Conservapedia talk:Liberal Style
How do the other editors of which I isn't one yet feel about setting this up as a side-by-side thing? I don't mind doing the grunt work. I think that structure makes these things easier to read and enjoy. humanbe in 20:46, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
- I like that idear. I cud he'p some if you want.CЯacke® 21:02, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
- Thanks, but it should be pretty easy. I will have to tag the article temporarily while I do it, though, cause I'm gonna copy it to Arachnophilia where I can insert the table tags easily, then copy it back. Which would make intermediate edits go bye-bye. I'll probably attack it in a couple of hours (after Colbert airs here, basically). humanbe in 21:12, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
Updates... I'm glad to see someone has added the newer section ashfly wrote. Perhaps a "new" permalink to his "essay" would be a good idea? Also, I note that there are a couple of stray table tags on the last revision I looked at. They can be a pai to track down, as they could be anywhere in the file, but if "you" need any help finding them I'll take a look. humanbe in 15:34, 20 August 2007 (CDT)
Point 5 - liberals insist on having last word[edit]
Hmm, it would seem to me that TK always has the last word - does this make him a liberal? Genghis Khant 16:05, 20 August 2007 (CDT)
- You're missing all the times Karajou permabans someone before replying to their message, thus guaranteeing no reply. --Kels 16:10, 20 August 2007 (CDT)
I did one. Can we combine?[edit]
It's here.-αmεσ (!) 18:15, 20 August 2007 (CDT)
- May I suggest linking them to each other? They are both good, and different enough that merging might lose some of their respective qualities. humanbe in 18:23, 20 August 2007 (CDT)
- Concur!-αmεσ (!) 18:25, 20 August 2007 (CDT)
Socialism and the Settlement act[edit]
Observe as I prove that this is not a non-sequiter. Q: "What does The 1701 Act of Settlement have to do with socialism?" RobS: "Socialism is evil."
Clearly, RobS believes that the 1701 Act of Settlement is evil, and further, that this fact is so readily observable that he has no need to even point it out!
Interestingly enough, I can also use this observation to demonstrate that the 1701 Act of Settlement WAS socialism, using some sweet mathematical smartness!
First, being that both things are clearly evil, let us set them both as being equal to evil. So,
1701 Act of Settlement= evil Socialism=Evil
Then, let's replace "evil" with it's equivalent:
1701 Act of Settlement= Socialism
Unfortunately, I parse the spaces as equaling addition signs, and cannot simplify further, as "1701 Act of Settlement" does not factor.— Unsigned, by: 64.106.84.253 / talk / contribs
Okay to update this[edit]
The original article at CP has had many weird and wonderful additions made. I'm not sure if the article here is intended to be a snapshot, or if it's okay to update it to reflect a more recent version of the one at CP? Any objections to my updating this? My intention is to retain what's already here while covering the new points and perhaps adding some more citations to demonstrate how liberal style is pretty much the modus operandi for Assfly and his merry men.--
Ask me about your mother 16:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Reformat and update?[edit]
This article is no-longer entirely accurate, since it purports to be based on Andy's original essay, but in the intervening years it's been updated with bits and bobs that may have not been written by Andy. I'm thinking of moving the current page in to a sub-page and linking to it from the main article. In its place I'd like to use User:Concernedresident/liberalstyle. The article isn't fully finished, but you can get a rough idea as to how it's going to turn out. It's based on the current version of CP's liberal style rant. Any objections to this? --Ask me about our shank 10:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- I like it. Go for it. --PsyGremlinTal! 10:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)