Talk:Main Page/archive48

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Education in Australia

Wow! Two links! To two different(?) versions of the same article!
Not only that, it doesn't show what you claimed—the opposite in fact!
Quote: "A number of Australian studies have definitively shown that independent school students do better in exams like the HSC than Catholic students, who in turn outperform public school students.".
What the article is about (for those who don't bother looking it up) is that when students from government and non-government schools get to (government) university, the students from government schools do better. Now that's an interesting twist, and as the article says deserves more research, but it hardly a case of government schools doing better than non-government schools.
Philip J. Rayment 18:13, 2 February 2008 (EST)
For the sake of accuracy: TheGuy sent me an e-mail claiming that "universities in Australia are NOT government run. There are government subsidized places, in which the government pays the university for the cost of teaching the student (with the student paying some of this cost at a later date) however the universities remain independent institutions.". I guess that it depends on what one means by "government run". I believe that I am correct in saying that there are no church-run universities in Australia, and there is one private university in Australia. I believe that ultimately, the universities are under the control of governments, but admittedly that in itself doesn't mean much, as governments have some control of what goes on even in non-government schools. Melbourne University, for example, is controlled by an act of the Victorian Parliament[1]. However, I'm prepared to concede that the normal operations of the universities are not under direct government control and they thus operate largely independently of government. Philip J. Rayment 07:22, 3 February 2008 (EST)
I am not sure why you are so aggravated, but indeed, both articles refer to the same article. However, they give you the lead to other research that you could follow up. The study is the first hit on google for the title 'Secondary schooling, tertiary entry ranks and university performance' [2]. And indeed, it says that students from private and confessional schools do on average better in standardized test, but that within a year after school students from public schools do on average better at Uni. The very next sentence after your quote says: "By the end of first year university this pecking order had been neatly reversed," the study said. You should have continued reading after your quote. And the article does indeed say that it deserves more research. That doesn't change the observation that students from public schools do better in university than those from private or confessional schools. An observation that has been made at Monash University, in NSW, in WA and also in Britain [3]. Order 20:25, 2 February 2008 (EST)
I wasn't 'aggravated', just a bit surprised. Of course I read after the bit I quoted: I talked about that in my post. I also acknowledged the point that you repeated (that students from government schools do better than other students when they get to university). So really your reply was a smokescreen to downplay that even this article admitted that students do better in non-government schools than government schools. Philip J. Rayment 23:22, 2 February 2008 (EST)
Sorry to to have misunderstood your exclamation "Not only that, it doesn't show what you claimed—the opposite in fact!" Because I said: "students from public schools do better at university than those from private or confessional schools". And this claim is nowhere in the article rejected. Despite your claim to the contrary. Now we can debate what is better: Students who score high while their are still in school, or students that do better as soon as they have to compete with student from other schools. I was taught in school (catholic, not public) that "Non scholae sed vitae discimus", but that might be an old fashioned sentiment. Order 01:39, 3 February 2008 (EST)
Perhaps I misunderstood you, because you didn't say what you thought I was aggravated about. I thought, based on your comment about the one or two articles, that you were referring to my comment about it being two links to (essentially) the same article. And perhaps I also did overlook another point: That you were (it now seems) simply making a point about students at university rather than trying to support TheGuy's original contention, which was the way I took it. Philip J. Rayment 04:10, 3 February 2008 (EST)

I am sick to death of the constant anti-British bias on this website. Almost everyday there is some British bashing article attached to the front page. This is rich coming from a website based in an Godless country with a long socialist history. God save the Queen!! Hopefully we will never become a Republic - The soon to be banned Spinnydizzy 21:17, 2 February 2008 (GMT)

I don't live in America and I don't bash "Britain", I bash the "G-dless socialist anti-monarchist republicans" that are running it. Running it into the ground, in fact. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 07:49, 3 February 2008 (EST)

What about the American Schools that are doing the same thing under No Child Left Behind? America beat Britain to it [[4]] Midnus

Terrorists

While it is undeniably true that Wikipedia is deceitful in not calling terrorists 'Terrorists', instead preferring euphamisms such as "freedom fighters", I feel it must be pointed out that in the Conservapedia World History Lecture Fourteen, Catholic terrorism is referred to as armed revolt. This blatant apologetics for terrorism ("armed revolt is the only way to achieve independence" not mentioning that was against the wishes of the Majority who wish to remain in a Protestant democracy) was questioned on the Talk page. Those who questioned this tacit support for terrorism have since been blocked. WKirkwood 08:16, 2 February 2008 (EST)

