Talk:Main Page/archive54

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Encyclopedia or Blog?

And please, before you jump to any rash conclusions please look at my contributions.

I think we should concentrate on making an encyclopedia. One way or the other we have to work out if we are an encyclopedia or a blog. The likes of Hollywood Values etc. have no value on an encyclopedia and are made up terms.

Encyclopedists are not innovators. They are people whose love for knowledge translates into them making articles for others to read. We are not a thinktank - we shouldn't be writing on things that don't exist in the mainstream and then presenting them on fact. These sort of things belong in a blog, not an encyclopedia. Thank you. LeaningRight 21:51, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, but an encyclopedia does describe commonly held belief systems, such as Christianity, conservative, liberal, atheism and ... Hollywood values. You're in the wrong place if you think you are going to censor enlightening information that is embarrassing to the Left.--Aschlafly 22:33, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
Andy, I don't think ANYONE here has asked you to "censor enlightening information that is embarrassing to the Left." However, I'll ask you not to "censor enlightening information that is embarrassing to the Right." Because you do. All the time. And it isn't doing this site's hypothetical credibility any good to run this site like you think that all Conservatives are shining paragons of purest Virtue sent by God personally to purify a sin- and Liberal-ridden world. --Gulik5 20:38, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
Andy, look up any encyclopedia and see if you can find an article on 'Professor Values' or 'Hollywood Values'. I have no interest in censoring information, but in creating an encyclopedia. What purpose do they serve other than to make conservatives look whiny? LeaningRight 08:27, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
They serve the purpose of showing the world exactly how Liberals act and think. Most Encyclopaedias are written by pseudo-intellectual, PC, Liberals who want to censor the Truth about the world and the immoral trends it's following. I, for one, applaud the efforts of Mr. Schlafly. And, although I've just joined, I hope I can help to make this a place where the The Truth can be read without any encumbrance. Thank you.--RKline 09:33, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
I've seen this kind of exchange in CP a lot of the past few months, and it always comes down to the same issue - "What is THE truth, and who gets to decide it?" "2+2=4" is the truth, unless you are using a different math than most of mankind. "A whale is a mammal, not a fish" is the truth; as long as we agree on the definition of "mammal" and "fish", a whale will be mammal to anyone who observes one for himself, anywhere, anytime. Entries like "Hollywood Values", though, are stereotypes of bias. The description is not academic, and it does not apply to everyone living or working in Hollywood or the entertainment industry, only to some cherry-picked examples. (Are Charlton Heston or Ben Stein examples of Hollywood Values?). A true and useful encyclopedia would allow a new reader to view the world in an accurate, consistent way for what it is. If a young student read the posting on Hollywood Values and met Mr. Heston in person without knowing the man as an individual, would this article be an appropriate guide? The test of CP as an encyclopedia, especially for home-schooled students, should be "does it prepare them to deal with an idealogy, or with reality?"--DinsdaleP 12:09, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
I see that the article on "Professor Values" was changed back to the original (sigh). Guess I got my answer.--DinsdaleP 12:46, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

You lot talk about the Liberals as if they represent a monolithic group who aim to control the media and all knowledge. It reminds me of the hysteria surrounding the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Let it go people. Go out for a walk with your family and get that hatred out of your system. LeaningRight 09:36, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

