Talk:Main Page/archive52

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Why so many question marks???

"Less men means ... not enough ammo and humvees??? More Taliban than U.S. weapons??? Which Americans were hurt in Afghanistan from inadequate equipment???"

According to Wikipedia: "Using multiple question marks at the end of a sentence is often considered improper (i.e. "What???")." While I suppose their liberal bias could extend to grammatical advice, as far as I can tell using multiple question marks is generally considered improper, especially when one is trying for an academic or professional tone. NoraReed 23:41, 26 February 2008 (EST)

We are blessed to be free from the Wikipedia police here. In fact, that deserves its own entry: Wikipedia police!--Aschlafly 13:02, 27 February 2008 (EST)

This has nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia - it's simply immature punctuation, and doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia publication!!!! Doesn't that look silly??? Isn't it hard to take an item like this - SERIOUSLY???? There's a reason for good punctuation. Misterlinx 13:11, 27 February 2008 (EST)

So, proper grammar is attributed to the Wikipedia police? And besides, you more than make up for this with your own little Conserva-NKVD that purges any user found saying inconvenient things... Karajou/Crocoite, I'm looking at you! Schoenberg 15:24, 27 February 2008 (EST)

William F. Buckley has died

NY Times article here. Jinxmchue 11:53, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Thanks for the alert. This sad news has been posted. --Crocoite 12:13, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Planned Parenthood Item has no link

There's no link for the Planned Parenthood item. I went to their site but couldn't find any promotion of porn. Can a link to the item be provided? Misterlinx 12:58, 27 February 2008 (EST)

The link was removed because it has graphic content. --Crocoite 13:06, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Fair enough. But then remove the item, or find another way to explain it, as it is simply an unsubstantiated claim without a reference. Misterlinx 13:14, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Read this section and do a little research. --Crocoite 13:34, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Thanks for providing the background Crocoite. But perhaps a direct link from the Main Page item to the item referenced in the PP article might be of help? As it stands, it's the only Main Page 'In The News' item from which a reader cannot link to the facts. I would add that link, since as you point out, it's all there in the article, but I can't edit Main Page. Could you do it? Misterlinx 13:57, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Done. --Crocoite 14:13, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Clear the House

I'm new here (But not new to Wiki's) but I think its time that the Liberals should be moved out. I have no personal problems with Liberals, but this is a Conservative site that conducts Conservative business and we do not have the time to consistently refute wandering Liberal passersby with their Liberal Obstruction. BenSchumin 16:58, 28 February 2008 (EST)

Whoa, hold your horses Ben. I am not a liberal per say however in light of conservapedia I would be considered more liberal than other editors/sysops here. In the interests of open debate I think it is wise to have differing POVs here. We can maybe learn from each other? MetcalfeM 17:19, 28 February 2008 (EST)

I think that is a typical reply from a typical Liberal. Notice how the Liberal interacts, attempting to mark me as the unreasonable one while he acts all Liberal. Certainly, the Liberal will attempt to deceive us into believing he is a reasonable man, but we know better of the Liberals. In many ways a Liberal is like a dog. You believe that the Liberal is your friend, you may even grow to genuinely care for the Liberal. If your lucky, you will never know that the Liberal will bite you if he got the chance. However, while the Liberal will attempt to ensure his Liberalism is represented on a Conservative website, the Liberal will make use of any tactic, namely Deceit to reach those ends. This is a typical Liberal tactic from a typical Liberal person. We should ignore his Liberalism. BenSchumin 07:30, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Your response deserves no comment. Ironic that I have to comment to tell you this. MetcalfeM 15:04, 3 March 2008 (EST)

I think this is someone impersonating Ben Schumin. A closer look at the real Ben Schumin's journal reveals this bumper sticker saying, "The road to hell is paved by Republicans." --Elkman 15:58, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Site update

Hello. I think it would be good if Conservapedia could update the version of MediaWiki it uses. Currently it is running 1.9.3 and the latest release is 1.13alpha. I think it would make the site more appealing to more users. Thank you, Wahrheit (talk) 18:53, 29 February 2008 (EST)

That is not entirely correct.[1] The current stable release is MediaWiki 1.11.1, made only this last January.
The current developmental state is 1.12alpha. That release will require the installation of at least one table that the current configuration lacks. The administration prefers to await the development of update scripts that will install those tables for us, especially given that we have no way of knowing the structure of those tables in advance.--TerryHTalk 19:17, 29 February 2008 (EST)

St David's Day

Today (1st March) is St David's Day, the national day of Wales. I'm sure a front page acknowledgement of this would be appreciated by your Welsh readers and editors. Diolch yn fawr! (Thank you very much) Koba 05:45, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Done. Thanks for the suggestion.--Crocoite 07:14, 1 March 2008 (EST)

"Democrats are too busy to keep Americans safe"

Just an FYI: the linked article is seriously in error (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25232). It states in part, "Reviewing the list one issue stands out as noticeably absent: Fighting Al Qaeda in the form of reauthorizing warrant less wiretapping. Was it anywhere on the agenda? Nope. Sorry. Not important to us."

But authorizing another extension to the Protect America Act (the legislation in question) has been on the agenda repeatedly. The sticking point is that President Bush and the Republican party desires not an extension of the current legislation, but rather a new version that includes retroactive telecom immunity, to protect the telecom companies from liability for their previous actions in complying with authorities in providing information about their consumers, despite its dubious legality. Despite several attempts by Democrats to authorize an extension to the Protect America Act, it has been repeatedly blocked in the interest of including this telecom immunity. The blog to which we are linked does not appear to understand the issue at hand.

It might also be worth noting that, in the event of the Protect America Act becoming inactive and the continued Republican block of an extension, we will not be left defenseless. All that will happen will be that the previous laws regarding FISA will kick back in, and hopefully provide a little more legislative oversight to boot.

Just thought you guys might want to take down that link or change the summary to reflect the rather more complex situation, since the current summary is almost facetiously simplistic.--TomMoore 14:53, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Thank you for explaining the other side of the story. :-) --Steve 22:09, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Theory of Evolution article

I just checked and it is no. 10 Koba 17:16, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Google rankings need to be taken in context as I have found there are slight variations from country to country. So you can easily have one or two places either way. BrianCo 17:39, 1 March 2008 (EST)
It's #24 when I just checked. Ajkgordon 16:34, 2 March 2008 (EST)

Virginia cuts Planned Parenthood funding

Awesome news! [2] (For a bonus laugh, check out Sen. Janet D. Howell's statement in the fifth paragraph.) Jinxmchue 00:43, 2 March 2008 (EST)

Butyric Acid

Perhaps we should put rotten butter in the caption of the picture of the main page. I believe that since many people are unaware of what butyric acid is they may get the impression of an acid like nitric or sulfuric which would be far more devastating than butyric acid. Not to mention that it is a bit misleading to say that the group hurled butyric acid when they hurled rotten butter; which contains a small percentage of butyric acid. The way this is written it gives the impression that the protesters threw concentrated butyric acid at the ships, which I would consider hyping the report.--Able806 10:06, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Huckabee is gone

Fox News is now saying that Huckabee will pull out. SpiritualLife 21:40, 4 March 2008 (EST)

BBC reports that Huckabee has pulled out and is supporting McCain MetcalfeM 21:53, 4 March 2008 (EST)

I would like to start a debate or essay page on the apparent shift to the left in American politics. How do I do that? Ajkgordon 08:48, 5 March 2008 (EST)
Ha ha ha. Fiction is better suited for Wikipedia! :-) --Aschlafly 08:54, 5 March 2008 (EST)
Gord: I've done so: Debate: Does Mike Huckabee's Failure Represent a Shift to the Left in American Politics? here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AliceBG (talk)
It's redlinked. Doesn't seem to exist. Ajkgordon 09:04, 5 March 2008 (EST)
Try here. He put a space instead of a pipe in the link. Philip J. Rayment 09:06, 5 March 2008 (EST)
Ah, thanks. Ajkgordon 09:07, 5 March 2008 (EST)

sorry. and Phil...Alice is a GIRL'S name...sheeesh! AliceBG 09:08, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Isn't there a male pop star by the name of Alice? Besides, I frequently use the generic "he" rather than the male "he". Philip J. Rayment 09:11, 5 March 2008 (EST)
I'm not a generic - I'm a human being and a lady. One could have been considerate and taken a moment to look at one of my userboxes for a clue as to my gender..AliceBG 09:14, 5 March 2008 (EST)
To be fair, Alice, you didn't originally sign your edit! Ajkgordon 09:18, 5 March 2008 (EST)
Ah, my bad! AliceBG 09:21, 5 March 2008 (EST)

California Homeschooling

  • Just for the sake of accuracy, I'd like to note that, by my interpretation, homeschooling would still be legal in California as long as the instructor has a "valid state credential." (California education code, section 48224; link) There are a few other exemptions in that article, but this is the only one relevant here. I will not be responding to any replies to this, unless they're incredibly stupid or requests for clarification, because, frankly, I don't care enough. -CSGuy 21:48, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Juno

Sorry? In what sense did Juno pretend to be a "pro-life" movie? I saw no advertisements to that effect. Certainly, neither director Jason Reitman nor writer Diablo Cody ever said as much. Certain commentators took a pro-life lesson from it, but, to me, that always seemed like baloney. If the lead character had had an abortion there would have been no film. Simple as that.

Please explain the phrase "pretending to be pro-life". -KeithJoseph 16:56, 5 March 2008 (GMT)

OK, I added a cite for how its promotion appealed to pro-lifers with references to the "unborn child" and other pro-life concepts (like adoption). [3] In fact, as confirmed by the star actress, the movie is not pro-life. It's not a comedy as advertised either, by the way.--Aschlafly 13:03, 5 March 2008 (EST)
"I added a cite for how its promotion appealed to pro-lifers with references to the "unborn child" and other pro-life concepts" Oh come ON, Andy. There is nothing in the trailer that is in any way deceptive about the film's plot. There is no attempt WHATSOEVER to identify the film with the pro-life movement. So the promo mentions adoption? I can't see how you could possibly make a trailer for this film without mentioning adoption. That's the core of the picture. For once in your life admit you overstated your case. Nobody associated with Juno -- despite the fact that the director's previous film was adapted from a book by Christoper Buckley, son of the late lamented Bill -- has made any effort to "pretend to be pro-life". Oh and it's a very funny picture that, despite your comments, offers positive portraits of both fathers. -KeithJoseph 20:08, 5 March 2008 (GMT)

Oh, I don't know, I thought it was completely, seriously, laugh-out-loud HILARIOUS!!! Did you not see it, ASchlafly? It certainly has major moments of pathos and is actually a very thoughtful movie, but to describe it as "not a comedy as advertised" makes me think you saw a different movie than I did? Finally, as regards the pro-life topic, it clearly depicts a girl who ABSOLUTELY rejects abortion as a choice, so I must say that to me, it certainly came across as pro-life? Reaganite 16:35, 5 March 2008 (EST)

The movie mocks adoption, eliminates fatherhood and the actress herself says it isn't pro-life. Maybe that's funny to liberals, but to most people it's pathetic. The movie's content contrasts with its advertisements, which present the opposite impression. Juno is an example of false or misleading advertising by Hollywood.--Aschlafly 17:48, 5 March 2008 (EST)
But did you actually SEE it? I'm no liberal, and for me, I certainly did not think it mocked adoption - in fact, I felt the whole point of the movie is that adoption is put forward as a wonderful, loving, caring thing to do. It doesn't eliminate fatherhood at all, as the potentially adoptive father shows himself to be useless, and disappears from the story. And I sincerely don't think the advertising was misleading - I saw exactly the movie I expected to see from the trailers I saw a few weeks earlier. Finally, as to what the actress says, well I don't listen to Hollywood types much myself. Their work is the only thing I'm interested in, not themselves. Anyway, I think it's OK to disagree about a movie, as it's so personal, but I really don't see where you're coming from at all. I'm not at all sure we saw the same movie, in fact? Reaganite 18:11, 5 March 2008 (EST)
It must be sad to not be able to watch movies or TV that conflict with your political views without becoming infuriated.-PhoenixWright 17:49, 5 March 2008 (EST)
"the actress herself says it isn't pro-life..." Actress. Ask the writer or the director and then get back to me.
I disagree. Why ask anyone? The film is what it is. It doesn't matter what the writer says, or the director. It certainly doesn't matter what an actress says. They cannot alter what the film is. --VincentMC 19:09, 5 March 2008 (EST)
Vincent, I agree wholeheartedly, However - see this wiki's page on deconstruction for some HILARIOUS reasoning as to why your argument won't hold water...AliceBG 21:43, 5 March 2008 (EST)

I suppose you could argue that it is pro-choice in the sense that Juno had the option of abortion, but chose to give up her child for adoption. People seem to be confusing 'pro-choice' with 'pro-death' or something like that. 'Pro-choice' means that people have the choice to abort the foetus, give up the child for adoption, or bring up the child themselves. It doesn't mean that people have to abort, as if it is the only option available. I thought the film was exceptionally funny, and full of witty word-play and grammatical jokes, which were probably made all the more obvious because I was watching it with French subtitles. I felt the advertising campaign was not at all misleading. Juno's father seems to be a pretty positive portrayal of fatherhood to me, and acts as a perfect counterbalance to the useless adoptive father. Please, Mr Schlafly, lighten up! The world is not as bad as you seem to think! Liberalnproud 07:01, 6 March 2008 (EST)

British Illegal Immigrant Defence

'Britain's defence against terrorists and illegal immigrants is a six foot fence around a parking lot in France'. Not according to the linked article. According to the linked article, Britain's defence against illegal immigration is, amongst other things, heartbeat sensors, CO2 probes and passive millimetre wave sensors. The article is about the fact that it was discovered that many of these measures could be bypassed by simply climbing said six-foot fence, which is somewhat embarrassing for the British government, but even then, as you would realise if you had actually read the article, instead of just the headline, the immigrants would also have to evade the CCTV coverage of the area, the regular patrols by the French authorities and the contractors employed by the Border and Immigration Agency to intercept the folk who successfully breach the fence. Even the report which discovered this described it as, 'one weak point in an otherwise excellent system'. Urushnor 13:04, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Er, no - that's the whole point. All of the other super-duper defences are rendered useless by the fact that someone can sidestep all of them by simply climbing a fence. Think Maginot Line. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 13:11, 5 March 2008 (EST)
Wrong - most, but not all of the 'other defences' can be bypassed by climbing this fence. However, you missed my point - according to the headline on Conservapedia, there are no 'other defences' to be bypassed. As an aside, you sent me a message accusing me of coming from my 'usual haunt' to 'troll and generally be disagreeable'. What, according to you, is my 'usual haunt'? And how, exactly, is pointing out such things as a headline being incorrect, or an article doen't make sense, or is just simply wrong, 'trolling' or 'generally being disagreeable'? Consulting histories of articles, I've seen what happens if people actually correct such articles, so I restrict myself to pointing out their problems on the talk page. Urushnor 15:01, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Nets?

