Conservapedia talk:Blatant plagiarism/Edwin Meese III

strong work!DocSock 13:18, 3 June 2007 (CDT)

Totally agree, excellent! ^{Babel fish}ÅЯṬђŮŖ ÐΣйṬ_{Now look here!} 13:54, 3 June 2007 (CDT)

Hold it...TK's entire rebuttal was "Am not!"? 0.o --Kels 15:56, 5 June 2007 (CDT)

No, it was "am not! and you're a bad person!". Much more convincing, no? --jtl^talk 18:04, 5 June 2007 (CDT)

Oh, to be sure. It's much better form to attack your motives than to make a substansive reply. Although I would ask if this is a copy of his earlier writing (which bits?), where a reader could find some corroboration of that, to say nothing of why the same wasn't made clear in the article itself, to avoid just such accusations of plagiarism. --Kels 18:10, 5 June 2007 (CDT)

Non-funny vandalism

The page was restored with Linus's approval, with the section you've objected to omitted. Another blanking of either the article or talk page will be considered non-funny vandalism and treated accordingly. --jtl^talk 19:17, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

• What a silly blackmailer you are, Jtl. I once asked you and Human nicely to remove the objected to part, and here you are, acting like nothing happened, and you weren't overruled on your insane misson. I love it! I once read guys with small dicks harbor your kind of obsessive-aggressive behaviour. I will have to ask DocSock if its true. Not a charge, or slur, just my intellectual curiosity at work! All in fun, pally! Godspeed to you! --TK_/MyTalk 00:55, 16 June 2007 (CDT)