Difference between revisions of "User talk:1048247"

Revision as of 15:37, May 3, 2007

This is a warning of likely blocking of your account. Your edits are removing factual information, injecting biased remareks (e.g., in Hamilton entry), and accusing editors here of being racist (e.g., "n" word).--Aschlafly 09:44, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Where is the biases in the Hamilton entry? The factual information "removed" from the Hamilton article is still there. I simply moved it. Please compare the article to the previous version. You will will see that you now have a better article, that give more information about Hamilton. In the prior version, his stint as Secratry of the Treasury was summed up in one sentence. As for using the "N-word," that was in the context of demostrating how offensive the "F-word" was when applied to gay people. --1048247 09:56, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

You accused good editors here of enjoying use of the "n"-word. We're not going to have liberals falsely accuse people of being racist here. I suggest you go and remove that scurrilous allegation of yours. In Hamilton, you claimed that taxes were beneficial to the United States. That's liberal opinion.--Aschlafly 09:59, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I indicated that the editors were unwilling to do anything about the "f-word," which is why I, and others on this site made the rather obvious connection to the "N-word." As for Hamilton, I wrote that the United States was able to retire the Revolutionary War debt through a combination of tariffs and taxes. That my friend, is not "liberal opinion." That is history. Hamilton did not like taxes, but he realized (after witnessing the inabilty of the Articles of Confedration Congress to fund the war) that they were neccessary.--1048247 10:13, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Confused

1048247, who's this aschlafly kid and why's he pushing you around?-BillBuck 11:29, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Bill, Aschlafly is Andrew Schlafly, who is the owner of this site. I consider myself a conservative, but many of the conservatives here are of a far diffrent stripe than me. The claim is that conservapeida is supposed to be an encyclopedia, but if they keep reverting edits that based on sound scholarship, it will become an oasis for really far right wing kooks. --1048247 11:34, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

BTW, I don't understand why he is mad at me.--1048247 11:36, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Been here an hour and I'm already worried about the same things you are (and I don't understand either). I think we're in the same boat. I wasn't aware, though, that Wikis had "owners" in the sense that he seems to think he is.-BillBuck 11:37, 3 May 2007 (EDT)