Talk:The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience

"No meaning"
What are the particular points of confusion? 04:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume you are talking to me, since you reverted my edits. You provided no evidence of quality in your post here.  I provide evidence of poor writing: "have very effectively denied by stuffing their fingers in their ears and bawling, "DON'T LISTEN TO THOSE DIRTY HEATHENS WITH THEIR STATISTICS!""  This is just plain poor, whoever wrote it, and conveys no information.  I just copied one of the main sections that was "red" when redoing my edits which you undid with no good reason. Blancmange (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It indicates the extent of their arguments against the facts. As to the other edits, some were all right, but others turned the article into nonsense by removing crucial bits of information. 04:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Missing basic facts
...such as "when it was written/published".--ZooGuard (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)