15
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 16:
Line 16: + +
Talk:Essay:Conservapedia's Law (view source)
Revision as of 18:55, June 12, 2009
, 18:55, June 12, 2009no edit summary
:::::::Your long-winded reply was unresponsive. You denied that Anti-Christian, tax and spend, and tree huggers are conservative terms. Obviously you were wrong about that, but rather than admit it, you now claim that other terms (e.g., self-defense, note my spelling) are not conservative. I don't have time to explain each of these concepts to you, and you don't seem to have an open-mind about this issue anyway. If you want "support and sources" for an original insight, you're not going to find them. Try Wikipedia if you prefer liberal regurgitation of what is in the newspaper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:54, 11 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::::Your long-winded reply was unresponsive. You denied that Anti-Christian, tax and spend, and tree huggers are conservative terms. Obviously you were wrong about that, but rather than admit it, you now claim that other terms (e.g., self-defense, note my spelling) are not conservative. I don't have time to explain each of these concepts to you, and you don't seem to have an open-mind about this issue anyway. If you want "support and sources" for an original insight, you're not going to find them. Try Wikipedia if you prefer liberal regurgitation of what is in the newspaper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:54, 11 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::::Mr. Schlafy, I assure you I have an open mind. I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t. I understand that you don’t have time to explain each term and I am not asking you to. Though I still believe that the terms I outlined are not distinctly conservative terms and I don’t think it is ‘obvious’ that I was wrong about that because you haven’t explained why I am. Retuning to the original issue I raised, even if you have developed an ‘original insight’ it still needs to be explained well enough to stand as a strong argument. One of the things stressed in highschool and particularly post-secondary school is an argument needs to be well developed and well supported, which includes ‘original insights.’ Perhaps this example with help clarify my argument: I could develop an ‘original insight’ that the colour (note my spelling) of the sky is green. Most people would argue that no, the sky is in fact blue. If I did not develop the argument that the sky is green any further, it would not be considered a credible or strong argument. However, if I clarified with the support that the sky can appear green during intense thunderstorms as a result of water and ice scattering green light waves during strong updrafts in thunderstorms, the argument then makes much more sense and can stand as being a strong and credible argument. I hope this helps clarify my concerns. - Cjohnston
== Did I do something wrong? ==
== Did I do something wrong? ==