Difference between revisions of "Talk:Innocence Project"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(I think I took a sarcasm pill or something. I just can't stop myself today!)
 
Line 4: Line 4:
  
 
::Ah yes, this is a very productive way to run an encyclopedia. Thanks for the clarification, Huey. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:09, 4 September 2007 (EDT)
 
::Ah yes, this is a very productive way to run an encyclopedia. Thanks for the clarification, Huey. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:09, 4 September 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
:::I agree with you, but if the second paragraph has its facts straight, it should be part of the article.  The best approach is to add information about the Innocence Project's real successes.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 17:57, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Latest revision as of 15:57, 27 April 2008

I'm tempted to remove that whole second paragraph. It's obviously there to slam the innocence project. Anyone second me? Jazzman831 23:15, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

The Innocence Project is a liberal facet of the ultra-liberal University of Wisconsin. As such, it deserves to be slammed. --Huey gunna getcha 17:02, 4 September 2007 (EDT)
Ah yes, this is a very productive way to run an encyclopedia. Thanks for the clarification, Huey. JazzMan 17:09, 4 September 2007 (EDT)
I agree with you, but if the second paragraph has its facts straight, it should be part of the article. The best approach is to add information about the Innocence Project's real successes.--Frey 17:57, 27 April 2008 (EDT)