[003]
66.138.203.101
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
SchizoTechnician is wrong about that, and anyone who checks the discussion archives will see why; contrary to his claim, he didn\'t \'\'want\'\' to merely treat the Bible like \
to:
SchizoTechnician is wrong about that, and anyone who checks the discussion archives will see why; contrary to his claim, he didn\\\'t \\\'\\\'want\\\'\\\' to merely treat the Bible like \\\"a book.\\\" He wanted to treat \\\'\\\'the book\\\'\\\' like \\\'\\\'SnarkBait\\\'\\\', and rant for paragraphs on end about his beef with that book.
His real intentions are readily visible from several of the edits he made to the article; even FastEddie acknowledged SchizoTechnician\\\'s attitude when he \\\"de-vitrified\\\" one of his references.
More importantly, though, he was using the wrong trope examples for some of his edits, and was insistent on continuing to use them regardless of real purpose of the tropes he tried to employ.
He\\\'s admitted that he\\\'s an atheist, that he thinks that the lack of snarking and heckling makes the article \\\"religiously biased,\\\" and that he \\\"can\\\'t leave his bias alone.\\\" He\\\'s insisted on using tropes incorrectly to toss in paragraphs of ranting about scientific inaccuracies that veered into \\\"because science proves \\\'\\\'this\\\'\\\' interpretation wrong, the Bible is entirely bunk.\\\"
Quite frankly, it doesn\\\'t take a person of \\\"great faith\\\" (as he believes) to be irritated by that kind of behavior ... and we\\\'re not just dealing with any old piece of literature here--we\\\'re dealing with something that\\\'s SeriousBusiness for a lot of people. You\\\'d \\\'\\\'think\\\'\\\' that more people [[RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement would be more mindful]] due to that. Apparently not.
His real intentions are readily visible from several of the edits he made to the article; even FastEddie acknowledged SchizoTechnician\\\'s attitude when he \\\"de-vitrified\\\" one of his references.
More importantly, though, he was using the wrong trope examples for some of his edits, and was insistent on continuing to use them regardless of real purpose of the tropes he tried to employ.
He\\\'s admitted that he\\\'s an atheist, that he thinks that the lack of snarking and heckling makes the article \\\"religiously biased,\\\" and that he \\\"can\\\'t leave his bias alone.\\\" He\\\'s insisted on using tropes incorrectly to toss in paragraphs of ranting about scientific inaccuracies that veered into \\\"because science proves \\\'\\\'this\\\'\\\' interpretation wrong, the Bible is entirely bunk.\\\"
Quite frankly, it doesn\\\'t take a person of \\\"great faith\\\" (as he believes) to be irritated by that kind of behavior ... and we\\\'re not just dealing with any old piece of literature here--we\\\'re dealing with something that\\\'s SeriousBusiness for a lot of people. You\\\'d \\\'\\\'think\\\'\\\' that more people [[RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement would be more mindful]] due to that. Apparently not.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
SchizoTechnician is wrong about that. Check the discussion archives. He didn\'t want to treat it like a book; he wanted to treat the book like SnarkBait and rant for paragaphs on end about how science has proven TheBible wrong. More importantly, though, he was using the wrong trope examples in order to do this.
to:
SchizoTechnician is wrong about that, and anyone who checks the discussion archives will see why; contrary to his claim, he didn\\\'t \\\'\\\'want\\\'\\\' to merely treat the Bible like \\\"a book.\\\" He wanted to treat \\\'\\\'the book\\\'\\\' like \\\'\\\'SnarkBait\\\'\\\', and rant for paragraphs on end about his beef with that book.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
He even admitted himself that he wanted to push his atheist bias on the article. Look at the edit history.
to:
His real intentions are readily visible from several of the edits he made to the article; even FastEddie acknowledged SchizoTechnician\\\'s attitude when he \\\"de-vitrified\\\" one of his references.
More importantly, though, he was using the wrong trope examples for some of his edits, and was insistent on continuing to use them regardless of real purpose of the tropes he tried to employ.
He\\\'s admitted that he\\\'s an atheist, that he thinks that the lack of snarking and heckling makes the article \\\"religiously biased,\\\" and that he \\\"can\\\'t leave his bias alone.\\\" He\\\'s insisted on using tropes incorrectly to toss in paragraphs of ranting about scientific inaccuracies.
Quite frankly, it doesn\\\'t take a person of \\\"great faith\\\" (as he believes) to be irritated by that kind of behavior!
More importantly, though, he was using the wrong trope examples for some of his edits, and was insistent on continuing to use them regardless of real purpose of the tropes he tried to employ.
He\\\'s admitted that he\\\'s an atheist, that he thinks that the lack of snarking and heckling makes the article \\\"religiously biased,\\\" and that he \\\"can\\\'t leave his bias alone.\\\" He\\\'s insisted on using tropes incorrectly to toss in paragraphs of ranting about scientific inaccuracies.
Quite frankly, it doesn\\\'t take a person of \\\"great faith\\\" (as he believes) to be irritated by that kind of behavior!