Why does the Main Page say "the Nets turn on McCain"? Why is the Mainstream Media called the Nets? --Steve 14:15, 5 March 2008 (EST)

That's whom the New Jersey Nets are named after! No, seriously, I think "Nets" is short for "Networks", which are the major television news stations like ABC, NBC and CBS.--Aschlafly 14:23, 5 March 2008 (EST)
"Nets" is short for "Networks", as in TV Networks or Radio Networks. [4] I changed the title to "Media". --Crocoite 14:31, 5 March 2008 (EST)
Thanks! Hey,Mr. Schlafly, you told an educational joke. That's almost like persuasive humor. --Steve 14:32, 5 March 2008 (EST)
You know, I went to Yeshiva in NJ for three years and I never heard that. SO I decided to check. Turns out, the team used to be called the Americans, then in 1968-69 they moved to NY and renamed it the Nets. Why you ask? Because it rhymes with Mets and Jets (other NY sports-teams for the non-Americans in the audience). New Jersey Nets History. :-) DLerner 07:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Dogfighting now illegal in all 50 States

Fantastic news for all dog lovers - dogfighting has finally been made illegal in all 50 States [5]. The sooner underground dogfighting rings can be torn apart the better, in my opinion. Reaganite 21:55, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Animal rights is a liberal cause. Please see the animal rights article. - Freddo 18:46, 6 March 2008 (EST)
I don't think dogfighting should be a "animal rights" issue, it's a animal cruelty issue, as a religious man I'm appaled by dogfighting. [Re: Animal Rights, why do animals have rights? They don't pay taxes! On second thought, many dogs have honorably served our country in the police force and military, so maybe only dogs should have rights. Lol] DLerner 18:57, 6 March 2008 (EST)
This is one of my "pet" annoyances. :-) Just because you like dogs doesn't mean they have an entitlement to be treated any better than any other animal. A dog is an animal, it doesn't have rights. - Freddo 19:04, 6 March 2008 (EST)
Man conceived the notion of 'rights' and it is man alone that employs the concept. Animals don't "have" rights, but the notion is often used more as a means of setting limits to human behavior. the kind of person who is cruel to animals is often the kind of person who is abusive to children, the elderly, the disabled - basically the weak, the vulnerable and the defenceless. If I saw a neighbour strike his child with more than the absolute minimal force required to chastise, I'd plant him. If I saw him kick his dog, I'd plant him also. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 19:13, 6 March 2008 (EST)
You don't have to give an animal rights to have a duty of care to it. God has given man stewardship and dominion over animals but that doesn't mean we should be cruel. We have a duty to look after God's creatures and if they need to be killed we should do it in a humane fashion. Animals fight in the wild but they rarely kill each other as one animal will submit to the more powerful one and run away. Captive dogfighting is done in restricted arenas and does not allow a loser to run away. It is also done for the sadistic pleasure of humans. It is not a Christian thing to do and people should be ashamed of themselves for defending it. ClintS 19:18, 6 March 2008 (EST)

My comments about dogs having rights was a joke, hence the Lol. I agree, animals have no rights, period. BUT, humans have the responsibility to treat all living creatures with dignity, this responsibility was given to us by God. (See Genesis) DLerner 19:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)

I agree that people who run dogfights should be ashamed of themselves, I just don't think that the government should be running our lives. It's not the governments job to protect dogs. - Freddo 19:23, 6 March 2008 (EST)
I'm pleasantly surprised at all the good comments here. Fox, you seem to be implying, although it's likely inadvertent, that the likelihood of a person mistreating humans being high if they mistreat animals is the reason that we impose limits on what they can do for animals. I'd say the reason we impose limits on what can be done to animals is for the sake of the animals themselves.
Freddo, I agree that governments shouldn't be running our lives, but one role that is the duty of governments is to dispense justice, so I see governments making and enforcing laws for humans not observing our God-given responsibility to treat animals properly as entirely proper.
Philip J. Rayment 08:57, 7 March 2008 (EST)
I don't believe that animals should be subjected to cruelty at all, Philip; I perhaps didn't explain it too well, but what I meant was that although I believe the animal rights lobby go too far sometimes (eg graverobbing in England) and can see the pov of those who oppose "rights" for animals, I also - like yourself and DL - believe we have a G-d given duty of compassionate stewardship over animals and the environment. The correlation with violence towards people was merely to show the kind of low-life that engage in animal-cuelty: My father, a dog-breeder himself, often said you could tell how a man treated his family behind closed doors by the way he treated his dog out of doors. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 09:16, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Fox - funny you should say that, as my Grandfather used to use exactly the same phrase! And experience over the years has taught me that it's true. Although I'm as happy as the next man for the Government to get out of my life, I'm with you PJR on the idea that this is one area where I'll happily see as much involvement in our lives as possible. Sickening and brutal treatment of animals - like for example Michael Vick's - isn't going to be stopped by self-centered Libertarian protestations of 'freedom', Freddo. God put all of us on this Earth and we were chosen to be the stewards of all of His Majesty. To stand behind those who promote incensing innocent animals to tear each other apart on an irrelevant political platform of 'small Government' seems to disrespect God Himself, I think. Now, go pet your dogs, and your cats, and your horses and give them the love that they will give back to you, unflinchingly and without judgement. Reaganite 12:54, 7 March 2008 (EST)

"Fox - funny you should say that, as my Grandfather used to use exactly the same phrase!": 8-| Might you have had the same grandfather?  :-) Philip J. Rayment 23:04, 7 March 2008 (EST)
A dog is an animal, it doesn't have rights? The biblical response to that would be Proverbs 12:10. DanH 22:42, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
That says you should have regard for the welfare of your animals - not extend to them man's notion of "rights". Most livestock farmers are scrupulous about the welfare of their animals, but they wouldn't go so far as to say that they had "rights". 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 05:19, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Do you believe in God?

Although not related to anything in particular, I just found this "poll" interesting:

http://www.yesnogod.com/

Hammet 11:36, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Appears the results are doctored.--Heffalump 16:37, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Doctored? In what way? Hammet 07:05, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

I do not think the proportion of atheists are that high in most of the countries. Most of the survey results show a count of less than 10% on average. --Heffalump 08:32, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

That doesn't mean that it's doctored. It's a fairly-meaningless survey because it represents the ratio of believers in God/no-god among people who took the survey, not people in those countries. Philip J. Rayment 08:39, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
Yes the survey itself is meaningless, because it does not have a statistically correct user sampling method and the results are obviously skewed. If you would assume that the sampling is evenly distributed, then you would draw the assumption that China is a quite small country, since there are roughly 100 times more votes from USA.
This is obviously not true, but is because the fact that Internet usage is more common in USA than in China. I don't believe the actual survey is doctored (censored).
However, you could draw some other interesting conclusions - especially, if one assumes that only 10% of the population (USA) is atheist, and this survey shows (currently) 60%, then the conclusion is that an atheist is (approximately) 6 times more likely than a Christian to find, and answer, this survey.
That, in turn, could be a hint that atheists are overrepresented on the Internet, which in turn would explain the liberal bias prevalent everywhere. Remember how Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the public? I don't think these numbers are a coincidence. Hammet 09:07, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

"Doctored" is the wrong word. I have no doubt that the count is legitimate. But there remains the problem of statistical sampling. People who are "self-selected" are generally not representative of the general population. That is the problem with twin studies of homosexuality, based on responses to advertisements in 'gay' newspapers and magazines. --Ed Poor Talk 09:13, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

I agree. Good thing the study for that "Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the general public" statement didn't consist of the self-selected. --MakeTomorrow 21:56, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
Exactly. The result from polls such as this, tells us more about the sampling method (who uses the internet), than it tells us about the actual answer to the question (how many believes in God). Hammet 20:06, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

School shooting in Jerusalem

There has been a school shooting in Jerusalem

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7282269.stm

"When we got in... we saw young, 15-, 16-year-old guys lying on the floor with their Bibles in their hands - all dead on the floor because the terrorist guys went inside and killed those guys who were only here studying in Jerusalem."

...

In the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, gunmen fired into the air after news broke about the attack. A loudspeaker in Gaza City reportedly broadcast the message: "This is God's vengeance".

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by McGavin (talk)

News on Arnold

Way to go for the Gov in California! He stood up for parents rights to homeschool!--Steve 12:20, 8 March 2008 (EST)

Vaccines Don't Cause Autism

Andy, this is a fine example of quote mining. You say, "Government finally admits it: vaccines can cause autism," but let's look at the story.

JUST as the dispute over whether vaccines cause autism was dying down at last, a US government decision has added fresh fuel to the fire. Last week it emerged that the federal government is to compensate a couple who say that the regular childhood vaccines, given to their baby daughter in 2000, caused her to develop autism. Damages have not yet been set, but could exceed $1 million.

Significantly, the government's decision says nothing about whether vaccines cause autism. Instead, government lawyers concluded only that vaccines aggravated a pre-existing cellular disorder in the child, causing brain damage that included features of autism. Nonetheless, anti-vaccination campaigners are claiming vindication.

I didn't even have to read two paragraphs.-αmεσ (advocate) 15:11, 8 March 2008 (EST)

Comments like that show nothing but disrespect for this site and Aschlafly. You should be shown the door. BenHyme 15:36, 8 March 2008 (EST)
As AmesG claims, the quoted reference does not mention anything about vaccines causing autism. It just mentions that the vaccines might have aggravated a very rare genetically inherited condition which causes brain damage that includes the symptoms of autism spectrum disorders. This is highly misleading and should be removed as anyone reading that may wrongly assume that vaccines can cause autism. --JBuscombe 15:42, 8 March 2008 (EST)
Well done Karajou, showing AmesG the door. Perhaps JBuscombe is next. The only reason these people come here is to make Conservatives look like fools. Such disrespect should not be tolerated. BenHyme 15:47, 8 March 2008 (EST)
No, JBuscombe is certainly not next, and I want to make that clear. There's a distinction between those who have simple, reasonable issues aginst the site that can be worked out, and those who do have outright contempt and disrespect for the site. It's the second group of people that I've booted. Karajou 15:51, 8 March 2008 (EST)

<-- Anyway, about the obvious flaw in the news headline... TheGuy 16:03, 8 March 2008 (EST)

The headline does not matter - it's the facts, which should remain on the main page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by McGavin (talk)

Direct quote from the article: "decades of research have failed to find any link between vaccines and autism." The "vaccines cause autism" claim is the best example of liberal alarmism I have ever seen, second only to the "global warming" swindle. I'm surprised that Conservapedia's been taken in by this nonsense. --Hermann1359 18:13, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

This is clearly liberal deceit. - Freddo 19:40, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
I can't tell the parodists from the sysops anymore.-PhoenixWright 19:59, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Based on the incoherent comments by liberals above, perhaps we need a new entry entitled "liberal drivel"! It could feature the best of the best.--Aschlafly 21:09, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Ok, coherent question from a non-liberal: how does the headline mesh with the first sentence of the second paragraph ("Significantly, the government's decision says nothing about whether vaccines cause autism") of the article referenced? Aziraphale 00:03, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
I have taken Aschlafly's suggestion and created an article. Please add if you can!-JTK 20:58, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Radical Feminism = gender equality?

There is one passage at the end of the second article linked to the headline which is perhaps a bit out of place? Or wrong? It runs "The radical feminists want to remake our laws in order to eradicate everything that is masculine from our culture and create a gender-neutral society," Now my problem is what is wrong with a gender-neutral society? I thought that all humans were supposed to be equal? Is this another 'all humans are equal, but men are more equal then females' idea? Or have I got the completely wrong end of the stick here? Bolly 15:47, 9 March 2008

All humans are equal, but men are different from women (obviously). Men are stronger physically, they are more emotionally stable, and have greater scrutiny toward new ideas. These are just generalities, but men and women are fundamentally different and, ergo, they cannot be the same. Maybe equal was not the right word to use; men and women are not equal, they are equivalent. Men should be the leader in society because their natural, God-given, disposition is generally more suited to lead. That is why the Bible tells women to submit to their husbands. Women have a different sort of intelligence, and a different heart. Not necessarily worse, but not suited to be on its own. --Steve 14:12, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
Don't misunderstand me, men should not be on their own either (It is not good for man to be alone...Gen 2:18). Men and women complement each other because of their different traits and abilities. The Lord's plan worked out rather well, actually.--Steve 14:19, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
Well said, Steven!
So, to summarize, Bolly didn't get the wrong end of the stick. Ajkgordon 15:23, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
Bolly and Ajkgordon, men and women have equal value and equal opportunity, but they are fundamentally different and it's illogical to deny that. I doubt logic will stop you, however!--Aschlafly 16:46, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
I suppose in this context, "gender neutral" is not taken to mean simply equality, but refers rather to the total denial of any differences between the genders. Feebasfactor 16:51, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
Aschlafly, I am well aware that men and women are different - why would I deny that? I was simply confirming that Bolly didn't get the wrong end of the stick. Ajkgordon 17:31, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

What happened there? It seems I was blocked and my comment removed? Sorry, I thought it was an acceptable thing to say, and I didn't see how it deviated much from other views expressed here. I'll be more careful with my choice of words in future, and I'm sorry if I caused offense. Know only that I do indeed hold my own opinions, and if I overstated my case in language that was too strong for this site, I apologize. However, I had thought that this, more than others, was a site that shared my distaste for politically correct speech. Reaganite 17:38, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

I don't think you were blocked for your viewpoint - perhaps the way you originally phrased your comment ressembled parody? I'm not exactly sure, but at least you were unblocked. Just be careful not to come across as sounding over-the-top, I suppose. Feebasfactor 17:54, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

I agree that men and women have some fundamental differences when it comes to the way they think, but I don't think that you have explained why a gender neutral society is so bad. Surely they are human rights not male rights and then female rights seperately. If women want a choice about where they work and how they live then surely, as a society that grants men this choice, we should allow them this one small thing? Bolly 10:05, 10 March 2007

Idealistically, I believe a woman's place in society should be like it was in the Colonial Period: housewife, or widow, etc. We don't, however, live in an ideal society, and I can't personally disqualify every women from the military or anything, and so we live with women taking many of the same jobs men do. I don't really mind all this, but I'd rather have no divorce ever and no women voting. The way it is, with all the single moms and everything, women voting is absolutely necessary.

