Since the discussion board is blocked...
Does any Republican candidate meet anyone's approval here? Who are we supposed to be backing? Maestro 00:23, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
- The debate topics...you used to be able to add new questions there. Maestro 23:54, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
- If you could possible provide links when talking about places here, it is always of help. No one has mentioned it to me, and if I was the Admin who locked it, have long forgotten doing so. --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 02:39, 6 October 2007 (EDT)
- What do you mean who are you SUPPOSED to be backing? You are SUPPOSED to think for yourself and decide who to support. --Tfulton 18:06, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
Does it not seem strange that Gay Bowel Syndrome has 213,000 page views? Or that Homosexuality, Marijuana, Cocaine, heroin, Pornography, Alcoholic drinks, and Cactus have significantly more page views than Jesus Christ, God, Adam, Eve, or any of the Republican candidates? I think it's clear that the majority of the page views on this site are not for educational purposes, and I think that claiming they are is deceitful. Most web sites track cookies so one IP address can't "stack" the page views to make the site seem more popular than it really is.--Oblique 00:29, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
- Is that what you really think? Really? Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! I think people who are full of deceit are using a browser with many tabs open, setting the auto refresh rate, and letting it run for days, is what I think. Of course, as you most likely already know, Oblique, it does exactly nothing but provide a few lulz to a few self-congratulatory morons. I'm surprised our entry on Genghis Kahn isn't at the top of the heap! Because the Google bots and those of other search engines, ignore such silly smoke and mirror minipulations. Referrals from other sites and user's own search inputs are what have made this the fastest growing educational site on the Net. And no amount of manipulation of the search engines can derail that! Thanks for your most sincere question & Godspeed to you! --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 00:52, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
- Oblique makes a good point. I'm not too familiar with computers, but we should change the way the site counts page views, so that if a person views a page, no matter how many times it refreshes, it only counts it as one page view. That's the way it's done on other sites. Perhaps, as Oblique suggests, it has something to do with the cookies (not quite sure what these are). I found myself looking at the statistics page today, and noticed that the entry on Goat had been increased over 2000 views in an hour. I'm not sure what would possibly motivate someone to view that page so frequently, but it certainly has skewed data on site traffic.--Xerxes 22:13, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
- The page counts are absolutely meaningless, just so much smoke and mirrors. I rarely look at them unless someone has called my attention to them. They are not used by Google, MSN or Yahoo to rank, so they matter not. --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 05:05, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
- Do you mean the the page counts for individual pages or the page counts for the website? It just seems to me that the assertion that we, Conservapedia, are the fastest growing educational resource on the internet has to be based on some fact or piece of information, such as a view count. In this way, the page counts are very meaningful, even if not to you than to others who celebrate or host events whenever Conservapedia's views reach up past another million. Abnormalities like this must be taken seriously by us if we are to be taken seriously by others, and must be taken into account in order to ensure that our own sense of importance doesn't become larger than what .others see as appropriate, lest we do, in fact, make ourselves a target for "lulz." --Unvoided 17:31, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
- I mean exactly what I said. The wiki's page counts can be minipulated as I detailed above. Any wiki's page count can be so abused, even on those who decide to not display them publicly. The only thing that matters are the actual referrals and direct logon's from search engines. The figures on the front page are from our hosting company, unique hits/connections, not some moron refreshing the page. --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 18:13, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
That's not true TK. The figures on the front page increase when these morons refresh their pages and skew the data.--Xerxes 19:16, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
- Sorry, it is you who is wrong. Front page figures come from the hosting company, not the internal wiki counter, I am told. Good try, however, to justify the moronic actions of others. --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 16:37, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
- First off, the actions aren't moronic; they're a legitimate concern in regards to the educational viability as those outside of conservapedia see it. Regardless of whether or not we were correct or incorrect at the time at which we proposed our ideas doesn't lessen the concern that we fostered in deciding to bring it to the attention of those higher up, so please be a little more polite when we take to mind a little caution for what we feel would be for the best of conservapedia. Secondly, when you said that the figures on the front page count only unique hits and connections, does that mean that it only registers a given i.p. address once and doesn't count it at any later time? --Unvoided 17:14, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
- okay. Thank you. --Unvoided 19:59, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
Another reason to homeschool?
