Talk:Main Page/archive33

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Happy Birthday Conservapedia!

Happy Birthday! HappyBirthday 08:11, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Thanks! But no thanks for the empty articles you created. Philip J. Rayment 08:34, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Dr. Atl

Self-Portrait with Popocatépetl.jpg

Our article Dr. Atl is number 9 in Yahoo's list (of 2,000,000). [1] --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 17:21, 21 November 2007 (EST)

[N.B.: deleted non-encyclopedia comments here]

Congrats to all

Congratulations to all. We're approaching the top 5000 Alexa most visited website. Our appreciation and a hearty job well done goes out to everyone connected with the project. Rob Smith 14:34, 23 November 2007 (EST)

Wow, congratulations as well! Looking at the spike, I'm wondering if there was any specific coverage of Conservapedia that brought all the traffic here - has anyone seen or heard of anything of the like? Or did we just have a very lucky day? Well, all the hard work put into Conservapedia was more than mere "luck", of course. :) Feebasfactor 19:56, 23 November 2007 (EST)
I tried to follow the progress on alexa, but I'm not sure what filters on the data you used. Anyway, how's it coming along? Aziraphale 02:47, 26 November 2007 (EST)

Australian Election

The Liberal government of eleven years here in Australia has been thrown out of office - the people have spoken and the word wasn't Liberal!!! -- Ferret Nice old chat 05:42, 24 November 2007 (EST)

Er, no, but it wasn't conservative either! Philip J. Rayment 05:56, 24 November 2007 (EST)
It was a self-described fiscal conservative, wasn't it Philip? -- Ferret Nice old chat 06:00, 24 November 2007 (EST)
Maybe that, but not what most conservative Conservapedians would consider conservative, in my view. Philip J. Rayment 06:03, 24 November 2007 (EST)
A committed active Christian... -- Ferret Nice old chat 06:05, 24 November 2007 (EST)
Rudd? A Christian who dodged a direct question about his Christianity, and one who I would suggest is not representative of his party in respect of Christianity. Philip J. Rayment 06:08, 24 November 2007 (EST)
That's out of order Philip. A disgraceful thing to say. There's no doubt that Rudd is very much a Christian, and you should not be judging his faith. -- Ferret Nice old chat 06:12, 24 November 2007 (EST)
You expressed an opinion on his Christianity, so why shouldn't I? But my second point was my main point. Philip J. Rayment 06:19, 24 November 2007 (EST)
I stated HIS view on his Christianity. You questioned his view. There is a difference. As to your second point, neither of the big parties appears to be predominantly Christian, I agree. -- Ferret Nice old chat 06:26, 24 November 2007 (EST)
It was not at all clear that your "A committed active Christian" post was quoting him. But even so, expressing an opinion about someone's views is not out of order. The Liberal Party scored higher on the Christian Values Checklist than did the Labor Party. Philip J. Rayment 06:38, 24 November 2007 (EST)

Just to avoid confusion, the Liberal Party of Australia is the conservative party, while the Australian Labor Party, the one that won the election, is what Americans would call liberal. Order 22:20, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Wikipedia Budget

Just to clarify, re the Breaking News item about the Wikipedia budget, it should be noted that the budget is not for Wikipedia itself, but for the whole of the Wikimedia Foundation, to which Conservapedia owes in part its very existence...--RossC 18:46, 24 November 2007 (EST)

(And a P.S.--does Conservapedia have a budget? What does it cost to run this place, and where does the money come from?)

A fair point, but not one that withstands scutiny. It was volunteers at MediaWiki who developed the software on which Conservapedia runs, and we are grateful to them. But they will receive little or nothing of the raised money, and probably none of the cited $500k for the office of Executive Director.

As to Wikipedia, it has a long history of making false, misleading and unfair statements in its entry about Conservapedia, as partially described in Bias in Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not act like a charity in the way that it smears and attempts to destroy conservative people and projects it dislikes.--Aschlafly 18:59, 24 November 2007 (EST)

Wikipedia solicits donations for an organization that pushes a particular ideology and engages frequently in smear campaigns - itself, that is. However, I wouldn't be surprised if a good number of people didn't know where their money was really going, and were under the impression that it also helps non-profit general-purpose organizations such as WikiMedia. Actually, that could be considered rather deceitful of them... Feebasfactor 23:01, 24 November 2007 (EST)
And hence the reason for exposing where that money is going, as in funding a half-a-million dollar Executive Director office. I'd bet the volunteer developers who produced and improved MediaWiki are not going to see even pennies for each dollar donated. I hope someone can show me that I'm wrong, but I won't hold my breath.--Aschlafly 23:10, 24 November 2007 (EST)
  • It should be noted that Jimbo Wales has also hired many political consultants, lobbyists, to ensure favorable tax law amendments and legislation that impacts on his Foundation's United States tax liability. That money came from the donations of his users, at least in part. --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 01:07, 25 November 2007 (EST)
Darned liberals and their lobbyists. :p Aziraphale 02:07, 25 November 2007 (EST) <-Hi, TK! :D

