comprehensive reply.  It also seems to be a little heavy-handed to say that people who ask questions about such censorship will be "dealt with accordingly".--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 09:40, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
 
:It hardly seems fair to censor part of Professor Lenski's full and comprehensive reply.  It also seems to be a little heavy-handed to say that people who ask questions about such censorship will be "dealt with accordingly".--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 09:40, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
   Line 887: Line 887:  
:::If I am allowed to continue questioning this without further threats from sysop:Bugler I would say that it seems to me to be extremely unlikely that the link would be to "shock site". But I agree with you that we should be told why it was necessary to censor the reply.  Especially so when Mr Schafly has been arguing for the importance of the disclosure of data all this time.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 10:08, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
 
:::If I am allowed to continue questioning this without further threats from sysop:Bugler I would say that it seems to me to be extremely unlikely that the link would be to "shock site". But I agree with you that we should be told why it was necessary to censor the reply.  Especially so when Mr Schafly has been arguing for the importance of the disclosure of data all this time.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 10:08, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
 
::::Deal however you see fit Bugler old fruit. Your censorship of both me and more importantly of Lenski will stand fine testament. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 10:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
 
::::Deal however you see fit Bugler old fruit. Your censorship of both me and more importantly of Lenski will stand fine testament. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 10:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
−
<nowiki>http://www.tinyurl.com/5qjao8</nowiki> [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:23, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
+
Censorship? Censorship? Even a good dog needs a tug on the choke chain every now and again - and where on earth am I supposed to have censored the esteemed Prof?  [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:23, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
 
:Bugler. Very obviously the link in Lenski's e-mail has been censored (as per the top of this thread). I have simply asked specifically why this is the case. If that gets me banned it says more about you than me. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 10:31, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
 
:Bugler. Very obviously the link in Lenski's e-mail has been censored (as per the top of this thread). I have simply asked specifically why this is the case. If that gets me banned it says more about you than me. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 10:31, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
 
::Bugler, perhaps rather than trying to speak for Mr. Schlafly, you could stand down and let him respond to questions that were directed at him and that he is more qualified to answer.  [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 10:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
 
::Bugler, perhaps rather than trying to speak for Mr. Schlafly, you could stand down and let him respond to questions that were directed at him and that he is more qualified to answer.  [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 10:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
Line 941: Line 941:  
Your own senior sysops [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=next&oldid=475426 warned you] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=next&oldid=475433 repeatedly] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=next&oldid=476314 that this would not go well].  I think it's only fair that those fair warnings are acknowledged by those of us who claim to "know better" - some here know better too, but couldn't turn the ship around in time.  [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 11:26, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
 
Your own senior sysops [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=next&oldid=475426 warned you] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=next&oldid=475433 repeatedly] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=next&oldid=476314 that this would not go well].  I think it's only fair that those fair warnings are acknowledged by those of us who claim to "know better" - some here know better too, but couldn't turn the ship around in time.  [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 11:26, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
 
:What sort of Liberal defeatism are you bound up in, and why do you assume, without examining the facts of the matter, that this has not gone well? Have a look at the lead on the front page, and read Professor Lenski's message. 'By their words shall ye know them'! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:39, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
 
:What sort of Liberal defeatism are you bound up in, and why do you assume, without examining the facts of the matter, that this has not gone well? Have a look at the lead on the front page, and read Professor Lenski's message. 'By their words shall ye know them'! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:39, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
−
  −
::'By their words shall ye know them'. Is that a quote? And if so where is it from? It sounds like it's a corruption of Matthew 7:16, but I don't know if it's just made up or from somewhere else. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 14:30, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
      
==Please be charitable==
 
==Please be charitable==
3,303

edits