Oh, sorry, I still didn't really answer your question, I just gave you my indirectly related opinion. Read Phyllis Schlafly's book, Feminist Fantasies.--Steve 13:31, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

This is an interesting discussion. Steven, I agree with much of what you are saying, but am curious why you think women should not be allowed vote. ~ SharonTalk 13:40, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Definitely, I agree with you for the most part Steve. In the 18th-19th century, woman were homemakers and mothers. There is no more important job for a woman to do but being a mother to her children! I personally wish I lived in the 1775 - yes, I would give up all modern conveniences to live in the 18th century!! And no, I am not nuts!! :P ~BCSTalk2ME 13:41, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Is that true? If I remember correctly from my trip to Williamsburg, there were some single women during the colonial period who ran shops or had some sort of trade. ~ SharonTalk 13:43, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

That is because they were old maids and did not want to starve...it was considered improper to have a man's job. ~BCSTalk2ME 13:46, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

I never went to Williamsburg; I should have done a little research before jumping into this discussion. What I mean before about voting was that, in a perfect society where there are fewer women divorced, there is not as much of a need for women to vote. I didn't mean it if I sounded sexist; I could explain this much better in a 900 word essay.--Steve 13:53, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
OK. Makes sense, I suppose. If you ever do write an essay about women voting, I'd love to read it! Thanks, ~ SharonTalk 13:56, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Steve,I do that an awful lot. Most of the time I don't even know about what I am talking!! :P JK, JK. Williamsburg is awesome. I am going to work there when I get older. ;P ~BCSTalk2ME 13:57, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
So you don't think that men have a role to play in bringing up their children? And even if women were all married, would not many of them still have a different political opinion to their husbands? And considering that American voting isn't compulsory they would only have to vote if they did disagree anyway, so it seems that giving them the choice is fair. I feel that it is a waste for women to purely be housewives, there are many many intelligent women out in the world who deserve a chance to be doctors or lawyers or teachers even. I know in Australia that there are a larger percentage of primary school teachers who are female, imagine the burden if they all became housewives! Anyway, what I really mean is, by limiting women to the home, perhaps we are increasing the work burden on men while at the same time causing damage to our society by not allowing women a chance to express their ideas? Just a thought, this discussion has been very interesting. Bolly 15:13, 11 March 2008

Bolly, I never said that men don't have a role in the upbringing of their children. And BTW, I mostly live in the 18th century!! :P ~BCSTalk2ME 18:49, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Hmmmmmm. This is rather a thorny issue. Men should absolutely have a role in rearing their children. I don't doubt womens intelligence; they are certainly valuable as school teachers. I definitely like the idea of decreasing the work burden on the men. But something about your argument is incorrect, and that is that women were not made to bear authority. Voting is not an inordinate amount of power, so I guess it makes sense to let women vote. But they should not be senators or presidents or ministers. Is a teacher a position of authority?--Steve 20:38, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
Women are not to have authority over their husbands, and arguably not over men in church, but what about outside those areas? Philip J. Rayment 21:33, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
Philip, I agree. I believe history has demonstrated that women can have great value in countless professions. The woman of Proverbs 31 is certainly much more than a mere housewife or schoolteacher. Also, I'm not sure that women should stay out of political offices. It makes little sense for women to vote, yet have no chance of participating in politics any further. That said, political power should not be used in a feministic manner to dominate men, but should be a tool to further God's will and purpose, rather than one's own selfish intents. ~ SharonTalk 21:50, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
I think you two are right. Better that I erred on the extreme right, rather than the left.--Steve 22:28, 11 March 2008 (EDT) I could definitely go over a thousand words on this topic--Steve 22:29, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
LOL...true. Feminism is a really hard issue, and I think it is extremely important that we avoid generalization. Many women thrive in the home, and I can relate to the value and joys of being a homemaker. Nevertheless, there are exceptions to the rule, and some women are simply remarkable leaders. Thanks so much Steve for discussing this! I've really enjoyed this debate, and have been forced to carefully examine and strengthen my own views on feminism through it. ~ SharonTalk 22:36, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

News Story/New Navy Article

Here's a story for the mainpage, if anyone is interested...perhaps Karajou might read it and be interested in writing an article on "Navy Values". AliceBG 19:31, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

No, this is not going to appear on the Main page and it's not an example of Navy values. It is an exception and not the rule. The U.S. military deserves our support and appreciation and your liberal sarcasm isn't appreciated. --Crocoite 19:45, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
Don't you think liberal deceit is probably the exception rather than the rule, too? If you're trying to draw a principled line about who to slander, that's not it, Crocoite.-PhoenixWright 19:59, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
Phoenix, are you trying to tell me that comment about Navy Values isn't liberal sarcasm? Alice knows Karajou is a military veteran, and she was deliberately provoking him. Only an anti-military liberal would make a comment like that. --Crocoite 20:32, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
I don't think she's anti-military, but what she was doing was using sophisticated humor to mock articles like liberal values, etcetera. She was pointing out that since you and other sysops use one incident, or a sweeping generalization, to tar entire groups of individuals, her wildly overbroad generalization was just as rational... which is to say, not rational at all. Do you follow? She was pointing out that just as it's incredibly cruel and incorrect to blame the entire Navy for a few malefactors, it's incredibly cruel and dishonest to tar all liberals just because one screwed up once, and you don't like them. I guess it was a ahrd truth to take; hence her block. But she was right on. Just as almost all seamen & seawomen are honorable characters worthy of praise, almost all liberals are assuredly blameless.-PhoenixWright 20:34, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
Phoenix, you're clueless - "almost all liberals are assuredly blameless"? Read the news section for countless examples of how liberals are messing up the world. --Crocoite 20:44, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
C, my man, a "Godspeed" on the end of that and you'd have had it pitch perfect. Bravo. --Leda 20:54, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
They seem to be mostly citations to opinion columns by conservative pundits. Interesting, yes. Objective? No. I don't think that it's polite to allow the sources' externality viz the site to bootstrap them into the realm of fact. It's a perfectly legitimate opinion to have, but it's just that.
Alternately, let's assume for the moment that liberals are doing some bad things. I don't see evidence that conservatives are not. It seems to me fairly biased to selectively post news, and then refer to your selective posts as the totality of occurrences in the world. Maybe we all have something to work on, but blaming one group for everything wrong with the world is the wrong way to start an intelligent discussion about how to make the world a better place... which, I assume, is what you're interested in having.
And I reiterate the unanswered point that it's wrong to extrapolate from a few errors to an entire group. See prejudice.PhoenixWright 20:48, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
PhoenixWright, you say on your user page that you are a liberal. I think what you are displaying is liberal bias. - Freddo 20:52, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
Haha, thanks. But unfortunately, invoking the words "liberal bias" is not a talisman against my arguments.-PhoenixWright 20:53, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
Phoenix, the mainstream media is full of liberal bias defending liberals and attacking conservatives. We're not going to repeat that bias here. --Crocoite 21:01, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Let's have a frank discussion about how wrong it is to call all liberals deceitful.

This is supposed to be a family-friendly encyclopedia where one can learn in an unbiased manner. I think the "unbiased" claim can fairly go out the window, but if this site is to be anything but a launching ground for the deranged rantings of a few embittered individuals, "articles" like liberal friendship should have to go. I think that, regardless of religion (or lack thereof) it's a good thing to bring one's children up in an atmosphere of love, and to teach them to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and to learn without prejudice from others. Many of the "articles" in the liberals category seems to cut just the opposite. I consider myself a Christian - albeit a fairly liberal one - and I think this site is going far and away against the commandment to love one another. Did Christ die for us to sling mud at one another? I hope not.-PhoenixWright 20:10, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Sadly, I think that that's unlikely to happen. Maybe - I don't know about both sides - there are individuals on both sides who want to have a reasoned, balanced debate, but all it takes is one of the ones who doesn't want to discuss, from either side, to be in a position of power to stymie the whole thing. --wikinterpreter woo!

Well, I for one am with you Phoenix. While I am here for open discussion I find the conservative values displayed here to be hateful. Isnt there something in the bible about hate or is it all young earth creationism and right wing paranioa? MetcalfeM 21:20, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

As has been said before, try to have an open mind and perhaps you will learn something. Exposing the truth about liberals and the biased MSM, is not "slinging mud". Hammet 21:22, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

I have a very open mind yet I still find the attitude here to be hateful. MetcalfeM 21:27, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
Metcalfe - Liberal Style #16 fits you perfectly: The style of a liberal often includes these characteristics: calling conservative free speech "hate" speech. --Crocoite 21:40, 9 March 2008 (EDT)


Free speech is fine. I am all for others voicing opinions regardless of my own opinion. However that doesnt mean that all free speech is neutral. MetcalfeM 22:06, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, this site isn't neutral - it is from a conservative perspective, and admits it. If you find a conservative perspective "hateful", you do not have an open mind. Hammet 06:55, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

I don't find it hateful, revolting, yes. But not hateful DLerner 13:16, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

I actually don't think that the "Liberal ____" articles are very encyclopedic. True or not, they should probably go into a different namespace. Bohdan 16:05, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
I've been saying that for a while, same thing goes for "atheist _____". These remind of the old propoganda films. "It has proven that ______ causes/does/are involved with _____" DLerner 00:01, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
"Homosexuality and _____" anyone? HelpJazz 13:02, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

All those pages are the best part of this site. Hammet 09:16, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Spitz

"Elliot Spitzer is the pro-abortion governor of New York. Now we can understand why: he was involved in a prostitution ring..." That needs to be rephrased or something; it doesn't make sense. We can understand why...what? Why he's pro-abortion? Why he's governor? Why he's from New York? The answer, "because he was involved in a prostitution ring" doesn't fit any of those whys, so far as I can see.--RossC 15:52, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

That's not clear? The connection is between his involvement in the prostitution ring and being pro-abortion. Surely I don't have to spell all that out in a headline!--Aschlafly 15:56, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
I guess I'm a little slow. You're saying he's pro-abortion because he consorts with prostitutes?--RossC 16:03, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
RossC, you can add your being "a little slow" to deliberate ignorance. It wouldn't surprise me abortions were even contractually part of Spitzer's prostitution ring.--Aschlafly 16:22, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Andy, swear to goodness I'm not being deliberately ignorant. With your above response, I see now what you're trying to say (prostitution may necessitate abortions), but that conclusion is far from obvious with the way that headline is phrased. (and, while this is probably beside the point, that connection is awfully weak; I doubt that men like Spitzer give even a second's thought as to how their actions affect the women they, uh, hire.)--RossC 16:51, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
I think it would be more appropriate to state, "Elliot Spitzer is the pro-abortion governor of New York. Now we can understand why: he was elected by a majority of the voters in the gubernatorial election." --Jdellaro 16:14, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
What does that have to do with the news story? Bohdan 16:16, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
About as much as him being pro-abortion. But if you really want to use the first part of the CP "headline", I figured at least make it factually accurate. --Jdellaro 16:18, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
It's accurate and we're not changing it to satisfy liberals seeking to dilute it.--Aschlafly 16:22, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Oh absolutely leave it as is, Andy. It fits with all the rest of the accurate information on the site. --Jdellaro 16:34, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
It took me quite a few times to figure out the meaning behind the headline. You're connecting his pro-choice stance with his prostitution ring because of any unwanted pregnancies, correct? I think the wording is very hazy, and although I do finally see your point, I think it could be worded better. I think the point's a bit of a stretch, but thats not my biggest concern. The phrasing could be improved. VonShroom 16:40, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
I agree, the phrasing could be better. How about "Pro-abortion governor Eliot Spitzer linked to prostitution ring"? It's quick, it's simple, and it gets to the point. On a related note, he's a Hillary Clinton supporter. [6] The irony is hilarious. --Ampersand 20:22, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Hairstylist shoots customer

[7] Perhaps this should be on the front page? Barikada 20:19, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Hairstylist Values anyone?--KimSell 12:00, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Editorial content

Early on, the name "Conservapedia" could be interpreted as "an encyclopedia for readers with a conservative world view". Articles were (and still are) more focused on educational material than on editorial content. At one point, the right column of the front page contained a more even mix of encyclopedia-oriented content and editorial, but it's since become mostly devoted to editorial. (while there are internal links, the information mentioned in each item doesn't usually live up to Conservapedia's standard for inclusion in articles (and even when it does, it's not standard practice to add the content to the article), so readers quickly learn to ignore the internal links and focus on the external links instead)

I understand the need for an editorial section. However, its prominent position on Conservapedia's homepage risks redefining the name "Conservapedia" in reader's minds to "more political blog, less encyclopedia". Is there at least an explicit policy that the editorial section is to remain clearly separated from the encyclopedia content, and that it's made clear there are two distinct standards for inclusion? --JohnDmorak 10:05, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Now that you mention it, the news section does have a more of a "blog" feel to it than an encyclopedia should have. Perhaps have more liberal bias in the Breaking News column to balance the conservativeness of the encyclopedia.  :P --Steve 22:04, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Sexually transmitted diseases

News headline now claims: "The Center for Disease Control says 25% of American teen girls has a sexually transmitted disease: But 0% of those who practice abstinence are affected." This is offcourse not true. Alltho named sexually transmitted diseases, these diseases can be gotten otherways allso, they are just most commonly caught from having sex. So, could the headline be fixed? HeikkiL 17:29, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

I agree, the headline is not accurate. The fact that babies are born with herpes is well documented and saying teenagers that practice abstinence are 0% affected is not true. --Jimmy 21:45, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
I've fixed it. Philip J. Rayment 21:52, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
Philip, the statement "*—not counting a very small number who acquire such diseases in other ways." is not a fix, if that's what you meant.
- The CDC study stated that at least one in four teenage girls nationwide has a sexually transmitted disease, or more than 3 million teens.
- The study stated further that about half of the girls acknowledged having sex; among them, the rate was 40 percent.
- So if approximately 3 million teens have a STD, and about half of them acknowledge having sex, then we are talking about 1.5 million teens who are not having sex, but still "acquiring such diseases in other ways"
That is not a "very small number", and certainly not the "zero percent" in the article's headline. Can you explain the CDC statistics that support the assertion in the headline? --DinsdaleP 11:41, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
I think about 1.5 million girls are denying that they had sex.--Steve 11:46, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
I agree that there's a lot of denial underlying those statistics - even the CDC was careful to point out that half of the girls "acknowledge" having sex. It's also true that practicing effective abstinence is the best way to avoid contracting a STD.
My problem with the headline is that Philip is claiming that practicing abstinence leads to a zero percent rate of STDs, while at the same time using a small, asterisked footnote to acknowledge that this is not so. He's also not including any actual numbers, just an assertion that the number must be very small. This is reminiscent of the times when 100% of the victims of AIDS were assumed to be homosexuals engaged in high-risk sex, before cases like Ryan White's were publicized. --DinsdaleP 12:39, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
Also, while I want my sons to hold off as long as possible, we all have to be realistic and acknowledge that teens are likely to experiment, and likely to have sexual experiences despite abstinence-only education. The Heritage.org site has a pro-abstinence page that touts the success of abstinence-only education in a 2001 survey of 5,000 students. The survey considered the program to be successful because it led to a one-third reduction in sexual activity, after filtering the sample to focus on kids who had abstinence-only education PLUS strong family and peer support. Unless my math's wrong, that meant that even in an ideal pro-abstinence scenario, two thirds of the kids still experimented sexually. I don't think it's wrong to be conservative in one's outlook, but also realistic enough to know that our kids need to be educated in how to prepare themselves for safe sex if they decide to go down that path. I'd find it hard to look at myself in the mirror knowing one of my sons caught an STD because I thought that not teaching him about condoms would keep him from having sex.--DinsdaleP 13:00, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
DinsdaleP, we're logical here. Liberal logic doesn't fly. Abstinence perfectly prevents the contraction of sexually transmitted diseases by a teenager or adult. If logic causes you problems when you look in the mirror, then you need to open your mind a bit.--Aschlafly 13:13, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
Aschafly, I don't see any of my comments above as being examples of "liberal Logic" (and yes, I checked the link first). I pointed out that Philip should not be claiming that abstinence leads to a zero percent rate of STD contraction when his own subnote agrees that this is not true. I was also asking him to quantify what he's calling "a small number" of exceptions with a cited fact.