If it is true that the MediaWiki people won't get any money from the Wikimedia fundraising campaign, someone had better tell them, because they are currently advertising it on their website. - Borofkin2 19:07, 25 November 2007 (EST)

There's already an organization who's interested in that sort of thing, and all they would need is a phone call: the Internal Revenue Service. Karajou 19:14, 25 November 2007 (EST)
I just found out that two MediaWiki developers, Brian Vibber and Tim Starling, are employees of Wikimedia. I also suspect that MediaWiki servers are hosted by Wikimedia. So the best way for people to support the software that Conservapedia runs on is to donate to Wikimedia. - Borofkin2 19:23, 25 November 2007 (EST)
Why isn't the funding of MediaWiki broken out separately in the budget? I think that would make sense, except I doubt it is more than a tiny fraction of the planned uses of the donations.--Aschlafly 20:20, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Professor Robb

The article on Mr. Robb from 11/26/2007 does not say he was an atheist. Please provide some proof before making the claim, one cannot assume. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barondezabrus (talk)

The Main page does not claim that he is an atheist. But atheists brag about how many elite university professors are atheists, and nothing in the story about Robb and his crime and cover-up suggests any faith.--Aschlafly 22:32, 26 November 2007 (EST)
Atheists brag about how many professors are atheists? This is the first I've heard of it. Also, of all the professors I have had/spoken to, I do not think that a single one has been an atheist. You say that nothing about his crime and cover up suggests faith, but I don't see anything that suggests a lack of faith either. And if the main page isn't claiming he is an atheist it certainly is strongly implying it. --BillOhannity 23:52, 26 November 2007 (EST)

Breaking News

Can we just mention that our thoughts are with what is now obviously a frightened Pennsylvania town - a convicted murderer has escape.[2] Perhaps, although this might be kind of cold, we could mention something about how the death penalty prevents dangerous murderers from escaping.--IDuan 21:48, 26 November 2007 (EST)

Good suggestion, but we're not just a crime reporting service as Fox News has become. We stick to crimes that have more of an ideological lesson to be learned.--Aschlafly 22:31, 26 November 2007 (EST)
Ok - sorry about that - yeah and I guess it wouldn't be really breaking news - it's more of just "keep these people in your thoughts and prayers" - and that might not be appropriate for the breaking news section anyway.--IDuan 22:35, 26 November 2007 (EST)

Another story about liberals trying to hinder free speech. PeterBird 09:03, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Hmmm. I wonder how many conservatives would do differently in this case. Philip J. Rayment 09:10, 27 November 2007 (EST)
Conservapedia had no difficulty supporting Nick Griffin's right to free speech on October 31. Why not now?
Who says that Conservapedia doesn't in this case? I just offered an opinion about what conservatives generally might do. It wasn't anything definite, and wasn't put on the Main Page. But I'm not sure that the circumstances of the two are exactly comparable anyway. 09:20, 27 November 2007 (EST)
If we support free speech we should have it on the Main Page. This is not an isolated incident. We should speak out against liberal censorship of free speech. PeterBird 09:28, 27 November 2007 (EST)
Why do you say that someone is "trying to hinder free speech"? It is perfectly appropriate for someone to withdraw his own participation at forum in objection to the forum featuring a convicted Holocaust denier. That is an exercise of free speech by the person withdrawing, not a censorship of speech. Catholics withdraw support or participation when confronted with sponsorship of a pro-abortion speaker at a Catholic school, for example.--Aschlafly 10:00, 27 November 2007 (EST)
Libersls are disrupting and hindering free speech, even the police failed to throw a cordon around the site and prevent protesters storming the building.
PeterBird 10:30, 27 November 2007 (EST)
The headline refers to rival groups, and it's not clear what they were really objecting to. Perhaps they disliked the comments about immigration. In the United States, liberals welcomed a Holocaust denier speak at Columbia University, so you lack basis for pretending that only liberals object to Holocaust deniers.--Aschlafly 10:38, 27 November 2007 (EST)
It seems, to them, that they were objecting to “Nazi scum”. Perhaps they felt they were objecting to “hate speech”. All the same, are you suggesting that the liberals aren't insisting on having the last word by trying to hinder free speech? PeterBird 10:52, 27 November 2007 (EST)
I don't fully understand your comment, but as I said (and you did not rebut), liberals were just fine with a Holocaust denier speaking at Columbia University. So it appears that liberals in England may have been motivated by other objections to the speakers at Oxford, such as views held by the speakers on immigration.--Aschlafly 11:10, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Interesting news?

Looks like the world's most intelligent community has banned a gay book —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanielKotra (talk)