- The fact that the people who were shot were high school students and recent high school graduates has absolutely nothing to do with this. They were shot by a sheriff's deputy, not another student. So how does the whole "public schools are deathtraps" philosophy adopted by so many on conservapedia even apply here? Unless your beef is with the sheriff's academy for not teaching the guy that he isn't supposed to shoot people in this situation, and unless you're considering the sheriff's academy a public school, I don't see what your point is. --BillOhannity 18:03, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
- The sherriff's deputy was "educated" at a public school. If you check the trustworthy encyclopedia entry about public school you will find out what caused the shooting:
- In America, the curriculum in public schools is dictated by state governments and increasingly by the federal government under the "No Child Left Behind" legislation. Federal courts generally prohibit any type of prayer led by school officials, and even forbid the display and teaching of the Ten Commandments. As a result, morality has virtually disappeared from public school education, and public school students almost never hear that something is morally wrong, which is one reason for the rise in incidents of public school violence and drug abuse.
- BenDoune 08:32, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
- Obviously, you don't teach at a public school, but we'll not get into that here. So a guy goes nuts, starts shooting, and it's all the fault of the public schools? If he'd been taught the ten commandments in public school (but not in his church), he'd have thought...'oh, wait, that's wrong.' The guy was disturbed, plain and simple. Maestro 12:35, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
- The sherriff's deputy was "educated" at a public school. If you check the trustworthy encyclopedia entry about public school you will find out what caused the shooting:
- I choose to get my information about public schools from people who actually attended them and know something about them, rather than those who criticize them without having ever been inside one. Morality has not disappeared from public schools despite what the "trustworthy"...ehh..."encyclopedia" article says to the contrary. A student learns what is right and what is wrong every time they or someone they know are caught doing something wrong and get sent to the principal's office. They are taught further on the subject of right and wrong when the principal notifies the parents and the parents discipline them. Sure, there is no fear of the wrath of god in this method, but 1.)the wrath of angry parents can be almost as bad, and 2.)why would anyone want to use religion to scare people into submission? --BillOhannity 16:02, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
Up the Anti
- You could learn how to spell 'ante', for starters. Maestro 12:36, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
Dawkins Article on Wikipedia
The administrtor who locked the Richard Dawkins article on Wikipedia was just following standard procedure, as there was an edit war going on at the time. After a discussion on the talk page, the quote you mention in your front page item was, in fact, put in the article, which was then unlocked. I hope you mention this in the news item.
- But why? that wouldn't potray Wikipedia in a bad light, so there really isn't any point on changing it. ConanO 10:49, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
More trouble in public schools
Another shooting incident at an highschool . When does our education system see their failure and start to act and teach our children the right moral values. If it's up to liberals, then never. ConanO 15:41, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
- I guess the constant moral education that's part an integral part of my school districts curriculum is a figment of my imagination. Do you honestly think people shoot up schools because no one ever said it was wrong? And where are the parents in all this? Maestro 16:23, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
- Something worth mentioning might be the all gay schools  if there is a public school for strictly gay kids, then there should be ones for those who want religion thought to them as well, this country is getting so perverted when stuff like this gay school is allowed. ConanO 16:28, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
- The parents, products of the beginning of the Secular-Progressive agenda in public schools, are most likely unaware of the need for teaching morality. That is where "they are". Morality cannot be taught without religious values attached, because without teaching why being deceitful is wrong (God's Commandments) and the punishment for ignoring them (eternal damnation) kids are supposed to "do the right thing" why? I am sorry, but telling a kid something is "wrong" because his peers won't like it, isn't a compelling enough reason to many. --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 16:30, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
