Content deleted Content added
Line 1:
==Teh Point.==
sIMPLE. yOU REFUSE TO DISCUSS CHANGES ONTHE wiKIPEIDA PAGE BEFORE YOU EDIT, AND YOUR ONLY DISCUSSION IS ON "sEE, zAROV EIS A fuNDIE cHRISTAIN WITH AN AGEDNA! sdoNT LISTEN TOHIM! leT US FIX THE ARITLCDE."
Reality is htis mate. You are tryign to rpesent ehr in a faovurbale light. Again, just ebcause she write two books doesntmean shes " A Historian" , least of all for the ocntent.
Liekwise, shes not a Rleigiosu shcolar because she write a book on rleigion. ANy mro htan HErman Shermer is.
Heck even Kent Hovind isnt a rleigiosu schoalr.
Neither is she an archeologist just ebause she attended student digs.
So, syauign shes " A Hisotrian, linguist, arheologist, and rleigiosu schoalr" is bunk. You wotn even tell why she is any of thesehtigns. when I tlel why isheis, you omit ti. Giving the (False) imoession thats hes accredited acadmeic merit to these to justify the lables. Which she has not odne. This is false advertising.
Liekwise,y ou omit her life section. Thats the whole poitn fo the arilce hwoever. Itsbaotu her. Why do yo omit it? Becuase it doesn further 'The cause".
You omit critism, because you wan tot silence her oposiitonand only allow hwr voic eot be heard.
ITs typical. This is the same tacitc AZcharya claism the Weeeeeeeeeeevil Christain Chruc used. She uses it though, and its OK because 'She spaks the turth." Well, she doesnt, or ar you.
I want ot talk to you because I wan tot se if we can be reaosnbabel . Youwill, of corus,e revert the Wikipedia artilce back tot hw hitewashed flasified verison that presents her as her wbsite does,and that is wholly biase din eg faovur, whilst sayugn I am buased and tryign to thrust often misquited references at people. Honest y and integrety mean nothign to you or you rmistress, but I do hope you can be raosned with.
I will add yo this weekend. Please allow contact. Ithinky uo will fin ditfruitful.
==Now.==
| |||