I also agreed with the principle that the effective practice of abstinence is effective in preventing STDs.
If you disagree with my contention that safe-sex practices should be taught along with abstinence because the former promotes promiscuity, that fine - I just don't see my position as liberal logic, just concerned parenting. People are fallible, and if kids aren't going to practice abstinence, they're not going to, period. It's irresponsible then, to leave them in ignorance instead of teaching them about options to reduce the risk of STDs and pregnancy.

As an analogy, when my sons are old enough to drive, I don't ever want them to drive on snowy, icy roads - it's inviting an accident. BUT, I will still take them out on the first snowy, icy day when they are drivers and teach them how to handle a car in these conditions (in an empty parking lot, like my dad did with me). Do I expect that teaching them how to safely do what I don't want them doing is hypocrisy, or likely to lead to them doing it? No. It just means that if they find themselves in the situation for any reason, I've done my job as a parent and given them the knowledge to handle the situation responsibly.--DinsdaleP 13:44, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
DinsdaleP: First, I wasn't explicitly "claiming that practicing abstinence leads to a zero percent rate of STDs", simply because it wasn't me who wrote the headline. Granted, you could argue that I implicitly claimed it by leaving that part of the headline intact when adding the qualification, but it was my intention to qualify the headline, not rewrite it.
Second, I would be quite surprised if the percentage acquiring STDs via non-sexual means was anything even remotely close to 50%. Given the fact that many would likely not acknowledge having sex and the statistics in the report are therefore unreliable, your argument is one from silence. Admittedly, without my own figures, mine is too, but all that means is that it's your opinion against my opinion.
Regarding your further comments, I don't see why we "have to ... acknowledge that teens are likely to experiment". That sounds very defeatist to me. You refer to the Heritage.org situation as an "ideal pro-abstinence scenario", but I wonder how ideal it really was (I can't quickly find the information you're referring to), with most of the rest of the world giving these people an anti-abstinence message. I agree with telling young people about using condoms—if it can be done in such a way as to not undermine the abstinence message. To put it another way, if you tell your children (more eloquently than this, of course), "Don't have sex until you're married. But if you do, use a condom", the second instruction has just told them that you don't really expect them to observe the first instruction! That's not to suggest, however, that there is no way to tell them both. You could, for example, tell them all the reasons to keep sexual intercourse until marriage, and also mention that although condoms remove some of those reasons, others remain. They can figure out for themselves from that that using condoms is safer as far as STDs are concerned, without undermining the main message. Your analogy with driving on icy roads is flawed, in that with icy roads it's something that you don't want them to do, but (a) it's not wrong, and (b) it may be necessary one day. Sex outside marriage is (a) wrong and (b) not necessary.
Philip J. Rayment 05:03, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
You make some good points, Philip, and I appreciate the thoughtfulness behind them. I could probably have come up with a better analogy than the icy-driving one, but I hope the point was made anyway - withholding information from kids to discourage elective behavior does not guarantee they will avoid it, but it does guarantee that if they engage in it they will be uninformed. I'm not a defeatist about abstinence, but if the price of lapsing is a pregnancy or a STD, then I'd want to avoid that if possible. When my kids are old enough, I'll tell them about safe sex, but drive home the point that even something 99% effective means it's not 1% of the time. The people in that 1% group are real, and have real lives that are being wrecked, and I don't want my sons to be in that group.--DinsdaleP 14:35, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
I admit that there are teenagers who will have sex even with all the best conditions in family, church, and abstinence education. But I don't see how anyone could get an STD without have sex. --Steve 13:42, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
Effective abstinence prevents STDs, without a doubt. The problem is that misinformation and/or ignorance leads to ineffective abstinence. If a kid thinks "sex" only means intercourse and not oral sex, then problems lie ahead. Informed people given objective facts in moral & ethical setting will make good choices - uninformed people who had information withheld from them "for their own good" or because "they can't handle it" are left to figure things out on their own, or worse, rely on misinformation from unreliable sources.--DinsdaleP 13:54, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
Everybody can handle the information and complete effectiveness of abstinence. Teach it. Case closed and don't post any more (unnecessary) details here.--Aschlafly 14:03, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
Abstinence is 100% effective. Abstinence-only teaching is not, that's all. I'm done. --DinsdaleP 14:11, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
Abstinence is 100% effective. Condom-use teaching is not. So you suggest that we not teach abstinence only because it's not 100% effective, and instead take a different approach that is also not 100% effective? There appears to be an inconsistency there. Philip J. Rayment 05:03, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
There's no inconsistency, because I never said I didn't want abstinence taught as the first, best option. If the goal is to reduce unwanted pregnancies and STDs, then the optimal approach is to teach abstinence as the best option followed by safe-sex practices, so there are multiple options that add overlapping layers of prevention, instead of counting on one teaching method to be 100% effective in getting through to kids.--DinsdaleP 14:43, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Mr Aschlafly, i really can't understand how you can state that you are logical here and then claim: "Liberal logic doesn't fly. Abstinence perfectly prevents the contraction of sexually transmitted diseases by a teenager or adult." This is offcourse not true, how can someone even claim something like that, especially when just few weeks ago there where big headlines how 40 000 people where in risk of getting HIV, hepatitis etc from clinic through the reuse of syringes and vials [8]. Are you seriously claiming that those people would have been safe if they where all virgins? HeikkiL 18:15, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Although it's not immediately obvious, that's a contrived situation. Nobody's suggesting that only the 40,000 people who got such diseases should abstain from sex. The idea is that everyone abstain from sex outside marriage. Where did the HIV on those needles come from? In many cases, from people who had extra-marital sex. So if everybody (and by that I don't mean every single person; I mean vastly more than just the 40,000) abstained from sex outside marriage, there's a very good chance that there would have been no HIV on the needles to infect others in the first place. To put it another way, a large number of people who get STDs from sources other than sex outside marriage do so, directly or indirectly, from others who've had sex outside of marriage. Philip J. Rayment 05:03, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Sad

Ok now, seriously, is the new headline in any way appropriate? That is the most disgraceful, distasteful, and grossly generalized "news" headline I have ever heard. I'm really getting sick of the fact that the focus of this "encyclopedia" is to rip apart liberals. Rethink your agenda guys. VonShroom 23:01, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Don't tell me we need to add Eliot Spitzer as an example of liberal denial! Won't any liberals even criticize their leader?--Aschlafly 23:16, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
Spitzer is the leader of all liberals? Say what? Murray 00:33, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

pro-war, unprincipled, hypocritical, power-hungry, supporter of Bush, and unwilling to let go of power: Dick Cheney. And conservatives want to be president?? MetcalfeM 23:19, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Wow that's pathetic. Dick Cheney is comparable to Eliot Spitzer? See liberal denial.--Aschlafly 23:22, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Not comparable to spitzer however the terms you used can also apply. MetcalfeM 23:23, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Oh wont any conservatives even criticize their leader? It works both ways Aschlafly, Conservatives do bad things also. I expect Karajou to come protect you very shortly... MetcalfeM 23:33, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

I was under the impression that the Breaking News section was meant to embody the "Conservative" aspect of Conservapedia more than the "Encyclopedia" aspect. It's not meant to be "neutral" or written in the same way as an article. As such, there's no problem putting up non-neutral headlines, conservative editorial pieces, and articles exposing liberals' faults. I actually enjoyed the News, as an interesting sort of "blog" section of Conservapedia (and it is Andy's site, after all). Feebasfactor 23:39, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Wha-Whaaa. I'm going home. MetcalfeM 23:41, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

I have to agree with Andy. Dick Cheney is not comparable to Eliot Spitzer. Cheney: helped start a war that killed 4,000 Americans, not to mention hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Spitzer: had sex with a prostitute. Definitely not comparable. Blinkadyblink 00:30, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

I guess for you, the only villain in Iraq is America. That is so typical of liberals to judge the U.S. by one standard and its enemies by another, much more lenient one. --Ed Poor Talk 17:34, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
That's insightful, Ed, and so true. For example, liberals hold people who go to church to a higher standard than those who do not. Many liberals will even defend using different standards, until overcome by the illogic of it.--Aschlafly 17:38, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
Well, it was a guess, Ed :)
Personally, I judge the US (and the UK and France) by very different standards to say Iran or North Korea. There is no comparison. I'm not really a liberal but I expect the former countries' behaviour to be exemplary and when they are not I am disappointed. However, I expect the latter countries' behaviour to be the opposite. The deepest insult I could impose upon the US or the UK or France would be to compare their behaviour with that of Iran or North Korea. When they do behave like them, I am deeply concerned. Does that make sense? Ajkgordon 17:46, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
Not much. Let me this to you: we all expect America to be exemplary. The question is, how much better than a tin-pot dictator must a conservative US president be to get any respect from liberals? America is expected to be 10,000 times better than the genocidal Communists, and that simply is not fair. We are only 100 times better ... :-( --Ed Poor Talk 18:57, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
mm agree completely but somehow I feel that conservatives will translate it into say "Cheney: helped start a glorious triumph in an undemocratic country for the loss of under a million lives. Spitzer: supported a cruel cycle of vicious rapings and beatings in New York's seedy underworld." Am I right or not? Andy's next comment may prove my point. (edited to prevent misunderstandings) Bolly 22:30, 12 March 2008
I like that translation you gave, Bolly. You're more conservative than I thought.--Steve 11:44, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
Bolly, in your world, what is an unacceptable loss of life? Bear in mind, Iraq (as of 2006) has about 26 and a half million people. DLerner 11:52, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
In the ideal world then no loss of life ever is acceptable. However in overthrowing a dictator who was probably worse then some then loss of life is a risk. However the fact that people are still dieing due to the invasion that was "finished" over 4 years ago I think is ridiclous. There have been so many errors of judgement that have cost lives in Iraq, and those who are suffering are typically the 26 and a half million inhabitants of the country who never inited any of this upon themselves. Bolly 22:21, 13 March 2008

The better comparison is to question whether Elliot Spitzer is the symbol and representative of a typical liberal in the same way Ted Haggard is the symbol and representative of a typical conservative. They are both simply self-righteous, arrogant hypocrites whose underlying immorality destroyed their personal lives and hurt the lives of their loved ones in their selfishness. Neither one is what I'd want to consider a role model for their respective liberal/conservative viewpoints. --DinsdaleP 12:47, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

I was not comaparing Spitzer to Cheney. Just got irrational angry that such vitrol is spewed about this guy because he is a democrat yet some real crooks get off easy because they are republican. MetcalfeM 16:32, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, I'm glad to see at least a little bit of discussion got going about this. Sadly though, the front page won't be changed, and I will continue to be extremely insulted and furious Hey, the news section was changed! Half of the nation will no longer be personally offended! Oh, and by the way, I was also banned by Karajou for 2 hours for my first post. Who would have guessed?! VonShroom 17:22, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

If anyone wants to propose an ethical standard for statesmanship, go right ahead. The field is wide open; that's what a red link means. --Ed Poor Talk 17:36, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Hey I'm not conservative at all! My translation was what I expected you conservatives to change it too! I apoligise for the confusion, but I hate people to think I'm something I'm not. Bolly 12:15, 13 March 2008

Resignation

[9]Here. I believe the governor of New York is done.--Steve 12:24, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

So, who takes over now? DLerner 12:25, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

[10]Here's another. I don't know who's after him, but I have two witnesses so it must be true.--Steve 12:29, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

David A. Paterson: [11]. ~ SharonTalk 12:30, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Fox News! Good source. The washington compost & the associated press was all I could find.--Steve 13:28, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafly, I don't know about using the word "finally" in the headline. It has only been 2 days.--Steve 13:32, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
Two days is a long time in politics in this type of situation. He was expected to resign on Monday, and obviously hung on to power to try to survive.--Aschlafly 13:38, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafly, what do you think of Senators Vitter and Craig? They still haven't resigned.-JosphH 15:21, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
Both are hypocritical disappointments, but Larry Craig in particular is just contemptible because he promised to resign and then reneged on that promise. He's so toxic to his party that there's no way he can be as effective a senator for his state as a replacement.--DinsdaleP 15:03, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
I understand. and Now I just read that the next guy isn't in until the 17th of March. That's next Monday.--Steve 13:45, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
Supposedly, that's at the request of his successor, David Paterson. He's New York's first Affirmative Action governor, so he needs the time to get up to speed.--RossC 16:26, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
What do you mean by that? He supports Affirmative Action? I know you certainly don't mean he was appointed through Affirmative Action. And wouldn't anyone need a few days to get up to speed of a governorship? Maestro 18:45, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
The latter, absolutely. Paterson has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action and/or riding the coattails of others. He somehow managed to get into and graduate from law school, yet couldn't pass the bar, so instead he took over his father's legislative seat. Then his fortunes took another upward tick when Spitzer appointed him LtGov in order to better pander to NY liberals, never imagining that he'd have to actually, you know, do the job. In addition, he's prone to spreading the wealth, as it were--he's currently being sued for his own affirmative action shenanigans.--RossC 09:34, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
It seems that resignations have to be forced out of politicians these days. Same on this side of the pond. Ajkgordon 13:46, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
"Affirmative Action Governor" is veiled-bigot-speak for n-word governor.--Iconoclastbeggar 19:35, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
Hear, Hear DLerner 21:20, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Talk:Main Page

Is this talk page really here to build an encyclopedia, or is it an open debate forum for issues presented on the right-hand side of the main page? I get the impression that the right-hand side of the main page is a blog, and that this talk page is a series of comments on blog posts. Is that really the intention here?