- As TK already answered, they might be teaching the secular "morals" where nothing is really wrong and it all depends on the circumstances, but what they aren't teaching is the word of God and what happens to those who break it. ConanO 16:34, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
- Conan, per your parody post in the section above, before trolling please decide what your characters POV will be, and try to keep it consistent, okay? --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 16:40, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
My parody post above? ConanO 16:46, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
My favorite thing about all this is the sensationalized, finger pointing headline you guys threw up there. People are being shot, how can we capitalize off this.. hmm.. nevermind demonstrating compassion, praying for the victims and the community.. nah, that won't further our agenda! I mean, Harvest of Shame? c'mon, that sounds like the title of some B movie. --Colest 17:35, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
- Harvest of Shame? wasn't the title to a piece on CBS by Edward R. Murrow? <...think think think...> Rob Smith 19:20, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
- I think you might be right, Rob! Anyway, it isn't a matter of capitalizing off it, as we report about it, the deed has been done. Saying one of the big contributing factors to all these shootings is the lack of Biblical foundation isn't wrong, or even far off the mark. If it causes people to think about it, discuss it, that isn't lacking in nobility. Far from it. --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 21:02, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
- Well you just keep grasping that one, lone straw, McIntyre! However logical arguments and conclusions are usually based upon a preponderance of evidence, not a lone example. One, or half a dozen anomalies out of the dozens of such horrible events, doesn't alter the logical conclusion. --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 03:23, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
Fabricating hate speech
The headlines in today's New York tabloids are about a noose "found" near a black professor's office at Columbia University. After a due period of deploring white on black racism, I began to wonder if it was a fabricated incident.
I mean, the Upper West Side is as liberal as you can get, and liberals are pro-black, so how could there be any actual racism (a stone's throw from Harlem, no less)? --Ed Poor Talk 20:13, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
- Well, I once made a Hangman's noose for a Junior High project. In today's world, when my Mom cleaned out the crap in a closet 10 years later, and it was laying on the top of the trash, I wonder what would be said about it? I mean, what if some kid picked it up, was playing with it walking home, then discarded it on the steps of a Brownstone, where someone of color just happened to live? One can well imagine the "Film at Eleven" blurbs all night! --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 21:05, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
- "so how could there be any actual racism" - Please tell me you're kidding. How many racists does it take to drop of a noose near that guy's office? And how do you spot a racist? And do they only live in Racist County or something? Sorry, but it just takes ONE racist to do that, and unless it's a complete idiot, he won't be easily identifiable as one (Look at the cases where "the nice and quiet neighbor everybody liked" turned out to be a serial killer or rapist or whatever else). It'd be foolish to assume that not a single racist lives close to Columbia University.
- I'm not arguing for or against this being fabricated (it's possible that this guy is just longing for attention, it's possible that TK's musing is what happened, it's possible that a sick idiot leaves nooses around either because of racism or just because he gets his jollies from freaking out people), but your reasoning is a bit TOO simplified for comfort. --Jenkins 21:26, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
- The problem, Jenkins, lies in people not wanting to even consider other possibilities, and just by dent of their Liberal Hysteria assuming the worse, then more than assuming, actually posting/writing/reporting and speculating on it! That is what Ed was getting at. Doesn't matter if it was done on purpose, or my scenario covered it. The point is, the headlines were made, the speculations were made, and none of that can be taken back. It all piles up, one after another, in the calculated effort to nurture racial tensions, which Liberals have been practicing since FDR. RobS has written and presented conclusive evidence of their plan, their many plans along this line. --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 21:34, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
- :( Aziraphale 21:46, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
Your tax dollars at work.
