Conservapedia talk:L.A. Times

Is Terry really a computer consultant? If so how can he be so computer-illiterate? --Stevo 16:14, 19 June 2007 (CDT)
 * That's why he's a consultant. MyaR 16:24, 19 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Ah, silly me! --Stevo 16:36, 19 June 2007 (CDT)
 * A few months ago he was an auto-industry consultant. --jtl talk 16:37, 19 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Does that mean he doesn't know anything about cars either? --Kels 16:39, 19 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Clearly, from his quote there, he knows little about cars, or economics. At least, I think he was commenting about economics. Hard to tell, really. MyaR 16:55, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

--Kels 16:38, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

I wasn't mentioooooooooooooned! --Linus (plot evil tech) 22:27, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

Incidentally, did anyone else enjoy Reginod's exchange with Andy about the article here?
 * I love how Andy stopped replying just a bit before the part about the Breast Cancer issue (almost as much as I love the fact that it's in the LA Times article to begin with). His reply-edit is basically just a bunch of soundwords: "not negative", "non sequitur", "you dislike conservatives", "namecalling", "6 times more liberal", "biased", "we state our perspective", etc. --Sid 13:33, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
 * I thought it was only me who noticed that Andy's reply stuttered out before hitting breast cancer. If anyone want to buff up our entry...--PalMD-yada yada 13:37, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
 * I thought the last quote there was the most painful part of the article. I know of no one here who truly intends to "destroy" Conservapedia. I really hope SharonS reads Ames' open letter--it was thoughtful and spot-on. In fact, it made me feel bad about the vandalism I'd just committed. (Not for too long, but I felt a twinge.)  ʄĹїþþїɲ ;-) 13:53, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

Names
looking at this, and related discussions, the connotation was made between a CP editor whose mother did not want her names and SharonS. Now, SharonS was the username on CP of the person concerned and there was only one Irish dancer on there. That's hardly revealing personal information. If her full name had been used, then fair enough. In contrast, TK gave his full name to the paper and thus it can be used. I'm putting the SharonS back in. -- Ψ Gremlin  14:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I still disagree to be honest. Indeed, each element apart is not revealing, but combined ... — Pietrow   ☏  15:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What? What personal information is revealed here, that she had not volunteered on CP? I don't see a surname, address; so what's the problem? In the same breath, you'd better remove Karajou's name from the article then. -- Ψ Gremlin  15:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)