It also looks like anyone who posts an opinion here is at risk of breaking the 90/10 rule. (Either that, or they'll call enough attention to their edits that they'll be reviewed to see if the count is 90% and 10%.) --Elkman 23:27, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Conservative Links

Our Conservative Links is No. 9 in Google! See: [12]

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 00:39, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Wow, Joaquin, that's great!--Aschlafly 00:40, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
And No. 2 in Yahoo! See: [13]

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 00:41, 13 March 2008 (EDT)


Liberals

liberals is No. 7 !! in Google. See: [14]. Now the world will know the truth about liberals. The truth will set you free. Maupiti 09:21, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

It's actually up to number 3 now. ~ SharonTalk 09:25, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

wow, great Maupiti 09:27, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

A Good number 6! [15] --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 16:47, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Templeton Prize

Please consider this for inclusion on the front page. Ajkgordon 13:07, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Looks like another liberal award attempting to advance a falsehood. There are lots of awards like that. Another one is the MacArthur "genius" (i.e., liberal) award. But thanks for bringing it to our attention.--Aschlafly 13:44, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
The Templeton Foundation liberal? You've got to be kidding me! Its detractors are mainly liberal atheists who lament its support for reconciling religion and science, including CP's bogeyman Richard Dawkins. Perhaps you should research it a little more. But the point is that the award has been made this year to a priest and cosmologist and his mathematical proof of the existence of God. I thought that would be a prime example of front page worthiness. Ajkgordon 13:50, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
Previous winners:
  • 1973 - Mother Teresa of Calcutta
  • 1974 - Frère Roger, founder of the Taizé Community
  • 1975 - Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, President of India
  • 1976 - Leon Joseph Cardinal Suenens
  • 1977 - Chiara Lubich, founder of the Focolare Movement
  • 1978 - Prof. Thomas Torrance
  • 1979 - Rev. Nikkyo Niwano
  • 1980 - Ralph Wendell Burhoe, founder of Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science
  • 1981 - Cicely Saunders, hospice founder
  • 1982 - Rev. Dr. Billy Graham, evangelist
  • 1983 - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Soviet dissident novelist
  • 1984 - Rev. Michael Bourdeaux, founder of the Keston Institute
  • 1985 - Alister Hardy, founder of the Religious Experience Research Centre
  • 1986 - Rev. James I. McCord of the Princeton Theological Seminary
  • 1987 - Stanley Jaki
  • 1988 - Dr. Inamullah Khan
  • 1989 - Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, physicist and philosopher, Lord MacLeod of Fuinary, founder of the Iona Community and Indarjit Singh
  • 1990 - Baba Amte and L. Charles Birch
  • 1991 - Rabbi Immanuel Jakobovits
  • 1992 - Kyung-Chik Han
  • 1993 - Charles Colson, founder of the Prison Fellowship
  • 1994 - Michael Novak, philosopher and diplomat
  • 1995 - Paul Davies, theoretical physicist
  • 1996 - Dr. Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ
  • 1997 - Pandurang Shastri Athavale
  • 1998 - Sigmund Sternberg, philanthropist
  • 1999 - Ian Barbour, professor
  • 2000 - Freeman Dyson, physicist
  • 2001 - Rev. Arthur Peacocke
  • 2002 - Rev. John Polkinghorne
  • 2003 - Holmes Rolston III, philosopher
  • 2004 - George F. R. Ellis, cosmologist and philosopher
  • 2005 - Charles Townes, Nobel laureate and physicist
  • 2006 - John D. Barrow, cosmologist and theoretical physicist
  • 2007 - Charles Taylor, philosopher
Ajkgordon 14:04, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

In reading the above comments I would think that it would be important for all to actually research a topic before labeling it "liberal that" and "liberal this". MetcalfeM 20:27, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

That's a mostly liberal list, particularly in recent years.--Aschlafly 21:46, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
Have you read Dr. Taylor's recent book? AliceBG 21:49, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Although the Templeton Prize has been given to some evangelical Christians (e.g. Bill Bright, Chuck Colson, and Billy Graham), it has also been given to non-Christians, including Buddhist, Hindu, and Muslim recipients. And agnostic. Freeman Dyson received the award, supposedly for helping to bridge the gap between religion and science, yet has said "It’s always difficult to mix science and religion without making a fool of oneself—in fact, it’s probably impossible, and one is probably very unwise even to try". The Templeton Foundation has also provided grants to colleges to teach their point of view, which includes evolution. Calling it "liberal" (from a Christian point of view) is quite appropriate, even if it's not liberal enough for some. Philip J. Rayment 07:26, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Your comment is very interesting, Mr. Rayment. Who do you classify as liberals? --JBuscombe 07:59, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
As far as Christians are concerned, I wouldn't like to give a precise or exact definition, but those that believe in evolution would be prime candidates for that label. Even more so are those that consider all religions as of equal value, as the Templeton Foundation appears to do. Philip J. Rayment 10:06, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
Philip, as the prize has been given to some evangelical Christians, does that mean that calling it conservative (from a liberal point of view) is quite appropriate?
What I think you mean when you say Christian is fundamentalist YEC Christian which, for you, is the only true Christianity. Have I read that right? Ajkgordon 08:14, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
I could understand a liberal calling it conservative, although I would think that on balance it's considerably more liberal than conservative.
I'm not sure what your second question is referring to. The only time in my last post that I referred to Christians it was qualified with "evangelical". And if this is answering your question, then no, by that I don't mean fundamentalist (whatever you mean by that; the meaning of the word has changed considerably) and I don't mean YEC. I don't really know anything about Bill Bright, but neither Billy Graham nor Chuck Colson are YEC, as far as I know, although I'm pretty sure that Colson at least rejects evolution. As for "true Christianity", if you think that I believe that only YECs are truly Christian, then no, you have that wrong. If, on the other hand, you think that I believe that YEC is the only correct way to understand the creation account in the Bible, then yes.
Philip J. Rayment 10:06, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for the reply. It's interesting that your view is that it's considerably more liberal than conservative. The vast majority of criticism against it is that it is conservative. Templeton Jnr, the President of the Foundation, is also head of a conservative think tank as well as being an evangelical Christian. The Foundation has to spend quite a lot of its time defending its charitable status against those who claims that it has a conservative political agenda. Its Christian and more broadly religious credentials are renown - indeed the Prize's intention is to counter the Nobel's securalism.
But this is largely irrelevant. The point is that a generally recognised religious right organisation has awarded this year's prize to a Jesuit scientist who aims to prove God's existence and reconcile religion with science. I get the feeling that because the prize was awarded to a man who argues against those "religionists" who challenge evolution, it must, by default, be liberal and deceitful.
Seriously, this would be a good front page item if your (your and Aschlafly's) brand of Christianity was more inclusive.
BTW, I used the term fundamentalist in the way that Aschlafly I presume would use it, i.e. devout. No negative connotation intended. Ajkgordon 10:24, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
Just a suggestion, but perhaps the "vast majority of criticism" has only been "the vast majority that you have seen"? The "vast majority" that I have seen is the other way, but I'll make no claims to (a) having seem much about it at all, nor (b) my observations being totally representative of all opinions expressed about it.
I don't believe that "fundamentalism" has ever had the meaning of devout. It originally referred to someone who followed the doctrines set out in a series of books called "The Fundamentals", which listed several specific biblical teachings that were considered fundamental to Christianity. The meaning of the word expanded to include anyone who accepted the fundamental teachings of the Bible, not specifically those in the book series. It's been used in more recent times to mean anyone of any religion who is legalistic (or something like that), and, in my opinion, on occasions as a synonym for an extremist.
Philip J. Rayment 10:36, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
I have only ever seen criticism of Templeton as either conservative or religious or both. But that's because my main source has been the British media which you might consider liberal. In addition I have recently read The God Delusion which is quite damning of its propensity to "find scientists who are willing to say nice things about God" - a rather damning and petty criticism considering that that is their stated aim, albeit grossly paraphrased. But no matter. I would be interested to see mainstream criticism of it as a liberal organisation.
On the subject of fundamentalism, I'm pretty sure I've read a comment from Aschlafly stating that it means devout to him and therefore by extension most on here. I am also aware, as I live in the UK, that the word has negative connotations of extremism and/or terrorism. My intent was not to insult but merely to use the word as I imagined it to be used here, as you could probably see from the context in which I used it. Having looked into it further, it seems the word in US Presbyterian circles means adhering to traditional protestant orthodoxy and against liberal theology. So, not devout, but not prerogative either and probably accurately descriptive of Aschlafly's religious stance. Ajkgordon 20:11, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
Liberals deny they are liberals. We've had hundreds of examples here. The "Templeton Prize" is given primarily to liberals, particularly in recent years, and almost never to a conservative, as confirmed by the above list.
By the way, the term "fundamentalist" is a meaningless, pejorative term today. I've haven't heard a sincere, meaningful use of it in years. It's analogous to calling someone a "Commie".--Aschlafly 18:49, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Fox, Iduan....

Kinda makes me wonder why, you know what I'm saying? AliceBG 20:41, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

There is a reason behind everything. But sometimes it is so sad... ~BCSTalk2ME 20:42, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

No surprise really. IMHO. MetcalfeM 21:02, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

What happened?--Steve 22:00, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

I have held my tongue long enough I think. Andrew Schlafly, you are an ignorant bigot. No one, and I mean no one who disagrees with you, is given any respect from you. No matter what achievements, no matter what, if they are in disagreement to you they are either liberals or public school retards. I dont like Richard Dawkins but I know he is a professor, I know that Carl Sagan is a respected intellectual even though he believed there is life in outer-space. I believe in Evolution depsite what rubbish you and your cohorts think up. I even went as far to read Creation Science books and still I am not convinced. You make up silly terms and spread your hatred. You are bad at maths and cannot answer even the slightest query into your rubbish claims without playing the liberal card. This is why your losing Sysops and this is why conservablah-blah is doomed ot failure. See you. MetcalfeM 22:06, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

