  I sourced the testimonies. I didn't violate a copyright. I wasn't stealing. If what I did by siting testimonies is wrong (and sourcing them from the chick.com website), then everyone that sources anything on wikipedia.org is stealing and infringing on copyrights. This argument is so flawed that I don't even know what else to say. There is an obvious bent against Jack Chick and his tracts. The testimonies balance the page out, considering the fact that half the page is on criticisms of him and the tracts. The testimonies deserve/should be there just as much as the criticism and the pop-culture sections. If those can be there the testimonies should be there too. And, unless someone can give me a REAL reason for criticism to be there but not testimonies then I will continue to repost it onto the page.     Hjurgelis