Talk:Dan Savage

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Talk:Dan Savage as edited by DavidB4 (Talk | contribs) at 20:40, 26 June 2019. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

If the subject matter is approved, should I link to Dan Savage's blog? The Stranger's advertisements often include call girls and such, and Savage's blog is often about sex. I hesitate, since I know linking from here would be straying from CP's family-friendly intent, but at the same time, it's kind of an important link. He doesn't have another site, to my knowledge.--CamilleT 11:50, 6 June 2011 (EDT)

It is not appropriate to discuss any of the important details of this disgusting man or the Santorum business on this website. Nate 12:42, 6 June 2011 (EDT)
Well, you've been here longer than I, but I would prefer the opinion of an administrator. Savage is a prominent figure on the left, and he has had a definite impact on politics. My intention with this article was to make it vague where anything lewd would be.--CamilleT 13:55, 6 June 2011 (EDT)
The external link might not be appropriate, but a biographical scetch on the man, his agenda and methods is very much of interest. Is there another link available that gives us a fair picture of the substance of his blog?
P.S., is this the same Dan Savage cited here, I won't ban anybody just now... Tue, 15 May 2007 22:19:38 -0700? From RW 1.0, "I suppose it is too much to ask Dan Savage (or Jon Stewart?) to help us googlebomb the term? ..." Rob Smith 15:27, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
I was not involved in the group or discussion you linked to.--CamilleT 16:52, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
It appears Savage is an old hand at Google bombing; he was once considered a contact to help make the names NAMBLA & Conservapedia interchangeable the same way he did Santorum and fecal material. Is there a way to work this cite into the narrative? Rob Smith 17:01, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
He never did the bombing himself. His readers did. I don't know that the link fits the article, they just referenced him as someone who orchestrated a re-association campaign.--CamilleT 17:15, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
waah! I didn't even notice this was in mainspace!--CamilleT 19:20, 12 June 2011 (EDT)


Edit summaries are not subject to firefox's spell check. lol--CamilleT 16:51, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

I haven't made the switch to Firefox cause I can't figure out how to shut off third party cookies. But last year I was using Ubuntu after my latop melted down and the spell check was a big help. Rob Smith 17:35, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

First Paragraph

I don't think this website has the right to complain about bigotry and hate. Half of this site is hate and the other half is paraphrased Wikipedia articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Gary Manns (talk)

I think you're an idiot. So what? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:22, 24 June 2019 (EDT)
Now that I'm back from my arbitrary ban I can say this: Ad homonyms are no way to get your point across friend. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Gary Manns (talk)
Let's see... "no right to complain"? Why not? He clearly complains about us.
"Half of this site is hate" - the same old "hate speech" (i.e. you said something that happened to hurt my feeling, so you are guilty and should be punished) claim isn't going to work. If there is something unduly hostile or derogatory, there is no harm in respectfully suggesting improvements in good faith. Just making sweeping claims like this only damages your credibility.
"the other half is paraphrased Wikipedia articles" - those who write articles on Wikipedia will sometimes share this material here, or vice-versa. Other than this, there is the occasional issue of material being copy-and-pasted by someone other than the author from Wikipedia, which is plagiarism. We do our best to combat this. If you find an article which seems to have come from Wikipedia, check the talk page and edit history. If the editor did not make a statement of authorship on the talk page, and does not appear to be the same person who wrote the content on another site, we would like to know so we can deal with it.
If you actually in good faith want to make improvements here, then good. However, if you're just here to complain, slander, troll, and cause trouble, you will soon find yourself permanently removed from this community. --DavidB4 (TALK) 22:37, 26 June 2019 (EDT)