I would love to be able to take my family out for a walk. I would love to be able to freely walk around my city (Montreal, Quebec) without fear of exposing my children to the immoralities of today's Liberal world: strip clubs, Homosexuals kissing in public, etc. The fact of the matter is that this world is falling into the gutter faster than we can imagine.
We do not hate Liberals. We're just angry at what they've done to this world. And, in my own way, I am angry at myself and other Conservatives for not doing more to stop this from happening.--RKline 09:43, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
The point LeaningRight is making is that CP can contain useful articles, and present them from the conservative perspective, without resorting to stereotypes or presenting opinion as fact without academically-sound backing. I've notices that the title of "Professor Values" was changed because a significant number of respected contributors thought that label was crossing the line. If CP is meant to be a collaborative effort, then it has to be open to constructive criticism without responses accusing the critics of liberal bias or censorship.--DinsdaleP 10:07, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
Out of morbid curiosity, RKline, do you think Liberals have ever done 'anything good? And if not, what's the moral justification for NOT having all of us rounded up and shot?
(I'll make it easy for you, if you'd rather not confess to such...questionable beliefs: pretty much by definition, Abolitionism was a "liberal" political movement. Unless you think freeing the slaves was a bad idea, in which case I can't help much.) --Gulik5 12:51, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
Don't be absurd! The freeing of the slaves was a great event for all of mankind (may I remind you that many freed slaves came to Canada?) Man should serve no one else but God. Also, the freeing of the slaves saved them from their primitive ways, which included the worship of false deities.
The point I was trying to make is that Liberalism, in the last hundred years or so, has been the cause of most of the ills of and the complete moral decay of this country and most other First World Nations. Not all but most. Promiscuity, prostitution, drugs, rape, murder; almost all cases of these can be traced back to a Liberal view of the world in one way or another.
And your comment about "rounding you all up" is ludicrous. Not only would it break the sixth commandment but it would make us no better. We would be doing to you what you are doing to us: The destruction of beliefs and ways of life.
Unless you actually have something intelligent to say, I suggest you keep your ridiculous drivel to places more appropriate. Thank you.--RKline 15:53, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
Hm.... Liberalism causes most the moral decay, huh? Not bipartisan sins like greed or hatred. Nope, just those HORRIBLE LIBERALS. As we all know, NO Conservative's ever raped or killed anyone. Nope. And back in the 1950's there was no prostitution! Honest!
And we all know that Liberals have never done anything good for anyone.
Okay. I think my Sarcasm Gland is just about tapped out for now. Time to be as serious as I get.
I'm guessing you're not much of a student of history? Believe me, "The destruction of beliefs and ways of life." is NOT a Liberal-only type of Evil. Just ask any Jew over 60 years old, or any American Indian who knows anything about what happened to their ancestors. Or any Albigensians, who didn't get a whole lot of protection from that vaunted 6th Commandment, despite being Christians, just like the people who killed them all. Or, or.... *SKRRRK!*
Sorry, overloaded my keyboard by typing too fast, there. Let me finish off with a quote from a noted Subversive Liberal Agitator who ended up being executed for blasphemy and treason:
"Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. (Matthew 7:1-5)
--Gulik5 20:38, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Really? I was flicking through the block logs and I noticed that a user named Angband was blocked for being a sock(allegedly) of some vandal. The only "misdeed" was to point out the intellectual bankruptcy of Professor Values. Is that how all conservatives treat dissenting voices?Innsmouth 17:26, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

No, just the ones here. ShaggerNorris 17:33, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
I object to stuff like Professor Values due to its redundancy. If Andy REALLY wanted this site to be "concise", we'd just need two articles: "Liberal: EVIL" and "Conservative: Good". All the essays here are just elaboration on that simple, basic, and wrong message. --Gulik5 20:38, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Dead For Nearly An Hour

