|
SHorter vewrsion.
1: After this si resolved whats the point? No one theireven knows of this fiasco.
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."
2: You used my administration their ito show Im biased. I am a Zealoted Christain. This was a shameful tactic. Its absicllay "Guilt by association." It sbad enough Im labled one of Holdigns followers.Yopu even tried ot prove I was a fidny by linkign me with creationism.
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.
At the same tiem you decree any attmeot to examine Dorothy as " Smearing her." I didnt msmear her to dicredit her. But you smear me to discredit me.
Liekwise, shes not a Rleigiosu shcolar because she write a book on rleigion. ANy mro htan HErman Shermer is.
Nothign in my own past reveals any bias, and Im toelrnt of all views, but nto all condict.
Heck even Kent Hovind isnt a rleigiosu schoalr.
3: As you refuse to bother to listen to reason, I want ot see if I can one on one discuss the matte with you.
Neither is she an archeologist just ebause she attended student digs.
No other reason.
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.
I edited my own apst message to make it more tot he point to what I itnended.
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".
The last one, thogh not written so, cna be seen as Harsh.
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.
| 