User talk:CraigF

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of User talk:CraigF as edited by JamesWilson (Talk | contribs) at 20:21, September 10, 2011. 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

Archive: 01

Need help archiving? --Ed Poor Talk 17:02, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

I think I already did it. --CraigF 17:54, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
How do I put stuff in the archive? --CraigF 18:03, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
Check my contribs. --Ed Poor Talk 18:03, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
OK thanks I think I understand now. But why did you remove what I wrote about Pontiac being shut down by the government? --CraigF 18:09, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

How is that PC?

Really. I would love to see you argue to a Female Emergency Service worker or soldier that she is any less a hero compared to her male counterparts.--SeanS 21:09, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

This is just liberal PC garbage. Men are different from woman that is a fact. Frankly it was liberals who forced woman into those positions and away from their traditional roles. In traditional Biblically based society, women have a particular place and it isn't that of the masculine hero. --CraigF 21:13, 29 August 2011 (EDT)
... And? Whether they do it outside the biblical role they have is irrelevant to the fact they still did it, and would still be considered a American hero for doing so. --SeanS 21:17, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

do you mind

discussing it before just doing it? Unilateral action is a horrible way to go about things.--SeanS 23:21, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

CraigF is my personal American hero. BrentH 23:22, 29 August 2011 (EDT)
Thank you Brent, although I hardly think I deserve it. --CraigF 23:24, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

Liberal Vandalism?

Who are you to classify anything as anything? What do you think talk pages are for? I'm sorry for the hostility but reverting me for "Liberal Vandalism" is the kind of thing that sets me off. TerryB 20:10, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

[1] look at this edit Terry. Tell me that isn't vandalism on a conservative dictionary project. I hope you made a mistake and await your apology. --CraigF 21:54, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
Terry, er, wow Yah you made the wrong call there.--SeanS 21:56, 7 September 2011 (EDT)


I don't hold grudges - if I did, I would have blocked you for incivility when you falsely accused me of being what I'm not, for which you neither apologized or attempted to rectify the situation. I am now, however, suspicious of your accusations against other people. --SharonW 10:02, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

You don't hold grudges? But you are still complaining about what I said weeks after the fact, get over it. Your suspicious of my accusations against others? Well JohnS says he's a liberal on his user page and has admitted to it numerous times. You choose to ignore this fact and side with him as he waters down the conservative dictionary project with his liberal bias simply because you are still angry at me. I accused TerryB of liberal vandalism because he committed it. He had the guts to come here and accuse me of lying, but when I showed him proof he ran off. You talk about blocking me, but you ignore a liberal vandal posing as a conservative Christian. Talk about a grudge. --CraigF 11:34, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
Ah, I see. You're allowed to lie about someone and they're supposed to "get over it", yet you demand apologies from others. And by the way, I've never "taken sides" with anyone else, I've just pointed out your behavior. Big difference. You're the one who caused the problems between us - and still, no apology from you. --SharonW 13:26, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
Ok, the real troll is gone, so it's time to kiss and make up...well, maybe shake hands, since you two barely know each other and you have yet to experience the first date! Karajou 13:28, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
I didn't run off, editing was shut down for the night. Maybe I misunderstood the point of the project (which, judging by the other entries, seems like a total sham). The point was to not only remove liberal hijackings of words, but also to replace those hijackings with your own? Furthermore, you're going to tell me that two people of the same gender can't love each other? Sorry, blocking people from being married because they're the same gender isn't something I can go along with. It does NOT make me a liberal. See my userpage. Anyway, if the point is to replace liberal bias with conservative bias, I will back down and you can have it your way. TerryB 18:20, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
Terry you do know homosexuality is a sin, right? And that marriage is ordained by god as one man-one woman?--SeanS 18:22, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
Actually that's debatable. As far as marriage I'm not talking about church marriages. That's up to the church. I don't think the government should have the authority to ban it. TerryB 18:27, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
What is debatable? That the bible says homosexuality is a sin?--SeanS 18:29, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
Yep. Interpretations vary. I personally think it was slipped in, like how Andy thinks liberals slipped stuff in. Either way, I don't think the government should have the right to impose biblical law on anyone. TerryB 18:44, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
"IT was slipped in", yep, an entire, very important part of leviticus was just slipped into the bible and the rest of ssociety has run with it for the last, what, 3300 years?--SeanS 18:46, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
Is it that hard to imagine? TerryB 18:46, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
Yes, it really is. Excuse me for thinking my bible doesn't regularly lie to me. Of all the translations it's been through, commentary it's been through, why would no dissenting opinion say "I think this was an insertion". --SeanS 18:49, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
I'm not saying it regularly lies. People try to slip in their own personal agenda wherever they can though and sometimes they succeed. Regardless, the government shouldn't have the right to impose biblical law. That's my real point. People who practice family values tend to oppose same-sex marriage and try to impose that onto everyone else. I can go with a lot of what they practice but I can't go with that. TerryB 19:01, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
I'm going to "slip" this one in: marriage is ONE MAN-ONE WOMAN; it will be presented on this site that way, and any distortion of that fact just to give so much as the slightest support of homosexuality is going to be treated as liberal bigotry and dealt with accordingly. Karajou 19:04, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
Ok, fine, obviously I lost. As per CP policy though, you don't block for ideology, and personally I support SECULAR same-sex marriage (as in licenses from the government). I will keep that out of articles if it makes you so uncomfortable. TerryB 19:08, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
No, TerryB, there is a big difference between ideology and sin, and unfortunately this country has suffered a great deal from people who want to shove that sin down our throats. As a secular human being, you can believe what you want to believe, but you are not going to push certain secular beliefs on anyone within this website. Conservapedia does not and will not support the homosexual movement in any way, shape, or form. Karajou 19:19, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
As I said, I will keep my bias out of articles. I will just avoid any articles on that subject. CP has a stance and I will respect that. TerryB 19:26, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
It is more than just "a stance" it is the Biblical truth revealed by God to man as law. Cafeteria Christians aren't conservative. --CraigF 20:11, 8 September 2011 (EDT)


When you post edits, citations are required. If someone else asks for proof that your edit is a factual statement, then you need to produce the documentation backing it up. It is not an unreasonable request. Karajou 17:21, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

Ok, I understand. However I think that some users ask for citations for material that they know to be true, but that doesn't support their ideology. I think these users are trying to add liberal bias by abusing the system. --CraigF 19:28, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

Friends in the Minutemen

It must be an honor to call such patriots friends. I'm not fortunate enough to live in a part of the country where they get the respect they deserve. Have you seen the debate about the border wall? Perhaps they'll take the opinion of a hero like yourself more seriously. Yours in Christ, JefferyA 21:59, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

Oh please Jeffery. IT isnt the debate about a "Border wall", its whether liberals are trying to redefine the meaning of the word wall by censoring the defensive meaning with the generic meaning.--SeanS 22:12, 8 September 2011 (EDT)


Blocked. Thanks.--JamesWilson 16:16, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

No, thank you for your quick action. --CraigF 16:17, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
No problem.--JamesWilson 16:21, 10 September 2011 (EDT)