  • Yes, more of me and my seemingly-pathological need to make clarifications nobody really wants to read. My usual disclaimers apply.
Clarification) The man came back to life after a prayer and another application of an electric shock.
Pedantry) From what I can tell, he was only officially "dead" for a few minutes.
Randomness) What kind of name for an angel is "Bob"?
Comment) This article is dated February 1st. It's hardly "breaking."
That is all. Feel free to respond, ignore, delete, vandalize, colorize, move, translate, whatever. -CSGuy 18:25, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, I don't want to be a wet blanket or anything, but there's nothing necessarily miraculous here. Guy drops over from a massive heart attack in the hospital, and doctors are able to immediately begin CPR, keeping blood and oxygen flowing through his body, and just when they decide to give up, they give him one more shock and his heart starts working again. Rare, but not at all unheard-of (they wouldn't have worked at it as long as they did if his potential recovery was impossible). And the article's statements that the guy was "starting to decompose" and that it all "can't be explained by medicine or science" are hooey. Still, it's a nice story, and worth keeping as is.--RossC 18:39, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
Being medically dead (heart stopped beating) for an extended period of time is nothing unusual, in Australia patients in an ED suffering from a heart disease/stroke etc are usually attempted to be recusitated for at least 30 minutes before CPR is stopped, oxygen stops going to their brain and they become brain dead. If signs are encouraging (that the patient will be brought back to life) then this time period will be extended, which appears to be the case here. The article states that he was brought back to life through a defibrillator, this is hardly anything new, it happens to thousands of patients worldwide every year. Whether or not the revival would have occurred without the prayer should be left up to the opinion of an independent medical expert, but cases like these without prayer have happened in almost every modern hospital in the world.
So I put my vote in for the headline to be reworked. For a start the line "stone dead" needs to be changed to medically dead, as the latter implies that the man could not be revived. Similarly it must be clarified that an electric shock was the act that brought the man back to life, not prayer. Thirdly it needs to be clarified that this happens to many people. May I suggest something like:
A man who was medically dead for over an hour and whom other doctors had given up on is brought back to life through defibrillation after a prayer by cardiologist Dr. Chauncey Crandall. Many people are revived each year through defibrillation, however Dr. Crandall believes that in this case prayer was the deciding factor: "The reason I pray for people is because I found, early in my trained practice, that there were miracles, unexplained healings." [1]
Part of my response got cut out due to an edit conflict, here it is in dot points:
  • The man was not "stone dead" for over an hour, he was medically dead (heart stopped beating). During this time doctors were forcing oxygen into his body and artificially pumping his heart, causing the vital organs (particularly the brain) to keep working. Many people have been medically dead for an extended period of time, and have come back to life due to CPR and other medical measures, not due to a miracle.
  • It appears CPR was stopped when Dr. Crandall confirmed there was little hope for the man (there's little point calling a specialist to look at a dead body). In this case it was stopped only for about 1-2 minutes, which is not enough time for the body to become brain dead, and hence it is not a miracle the man was brought back to life.
  • Decomposition probably occurred at the fingertips and toes due to the lower levels of oxygen circulating in the body, again this happens in many patients, and is easily rectified. If CPR was stopped then minor decomposition would have occurred across the body due to the absence of blood both preventing the normal functions of cells and also preventing cells from growing (and hence from dividing, replacing those which die), however this does not mean that the body could not come back to life. I also suspect (but have no evidence for) that the body may undergo minor decomposition while the patient is awake if they are having a heart attack, again because of lower oxygen levels, in this case decomposition would have started before the man even reached hospital, and cannot be used as a measure of his death or to show that it is impossible to bring him back to life.
  • The patient was brought back to life using a defibrillator, not using prayer. Contrary to their common portrayal in television, defibrillators are the final hope for the patient (they are not used until every other measure has been undertaken), and their success rate is nowhere near 100% (I remember the figure 25%-30% from somewhere, and even then there is no guarantee that the heart will keep beating indefinitely), this could be why Dr. Crandall viewed the act as a miracle. There is no indication that a defibrillator was used before (possibly because Dr. Crandall told the emergency doctors the patient would not make it) and even if it was it is not unheard of patients remaining unresponsive to the first shock, but being revived on the second/third. TheGySom 19:27, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
Bump TheGySom 00:13, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
I've modified the item. Some responses to comments above:
  • CSGuy, could you please write an article on names of angels, seeing you seem to know so much about them?
  • I agree that "stone dead" does not seem accurate. I've made it just "dead".
  • The article clearly says that the body had begun to decompose. It's true that people might read too much into that, but the source article does say it, and anybody reading the phrase in context should not make too much of it, so I think that mention is okay.
  • I've included mention of the defibrillator; that deserves a mention.
  • TheGySom, contrary to your comment that there's no indication that a defibrillator had already been used, the source article says that Crandall "insisted they shock him one more time" (my emphasis).
As the main page item now stands, it doesn't seem so certain that it was due to prayer, but then that's something that we can't be certain about anyway, even if we can be reasonably confident.
Philip J. Rayment 02:14, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
I know very little about names of angels. "Bob" just doesn't seem like a very "angel-y" name to me. It's kind of like having a vampire named "Louie" (apparently Interview with a Vampire had one). The "Randomness)" tag was meant to indicate humor; apparently, I'll need to work on my methods. -CSGuy 08:29, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
Or perhaps I should. I did realise that it wasn't a serious criticism! :-) Philip J. Rayment 09:32, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
The Church of the SubGenius has a savior named "Bob". If it's good enough for him, it's good enough for an angel, I'd imagine. --Gulik5 12:32, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Princeton University

Is it a secret who the Conservapedian speaker at Princeton University is. It would also be nice to know who invited the speaker and where and when this talk takes place. Is it open to the public? CKaelin 15:40, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Tonight, at eight I think. I'm not sure the speaker wants everyone to know who is (modesty, perhaps) but he is well known among us all. --Steve 18:10, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
Ha! Ha! Perhaps it is a surprise!! :P ~BCSTalk2ME 18:57, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