While I agree that Conservapedia is fundamentally flawed, inasmuch as an encyclopedia should not have an active and intentional bias, I think you might be being a little harsh here. Looking at it from the other perspective, it really is quite easy to be persuaded about intelligent design, "natural warming cycle," and so on. These are all issues with a great many very persuasive figures speaking about them, all of whom tend to patronize an increasingly politicized infosphere that caters to their interests. In today's world, where people can hear and read things that only agree with their preconceived notions with increasing efficiency, this sort of perspective is all too easy to fall into. It's easy to decry it, but a fundamental belief in the goodwill of those engaging in these sorts of views motivates me to try to provide that outside voice.
I do agree that it looks like a lot of the people with dissenting views are treated very badly, and there is an obvious double standard applied- people who are openly liberal are held absolutely to the letter of the rules (as well as some makeshift ones) and banned or suspended with little provocation, whereas conservatives advance incredibly swiftly and are forgiven for articles that would never pass for any liberal. But I think in time, the persistence of reason can help change things and maybe make a difference. I have no desire to hide my light under a bushel basket, since this is the kind of light they should see.--TomMoore 00:52, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
On the flip side, it should be pointed out that Conservapedia has obstacles thrown in the way that force a suspicious eye. The volume of vandalism against the site in the name of "tolerance" is something that most forums, thankfully, do not have to deal with. Many editors who do not agree with conservative views also head straight to editing controversial subjects to try to force in their way of thinking. We are, by definition, a family friendly encyclopedia that will allow conservative viewpoints that are often suppressed elsewhere. I'm not saying that Conservapedia has no faults, but I have found that most of the people who complain do little to help the overall project. There are many non-controversial subjects that could be expanded, but there is seldom any effort to contribute in these areas. Learn together 02:48, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
First of all, it doesn't have to do with "not agreeing with the conservative view", but rather with the way that things are being presented. People head to these articles because they're high-profile and completely one-sided: According to CP, liberals are to blame for everything, and conservatives never do anything bad. According to CP, evolution is totally unproven and has no basis at all (and all the scientists worldwide are either politically motivated, paid for supporting evolution, or just misguided) while Christianity is The One True Religion and YEC is The Way It Happened. Homosexuality, gun control, birth control, abortion, Atheism... all are 100% bad according to CP.
When you hype your own opinion and smear the opposing ones (in the wider sense of the word - like only including bad stuff in articles of people or things you oppose, misrepresenting studies, or using "clever" phrases to make something sound extra bad), it's not called "allow[ing] conservative viewpoints that are often suppressed elsewhere", it's called propaganda.
Or are you seriously telling me that deceit is almost exclusively used by liberals while the majority of conservatives never use it? Are you seriously telling me that our articles on Evolution, Atheism, and Homosexuality are "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" articles? Or even better, are you seriously saying that our articles on "Hollywood values", "Professor values", "Intellectual dishonesty", "Deceit", "Liberal Bias", "Liberal Gloss", "Liberal Hypocrisy", "Liberal Myths", "Liberal Style", "Liberal bias in academia", "Liberal denial", "Liberal ideology", "Liberal obfuscation", "Liberal redefinition", "Liberal tools", "Liberal tricks", "Liberals and friendship" and "Progressives and choice" are "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" articles? No. They're either unsourced opinions and/or backed by carefully selected examples and biased sources. Anybody could write "Conservative Hypocrisy" or "Conservative tools" using the same untrustworthy methods, but I somehow got the feeling that they wouldn't last... I wonder why...
And secondly... "There are many non-controversial subjects that could be expanded, but there is seldom any effort to contribute in these areas." In other words: "Look away while only ideology-pushing sysops write controversial articles." Sorry, but no. I do try to make non-controversial edits, but it's like arriving at a burning trainwreck and being told to plant a few flowers while the people inside the train need help.
Here's a suggestion: Let's stop the rabid ideology-pushing, and we can all focus on editing an encyclopedia. Right now, the non-sysops are apparently supposed to be 100% encyclopedic and to fully stick to the rules while the sysops are free to make encyclopedic edits and to write propaganda pieces.
I know that CP is supposed to give "the conservative view", but I'm pretty sure you can do that without bashing liberals or misrepresenting their views all the time. I know CP is against "liberal bias", but I don't get how "conservative bias" equals "trustworthy". --DHayes 09:52, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
I just used random page 10 times, and didn't come across a single article that mentioned liberals, deceit, etc. Again, you are fixating in certain areas because they bother you, but they are a small part of the whole. I have 9,000 edits, and I believe I can count on one hand the total number that I have made in the areas that you have mentioned you have difficulty. There are other subjects that can be addressed and created.
If it bothers you so much and there's nothing you can do about it, then why do you keep coming back? You must be aware by now that the more you push the more you get results that you don't want. You are throwing darts at a lion and then wonder why he's roaring. Perhaps if Andy sees respectful behavior from those who don't agree with him instead of reinforcing the negative stereotypes he writes about, you would a gradual change in the overall demeanor and content of those few areas that you do find controversial. Learn together 12:34, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
I would suggest your experiment was a little skewed, based on the fact that the "Contest" things that occur leave hundreds of stub articles with no connections. You can see for yourself: [16]. All of the utilized pages that are linked-in and navigable are a different story... the preponderance of these real pages are heavily politicized. After all, no serious person ever comes to CP to look up factual information on something like dogs' they come to look up the conservative perspective on Barack Obama.--TomMoore 12:55, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
Then run the Random Page test yourself and see if the results match your expectations. That would certainly mean more than saying what you believe would happen. When we have the capability to actually check instead of speculate, then checking should be done to test the belief before theoretical conversion ensues. Learn together 19:05, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
...did you even read what I said? I just told you why such a "test" would be highly misleading. Look at the above link and see for yourself... hundreds, probably thousands of pages that are included in the "random page" engine but not functional encyclopedia entries.--TomMoore 01:10, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
Hundreds and perhaps thousands is still a small subset of ~ 24,000 entries. You have the means to do an analysis for yourself that could verify your assertions. Finding reasons to dismiss it and not put it to the test, doesn't say much for your position or your own confidence in it. Learn together 04:15, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
I have been trying to argue WHY THAT TEST WOULD BE FOOLISH. There are in fact about 3,500 lonely pages. Of the 20,000 other pages on the site, there are a large number of them that are not "lonely" in the sense that they are now under the heading of naval ships, legal terms, or so on. I could also conduct a test of throwing a baby out the window to see if babies can fly, and just because I don't doesn't mean that babies CAN fly. Your insistence on a test I have argued proves nothing says a whole lot more about your position, don't you think?--TomMoore 16:22, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
(Inserting myself before the full indent reset while lowering my own indent level to distinguish this reply from TomMoore's)
Learn Together, your "Random Page" experiment is cute, but of little use (I do note that my own test made me end up on Geology Terms E, Previous Breaking News Terms O and Contest - neither of which should be an encyclopedia article in the current form). I'm not arguing that every single page has conservative bias or that no page is trustworthy. But there are a number of anti-liberal opinion pieces here (not even counting our Main Page blog link collection we call "In the News"), and they are the main focus of attention (for example, 4 pages link to "Mark Foley" while 35+ pages link to "Liberal denial"), and they are a part of this "Trustworthy Encyclopedia". I didn't get an answer to my question, actually. Would you call those articles trustworthy?
BTW: What's with the "Why do you keep coming back?" question? I just arrived here! And if you want to know why I joined: I came here because I thought that it would be possible to simply discuss with the people here in order to improve things because I noticed that some focus articles didn't stick to the rules and didn't look trustworthy or encyclopedic. Needless to say that that didn't go over too well.
And I don't see why I should go out of my way to respect the guy who keeps bashing people who don't agree with his radical ideology. Sorry, I'm not going to show respect for a group that basically says that I'm an atheist, terror-supporting, immoral liberal hypocrite who has no values and uses deceit to further his evolutionist, gay agenda to subvert the moral basis America was built on and who ultimately tries to plunge the world into a new Dark Age of moral corruption. I'm not going to respect a group that effectively claims that they are the only true Christians, that YEC is the Sole Truth (and that Christianity is the One True Religion) and that they alone never use deceit and are effectively the saviors of mankind, fighting the good fight against politicized science and media bias.
The only thing that would happen if all those pesky liberals shut up would be that Andy'd claim that liberals don't dare to speak out against him because he exposed The Truth. Or worse, that they agree with his wild claims.
Respect goes both ways. I don't make a blog on which I publish propaganda and stereotypes about conservatives. I respect Andy's political position (even though I disagree with it). In the other corner, Andy taunts and mocks liberals every day, accusing anybody who disagrees with him of using Liberal Style and Liberal Tricks while they are in Liberal Denial and Liberal Whateverelse. In my three or so days here, I already got about two implied block warnings, and I was called "such a consistent example of what Anne Coulter and other conservatives complain of" by a sysop who was unwilling to discuss why he based an entire article on a quote from a completely non-authoritative opinion blog. Sorry, from the looks of it, Andy and his buddies should maybe start respecting liberals and critics a little bit.
Or maybe they should simply stop pretending that this is a trustworthy encyclopedia and instead admit that this is an anti-liberal opinion blog. One sysop at least had the integrity of admitting that one of the main criteria for the front page news is that they should be anti-liberal. That's not terribly nice, but at least it's honest. --DHayes 17:37, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
Wow, and you gathered all of this in 2 days? Well, sometimes a blind squirrel will accidentally stumble across some nuts, but what we've noticed is that you are the rule, not the exception. And that, of course, only helps to reinforce to Andy that his perceptions are accurate. You made a claim about our articles, I showed it was inaccurate based upon a random sampling, and then you go right back to your original mantra without missing a beat. And all of that based upon 2 days sampling. Personally, if I was new to a site and I had been shown that what I had just stated was incorrect, I would be very humble and apologetic and seek to learn more before proceeding down the same line. And that's why you, and every other carbon copy of you, is seen as an article of clothing that is worn under a shoe. Andy will let you stay here, but he does ask that you make positive contributions, and that always seems to be an area where you folks won't go. Learn together 19:07, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
It all started with polar bears and went downhill from there, as weird as it sounds:
Polar bear -> block warning -> Ed -> two meters and Progressives+choice -> criticism of source -> debate
In the meantime: Looked through this talk page and other users' talk pages -> noticed link to Liberal Denial -> found category about liberals -> started laughing and crying at the same time
So you could say I got a really bad start. It could've been a really good start, but discussing policy with sysops (and looking at the histories and talk pages of some of these articles) made it clear that there is a sort of Catch-22 at work here: Conservatives get to define certain terms as they see fit: They define that liberals are generally deceitful, push their ideology, censor conservatives, and use various tricks and flawed logic, and they define that conservatives don't do bad things like that. So any liberal trying to modify/delete these lists will be portrayed as trying to push his ideology by censoring conservatives and as being in liberal denial about what Andy defines as truth. It's all carefully tailored to be impossible to attack by liberals.
The only ones who can change these little attack pieces are the conservative sysops, and ultimately Andy. And going by the main page, the most influential sysops get their impressions of liberals from Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Anne Coulter, Newsbusters, FOX News, The Christian Post, Conservative Truth, pro-life sites, and so on. So yeah, good luck with changing Andy's mind about liberals. I think that, even if ALL vandalism stopped forever and if ALL liberals forever left the site, Andy would not change his mind.
About the sampling and how you allegedly showed that I'm wrong: Huh? Please point out where I said that all articles are pushing ideology. Or even that most of them do. Or anything that is magically rebutted by you sampling ten random articles. I gave you extremely specific examples and asked you if you consider them trustworthy. You failed to answer my question twice (Actually... you didn't really answer any of my points, did you? Your entire post was simply to declare your victory and to accuse me of fitting into a category of troublemakers...). And now you expect me to apologize?
Seriously, I dunno which part of my initial reply you misread, but my point is that CP sysops push ideology in several core issues (the ones I named). I never said that no article is trustworthy or that all articles push ideology (as a matter of fact, I pointed out that "non-sysops are apparently supposed to be 100% encyclopedic and to fully stick to the rules while the sysops are free to make encyclopedic edits and to write propaganda pieces" - which implies that there will be encyclopedic edits and articles). But CP as a whole does push a clear and disturbing ideology, as can be observed in the articles I mentioned (and lots more, I'm willing to bet - like you said, I only got here two days ago, I had no time to take in the full degree of OMG yet, but the stuff I saw is way too much already).
And if you don't think that CP pushes articles like that, take a look at the front page: "Conservapedia's atheism article is now ranked #4 by both Yahoo and MSN!" and the Popular Articles list includes "Theory of Evolution", "Homosexuality", "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia", "Global Warming", "Barack Obama" ("Obama has absolutely no military, executive or foreign policy experience." and "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action." - yes, that sounds absolutely encyclopedic and not biased at all...), "Atheism", "Liberal Bias", "Creationism", and "Conservative". And one of the criteria of the news selection is... being anti-liberal!
But hey, you claim that I'm just some Carbon Copy guy, so could you give me a hint what People Like Me do now? Do we just get banned for pointing out uncomfortable facts violating this 90/10 rule? Are we simply mocked until we leave? Come on, this would be so much easier if both of us had a copy of the script...
Though I gotta say that I made a few useful contributions in my 2-3 days here (although I have yet to invest several hundred edits into a single article, as I'm ashamed to admit), especially to reduce the Wanted Pages count or to de-link dates in articles (175 de-linkings in one edit!). That's a start, isn't it? I also listed some open issues on my user page - several things I tried to fix/improve were locked, and by the last time I checked, nobody had gotten to it. I also tried to fix articles that didn't obey the commandments, but that's where I should have gone all "See no Evil", as you suggested. But hey, thanks for implying that I'm a useless blind squirrel that can be lumped into a category of troublemakers. I love you, too. --DHayes 21:52, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
Yes, you have done some good, and hopefully will continue to broaden yourself in that area. Now, step back from yourself and look at this from the viewpoint of a site such as Conservapedia. Let's pretend for a moment that I sign up to write on a site dealing with liberal viewpoints. There is a continuous string of vandalism on that site and "new" users seem to keep popping up that go directly to the same areas that users have been banned from. For whatever odd quirks of fate, I have somehow followed the same pattern of going to these areas and bring up the same site greivances that they do, all after being on the site for 2 days. If I sound the same tired complaints that the rethreads do, what do you think the site will do? It's up to me to separate myself so that I do not get blocked as surely I can realize that everything about me screams that I am a sock. The only time I would not do this is if I were a sock, and my sole purpose was to complain loudly and frequently. Consider that for how you wish to proceed. You can have potential if you wish to, but that is your choice. Learn together 04:10, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
Note: I got a 1-day block simply for speaking out in this discussion. I will only reply here because I'm about to leave for a good while anyway, so another 1-day block won't bother me too much.
You obviously have not actually looked at my edit history. Or maybe you should look closer:
I started editing on polar bear because Ed spun sources into making it look like polar bears don't suffer under global warming (he did so by only pointing out that there are more bears now than in the 70s - omitting that this increase was merely the result of hunting bans; even the sources he cited quoted scientists who said that global warming is a major problem). Ed's reply was to take one of my talk page comments overly literally and to threaten me with a block "for intentional dishonesty". Lovely, isn't it?
Well, after making my edit, I moved on... and noticed the Progressives and choice article, which cites The Coyote Blog as its only source for the quote that makes up the entire article. Oh, you might not have heard of The Coyote Blog. It's the personal blog of "Warren Meyer, a small business owner in Phoenix, Arizona". I pointed out that this source is just a personal opinion blog by a guy with no authority as a political commentator. Ed never bothered to explain how this source conforms with the Commandments and instead switched the topic to "Refute the content! Discuss the content!" while at the same time making totally-not-personal-comments like "you provide such a consistent example of what Anne Coulter and other conservatives complain of". Oh, plus 90/10 remarks. Lovely again.
From there it went to Double standard, where I noticed that somebody had pointed at a claim was extremely specific, highly dubious and completely unsourced. Ed had added it (I swear, I did not plan to run into the guy again and again! Fate just has a sense of humor!), so I eventually asked him about it. See the talk page and his talk page for the result. In short: Ed instantly interrogated me about what agenda I'm pushing (asking for cites is apparently Liberal Agenda Pushing now), and I got blocked again during that discussion. PJR questioned the block reasoning, but the block expired before Ed could comment on it. He still hasn't done so, so I guess the issue is "resolved".
Okay, so I'll move away from my POV and try to see things from the view of Conservapedia: If I was CP, I would CRY because editors who try help by bringing articles into line with the rules get bullied by conservatives with a persecution complex. You never answered my question about whether the articles I mentioned were trustworthy. I won't push you any more - your constant refusal tells me all I need to know.
Look, you prefer to develop a blind spot for the train wreck that's all around you. Fine. You have the freedom to do so. But don't just label people who don't ignore it as troublemakers or vandals. And don't pretend that CP is doing fine just because you limit your view to "all articles minus those that blatantly violate the rules of the site and common sense".
"People like me" are drawn to these articles because they are advertised on the main page, because they are all over the Recent Changes, and because they are being used in discussions to ridicule liberals who make good points.
I would see your point if a large number of new editors suddenly started criticizing... Harriet Tubman, Poverty or Sulfate aerosol. But articles that are IN PLAIN SIGHT (main page, recent changes, discussions where yet another editor is accused of being in liberal denial while using liberal style and deceit) will attract many people, especially the new ones who don't know that criticizing those articles instantly makes you the target of bullying.
Anyway. I wish you the best. Maybe you'll even become a sysop! Who knows? I on the other hand realized that I wasted my time on CP. I invested hours into going through cites, de-linking dates, weeding out the Wanted Pages list, and correcting errors... but I had been editing in a minefield. Pointing out rule-breaking is forbidden, depending on who broke the rules. And I can't develop a blind spot. I can't look away. And so I don't have a place here. Maybe I'll return if the situation improves - who knows? But for now I'll offer my services at projects where I don't instantly get interrogated for asking for a source. --DHayes 17:54, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

One can not be responsible for another persons wrong actions...~BCSTalk2ME 10:30, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

