An honor!-αmεσ (soldier) 18:45, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
So ... is this The Famous Andrew Schlafly, Himself, in Person?
- This is in order to prevent deceitful liberals from impugning my good name. In Christ. Aschlafly 15:29, 14 November 2007 (EST)
I don't buy it. Can you prove it?-αmεσ (soldier) 15:40, 14 November 2007 (EST)
- "I can't wait to hear the excuses about why he can't do that." NorsemanWassail! 15:45, 14 November 2007 (EST)
By the way, what exactly does "In Christ" mean? It sounds like it ought to be forbidden by Leviticus... --Jeeves 01:43, 15 November 2007 (EST)
- Gotta booooooo that, sorry.-αmεσ (soldier) 02:29, 15 November 2007 (EST)
I was just wondering how that is going and why you ban any users who ask about it and then delete the page? Why is that Andy? --188.8.131.52 17:11, 14 November 2007 (EST)
Yes, have you heard anything back from the Cleveland office Andy? DogP 03:15, 15 November 2007 (EST)
- Will the real A. Schlafly please stand up? I repeat, will the real A. Schlafly please stand up? --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 07:10, 15 November 2007 (EST)
This user is juts is a deceitflu liberal imopostor. Noone in thier right mind will misled by this. --Аschlafly 07:33, 15 November 2007 (EST)
- Learn to spell "No One". There is a space in between. Sockpuppet of Elassint 11:20, 15 November 2007 (EST)
- I very strongly suspect that comment was intentionally misspelled to reflect the grammatical ability of the average conservative. I Eat Glue 13:01, 15 November 2007 (EST)
If you have retired then what are you doing editing? On the unlikely assumption that you are "A Schlafly" then you should know better than to edit the article devoted to you. If you're not "A Schlafly" then you're a deceitful person & your edits mayl be treated with contempt. Susan... miaow ... 11:28, 20 November 2007 (EST)
Re: deletion of "libel".
The doubtful nature of the content of the article is clearly stated:
“”This article is possibly the work of a parodist or vandal! It contains suspect information and/or Leftist POV.
- Please, let's not urge him to do that until I can help :-P -αmεσ (soldier) 11:55, 20 November 2007 (EST)
- By the way, if we were (1) sure that this is the real Andy Schlafly, and (2) presented with real reasons, competently argued here or on the talk page, for removing that material, maybe we would. Mindless blanking doesn't work on this wiki, though, "Andy."-αmεσ (soldier) 12:08, 20 November 2007 (EST)
I don't believe that we are applying Occam's Razor enough here. If this really was Andy, wouldn't he be making a heck of a lot crazier edits and arguing like a wild man on Talk pages? Most of all, there is no way that he would use that picture on his User page here. --Edgerunner76 12:21, 20 November 2007 (EST)
- I don't know....depends what the goal was.....his user page is an exact copy of the one at CP. tmtoulouse heckle 12:23, 20 November 2007 (EST)
Of course, if this were Conservapedia, he'd be banned within minutes for making that sort of edit, and if he tried to discuss it on the talk page he'd be banned for violating the stupid "90/10" rule. If this truly is assfly, it's amusing that what is apparently totally unacceptable on his own wiki he thinks he can do here. --Jeeves 12:36, 20 November 2007 (EST)
- It's okay because we're all evil liberals with no morals. Haven't you been paying attention? -Master Bra'tacKree! 12:39, 20 November 2007 (EST)