|
"Anonymous User" (your chosen name is obviously unacceptable), I looked at many of your edits before reverting them which are full of spleling errors, so it's painfully obvious that you're not a church goer. You also refuse to accept that the Bush doctrine reduces research into gravitons. Got news for you: the issue here is Wikipedia bias and Conservapedia accuracy. The rules are clear: don't emasculate Christianity, don't dumb down the Bible, don't pretend Hell doesn't exist, accept the full logic of the Bible and use the powerful new words that come into the English language.--aschlafly 05:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
|
|
Explanation[edit]
The above is constructed almost entirely from things Andrew Schlafly has actually said in his postings at Conservapedia. We made up maybe 1% of them to get the thing going and to test grammar issues, but they're representative and you can spot them—they're usually the less insane sounding ones. Please add direct quotes — the crazier the better — but feel free to paraphrase to make the language work in context. And lest you question the accuracy of this infernal device, it passes the Turing Test (or perhaps Andy fails it; we're not sure).
Talk page lacking that Schlafly je ne sais quoi? Try the SQG template!
|