LearnTogether, there are certainly many non-controversial subjects to which editors could contribute. However, the fact is that no-one - neither sysops, nor average contributors - actually work on those non-controversial subjects, at least as far as I can see. The reason of course is that no-one has an interest in this. This site was founded based upon goals which mandate the creation of controversial material, and to the extent that much of the site's time is taken in debating said controversy, it's a systemic fault that can't be blamed on the "liberal insurgents." If someone takes the time to post inflammatory and controversial material - like blaming murders on liberals, no matter what the circumstances, or otherwise slandering liberals/non-YECers - it should be no surprise whatsoever that the poster's time will be taken in responding to the very responses that he intended to create!
This is especially true as the "encyclopedia" becomes more slanderous. Just look, after all, at category:liberals, the category that drove valued contributor Fox away. As long as the site takes a turn towards the more controversial, the more inflammatory, the more - forgive me for telling it like it is - paranoid & offensive, that's all that the site will ever be. A place for controversy, and not an encyclopedia, and the blame for that can hardly be laid at the feet of the responders whose anger and outrage the original posters, like Ed Poor, seek to provoke in the first place!
The project can be saved from itself, but it'd take the wholesale deletion of category:Liberals, which I don't think will ever happen. That means that Conservapedia will be forever stuck in a loop of (1) insane accusation --> (2) furious rebuttal by liberal --> (3) block said liberal --> (4) start over. Perhaps if some admins viewed their role as something other than inciting anger, then that may change, but...-PhoenixWright 11:34, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
Please be careful to look at the full historical picture of CP. From having corrected a large amount of vandalism as I've gone through articles, I can tell you it started from day one. Most of the articles you currently have difficulty with weren't created until much later. It would be just as easy to flip your argument and say that it's the CP sysops who need to be held blameless for responding in the face of such attacks. Personally, I don't buy either perspective. Each person is responsible for their own actions. Learn together 12:34, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
LearnTogether, it's true that there's a vast amount of content, but the lion's share of what's produced every day is of the offensive variety, and especially more so in recent years! And you're right that respect begets respect. However, since your side is the institution - or, the management, here - it might be fair to ask you to offer the olive branch first. I'm sure the response from our side would be positive, and maybe we could work together without distrust and hatred, then.-PhoenixWright 12:50, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
I have been a part of Conservapedia for 311 days. Do you want to guess how many of those days we have been attacked by vandals? 311. Talk of "extend an olive branch to us" is silly. You, and anyone else, are allowed to come and edit this site as long as it is done so respecting the values that the site upholds. What we are generally seeing is an overwhelming congregating around controversial topics and continually trying to beat a dead horse and little overall project development. Andy has decided that's not the way he wants his site to go, and that is his right. I don't know about the "...what's produced every day is of the offensive variety...". I haven't really looked right now, but I do know since I've been here I've been checking the new articles frequently and that most articles have not fit that mold by a long shot. Can you find things to complain about? I'm sure you can, but there is a vast open expanse where you can use your talents for positive contributions that you are bypassing by continuing to fixate on a small area that offends. That's my 2 cents worth. Learn together 18:53, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
A small area that offends? I encourage you to take a look at Deconstruction. Note the talk page. Then look up "deconstruction" in absolutely any reputable encyclopedia or literary theory book. Note how they bear almost no resemblance to that which is described in the heading on the page. The truth about what the theory is, and the informational value - heck, anything really useful - is sacrificed in the name of ideology. I first encountered this sort of thing when I came upon the deceit article, linked from many places on here, and discovered that it was wholly and absurdly devoted to one political perspective. Any edits to the contrary were scrutinized with incredibly and unrealistically high standards, and I watched as someone tried to add Nixon or Larry Craig, only to have these conservatives removed for various pretexts ("typical political lies, not deceit"). I doubt that anyone but a few sysops actually consider it a reasonable, sensible article: do you? And of course after that, I didn't dare try to FIX deconstruction, and when I brought up the issue I was told it was an "alternative" approach (with no evidence) and subsequently ignored. I am not about to try to edit it to reflect reality and get banned, so instead CP has an ideology-laden propaganda piece in what SHOULD be an encyclopedia entry about a respected literary perspective.
These things perfectly illustrate the problem with CP: the primary focus does not seem to be on information in an encyclopedic fashion. The focus is on presenting the conservative agenda. There's nothing wrong with that, but if CP is to be improved into an informative source, there has to be some sort of mitigation for the terrormongering of the sysops... people with actual information or authority get banned for being liberals (like a doctor who tried to edit the misleading information on the breast cancer page) or intimidated from editing at all (like an english grad student who hesitates to change the insane errors on deconstruction).--TomMoore 00:48, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
Here's a very good, very recent example: [17]. A liberal user blocked for a day for posting a nonvulgar comment on a sysop's page. The comment was this: "DHayes may need your help, he was blocked by Crocoite for "whining"" added to a conversation between DHayes and the sysop. Is that anything like fair? Even if it wasn't his business, isn't that an abuse of power and crudely putting down a user, almost certainly because they were a liberal? This sort of thing doesn't happen to conservatives here.--TomMoore 00:56, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
As I said to Phoenix, can you find things to complain about? I'm sure you can. But you are fixating only on those things that bother you, and that is your right, but it is also the right of the administrators of the site to consider that to be disruptive overall. I would recommend making constructive edits in other areas and building up a reputation for yourself as someone who wants to make positive contributions. Then, once your work is highly thought of, you may be able to present your position in a way that could see your views incorporated into the article. But for the "new" names that pop up for a day and try to immediately go to forcing changing in controversial areas, and those areas only, the possibility of being able to create change is very small. Learn together 19:00, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
Sorry for taking so long to reply... immediately after making the above comment, another thing happened which exactly contradicts what you are saying. I was blocked for a day for the above comment by sysop Crocoite... "00:59, 15 March 2008 Crocoite (Talk | contribs) blocked "TomMoore (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 day (MYOB)". As you can see, I have been banned with the message of "MYOB." Interestingly, this unknown rule violation was added to Crocoite's talk page later that day[18]. If you are a liberal on CP, Learn Together, then you can be banned under new rules BEFORE THEY EVEN EXIST.--TomMoore 01:07, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
Or you can learn and apply some tolerance. Karajou 12:05, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
I don't think that words means what you think it means. For example, tolerance does not mean "standing idly by while I and my ideological peers are slandered."-PhoenixWright 12:10, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
You already know what I'm talking about. And we have been standing idly by for years while we have been slandered and marginalized ourselves. Learn tolerance for conservatives and our viewpoints or leave. Karajou 12:15, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
The proper response to being slandered and marginalized is not to slander and marginalize. While I'm a liberal Christian, I do consider myself a Christian, and I'm fairly sure that Jesus said something about that.-PhoenixWright 12:22, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
As I expected; your version of "turn the other cheek"...meaning we are not only to turn the other cheek, but be continually slapped again and again. Being a Christian does not mean we have to keep being slapped because some liberal insists that it's the Christian thing to do. Pushing your liberalism on this site, demanding that we see your version of the "shades of gray", demanding we experience your version of the "marketplace of ideas", and picking fights with the sysops over article content only indicates you are not a Christian. Karajou 12:29, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
There is no ideological "version" of the marketplace of ideas - the only "version" is where each side may present its beliefs fairly, without facing institutional roadblocks. I don't expect you to adopt my viewpoints, but I expect you to let me debate them with you, especially when your viewpoints may sometimes be constructed in a deliberately offensive manner. I'm sorry you feel like you've been oppressed, or that we're picking fights, but from our perspective, it's you who're picking the fights by writing the content in the first place, accusing all liberals of lying, for example.-PhoenixWright 12:50, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
How do you figure it is we who are picking the fights? You saw what this site is about; you read for yourself that it is conservative in nature; and nobody pointed a gun to your head to get you to come on in, didn't they? Karajou 00:34, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

A lot of people have an interest in this site. I am quite loyal to this site and am interested about its future. Those who are really loyal and really do have a genuine interest in this site will stay to improve it. Though it is regrettable that Fox and others - NOT Iduan, he had other problems - convinced themselves to leave, Conservapedians can do nothing but continue improving the site themselves. If they don't want to stay they can leave and go to wherever they want. ~BCSTalk2ME 12:12, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

That's true. But I think people who really cared about this site would try to make it less of an ad-hominem attack-stravaganza, that is, make it less of a polemic database, and more of an encyclopedia. Bethany, you seem to be engaged in the good side, and I'm glad to see that! After all, if "category:liberals" is really vital to the site's mission, then I have serious doubts about its mission. And may I make it perfectly clear that I don't defend vandalism at all?-PhoenixWright 12:22, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
I do care about this site and fully agree with what Fox said, but it is not a one person effort. People will still stir up trouble and people with opposite opinions will always but heads. Each will try to prove their side is correct. It is just human nature and people just have to cope with that!! ~BCSTalk2ME 12:42, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
Isn't the argument against affirmative action "blacks deserve equal treatment, but they don't deserve special compensatory treatment?" Why, exactly, should anyone advocate affirmative action for wounded conservatives? I know the most-right people here don't see ME as conservative, but I certainly believe that I'm on the Right side of the political spectrum, and I don't need moderators to keep my beliefs safe.
I've said it before and I'll probably say it again (ignorning my own Tilting at Windmills advice :p) - Conservapedia can keep to its stated mission without devolving into idiocy. EASILY. There's a compelling case to be made for conservative political principles. Do that, instead of the other stuff.
Bill Buckley was widely praised, here and elsewhere, at his passing as a keen mind and sharp advocate of conservative principles. Does anyone really think he'd be in favor of the silliness here? Aziraphale 12:53, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
Might I add, "The rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated." I am on hiatus while I consider what to do next, and how the things about CP which I believe are broken might be fixed. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 15:32, 14 March 2008 (EDT)


What's the deal with all this?? What's the issue with Iduan and Fox? And why is the history for "Two meters" (amongst a lot of other things) gone? I feel like I have missed something here. Hammet 00:21, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

It's more like a discussion about Fox not Iduan. Fox left because of good reasons and Iduan had problems, which is why he was blocked. :P ~BCSTalk2ME 08:53, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

That doesn't answer any of my questions. What are those "good reasons"? And why is the history for "Two meters" gone? It seems like it's a big deal but it's impossible to find out what this is all about. Hammet 23:45, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Jimmy Wales corruption

Jimmy Wales has been editing pages in return for cash.[19] - Freddo 21:16, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Someone should post something fair about this, citing an independent source like the Sydney newspaper.--Aschlafly 21:44, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
There are actually about a dozen sources on the wikimedia page, whoever cares enough to post an article on this subject (that doesn't just want to read the article at the link, which is pretty informative and doesn't seem to be doing Wales any favors) could use those to write something pretty substantive. Aziraphale 12:17, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Three murders in less than a week...

Exactly what does the Main Page news item mean when it says that technically the murders occured off campus? Were the murders committed off campus or not? Were the victims perhaps murdered in the gateway? Through the fence? What? --Merriweather 10:04, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I agree, that's a very good question. Perhaps they were shot at from outside campus, while inside, or vice versa?? Hammet 00:27, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
Merriweather, "occurred" is spelled with two "r"s. As to your substantive objection, the point here is clear: murders of college students which occur slightly off campus are still college crimes that should be included in statistics and addressed as a college problem.--Aschlafly 18:39, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for the help with the spellig Andy. You haven't actually answered the question though. The use of the word "technically" was entirely misconceived. What exactly did it add to the sentence? The murders were not recorded in the statistics because they occurred off campus (not technically off campus, but actually off campus). You don't think that that is an appropriate way to gather the statistics. We get it. And we still would have got it even if you had not incorrectly included the word "technically". If you can't take constructive critism then I shan't bother in the future. In any case I see that the story has been pushed of the Main Page by more recent additions. --Merriweather 19:39, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
P.S. Are you saying that the three murders took place "slightly off campus"? How far off campus were they? --Merriweather 19:43, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
Merriweather, you seem to miss the point. Please try harder. The word "technically" indicates that things are being taken too literally. The statistics should not ignore murders of college students that occur a mere walking distance off campus. See point #3 of liberal logic.--Aschlafly 19:46, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
I give up. --Merriweather 19:52, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
A mere walking distance off campus? If a church member was killed a few blocks from their chuch, would it be a church shooting? If a non student was killed a few block from campus by another non student would it be a campus shooting? Just wondering. Maestro 09:48, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Poor article selection

Why would you put a link on the news page to the article about attacks on U.S. forces increasing because of antiwar reporting? Did anyone read the caveats? Absolutely ridiculous. And I can't believe that anyone would even publish studies with such profound caveats. Linking to an article such as this cheapens this site. Offers no proof of anything, nothing less than pure opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diavolos (talk)

Common sense and logic suffice in seeing the connection.--Aschlafly 18:28, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
Here are the caveats... city of Baghdad not included (by far the most populous city in the country), previous studies show public debate to be beneficial (so now why are the authors saying that public debate is bad?), not possible to determine whether the attack would not have occurred anyway (basically, the people running the study are saying that they have no idea whether the their theory is valid or not). Let's use some common sense and not post links to articles that discuss such poorly run "studies". While it doesn't surprise me that something like this came from Harvard, editors at Conservapedia should show more restraint. This is simply a matter of cheapening the site because of poor article choice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diavolos (talk)
If you don't think wars are won in the media, you're an idiot. --Ed Poor Talk 18:43, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
"You provide the pictures, I'll provide the war." --Wm. Randolph Hearst. Maestro 09:51, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

"Denying the Undeniable"

  • I'm not going to bother arguing against the inclusion of this; I haven't read the link and it would be a waste of everybody's time. However, I would like to suggest that the wording of the headline be changed. As it reads now ("Denying the Undeniable: The Deception in Denying Liberal Media Bias"), it's kind of repetitive. (Usual disclaimers apply: I won't respond to replies to this, etc., etc.) -CSGuy 18:24, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
The headline is a quote of the headline of the actual article, and thus should not "be changed" to suit a reader's views. The repetition is obviously intended, and it is an example of effective repetition. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:27, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
Andy, don't waste your time on these time-wasters. Just refer him to the Department of Redundancy department. Not only don't liberals like to make distinctions between distinct concepts, they often refuse to agree to let explanations be fully explained. --Ed Poor Talk 18:41, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Podcast?

I like to listen to good humour on the way to work. Do you guys do a podcast that I could download to my IPOD and listen to in the car on the way in? Someone reading the likes of Liberals and friendship in the kind of voice I can only imagine can be attributable to the author of such a masterpiece. Thanks. McCain08 13:43, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Not exactly related, but I also wonder if there are any Conservapedia merchandise (T-shirts, stickers etc.) available, or plans to start selling merchandise? I would certainly buy. Hammet 18:21, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Masterpiece of the week

This week's masterpiece is The Swing by Jean-Honore Fragonard. This picture is not at all suitable for a family encyclopedia. The painting shows a man getting a view up a lady's skirt at a time when there were no undergarments. More over the the swing is pushed by her lover who is a priest. Read about the scandal behind this picture in authoritative art critic websites. Please remove this and put something appropriate. --Heffalump 14:05, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Actually, you are quite incorrect. I have studied that time period extensively and know for a fact they had many undergarments. The painting will remain on the front page. Thanks, ~BCSTalk2ME 14:46, 17 March 2008 (EDT)


Dear Bethany,

I do not for a moment doubt your in depth knowledge about the undergarments available during the mid 18th century as you claim, even though I believe they were widely used only in the late 18th century. During the time of the painting ladies only wore petticoat and panier.