No one is blocked for ideological reasons. But we do enforce our rule against talk, talk, talk (90/10 talk rule). Repeated, childish insistence on last wordism is also disfavored.
The lecture you reference, World History Lecture Fourteen, has always been clear: "The oldest active terrorist group in the world is the Irish Republican Army (IRA), which has attacked and bombed Britain in an attempt to force it to relinquish control of Northern Ireland." Your quote of another statement in the lecture about "armed revolt" to describe parts of Irish history is completely correct and in no way undermines the clear statement about terrorism, and your criticism is misleading in omitting that.--Aschlafly 08:42, 2 February 2008 (EST)
Why is it "talk, talk, talk" instead of something a bit less juvenile like "perpetual jabber"? --MakeTomorrow 17:56, 2 February 2008 (EST)
You won't get any satisfactory response from Schlafly, WKirkwood. His writings on Ireland are filled with anti-British sentiment and are an insult to those - military and civilian, male and female, adult and child - killed by the IRA psychopaths, as they are to the British people as a whole.

Wikipedia is neutral about whether those guys are terrorists or freedom fighters. One reason for this is practical: there's no way to run a completely open wiki without a strict neutrality policy. If Wikipedia tried to "get to the bottom" of every issue, the debates would be endless. --Ed Poor Talk 21:26, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Er, I thought that the debates were endless anyway! Philip J. Rayment 23:23, 2 February 2008 (EST)
Only because there's no 90/10 rule on Wikipedia. --Jdellaro 10:49, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Flag Thief(s)