- Barf. --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 22:23, 10 October 2007 (EDT) That reminds me of something I needed to do......;-)
My tax dollars at work? The story doesn't indicate that the group receives any public funding. Unless, of course, you mean that my tax dollars aren't being used to prevent the group's existence. Since I'm a pretty big fan of the freedom of religion and the freedom of association, I'm okay with that. Drek
I can't get it to play. Which Missouri University? I'm an alum. Maestro 09:02, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
More about our schools
Here is some video footage from the shooting . What do the students do when they hear of the shootings? They laugh at it, one has to even remind them that this is serious busines and still they just laugh. What kind of behavior is that? it's disgustin, why do teachers tolerate it? Is this how our schools teach students to act in moment of great tragedy? ConanO 17:37, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
Try watching the footage from the original Milgram obedience studies (Possibly available here.) The laughter is a nervous reaction, not a sign of genuine amusement. Drek
I agree with Drek. Everyone reacts to things different ways, especially when there's a camera in their face. I still remember my students laughing, then crying, on 9/11. Maestro 20:08, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
Supporting the Troops
Does anyone really believe that Conservatives support the troops more than Liberals? I'm not an American, but every American I know, conservative or liberal, supports the troops. I think it's a convenient political tactic to divert attention from the real issue, which is whether liberals or conservatives support the war. It's easy to conflate the two issues and then slam your opponents with an indefensible position like "you don't support the troops!" Can't someone disagree with the administration that conducts the war, and at the same time, pray to God that not a single American soldier dies in what they perceive as an immoral war?
Personally, I'm sick and tired of these sort of arguments.
In addition, I don't understand why there's so much debate about the Iraq war. America won the war. It was a success. The objective was to remove Saddam Hussein. What we have now is an occupation, and the occupation is failing. But even if America leaves, they still won the war and accomplished their mission, which was to remove Saddam Hussein, ensure the destruction of WMD, and install a new democratic government.--Xerxes 19:34, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
- The linked TownHall article actually fascinates me. It doesn't say that conservatives support the troops more than liberals. It goes by the premise that you most likely think so and then tries to find reasons for this surprising result (emphasis mine):
|“|| If a soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine in Iraq were to receive an anonymous care package or letter of support, who likely would have been its sender: a liberal or a conservative?
Chances are you said the latter. But why? Why are conservatives and Republicans seemingly more supportive of our troops than liberals?
- I love this. I'm not up to speed with the technical term for this, but it's awesome. At least for an opinion piece that's geared towards a specific audience. Why it made it to the "Breaking News" kinda puzzles me, though. I guess it's nice for conservatives to feel confirmed that they support the troops more than others? --Jenkins 20:16, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
- We headlined a poll the other day, "1 in 5 Democrats think the world will be better off if the US looses the war."  Note, this poll says "Democrats," not liberals. And it also shows this 3 and 4 times higher than non-partisan independents & GOPers.
- Statistically, however you analyize this data, it is even becoming increasingly harder to draw the distinction between liberal support for the troops, and the Democratic party's support for the troops. Rob Smith 20:28, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
- Yes, but the article doesn't go there, and that's what fascinates me. It doesn't try to statistically prove or suggest anything. It implicitly assumes that you made a certain answer. There is a certain elegance there (both in the premise of using not science, but rather implied confirmation, and in the stylistic execution in the article). --Jenkins 21:11, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
- Yes indeed. More evidence of Fox News claim to MSM tradition. Rob Smith 15:01, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
I think that supporting the war and supporting the troops are 3 differnt things. For example, one could make the argument "I support the troops by wanting to bring them home". 1984 17:09, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
- WP's article is so full of liberal bias it's insane. They don't criticize the Theory of Evolution at all, and claim ID isn't real science. SSchultz 20:55, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
- They do not claim intelligent design is not real science, they say that the scientific community does not consider it science. The the reason they give for this, which is cited, is that "it cannot be tested by experiment, it does not generate any predictions, and it does not propose new hypotheses of its own." Translated, what they're saying is that intelligent design is not science because it looks for evidence to support a theory that is already taken to be a fact, instead of developing a theory based on the evidence. And if you want wikipedia's section on criticisms of evolution it is here . --BillOhannity 21:36, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
- They claim the scientific community doesn't consider it science, because they define the scientific community not to include ID advocates. There are surely many ID supporters who don't speak out for fear of being denied tenure, as we see happening over and over again. Also, their criticism of evolution page is a joke, they dismiss criticism with all sorts of evolutionist canards, and the Evolution page itself doesn't contain any criticism. I think CP's Evolution page is much better. SSchultz 22:17, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
- More of the arrogance and deceit of WP! If they have reached a consensus among their users, they become intent on presenting most anything as actual fact, and refuse to entertain other ideas. The work of the "Wisdom of the Crowd" bunch, the Mobocracy advocates. --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 22:50, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
You're both wrong. Intelligent Design is an argument that natural causes are insufficient to account for the origin of the huge variety of species of life on earth.