I have some experience in paintings and art. This painting is notorious for its erotic nature in the art circles. Please note that the actual name of the painting is not " the swing". It is L'oscillation and Les hazards heureux de l'escarpolette which translates roughly to "the happy accidents on the swing". You can guess what that means. Just think of your self as the painter - if you have to add a male character, would you add him just at the left corner looking up her skirt? Just check out these links.

1. http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/his/CoreArt/art/anc_frag_swing.html

2. http://arts.guardian.co.uk/portrait/story/0,,740240,00.html -

Fragonard is a flamboyantly erotic artist. Like the early 18th-century French painter Watteau, the greatest exponent of the curly, fluent style known as the rococo, he slips constantly between representation and metaphor. Watteau painted pastoral scenes of masked love and dreamy seductions. But where Watteau implies sex, Fragonard paints it directly in scenes of voyeurism, the man looking up his mistress's skirt in The Swing, or a secret liaison in The Stolen Kiss (c.1766). There's a graphic explicitness to his art, yet, at the same time, he's a true rococo artist in his enjoyment of textures, silks and lace for their own sake.

3. http://incurable-insomniac.blogspot.com/2008/02/favorite-things-art-of-fragonard.html

Next, we have the gentleman who is lying in the rose bush, looking up at the lady in the swing. Historically, we know that this is the man who initially commissioned the painting, although his name is unknown. He was at one time thought to have been the Baron de Saint-Julien, the Receiver General of the French Clergy, who asked that he be depicted as the voyeur in the painting. The look of rapture on his face is due to the view to which he is being treated – right up the lady’s skirt! To understand this rapture you must know that in the 18th century, women wore no bloomers or knickers, only a panier and petticoat, and stockings that were held up with delicate ribbons. In a word, Monsieur is getting an eyeful; he is literally gasping with anticipation!

I rest my case.--Heffalump 17:42, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Heffalump - you win your case. This picture is clearly unsuitable and I assume an oversight on the part of the admins JThomson 17:51, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

St. Patrick's Day

What's with this "Happy St. Patrick's Day" stuff? St. Patrick's Day, at least in the United States, is really just another excuse for people to party and get drunk. I don't think that's anything to be happy about.

St. Patrick's Day is also another excuse for stores to sell seasonal stuff, sort of like (Saint) Valentine's Day (another holiday once associated with a saint). --Elkman 21:09, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Would you also argue that we shouldn't celebrate Christmas, because a lot of people have secularized the holiday? Or Easter? HelpJazz 21:16, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm from Ireland and am quite upset because of that bigotry on Elkmans part. He should show more respect for other social mores. Tolst 14:11, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

siteadvisor

Guys, did you notice the comments about the Conservapedia from Siteadvisor.[20] It appears some people try mislead us.

Siteadvisor is one of software that give you safely advises from officials and users. Good thing is the officials, mark conservapedia green(which is good). However some user, mark the site red, marks as This site spams, Phishing or other scams, and Browser exploit.

Sorry for my grammar, I'm still learning. User:TagoPagdaluhongTalk

Candidate for news story

Thought you might be interested to read this and possibly include it as a news story.

Religion 'linked to happy life' - A belief in God could lead to a more contented life, research suggests.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7302609.stm JThomson 09:21, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for that; I've posted it. Philip J. Rayment 09:52, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Conservatism?

Isn't the word conservativism, not conservatism? Or am I mistaken?

From the main page: The Essence of Conservatism

JeffreyBean 16:21, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

conservatism, Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary. --Crocoite 16:58, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

I stand corrected. JeffreyBean 18:12, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Bucknell

Wow! I never thought I'd see my little alma mater on the front page!

I would like to make some observations, if I may. First of all, despite being a very liberal campus, the Counterweight (the conservative club's paper) is probably the most read publication on campus. Granted, most people read it because they disagree with it, but it definitely goes faster than the "liberal" (read: socialist) paper or even the official paper, the Bucknellian.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that liberals were trying to censor, and there is no way to pick out one article from the whole paper. Since nobody has any idea what happened to the papers (my personal theory is that they were picked up faster than expected), there is simply no way to know what the purpose of the disappearance was, or who was responsible.

For all the papers to have been stolen, there must have been some sort of organization. I can tell you from personal experience: our organized liberals (which would be either Students for Fair Trade or the Democrat Club) would not have done this, and I don't think you would be able to get a group of students together in a way that nobody knew anything. There has been absolutely no talk on campus about who could have done this. Zero rumors whatsoever.

I do have to say though, that the Focus on the Nation was complete crap. If you want to have a news item about Bucknell, that should have been it. They closed down the main cafeteria, and made people go downhill to our old gymnasium (at the edge of campus opposite where all of the academic buildings are) to eat organic food on recycled plates and listen to lectures. We certainly have professors who are qualified to discuss climate change, energy efficiency, and many various related topics (I have taken some very good classes), but instead the lectures were largely given by people out of their field. It was not a happy day for HelpJazz I can tell you that much! HelpJazz 01:04, 19 March 2008 (EDT)


HelpJazz, your statement "Since nobody has any idea what happened to the papers (my personal theory is that they were picked up faster than expected), there is simply no way to know what the purpose of the disappearance was, or who was responsible" doesn't make sense after further research.
"The first issue of this semester was printed and distributed on Monday, February 18. Within 24 hours, over 1,000 copies were stolen from locations across the Bucknell campus.
A large proportion of the remaining press run was distributed again on the morning of Tuesday, February 19. In approximately one hour, all of the issues were again taken." So Much for Open Debate at Bucknell
"Members of The Counterweight discovered a portion of the stolen publications bound with duct tape, under a staircase in a campus dorm." Conservative Student Newspaper at Bucknell Overcomes Vandals’ Attack
"Unfortunately, 'this isn't the first time that significant portions of a press run have been stolen." Stolen Papers at Bucknell
This sure looks like vandalism and censorship to me. --Crocoite 02:05, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
I hadn't actually seen those other sources. It never occurred to me that it would be something that would make it to other news organizations, so I didn't look it up. The only "official" word we have had was the letter from the president which stated that papers were allegedly stolen. I didn't know they were gone in such a short time frame or that some of them were later found. (It doesn't help that our newspaper schedule was messed up by spring break...).
So I update my speculation and would agree that the act was probably theft, vandalism and harassment. I still believe, however, that there is no evidence that it was censorship ("the prohibition of speech from a[n]... audience for ideological reasons" [21]), that it was perpetrated by liberals, or that the reason this issue was targeted was because of the anti-environmentalism content. HelpJazz 16:17, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Ten?

The article on the front page, "Ten Conservative Principles", links to a page containing six principles, not ten. Am I missing something? Eoinc 12:02, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

There's a second link, an external one, which contains all ten. The article on this site is still under construction to add the other four. -^_^- Fuzzy 12:06, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Arthur C. Clarke has died.

I'm fairly certain this is newsworthy if "10 Traits of Conservatives" is. -MakeTomorrow 21:51, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Front Page Suggestion

This one looks interesting. [22] It's about a librarian who had a man viewing child porn arrested, and then was fired for her efforts. Learn together 12:13, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Question

I'm still new here, and I was considering whether this would be better suited for a debate page or here, so if I've made a mistake, please tell me and I'll remedy it any way I can. I just wonder what others think about this article from TIME. I'm no fan of the Democrats. But if the liberals started purposely attacking Republican primeries, let alone having the major voices encourage it, I would be, quite justly, enraged. What does everyone else think about this? DrCB 21:19, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

The danger for the Republicans is that they might get Clinton the nomination - the candidate that many Republican supporters and commentators have openly declared they would vote for instead of McCain - unwittingly letting a Democrat win the presidency. However, there is no outrage to be felt. That's the way the system works and, in the end, the electorate votes (indirectly) between the two final candidates. If the Democrats feel they are being manoeuvred by Republicans, then they just need to work harder to increase Democrats' participation. If you still feel uncomfortable with the system allowing this inter-party meddling, then your campaign should be for the system to change rather than criticising Republicans for doing it. Most politicians wouldn't let an opportunity like that by if it isn't illegal or even immoral. If they did, they wouldn't be very successful politicians. Ajkgordon 06:04, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
Let me add to the above: If Democrats don't want Republicans engaging in "inter-party meddling," then they oughtn't to do it themselves.--TerryHTalk 11:15, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
Terry, the Time story didn't say that Democrats have been complaining. The above post was from a claimed Republican saying he would complain if Democrats did it. Ajkgordon 11:44, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
I think this is a fairly common practice in states that have open primaries. There are examples of incumbent members of congress losing their seats after being defeated in their party primaries because of "crossing over" voters.--Recorder 12:40, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Question about our news thingy

Why do we have images of classical masterpieces in our "In the News" box, we already have a "Masterpiece of the week" thingy The user formerly known as DLerner 10:10, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Because we are celebrating the Resurrection this weekend.--Aschlafly 10:36, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
So what, nothing about Purim, (also this weekend) The user formerly known as DLerner 10:43, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Humour

Who laughs at this, and who gets enraged?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCzbNkyXO50

Hammet 17:51, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Neither. HelpJazz 17:54, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
I laughed. For those in the know, that was from the Chaser team here in Australia, some of the funniest comedians everywhere. (For those who remember, they were the ones who got someone dressed like Osama Bin Laden right up to the APEC summit, this is from their old program CNNNNN. Very funny The user formerly known as DLerner 19:47, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
It reminds me of that great (but sadly true) Onion headline - 'Gay gene isolated, ostracised'. --wikinterpreter woo!
They really isolated the gay gene? ;-) HelpJazz 20:37, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
No. Philip J. Rayment 08:51, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
I know, I was poking fun at wikinterpreter's "sadly true" comment. HelpJazz 10:24, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm telling you, this group is our generations Monty python, search on youtube for "Chaser's war" and you will be laughing for a long time The user formerly known as DLerner 20:41, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Meh. You are probably right in saying it's "our generations Monty python", but I can't say that I've really agreed with most of my generation's tastes ;-) (Either that or I just don't get the British humor -- or should I say humour.) HelpJazz 22:00, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
These guy are Australian, can't you tell from the accent. The user formerly known as DLerner 22:04, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
Er normally I can tell the difference. This one didn't have a ton of dialogue, though, so maybet that was it. Either way, I didn't find it all that funny. HelpJazz 22:07, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
Huh? It had dialogue all the way through! But my problem with it is that it is a straw-man parody. It appears to be a parody on Christian scientists trying to isolate the homosexual gene so that homosexuality can be treated. However, the only claims for a homosexual gene have been by homosexual scientists trying to justify the lifestyle, so the parody is a false one anyway. I might add that the Chaser team have been heavily criticised for some of their stunts being illegal and downright dangerous. Philip J. Rayment 08:51, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
The only shows which have ever really criticised them for being illegal or downright dangerous are Today Tonight and ACA, and neither of those can really be considered reliable sources. In fact the Chaser team has come out and stated that many of their stunts which may appear illegal or dangerous have been staged, so that's that. My only criticism of them is that their work now tries to appease all their viewers rather than running a true social commentary. I would like to see someone refute this sketch though, it is a much more valid criticism. TheGySom 09:13, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
You may be right about the criticism coming from Today Tonight and ACA, but their cases did seem rather convincing, and the Chaser's defences unconvincing, although I can't recall specifics now. (I certainly wouldn't defend Today Tonight and ACA as reliable sources; Melbourne Today Tonight's recent piece on public transport was shocking journalism.)
More valid? Hardly. For Leviticus 20:21 see here. For the other references, the Old Testament law was given to the Israelites of the time, and they are no longer applicable. That's the laws and punishments, though, not the principles behind the laws. Homosexuality is against God's design and is also condemned in the New Testament. The Chaser team could only produce that segment by (a) being negligently ignorant of such things (do they do any research? Sorry, any research other than fits their agenda?), or (b) being deliberately ignorant of such things. It's bad enough that two-bit sceptics broadcast this bigoted nonsense all over the Internet, but for a television show to do it "professionally" is contemptible.
Philip J. Rayment 09:39, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
TheGySom: Here's a video that refutes that criticism. In fact, the guy gives a much more convincing argument than in your video. --Elkman 13:57, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
You sure you put the right link there, Elkman? Philip J. Rayment 00:12, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
Whoops. I think I made a careless copy/paste error. And now I don't remember what the correct link was. --Elkman 09:28, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

<- @ Phil: I'll be the first to admit that I'm not an expert at the Bible, but it will be something I have a closer look at when I have time. Do you have any other links specific to the verses raised in the video?

@ Elkman: ...right, I'll be sure to keep that in mind TheGySom 08:54, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Specific to each of those verses? No, not to hand. But have a look here, search the page for "stoning", and read about the next eight paragraphs. It's basically a better-worded explanation like I gave above. Philip J. Rayment 10:11, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

It's a bloody joke, take it easy fellas The user formerly known as DLerner 08:54, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Parody

This is just a thought, but do you think this place would attract half as much parody if it wasn't so easy to actually parody you? With the literally insane Liberal and Homosexual articles, you people are the butt of many jokes of internet forums throughout the internet. Your quickly turning into an internet phenonoman. JordanR 07:47, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

But the google rankings for those articles are high!--Jdellaro 10:41, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
Actually, I've been reading this site almost every day for over a year now, having edited under a few dozen different user names, and I'm still not entirely sure whether or not this site actually is a parody itself?? I'm reading it as if it were, anyway, and I believe most other visitors and some editors do the same.
Most of this stuff is wonderful, especially the "Liberal" and "Homosexual" articles. Satire has never been funnier.
The only thing I would like to change around here is that I like you all to stop blocking/banning ip:s of parodists, it should be enough to just revert if it's over-the-top. Hammet 11:33, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Name Change?

Hello, I don't know where to put this, but hopefully people will see it here...anyway, is it possible for me to have a username change? Thanks, --Hammer 18:48, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

You need to ask a bureaucrat. Try Aschlafly. Philip J. Rayment 23:52, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Utmost Caution

In order to hijack TK's account on RW, they would have to rewrite the MediaWiki software since it encrypts user's passwords. If that is the case they might have discovered a vulnerability in the software which they could take advantage of. I'm sure you realise the consequences of this...Angband 08:40, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Personal tools