Regarding the item about the retired military guy who had his flag stolen nine times: How do you know it's a liberal doing it? Was the perp in the surveillance video wearing a "Hillary for Prez" t-shirt or something? ;] --RossC 19:28, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Don't be naive, RossC. Would a conservative want to commit such a horrendous act? Look at the facts: conservatives support a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning, while liberals oppose the amendment, saying that it is part of "free speech" to desecrate our nation's flag. Also, conservatives are overwhelmingly supportive of our military, while liberals create propaganda referring to our fighting men and women as "baby killers." It's pretty clear why this crime was committed and it's pretty clear who would do such a thing. Hermann1359 19:49, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Hermann: Ross is not the one acting naïve; he is simply asking a realistic question, what evidence is there to assume that liberal(s) are behind the thefts? You on the other hand are making many assumptions that don't make sense. Theft of a flag falls under the category of 'simple theft', it is not the 'horrendous act' that you are claiming. It is not a fact that all conservatives support the flag desecration amendment and it goes to say that not all liberals oppose it either. Liberals didn't create the propaganda you claim, the US military has unintentionally or otherwise killed babies, check the history books. If the political affiliation of the person(s) that committed this theft is so obvious, why don't you give us actual facts instead of innuendo and false assumptions? It's not all your fault though; the article heading makes a few mistakes. The reference doesn't say anything about liberals or spitting, whoever wrote the heading just made a few groundless assumptions. --Jimmy 22:47, 2 February 2008 (EST)
You are wrong, Jimmy. Simple theft would be committed by children and teens in this manner, not by 20-something men and a middle-aged woman; they would also not be just targeting one house, occupied by one retired general, and only removing the flag, which they did here. The object of this game was to send a message that they will not tolerate a retired soldier of any kind in their neighborhood, much less one flying a flag. Right now, the pseudo-terrorist group Code Pink (yes, I will call them that) is fighting to get the Marine Corps banned from the San Fransisco bay area, and their despicable actions are exactly like that flag theft harassment against the retired general. Karajou 23:12, 2 February 2008 (EST)
Jimmy, liberals like Hillary Clinton (and yourself?) won't admit they are liberals. Either they are too embarrassed, or they like trying to fool others. When adults attack the flag, you can bet they are not supporters of President Bush, and that they can't wait to vote for fellow liberal Hillary Clinton.--Aschlafly 23:25, 2 February 2008 (EST)
Larceny (simple theft) is a crime that can be committed by someone of any age, look it up. Why the flag was stolen is unknown and your unsubstantiated opinions just don't carry any weight with me. If you have any information that links Code Pink to this crime (if that is your intent) then please let all of us know instead of just making a completely groundless and potentially libelous statement. --Jimmy 23:38, 2 February 2008 (EST)
I didn't know it was mandatory that anything here carries any weight with you. Karajou 23:47, 2 February 2008 (EST)
Interesting link here:[5] Ann Coulter says she'll support (vote and campaign for) Hillary Clinton if McCain is the Republican nominee.--Claypool 23:31, 2 February 2008 (EST)
For a brief transcript - to see who really said what - see Coulter on Hillary and McCain. --Ed Poor Talk 21:11, 3 February 2008 (EST)
Andy, Karajou, Hermann, you're all engaging in pure speculation. Your claims are nothing but conjecture. Though it may be likely that the perps were liberal, you still can't just label them that. You have zero proof other than your own ideological deductive reasoning, which is simply not good enough. Unless there is a report saying somewhere that they are liberals, then your claims are pure, unadulterated fabrications, and incredibly academically dishonest. JKaplanek 23:39, 2 February 2008 (EST)
What does this conversation have to do with the alleged political affiliations of Clinton or myself? For the record, Hillary Clinton calls herself a proud, modern, American progressive; someone that advocates liberal progress and change.[1] I'd like to think we are discussing the accuracy of the article heading and the assumptions of certain people that make certain claims. Care to present any evidence that adults who attack the flag are Clinton supporters and Bush critics? --Jimmy 23:49, 2 February 2008 (EST)
Yeah, right. And perhaps you think the Watergate break-in might have been done by loyal Democrats, and the assassination of Lincoln was perhaps by a Republican! Look, political crimes speak for themselves about the ideology of the perpetrators. We're not going to paralyzed by the refusal of liberals to admit they are liberals. Notice how you don't disclose your own ideology as you criticize others.--Aschlafly 23:51, 2 February 2008 (EST)
Actually no, I don't think liberals were involved with the Watergate break-in. You see, there is OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE that the people were supporters of Nixon because they were caught and convicted. Now if you could present the same evidence about the flag thefts, I would acknowledge that the insinuations made in the article heading are correct. Until then, such allegations shouldn't be made by a trustworthy encyclopedia. Once again, my ideology is not relevant to this conversation just as my sexual orientation or preference of cookies is not relevant. What matters is the content of this encyclopedia and its reputation to provide accurate information instead of innuendo.--Jimmy 00:06, 3 February 2008 (EST)
Your ideology is relevant to your criticism and we're not going to be paralyzed by your refusal to disclose it. Similarly, we're not going to be paralyzed by a withholding or denial of the ideology of someone who commits the political crime of stealing a flag. So the bottom line is this: your effort at censorship fails here. Perhaps your approach will work on Wikipedia, where terrorists are called freedom fighters because they won't admit they are terrorists.--Aschlafly 00:10, 3 February 2008 (EST)
Please now, you can't be serious! The news articles on the main page are still appearing with the same political slant that tilts in your favor and I haven't managed to change your opinion one bit so how can you say I am paralyzing you or censoring this site? Are you telling me that a person that voted for Reagan, Bush Sr, Perot, and retired from the US Air Force can't contribute to this encyclopedia? With my voting record am I a liberal, conservative, independent, libertarian, or an authoritarian? In the end what does it matter? I want to see this site succeed, not publish unsubstantiated opinions on the 'News' page. --Jimmy 00:22, 3 February 2008 (EST)
You seem to be saying that you voted against George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. Why can't you just admit that you're a liberal? Funny how Hillary Clinton has the same trouble admitting it.
We're up-front about politics here. Try Wikipedia if you like fooling people. Regardless, we're not going to censor to appease liberals here. That should be obvious by now.--Aschlafly 12:51, 3 February 2008 (EST)
Have you stopped beating your wife yet, Andy? Answer the man's question: Do you have evidence confirming that the crime was carried out by liberals or not? SSchultz 13:41, 3 February 2008 (EST)
Er, it's "Are you still..." Ajkgordon 13:43, 3 February 2008 (EST)
Either works, both are examples of the fallacy of many questions, just as "Why can't you just admit that you're a liberal" is. It's a great way to avoid answering tough questions, as Andy has clearly discovered. SSchultz 13:46, 3 February 2008 (EST)
Actually yeah, silly me. I misread it. As you were. (It was nice knowing you, etc.) Ajkgordon 13:53, 3 February 2008 (EST)
We're not fooled on this site. Just as we don't need an admission by someone that he's a terrorist in order to describe him as a terrorist, we don't need an admission by someone that's he's a liberal to describe him as one. There are those who insist on describing terrorists as "freedom fighters" and Hillary Clinton as a "progressive," and insist on denying that liberals are liberals. We don't cave into such deceit here.--Aschlafly 14:00, 3 February 2008 (EST)

There are those who insist on describing terrorists as "freedom fighters" Indeed, there are people here who describe the terrorists of the IRA in just such adulatory terms. Sawneybeane 14:23, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Cripes--people really get their boxers in a twist here sometimes...Look, my original point was this: Sure, it's a good possibility that the flag thieves are motivated by liberal hatred of America and her soldiers. But it's also a good possibility that the thieves are, say, disgruntled neighbors angry at General Mayes or someone in his family. It's also a good possibility that the thieves are just jerks who think it's funny to pick on an old man. No doubt we could come up with other equally possible scenarios, given a little thought. So, absent any particular evidence one way or t'other, how do we know it's the first possibility instead of one of the latter?--RossC 14:59, 3 February 2008 (EST)