Naturalistic evolution: what predictions does it propose, and how can it be tested by experiment? More to the point, what sort of evidence (if found) would evolutionists accept as disproof of evolution by natural selection?
I'm reminded of an argument I had with a colleague at ABC: I asked him what sort of evidence he would accept as disproof of his claim that allowing more law-abiding people to carry concealed guns would increase crime and accidents. He refused to answer (surely knowing that I was prepared to provide such evidence on the spot). --Ed Poor Talk 21:18, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
- As evidence toward the claim that carrying concealed guns reduces gun related accidents and crime would be a study of gun ownership laws in OECD countries, and the incidence of gun related crime and accidents. Order 22:41, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
Wikipedia in Decline!
- Skip, I celebrate with you, but it is unfair to say that WP is declining. The statistics show that the number of new edits has decreased by 20% over the last 6 months. WP's growth has slowed slightly but it is still getting 100k edits a day, including 1.5k new articles a day. I believe the creation of competing user-edited encyclopedias (such as CP and wookiepedia) and the academic world's loss of faith in WP have caused this slowdown of growth. Only time will tell whether this trend continues. User-edited online encyclopedias are susceptible to false edits. It is Conservapedia's goal to prevent such a lack of faith as has hurt WP.
- Don't get mad at me for saying something good about WP. I fully support CP, but I don't support a misinterpretation of statistics.--Mcpannier 19:24, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
- This isn't a snark, Mcpannier, but you do contradict yourself above. You say WP's growth has indeed slowed. You also say the academic community has lost faith in it. 20% of 100,000 is twenty thousand edits per day! This seems, at least to me, a revisionist statement, an attempt at relativism, so as to minimize something that is pretty major. --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 19:41, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
- Cute answer, but pure speculation. If you were a Doctor, you would have a statistical 50% chance of killing your patient. I would demand my money back. LOL! --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 20:19, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
- I'm not sure what you mean.ConserveATory 15:39, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
The timing hardly seems to be by accident. As Conservapedia exposed Wikipedia's liberal bias, Wikipedia began to decline despite a record of six years of growth. It's a shame that Wikipedia did not respond to the criticism by taking steps to combat its liberal bias rather than denying it.--Aschlafly 08:04, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
- Correlation does not imply causation.ConserveATory 15:39, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
- That is an entirely different can of worms, but for what it's worth, as a student I participated in a large-scale statistics project indicating a very strong chance of causation between human activity and global mean surface temperature. However, that's not what this discussion is about, and I hate arguing about global warming because it's very often political and partisan. If you want to learn more about proving causation, a good place to start would be material about confidence intervals and hypothesis testing (most universities carry useful texts on the topic, aimed at first or second-year stats students).ConserveATory 15:59, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
- I'll give it a shot, though I'll need to dig up my stats materials (I focused mainly on mathematical analysis).ConserveATory 16:16, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
The main pages says that all great western thinkers since Aristotle were Christian theists. Problem is that Aristotle lived 300 years before Christ and according to CP's own entry on Aristotle he was in all likelihood a deist. The front page probably means Saint Augustine. Order 03:19, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
Google and MoveOn
There doesn't seem to be any political bias involved. --Lurker 00:15, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
- The criticisms at one of the links you provided suggest there is a problem with Google's implementation of its trademark policy.
