Conservapedia talk:Schlafly rhetorical tools and techniques

How is this a compromise if all the individual articles are still there? Also, is this really needed, seeing as all off the Schlafly X pages have been restored? 09:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The gutting of RW's collective history has truly been a sad event. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 09:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure this is what I voted for, so I'm happy. Peter This is not my first temporal anomaly 10:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ace. I have still to hear a decent rationale for this slash and burn approach to the past. rpeh •T•C•E• 10:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (EC) Ace, the component articles of this aggregation aren't deleted. 10:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, so both are in place. When I restored the "Schlafly rearguard" article I was unaware of the move to de-cp RW, beings that I wasn't paying close attentiion in March/April since I have a life outside of this endeavor. Once I saw all the hard work that was put into the de-cping I thought, "Gee, Cracker, maybe smooshing all those piddling minor pages would make a great big super-duper page that I'd end up getting credit for creating at one swell foop."
 * SO go ahead and delete all of those other pages that several dozens of people worked on, lose all that hisotry. See if I care. C ® ackeЯ 23:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The verdict on the rest of the pages was either keep, or discussion wasn't even opened on deletion. There's no need to delete. Let's not purposefully stir up conflict here. 00:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)