From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


"New gay plague" huh?

Where did that name come from? The article that you referenced?

Here is the quote from the article in full:

"The real story here is the way that the media have whitewashed this outbreak," Barber told Cybercast News Service. "It is amazing to see what they've done with this."
Barber said the initial reporting of the outbreak was "pretty solid" and news accounts related the facts "as is," but the coverage began to change after conservative groups like CWA noted that this variant is primarily spread by men having anaI sex.
"The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and other organizations began to jump up and down a bit and scream, and The New York Times and other organizations started to backpedal," Barber said.
"The story was no longer the dangers associated with the outbreak - and the behaviors associated with it," said Barber. "The story now became about how groups like mine were supposedly misrepresenting the outbreak as some sort of 'new gay plague' or 'the new AIDS' - things we never said."

Get that? "...things we never said".

Obviously you thought it was a pretty catchy name though didn't you Ed? How about changing it to something a little more accurate and less obviously sensationalist? --CarolineMilton 18:48, 12 February 2008 (EST)

My 88-year old wife recently contracted MRSA. Surprisingly, she contracted it not in a San Francisco bathhouse, but in a hospital, where it is a very common infection in the United States. [1]. This article is the only one on this 'Trustworthy' encyclopedia about the worldwide epidemic of this infection, and it says something about this website that the only reference to it is in this ludicrously titled article. Might we move the article to one entitled 'MRSA', and removing the gay-bashing? Or, include it, but also include military-bashing, children in daycare bashing, and baby horse bashing? OldMan 22:56, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Why was this article moved, and the name changed?

I hope it wasn't for reasons of "political correctness", and predicated on the pack of false information and dishonest citations I removed. --₮K/Talk 20:38, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Second source (RE: Evolution)

The link for the second source (an answers in genesis page) has been moved or never existed in the first place since the page just leads to a book, and mentions nothing of MRSA. It is either this or it is the book you wanted to reference, in which case use a book reference (ISBN, page, quote, etc)and not a website.

I find the claim of "Devolution" to be a dubious one anyway because the adaptation is clearly beneficial for MRSA as it allows it to survive in its environment more effectively. I think it should be removed, does anyone have any objections?

I've fixed the reference to include author/title/ISBN - something you could very easily have done. I haven't read the book so I can't comment on what it says on this point, but your opinion that it's 'dubious' isn't a reason to remove the information. Jcw 14:31, 23 June 2011 (EDT)
You're right, I could have changed it very easily. But I didn't want to take the responsibility because I also haven't read the book, so I wasn't sure I would have been referencing material that I think is worthy of citation. I was half hoping the author of this page who probably read the book could elaborate on it (Give pages and so on). If you're confident enough to make the change though, then that's fine and I apologise.
Also, regarding devolution, I think that resistance to antibiotics is the opposite of devolution as it is a beneficial adaptation to its environment. If you think I don't have grounds to make the claim then that's fine, as I said if anyone has any objections that I'll at least leave it open for debate.SecularConservative 22:18, 23 June 2011 (BST)