Article of the Month
The sentence "It was worst war ever fought, with casualties of nearly a million soldiers and civilians..." is missing the word "the". Just a friendly correction to keep Conservapedia presentable. Feebasfactor 21:38, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
The results of the studies are indeed interesting.. Pity that they lumped together Eastern Europe with its high abortion rates, with Ireland and the Netherlands who have extremely low abortion rates. Maybe we should also mention this news article that was mentioned on the fact that anti-abortion laws have little impact on abortion rates: Anti-Abortion Laws Do Not Deter Women from Seeking Them. Order 01:42, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
Conservative principles proven right again!
Hang on here, folks, the figures are not conclusive that a cut in the personal tax rate is responsible for this. To be sure, total revenues of $2.6 trillion exceed the budget of $2.5 trillion and last year's $2.4 trillion. However, revenues from personal income taxes came in $5,374 billion less than budget. I am not sure how this is a vindication for bad tax policy.
I don't think you need to be an LSE Grad or CPA to sense that tax cuts weighted primarily towards the wealthy will result not in increased spending by that group, but rather increased saving. If we do live in a consumer driven economy (which most agree we do) cut the taxes of the folks in the heartland who spend one paycheck on the mortgage and spend the other on stuff for the kids.
Comparing the deficit as a percentage of the economy on a forty year average is not overly specious, but should we not mention the four years of surplus during the second Clinton term?--TraJSmith 14:04, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
Compare the liberal outrage over Coulter's "Jews perfected" comments and Wikipedia's slant on the Jews for Jesus article. Only the viewpoint that "it is bad to convert Jews to Christianity" got fair representation there, last time I checked. Wikipedia is not neutral, or it would permit a fair hearing of the view that conversion to Christianity is perfectly fine. --Ed Poor Talk 18:10, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
Is this really news? What's so important about a scabies outbreak? Should we document how a cold virus has recently ravaged the Yale campus?Osteothis 23:01, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
- The scabies outbreak is interesting, and might provoke discussion about college dormitories. Where did the scabies come from? I'd never even heard of it before.--Aschlafly 23:08, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
- "Scabies is an infestation of the skin with the microscopic mite Sarcoptes scabei. Infestation is common, found worldwide, and affects people of all races and social classes." It can come from anywhere, can't it? ItMathers 23:11, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
- College dormitories regularly involve close contract- you're basically forced to share a phone booth with several people. People are likely to make contact with each others' belongings and clothing. I just imagined of all the breaking news in the world, this seems trivial. (Scabies is caused by a mite, if anyone cares).Osteothis 23:12, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
- College news is interesting, and relevant. That scabies strikes the wealthiest college, well, what's going on? Has anyone else here even heard of scabies before?--Aschlafly 23:22, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
<--Typical liberal solution to a scabbies outbreak? Co-ed dorms. Rob Smith 13:17, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
- Liberal solution: Build a new dorm for the scabbies, accuse infected students of scabi-phobia, attempt to have lice infestation protected as an alternative lifestyle.
- Conservative solution: Blame the liberal media for blowing the outbreak out of proportion, accuse homosexuals of spreading scabbies, bomb Iraq (they're attempting to stockpile lice).
