Difference between revisions of "Talk:Freemason"
From LGPedia
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | This article is inflammatory and does nothing but attack Freemasons. I am not a Freemason. But, the rituals of freemasonry have been published. It's easy enough to get a copy of Albert Pike's "Morals and Dogma" to see that this person's "comment" is complete rubbish. | + | This article is inflammatory and does nothing but attack Freemasons. I am not a Freemason. But, the rituals of freemasonry have been published. It's easy enough to get a copy of Albert Pike's "[http://www.amazon.com/Morals-Dogma-Accepted-Scottish-Freemasonry/dp/159547997X/sr=8-3/qid=1165177602/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/104-7827936-9935147?ie=UTF8&s=books Morals and Dogma]" to see that this person's "comment" is complete rubbish. |
I definitely don't think a comment should be added to a lgpedia page unless it contributes significantly to the article. This comment in no way does and is inflammatory/nonfactual.--[[User:Tannhaus|Tannhaus]] 14:23, 3 December 2006 (CST) | I definitely don't think a comment should be added to a lgpedia page unless it contributes significantly to the article. This comment in no way does and is inflammatory/nonfactual.--[[User:Tannhaus|Tannhaus]] 14:23, 3 December 2006 (CST) | ||
Revision as of 20:31, 3 December 2006
This article is inflammatory and does nothing but attack Freemasons. I am not a Freemason. But, the rituals of freemasonry have been published. It's easy enough to get a copy of Albert Pike's "Morals and Dogma" to see that this person's "comment" is complete rubbish.
I definitely don't think a comment should be added to a lgpedia page unless it contributes significantly to the article. This comment in no way does and is inflammatory/nonfactual.--Tannhaus 14:23, 3 December 2006 (CST)
