User talk:75.144.70.141: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:39, 17 February 2010

Your changes to Free Reformed Church of North America on November 5, 2007

I have reverted most of you changes in the FRCNA page. Please read the 'discussion' page for details. --Jdeboer (talk) 01:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 I have reverted most of you changes in the FRCNA page.  Please read the 'discussion' page for details. --[[User:Jdeboer|Jdeboer]] ([[User talk:Jdeboer|talk]]) 01:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
-== February 2010 ==
-:This comment is uncalled for.  Two changes don't call for this mis-use of a warning.  The term myth has NOT been dealt with.  It was "dealt" with last Fall, that myth should remain out, and yet it made it back.  Now you think it's dealt with?  Why didn't you think it was dealt with last Fall when myth was rejected?  [[Special:Contributions/75.144.70.141|75.144.70.141]] ([[User talk:75.144.70.141#top|talk]]) 19:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
-:  plus you are an acclaimed athiest (on your user page) so you show your bias towards this article right away.
-Yeah, no. My warning specifically stated that it was for that article, and articles related to it. You have more like five reverts on the subject if you count those.
-I say it's been dealt with, time and again, because it's been dealt with, time and again. [[Talk:Genesis creation myth]] is 99% this debate, with the term "creation myth" winning out. And it's recent.  'Convenient' my ass. Try 'Factual'. The comment you removed (with the edit summary "hah!") is 100%  accurate- "creation myth" is a scholarly term that does not cast judgement on the truth value of said creation myth. And as long as avowed creationists are allowed to comment and participate in the debate, I see no reason why I should be excluded based on my personal beliefs. --[[User talk:Kingoomieiii|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">King Öomie</span>]] 20:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)