- Maestro 16:12, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
- It's striking how the liberals don't wonder about the source of the scabies and how they spread. Or, more likely, the liberals do wonder but are chilled by their political correctness from addressing the basic issue.--Aschlafly 18:32, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
- Earlier today you didn't know what scabbies were, now you're blaming liberals for not addressing the issue. Maestro 21:33, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
I've usually not taken issue with anything on the main page - but I find the Africa reference in the abortion headline to be both misleading and somewhat offensive. I mean, in all seriousness - have you seen the inflation rates over there? Many Africans can not even afford condoms, so how in the world would they afford an abortion? I think the Eastern Europe stat is fine - and I'm perfectly fine arguing for tighter abortion laws - but this reference is just ridiculous. (Of course this is unless that abortion statistic is factoring in unsafe abortions - although I doubt it is given that in order to conclude that you would have to refer to the study - which we're arguing is bogus)--IDuan 23:33, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
- Iduan, the article says that abortion is generally illegal in Africa. So it's not a question of cost. Besides, pro-abortion groups in the U.S. have billions to fund abortions around the world.--Aschlafly 23:42, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
- True - but we're making the correlation that because it's illegal, it's therefore less common, however, what I'm saying is, you can't assume that JUST because it's illegal, it's less common, because more likely, because it's illegal AND because [pick one of Africa's billion problems here] - it's therefore less common. And as far as the pro groups go - I would think that they would try some form birth control as opposed to abortion - as obviously the former is cheaper and has few side effects - however in all that I've studied of Africa you learn how birth control is non-existent there. I mean I understand the argument you're making - and to some extent I agree with it, and when I first saw it I completely agreed, but now most of me is thinking that perhaps the Africa thing should be taken out. But hey, I mean it's your call - I just wanted to bring the issue up. Thanks!--IDuan 00:00, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
- FYI, the article quoted on the front page quote another news item , repoting on a finding the stricter laws do have little influence on the abortion rates. The two countries with the lowest abortion rates in the world are e.g. Ireland and the Netherlands. Order 01:41, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
"The leading anti homosexual agenda organization..."
Okay, Miss Cleo, could you be any more vague? A link or at least a name wouldn't be too bad. Right now, this can be boiled down to "Somebody somewhere said something about us, but I won't give you any details", so what is this doing on the front page? The bowl of cornflakes I had for breakfast had more information value than that... --Jenkins 07:09, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
- ...oh dear God. *buries face in hands* --Jenkins 12:22, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
The leading anti homosexual agenda organization
A link to the leading anti homosexual agenda organization's website would be much appreciated. I would dearly love to benefit from their knowledge. Would it be possible to let us know who the large conservative press organizations are? I appreciate that you said we should stay tuned for future details but I'm an impatient person when it comes to quenching my thurst for Conservative facts. God bless! RogerDailey 07:10, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
- It's a conspiracy of silence. Rob Smith 16:10, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
- Although I mentioned 2 leading conservative press organizations, I think I should note at this point that one seems truly interested. Today, the reporter said he would like to talk to Andy Schlafly. I will also mention that the same reporter said he was doing a phone interview today with a presidential candidate. The reporter had a series of interviews to do today and I am guessing that if Andy didn't get ahold of him today that tomorrow will be more opportune. Stay tuned for details. :). Conservative 18:43, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
Not that I mind
that DC and Hussein Obama are cousins, but I read somewhere that no one in the world is more distant than 50th cousins. Just wondering if someone knows more about this than I do. Curious. 12:55, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
- All humans alive today are the descendants of Noah's family who were with him in the ark after the Great Flood. It is therefore not surprising that we are all so closely related. FactFinder 12:59, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
- Like I said, I'm not gonna claim to be the expert (I already have trouble buying hats) but seems like a pretty interesting idea for an article or essay. ItMathers 13:02, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
New Iowa Poll/Dick Morris
Former Bill Clinton adviser Dick Morris's take on Huckabee:
"I first met Mike when I became his consultant in his race for lieutenant governor of Arkansas. He was a refreshing change from my previous Arkansas client, but you probably know that story.....[Huckabee] is witty, sincere, dedicated and courageous in his own way. With a minus share of the vote, he kept at it and refused to pander on the one hand or give up on the other." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iduan (talk) - 18:08, 17 October 2007
Unfortunately, this page was archived only a few days after my posting and your initial replies. This had the effect of putting the discussion largely out of sight, and making it awkward for you to finish your response—continuing a discussion on an archived page is generally inappropriate. Therefore, I invite you (when you have time; I know you are very busy) to complete your responses. For reference, I will briefly recapitulate the issues:
- Can you provide actual written references to the belief that Paul Erdos was "on the fringe"? Can you justify your apparent claim that the dearth of discussion of elementary proofs is rooted in this, rather than simply a general failure to be useful in mathematics at large?
