Difference between revisions of "User talk:Harmil"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Hojimachong (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:And yet the note in question a) didn't cite the Bible b) wasn't quoting the Bible and c) didn't make a coherent case. -[[User:Harmil|Harmil]] 13:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT) | :And yet the note in question a) didn't cite the Bible b) wasn't quoting the Bible and c) didn't make a coherent case. -[[User:Harmil|Harmil]] 13:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I know that other sources are much more scholarly in normal use, and after review, I realize that your edits to [[Atheism]] were quite well done. However, for future reference, if the Bible sheds ''any'' light on ''any'' subject, it should be included first, and be considered authoritative. I don't agree with it, but it's the rule. Thanks, --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 13:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 17:12, March 12, 2007
This is Conservapedia, and though many of us (myself included) don't take the Bible as pure and wholesome truth, it is treated as the ultimate authority for writing here. --Hojimachongtalk 12:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
- And yet the note in question a) didn't cite the Bible b) wasn't quoting the Bible and c) didn't make a coherent case. -Harmil 13:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
I know that other sources are much more scholarly in normal use, and after review, I realize that your edits to Atheism were quite well done. However, for future reference, if the Bible sheds any light on any subject, it should be included first, and be considered authoritative. I don't agree with it, but it's the rule. Thanks, --Hojimachongtalk 13:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)