, 24 April 2007 (UTC) 

 :I stated *fact* about their position on vaccination and you respond with flippant untruths... You said:  "...they really, really do think it's icky..." that kind of statement is patently false, and CLEARLY indicates the vehement bias of Solarbird. They CLEARLY state that they are NOT anti-homosexual, and then you come along and say they are, with no sources for evidence. 

 :Yes, "anti-gay" IS A WEASEL WORD - from the Wiki page on weasel words: "A weasel word is a word that is intended to, or has the effect of, softening the force of a potentially loaded or otherwise controversial statement..." "Anti-gay" has no real definition, but use of the word "anti" is clearly *negative*. Pro-choice advocates would hardly call themselves "anti-pregnancy" or "anti-baby". Likewise Pro-life advocates also reject the term "anti-choice" because it is negative (and, according to them, false). Also, you keep saying there is evidence for your terms, but you don't provide it, answering that you "have it somewhere"... From the Wiki page on "Weasel words", an example of the beginning of a "Weasel" sentence: "There is evidence that..." (What evidence? Where is it? What are the details?)  

 :Point being, CWA is vehemently against the term "anti-gay" and very clearly, on many occasions, has stated the remark I mentioned about "loving the sinner, hating the sin". This has been documented by me (hearing the broadcast), and I'm in the process of getting transcripts from CWA with this actual phrase in it. I won't put it up there until I have the source and can provide a link to it. I still will hesitate editing the page because one person with a chip on their shoulder is all it takes to drain the motivation and concern from anyone willing to help edit. 

 :Another example of your "weasel wording" exists right here on the talk page: "...I used to listen to Beverly LaHaye and Robert Knight defend gaybashing as a "normal and natural reaction to the perversion of homosexuality". "Gaybashing" is a "weasel word", what does it mean? They have never said it was ok to do any "gaybashing". Even if you could define the term, you still have to SOURCE links of some kind as EVIDENCE. 

 :You wrote: "...but, in my personal opinion, actions speak much, much louder than words." This is a RADIO show, they only use WORDS, how are their "actions" speaking louder than their "words". Incomprehensible. Also, Wikipedia is not about your "personal opinion"! It is very obvious that you have an agenda, and a chip on your shoulder, but that should not be communicated on the Wiki page. 

 :Also, you write: "I would not at all agree that "They use the statement, 'love the sinner, hate the sin' over and over." They have used it, and I'm sure it's in their position papers somewhere, but it pales in comparison to the more common words such as "perversion," "unnatural," "immoral," and so on." Many Christians consider the *act* of homosexuality to be a "perversion", believing this is not "gaybashing" or "anti-gay". One can have a real, compassionate love for a gay person and stand for said person to be fully protected under the law, yet still believe that engaging in homosexual sex is a sin and a perversion (of God's intention for sex). Plus, you are AGAIN making a *subjective* judgment, saying that even if they have said that, it "pales in comparison" to other words *YOU* believes indicates they are "gaybashing" and "anti-gay".  

 :Until you SOURCE your EVIDENCE all the "anti-statements" need to be removed, and the "Weasel words" need to be removed.  11:12