- Do you claim the complex numbers suffer from a problem of non-uniquenes of the imaginary unit? Can you cite proofs or methods that fail because of this?
- Can you cite information about the historical acceptance (or lack thereof) of proof by contradiction?
- Do you believe that Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is flawed? Do you believe that the citation you gave is adequate and appropriate?
- You said, in Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive9#Bias_or_Error.3F, that "liberals don't want to admit that [Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is not an elementary proof]". Given that the proof depends on modular forms, which involve complex numbers, do you really believe any sensible mathematician considers the non-elementarity to be in any way noteworthy, or won't admit this non-elementarity when asked? Can you cite such a refusal?
- Do you believe that the Axiom of Choice is equivalent to the Continuum Hypothesis, and that the citation you gave is adequate and appropriate?
- Do you accept the claims, made on the web site that you referenced, of proofs of the Twin Primes Conjecture and Goldbach's Conjecture?
I need to know where you stand on these issues before I do any editing that would constitute undoing your work.
Robert 09:56, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
It has been brought to my attention that my account was blocked, by RobSmith, for a brief period last week, on the grounds of being "disruptive". According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, that means to "throw into disorder" or "interrupt the normal course" of something. I never interrupted or interfered with anything. I never deleted or reverted anything. I never interfered with any of the activities of anyone at CP. It's true that what I posted caused some people to take a little time to read it, but that was entirely voluntary. I never forced anyone to waste their time. The people who read my posting, and those who replied, did so of their own free will. The people who replied included you, me, TK, and Masterbratac. Your reply, in particular, didn't seem to indicate that I was being disruptive, though you did request that future edits be less wordy. RobSmith was not one of the people involved.
It has also been pointed out that the archiving of this page just two days after my last edit may not have been a coincidence.
I cannot operate in an environment in which my work is disrupted (and yes, I do mean disrupted) by abusive bullies who have improperly been given sysop powers. Therefore, this will be my last edit here. I can only give you a bit of final advice on the math pages and math class:
- Do not challenge the methods of complex analysis unless you really know what you are doing. The complex numbers are defined in such a way that the imaginary unit ("i") is unique. There is no ambiguity. The axiomatic basis of complex analysis is as sound and rigorous as can be.
- Do not challenge the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem without good reason. Do not link to sites that claim to have proofs of the Twin Primes Conjecture or Goldbach's Conjecture, unless you actually believe those proofs, in which case publish same and clear some space for Fields medals.
- Think very carefully about what you plan to say about proof by contradiction. You will be challenged by your students.
- Do not present statements that say, directly or indirectly, that the Continuum Hypothesis and the Axiom of Choice are equivalent.
I wish you the best of luck, and Godspeed, in the Critical Thinking in Math course.
Robert 11:44, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
Huckabee wins Value Voter Summit Straw Poll
Mike Huckabee comes in first place at the Value Voter Summit Straw Poll in Washington D.C with 51.26% of the on-site voting. Mitt Romney comes in second with 10.40%.--Tash 15:53, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
- Romney won the online poll by thirty votes (Romney was the only candidate to send out a email telling all his supporters to vote online) not the on-site'. Huckabee won the on-site (which means conference attenders) straw poll by a huge margin (nearly five times as many votes as Romney). Anyone can vote online (even liberals), so the attendee vote is by far more significant:
On-site Straw Poll Results
- Mike Huckabee 488 51.26%
- Mitt Romney 99 10.40%
- Fred Thompson 77 8.09%
- Tom Tancredo 65 6.83%%
- Rudy Giuliani 60 6.30%
- Duncan Hunter 54 5.67%
- John McCain 30 3.15%
- Sam Brownback 26 2.73%
- Ron Paul 25 2.63%
CNN: "Huckabee was the clear winner of the in person votes with 488 of the 952 votes."
<ref>tags exist, but no
<references/>tag was found