Changes

:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:06, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:06, 24 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::''I wonder if there's any point in responding to you, as you appear to have a closed mind on this issue'' Ah, the old 'when did you stop beating your wife?' tactic, an old Liberal trick. Yagain, Philip, you fail to get the point. You claim that all your assertions are 'proved' and that no-one else's ideas are. This is both arrogant and wrong. You are the only one making assertions that 'X is fact',a nd you fail to provide any satisfactory evidence. Your further claims of legitimacy through supported from a shadowy clique of 'senior administrators' (unnamed) is an attempt to muddy the waters. Those who disagree with you, including Andy, also have support, from senior people here. And we are not saying 'X is fact'; we are saying 'here is a case to answer'. You have not answered it, and you actions in constantly reverting these passages amounts to an attempt to censor opinions with which you disagree. Saying that we 'have not proved our point' is disingenuous, and you know that. We cannot 'prove' our beliefs; proof will only come should our fears bbe realised. Is that a reason to remain silent? Had I believed that the Japanese might attack Pearl Harbor, based on an educated reading of the situation in November 1941, should I have remained silent because a proto-Rayment demanded written proof in triplicate? We are not dogmatic. We are raising fears based on a prime facie assessment of Obama's record and behaviour; we are not claiming that these are facts carbved in granite slabs. But you, Philip, are displaying liberal dogmatism. You say that your beliefs are not beliefs, but facts. And such an attitude is insupportable; especially insupportable as arrogance of belief is leading you into arrogance of behaviour. Throw slurs at me, by all means. But do not insult Andy, who is the founder of this project and our respected leader in this great endeavour. Learn discipline, as you should have learned it in your youth. The question has been debated ''ad nauseam''. Andy has quite correctly made a decision, to stop the ceaseless argument. And it would be seemly for you to accept and comply with this decision; and if you cannot bring yourself to back it openly, then to leave this topic and work on other matters in which you are interested. Display loyalty and work hard. Do not display defiance, do not keep attacking and undermining the leadership. Remember the objectives of Conservapedia, read the Commandments, and do your best to support Conservapedia and support Andy Schlafly. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:03, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::''I wonder if there's any point in responding to you, as you appear to have a closed mind on this issue'' Ah, the old 'when did you stop beating your wife?' tactic, an old Liberal trick. Yagain, Philip, you fail to get the point. You claim that all your assertions are 'proved' and that no-one else's ideas are. This is both arrogant and wrong. You are the only one making assertions that 'X is fact',a nd you fail to provide any satisfactory evidence. Your further claims of legitimacy through supported from a shadowy clique of 'senior administrators' (unnamed) is an attempt to muddy the waters. Those who disagree with you, including Andy, also have support, from senior people here. And we are not saying 'X is fact'; we are saying 'here is a case to answer'. You have not answered it, and you actions in constantly reverting these passages amounts to an attempt to censor opinions with which you disagree. Saying that we 'have not proved our point' is disingenuous, and you know that. We cannot 'prove' our beliefs; proof will only come should our fears bbe realised. Is that a reason to remain silent? Had I believed that the Japanese might attack Pearl Harbor, based on an educated reading of the situation in November 1941, should I have remained silent because a proto-Rayment demanded written proof in triplicate? We are not dogmatic. We are raising fears based on a prime facie assessment of Obama's record and behaviour; we are not claiming that these are facts carbved in granite slabs. But you, Philip, are displaying liberal dogmatism. You say that your beliefs are not beliefs, but facts. And such an attitude is insupportable; especially insupportable as arrogance of belief is leading you into arrogance of behaviour. Throw slurs at me, by all means. But do not insult Andy, who is the founder of this project and our respected leader in this great endeavour. Learn discipline, as you should have learned it in your youth. The question has been debated ''ad nauseam''. Andy has quite correctly made a decision, to stop the ceaseless argument. And it would be seemly for you to accept and comply with this decision; and if you cannot bring yourself to back it openly, then to leave this topic and work on other matters in which you are interested. Display loyalty and work hard. Do not display defiance, do not keep attacking and undermining the leadership. Remember the objectives of Conservapedia, read the Commandments, and do your best to support Conservapedia and support Andy Schlafly. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:03, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::: Philip, I'd like to ask you a question (without wading into your arguments with Bugler).  Are you accusing ASchlafly of bias or deceit?  You seem to be inferring so and, if that isn't your intention, perhaps you should reconsider your phrasing.  If it ''is'' your intention, perhaps you should be explicit. On a side note, a number of editors, myself included, have backed the inclusion of this information.  Naturally, our opinions seem to be valued less, not being senior administrators, but they're still worth consideration.  [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 21:11, 24 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::: Philip, I'd like to ask you a question (without wading into your arguments with Bugler).  Are you accusing ASchlafly of bias or deceit?  You seem to be inferring so and, if that isn't your intention, perhaps you should reconsider your phrasing.  If it ''is'' your intention, perhaps you should be explicit. On a side note, a number of editors, myself included, have backed the inclusion of this information.  Naturally, our opinions seem to be valued less, not being senior administrators, but they're still worth consideration.  [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 21:11, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: RodWeathers, I assume that you are not asking about accusations such as of Andy calling me a "liberal", but about the disputed content of the article.  That being so, see my post on this page with a timestamp of "20:42, 19 November".  And despite someone in the Sock Drawer<!-- Where the socks are normally found (RW)--> suggesting that I wasn't being totally honest in those comments, they were totally honest.

:::::::::: RodWeathers, I assume that you are not asking about accusations such as of Andy calling me a "liberal", but about the disputed content of the article.  That being so, see my post on this page with a timestamp of "20:42, 19 November".  And despite someone in the Sock Drawer<!-- Where the socks are normally found (RW)--> suggesting that I wasn't being totally honest in those comments, they were totally honest.