A Conservapedian speaking at Princeton University sounds impressive although the broken news fails to note, much as the Associated Press does, that it was hosted by the student group Princeton Pro-Life and attended by little more than 20 people. ClaudineIsaacs 06:28, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Your reference to the Associated Press is puzzling. Did it carry a story about the event? A link would be helpful.
The leaders of the pro-"choice" group were there last night, as was a prominent breast cancer surgeon, and the size of the attendance enabled full and thorough answers to all the doubts about the abortion-breast cancer link. Many gained a new realization that, yes, childbirth does prevent breast cancer, and choosing abortion instead does increase the risk for the mother. There is no denying that logic, and by the end of this event no one did.--Aschlafly 09:11, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
That's true, but by the same undeniable logic birth control, celibacy and even adoption increase the risk of breast cancer if you never give birth on your own as a result. Equating "not giving birth" with abortion in this context is misleading. --DinsdaleP 14:00, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
There is nothing misleading about comparing the risks between the only two options available to a pregnant woman: giving birth or having an abortion. She should be informed about the risk of breast cancer for those two options. Abortion increases that risk, but pro-abortion types oppose informing her.--Aschlafly 14:17, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
What's misleading is that the abortion itself does not increase the risk of breast cancer - it only eliminates the opportunity for a reduction in that risk via childbirth.
If a woman's chance of getting breast cancer is x, then what you're implying with these headlines is that an abortion raises that chance to "x plus something", when the reality is that it stays the same - only if she gives birth does the probability go to "x minus something".
I don't like abortion, but I don't like this kind of statistical manipulation either. --DinsdaleP 17:13, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
I don't have anything very unique to add - I think DinsdaleP wrote the treatise on why Conservapedia's frequent harping on the "abortion raises breast cancer risk" is erroneous. I only write in the hope that some Sysop will defend this kind of misleading statistic, or at least provide a coherent argument as to how the statistic isn't flawed. Obviously, the former is the logical way to go, as the latter would be an even more egregious violation of logic than the use of the statistic itself. --MarthaB 19:18, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
If no one can objectively refute my statement above, then as a Trustworthy Encyclopedia, all of the articles tying breast cancer to abortion should be edited to correct the misstatements about the connection that are there today. Anything else is dishonest, not matter how just the cause seems to the authors. --DinsdaleP 08:02, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
DindsdaleP and MarthaB, there is no denying that more abortions mean more breast cancers, and that a pregnant woman increases her risk of breast cancer if she has an abortion. Denying that is like denying that "2+2=4". The expert for the abortion industry admitted, under oath, the obvious truth that choosing abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. You can deny logic all you like, but you're not going to persuade anyone and I doubt you'll do anything for the women who develop breast cancer after they have abortions.--Aschlafly 08:33, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
It can be denied that abortions increase the risk of breast cancer, and I showed why in two sentences above, using simple and clear logic. Your response didn't refute that logic, but side-stepped it and answered it with rhetoric instead. I'm being respectful enough to post a thoughtful point based on reason, so can I get an equally thoughtful response? In short, can you specifically point out the flaw in my logic above without resorting to rhetoric, or stating your position as "the obvious truth" when I've shown it's not? I'm willing to be convinced if a rational case is presented. --DinsdaleP 17:22, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
DinsdaleP, there is no denying that a young pregnant woman increases her risk of breast cancer by choosing abortion rather than childbirth. That conclusion follows directly from the indisputable observation that childbirth prevents breast cancer. This effect cannot logically be denied. If every pregnancy ended in abortion, then the breast cancer rate would skyrocket even more than it has.
Abortion further increases the risk of breast cancer due to biological effects of an increase in cancer-vulnerable lobules in the first two trimesters, without the cancer-protective effects provided by the third trimester.--Aschlafly 21:05, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
Not reducing the probability of cancer is not the same as raising it, and it's dishonest to claim otherwise. I'm not pro-abortion, but it's hypocritical to claim the moral high ground on this issue and mislead people at the same time. --DinsdaleP 21:45, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
Dinsdale, a pregnant 20-year-old has two choices: abortion or childbirth. Choosing abortion does increase her risk of breast cancer compared to her only other option, and she should be told that. If you won't admit that basic fact, then this is waste of time. I'll move on to people who will accept basic logic and the truth.--Aschlafly 22:38, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