It's an anti-American crime that is disrespectful of patriotism, akin to (non-criminal) activities like flag-burning or disrupting a Pledge of Allegiance. The crime speaks for itself. What additional evidence do you seek to convince yourself that the crime was not done by, say, a patriot? Criminals don't usually admit to their motives.--Aschlafly 16:05, 3 February 2008 (EST)
You're pushing a false choice here: patriot vs anti-patriot, but that's not what I'm suggesting. If the thieves were grabbing flags all over town, or vandalising the homes of soldiers all over town, then I'd say absolutely it's a crime of anti-Americanism. But that's not what's happening here. The bad guys are targeting this one particular guy, repeatedly. Seems logical, therefore, that the thieves have a beef with this one particular guy, or are targeting this one particular guy because he's an easy target. Sure, the object of their crime is the flag, but it's entirely likely that the flag is simply an easy way to get the general's goat, as it were. If he didn't have a porch flag, they'd probably be grabbing his garden gnome, or TPing his trees, or soaping his windows.--RossC 16:53, 3 February 2008 (EST)
I understand your point, but the counterpoint, which I expect is Andy's rationale, is that someone who is prepared to steal a person's flag in order to annoy him obviously has no respect for the flag. Philip J. Rayment 16:59, 3 February 2008 (EST)
I agree wholeheartedly. But that doesn't make the thief a liberal, necessarily--he could just be, you know, a jerk.--RossC 17:03, 3 February 2008 (EST)
That is the application of logic, RossC, and could get you into trouble, as it's generally known as Liberal deceit round these here parts. Sawneybeane 17:53, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Suggested main page news (abortion)

The Heads of the Medicine Faculties of all four Universities in Rome, Italy (including the one that didn't allow a visit by the Pope) issued a statement: even in the case of abortion, the fetus is a human being in difficulty; thus it is the duty of every doctor to save his/her life, regardless of the mother's intentions. I'll post a link to an english-language news if I find one. --Leopeo 07:42, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Well can't find now, only news in italian. Anyway, the above applies to fetuses that are born alive in an abortion attempt. --Leopeo 08:32, 3 February 2008 (EST)
Thanks for the tip, but I didn't think it quite merited front page coverage. Other Sysops were free to disagree, of course. Thanks much anyway for the information!--Aschlafly 23:30, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Suggested Main Page news (Super bowl)

Giants winning 17 to 14 with 35 seconds left!--Steve 21:58, 3 February 2008 (EST)[6]

Breaking News: They Won!!!--Steve 22:06, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Don't mess with football! Barikada 22:11, 3 February 2008 (EST)
Haha, take that Pats!!!...unbelievable --David Rtalk 23:27, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Welcome to Conservapedia: Where murders are only news when attributable to Hollywood, and football is the most important thing in the world. Barikada 09:26, 4 February 2008 (EST)

A Patriots fan, Barikada? You'd do yourself a favor if you lightened up a bit.--Aschlafly 09:55, 4 February 2008 (EST)
HA HA HA HA!! Many a bitter Pat fan will be found today. HelpJazz 10:06, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Give a thought for us Cleveland Browns fans - it is just one year of heartache after another Nik77uk 16:39, 4 February 2008 (GMT)

Wasn't it the Cleveland Browns' fans who unfairly made Pats Coach Belichick a scapegoat and ran him out of town when he was the Browns' coach? Not being entirely serious, but did anyone ever apologize for that and admit it was a mistake to fire Belichick?--Aschlafly 11:56, 4 February 2008 (EST)
In defense of the browns fans, Belicheck is a proven cheater. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote for President 12:25, 4 February 2008 (EST)
Really??? Well, even if true, that's not why the rabid Browns' fans ran Belichick out of town.--Aschlafly 12:29, 4 February 2008 (EST)
Yup, he was caught spying on the jets defensive signals, and has been accused of spying on the Rams practice prior to the Patriots super bowl upset win. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote for President 15:40, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Suggested Main Page news (Mass murder)

Police search for Chicago gunman Perhaps this should outweight football (Which you should not mess with)? Barikada 22:08, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Style question

Dunno if there's a better place for it, but is there an official policy on bolding titles in articles? For example, should it be "Sir Elton John" or "Sir Elton John"? Barikada 00:26, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Clarification: This is only an example. I did not mean knightings specifically, but also doctorates (Dr. William X or Dr. William X) and military ranks. Barikada 00:36, 4 February 2008 (EST)

You know it's rare that we even use prefixes in the first mention - for example, if you look at Ronald Reagan - it just says "Ronald Reagan" - it doesn't say "President Ronald Reagan"--IDuan 00:38, 4 February 2008 (EST)

There's no official policy, but the place for it is Conservapedia talk:Manual of Style. Philip J. Rayment 08:31, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found
Personal tools