Talk:AARM

Untitled
I added a sentence that AARM does not promote a philosophy.

WHAT? This should be put up for deletion. A discussion board with 190 members gets a wikipedia page? Ridiculous
 * Then recommend it for deletion. However, I noted that more and more information about AARM was worming its way onto the CARM and Matt Slick pages.  That information was off-topic and is better linked to here.  Also, the AARM page is important to understanding the John W. Ratcliff page.  Finally, significantly more than 190 people are aware of and have an opinion on AARM, which in my view qualifies it as Wikipedia-worthy   --Hyperbole 21:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh really, that is what you think? Tell me, if I give you 5000 people from CARM that will state what you posted on the CARM and Slick articles are false, will that make a difference to you? You are so obvious. This web page is an embarrassment to wikipedia.Tom S 48 00:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * What I posted on the CARM and Slick articles is that there exist a group of critics who have specific complaints. That fact is true.  The criticisms themselves are debatable, but the criticisms aren't presented as fact on Wikipedia - only the *existence* of the criticisms.  --Hyperbole 01:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Being bold
There seemed to be a lot of suggestions to merge on the VfD, so I've taken the liberty of merging with John W. Ratcliff and redirecting. This isn't part of the VfD result, it's subject to further discussion and consensus. --Tony Sidaway Talk 15:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)