User talk:1048247

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SharonS (Talk | contribs) at 13:37, 9 May 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

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)


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)

Welcome to the site. Some contributors have left the site for idealogical reasons. On aschlafy's page there is a link (under "resignation") to a contributor's talk page in which he lays out his reasons for leaving. For my part, I stick to editing articles on U.S. history, and I try to avoid the more idealogically charged articles, such as creation and dinosuars--1048247 11:44, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Sorry you got blocked :-/ I tried to tell him he's being a jerk, but I just got threatened away. Keldsen seems right on to it; what have I stumbled upon?-BillBuck 12:45, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Benjamin Franklin

Nice reformatting here. What did you use, TextPad? --Ed Poor 17:47, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Heck, I don't know. I just sort of moved it around. I'm not the most technologically savvy person.

You will notice that, apropos of absolutely nothing and with no explanation whatsoever, all the positive and true changes you made to the Ben Franklin article have been reversioned back to ASchlafly's preferred fiction of an entry (adding insult to injury, the change was treated as a "minor" one). I would recommend that you repost your origional form with whatever new information you would like to add, but since all it takes is one of the many intellectually dishonest sysops here to decide that your sourced facts consist of vandalism and it'll be changed back and you'll be threatened with a ban (an empty threat probably, Ive been threatened about a dozen times for same and only seen one, which was months ago). I know you're trying to bring honesty to the discourse, but the sad truth is that its a waste of time here. My personal recommendation would be to embellish the lie to the point where its obvious to any thinking person how untrue it is, for instance: "Even though Franklin claimed to be a deist, he obviously had his fingers crossed since only a devout protestant could have invented the pot-bellied stove."--Rex Mundane 13:35, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

I reverted your edit because I read the diffs wrong and thought that you had removed part of the first paragraph, not realizing that you had added quite a bit of information. Thanks for catching my mistake. ~ SharonS Talk! 14:37, 9 May 2007 (EDT)