What you're looking for aren't people who accept logic and truth; you want people who accept the bias and misleading spin of your viewpoint without questioning it. I presented the actual logic of this situation above, but I don't expect anything on CP to change because advancing your agenda is more important than objectivity. Based on your "logic", if that 20-year-old chose to have the baby and then suffered a first-trimester miscarriage, would you walk up to her and tell her that her risk of breast cancer just went up? I'd hope not, especially because it wasn't true, and if it's not true in that case it's not true in the case of an abortion. Like I said, I'm not pro-abortion, just pro-fairness, and in the long run you'll win a lot more people over to your position if you present honest arguments. --DinsdaleP 10:26, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
Dinsdale, instead of accepting basic logic, you now introduce a new factual absurdity: that miscarriage is identical to abortion. It isn't. I'm not going to waste any more time explaining logical truths to you. You have free will to reject the truth, and you could have a bright future with the tobacco or abortion industries in the way that you persistently deny an indisputable cause of cancer.--Aschlafly 15:32, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
I'm anti-abortion in the sense that I see it as a moral choice a woman has to make for herself, instead of being forced to by the state. All making it illegal does is drive it underground unless you win hearts & minds as well. My point above wasn't that abortion and miscarriage are identical (your words, not mine), but that by using your "logic", they both increase the risk of breast cancer when that's not the case at all. That's the second time in this thread I've used reason and logic to point out the misleading nature of stating that abortions themselves increase the risk of breast cancer, and the response in both cases has been to be dismissive and claim that a proper response is a waste of time instead of providing one. I'm being respectful of this audience by taking your position seriously and putting up thoughtful responses; can I get the same consideration in return?
Oh, and I'm anti-tobacco as well - it cost me three of my grandparents before their time, so don't accuse me of being in denial about carcinogens, please. This forum deserves better respect in its exchanges. --DinsdaleP 16:02, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
I've been reminded that I need to contribute more articles & edits before posting on the talk pages as much as I've done, so I'll get to it. Hope the discussion's been enlightening, at least. --DinsdaleP 16:49, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
Was the meeting covered anywhere, and can a link be provided if so? I looked at the Princeton University calendar of events for this week and found nothing, so I'm assuming this was a privately-held talk as opposed to a presentation hosted by the University itself. --DinsdaleP 11:38, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
Don't know about the Associated Press reference above, but I do know that the only informative and provocative talks on college campuses are the ones arranged by official student groups, as mine was.--Aschlafly 11:52, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
I can't have an informative and provocative talk, unless its sponsored by a student group? Really? --JanetR 12:16, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
Yes, "Really". Let us know when you can show us a counterexample.--Aschlafly 12:40, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
Nice try, Schlaf-Dogg. If I give a counterexample to one of your "universal truths," then you'll declare me a godless liberal for trying to disprove a rule with a single example. I'm not going to fall into your web of trickery and deceit.
I'm not trying to make a mind-blowing point here. I'm just trying to show you that sometimes, meaningful conversations can happen on a campus even when they aren't sponsored by a student organization. If your cancer chit-chat happened between you and your friends, while on a campus, without student organizations supporting you, would you be so quick to dismiss the possible importance of your rhetoric? --JanetR 12:49, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
Pathetic - you resort to name-calling. You're not persuading anyone here, and probably not anyone anywhere else either.--Aschlafly 12:52, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
Umm, I don't think she called you any name. Unless ... do you think that "Schlaf-Dogg" is offensive? The kids are all about that kind of thing, these days. --MarthaB 19:19, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
"Umm", she did name-call out of desperation, regardless of whether you think it was offensive. And, by the way, I've personally taught 145 teenagers and they do not name-call like that in the middle of a debate. Perhaps liberal kids "are all about that kind of thing, these days."--Aschlafly 08:27, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Most liberals today, are about exactly that. Name calling and driving off dissent, and when that doesn't work, censoring and shouting down POV's they don't agree with. Can someone provide evidence of conservative groups shouting down liberals, not allowing them to speak? The news is full of liberal students doing that to conservative speakers on college campuses thoughtout the nation. What ideas they cannot defend, they turn to personal denigration and name calling and shouting down. Sad, really. --₮K/Talk 22:56, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

