| | ::Imagine if, at the back of the Encyclopedia Britannica, there was a series of poorly written essays by a single editor where he compares groups he doesn't like to animals, insults their appearance, and includes numerous photos with captions like, "If you're so smart Mr. Atheist, then why are you so fat?" [sic] I imagine that such an inclusion might be considered a joke, something planted by a prankster, without the knowledge of the other editors. If only we could say the same here.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 10:26, 27 January 2012 (EST) | | ::Imagine if, at the back of the Encyclopedia Britannica, there was a series of poorly written essays by a single editor where he compares groups he doesn't like to animals, insults their appearance, and includes numerous photos with captions like, "If you're so smart Mr. Atheist, then why are you so fat?" [sic] I imagine that such an inclusion might be considered a joke, something planted by a prankster, without the knowledge of the other editors. If only we could say the same here.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 10:26, 27 January 2012 (EST) |
| | :::The Britannica is a British publication, and they are a nation of obese atheists. Hardly the standard to which we should aspire. Why? Because liberals. That's why. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] <b>Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? </b> 10:38, 27 January 2012 (EST) | | :::The Britannica is a British publication, and they are a nation of obese atheists. Hardly the standard to which we should aspire. Why? Because liberals. That's why. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] <b>Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? </b> 10:38, 27 January 2012 (EST) |