User talk:Floridapeaches

Response to your kind comment
Thanks FloridaPeaches. Yes I've been taking up the fight for truth but to tell you the truth, it's wearing me down. That guy (or guys) is so difficult to deal with and the wiki admins are totally believing his line of b.s. I can understand why though - because there are either 3 of them working in concert or 1 sockpuppeting they can't really see that much of a pattern. I'm going to just stick to constructive work on Wiki that doesn't have a PR machine working against me. Maybe you can take up the mantle for a while, or, maybe they will go away after a while. Take careRomans9:11 (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Protection
See the history. It wasn't just two editors who were edit warring. If you were unaware of another edit war, it indicates two edit wars, at the same time and on the same page. That's not appropriate; and even if there is only one dispute, it is still out of control. Please reach consensus on the talk page. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk)  16:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

New Discussion on Jack Graham page
FloridaPeaches - Thanks for the gung ho effort on the Jack Graham discussion page. I noticed that you did not try and change the article. I think that is a wise response, and want to encourage you to keep up the discussion on the discussion page and leave the article at it's non-controversial stage for now. When the article is changed, characters like jb316 jump in start and start and attack. Lately, he's been crying to the admins/sysops who tend to be liberal theologically and getting support. Leaving it in the discussion arena forces discussion, which, is where reason and truth tend to win. (I say tend, because, there is a point where idiotic discussion will cause me to say "screw this" and just let them have their way.) Perhaps, with all of the good guys fighting together we can win this little battle. I'm not really sure it's worth it, by the way! It's really the principle of this that keeps me going. Most of the time Graham is a fine pastor. But, he does need to own up to what he says. Attacking Calvinist behind their back and then trying to cover it up isn't acceptable. I'm just glad I don't go there - I think I'd have a hard time not confronting...someone there. Good day to you!Romans9:11 (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)