I agree, I can't think of any conservatives who shout down liberals, or regularly accuse them of liberal deceit. Its not like anyone here blames the world's problems on liberal bias. FernoKlump 23:20, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
You can't, FernoKlump? I can! Aschlafly and yours truly do quite often, call liberals on their deceit. And in your post, you reveal what about many liberals that is so anti-intellectual. There is a big difference between calling someone on their deceptions and dissembling and shouting them down, not even allowing them to have their say. Trying to equate a bunch of angry liberals acting like a mob, not even allowing someone like Coulter to speak, isn't the same, and I am certain you know that. But thanks for the illustration...thanks for demonstrating how liberals like to argue! --₮K/Talk 00:42, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
I can see why some people may not like Ann Coulter speaking, when someone talks about killing others and accusing them of being godless its bound to wind someone up. You cant just express hatred like that.

AdenJ 01:04, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

You can, Aden? Really? Hatred? Perhaps you are being disingenuous? Surely there cannot be a person left on Planet Earth who hasn't read at least one bio of Coulter, and doesn't know she uses shock to get attention/make her points, and never actually called for any one's killing? What country do you live in that has so little regard for free speech that causes you to say calling someone "godless" cannot be allowed, let alone is considered hate? Unlike some well-known "liberal" wiki's and sites, at least CP allows others to voice their opinions, and doesn't seek to silence/remove them unless and until they become abusive in being repetitive and intolerant of those who oppose them they start name calling. I find it more disturbing you make excuses for those who would silence Coulter (or anyone)for saying what they believe. But then, I shouldn't because many liberals are all about shutting up anyone they don't agree with. Look at the Daily Kos or the Huffington Times forums, where liberals are engaged in demanding Hillary supporters be silenced and drummed out! --₮K/Talk 05:45, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
I wouldn't go as far as saying "there cannot be a person left on Planet Earth who hasn't read at least one bio of Coulter". The U.S. maybe. Until perhaps 18 months ago, I'd never heard of here. Even now, I next to nothing about her, and don't recall reading any sort of bio on her, at least one detailed enough to say that she uses shock to get her message across. Philip J. Rayment 06:19, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
  • Well try [here], or [here] Philip. Perhaps you are just a naturally dry person, and very literal, not to have understood my sarcasm in asking that question. That hardly invalidates the points made, eh? Or perhaps your post was "fatherly" and a well-intentioned prod that I should be more literal. If so, thanks! I will endeavor to do better. :-) --₮K/Talk 06:42, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
I can be quite pedantic, and I was not trying to say that your points were not still valid. I was merely responding to one particular comment, not trying to rebut your entire post. Philip J. Rayment 08:43, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Well I haven't but from what I can gather Aden was just trying to say that he understands why people get offended by Coulter's methods and that he doesn't feel that she is expressing her feelings in an appropriate way. Now I agree that she has the freedom to say what she wants, but then Aden also has the freedom to express his doubts about her. If someone said something that offended you because of your religion then you would understandably not be happy with what they said, and that is what Aden was saying. (A very early April Fool's to everyone, from Australia!!) Bolly 00:30, 1 April 2008
For the record, above I was trying to be sarcastic, but I guess its hard to reflect that when you're writing. I thought it would be ironic to say that because you can hardly find a talk post by Aschlafly where he doesn't dismiss a fact as liberal bias. In the future, I will be more clear on my sarcasm =) FernoKlump 10:34, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
The claim that conservatives do not shout down liberals is untrue. Here is an example of Bill O'Reilly doing just that. Now I know that one example is not proof of anything, but this was found by simply entering Bill O'Reilly Shouts into YouTube. This is not the kind if debate that I would want to continue with. I just want to say that if debate is going to occur, it cannot be done with bluffs and talk with no research. DrCB 18:18, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
O'Reilly isn't a conservative. O'Reilly is someone who repeatedly entertains by shouting, which hardly provides an example for your point.--Aschlafly 20:31, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
So.... who is a Real True Conservative, then, if not one of the loudest mouthpieces of the GOP currently in the media? (Not Nixon, we already knew that much, probably not either Bush...) --Gulik5 21:35, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Ann Coulter perhaps? In reply to TK above, I dont care about politics one way or the other however Coulter is quite inflammatory in the way she voices her opinions and as such is bound to anger some and others will of course accuse her of spreading hate speech. AdenJ 00:23, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

The health benefits of Prayer

[1] While we're on the subject of prayer's health benifits, maybe this should go up on the front page as well? Barikada 20:13, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Good one.--Phillipps 21:57, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
I'm not sure we have any Christian Scientists among our numbers. Apart from that, why do you believe it is appropriate to pray for someone in place of seeking help? Christians don't believe it is an either/or situation, do you? Learn together 22:13, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
I don't. Quite frankly, I see prayer as a futile measure. Prayer made no difference in the situation above; the defribulator did. In this situation, two parents' overwhelming belief in the "Health benifits of prayer" ended up killing their child. Barikada 22:49, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
We can not force something merely by acting like it must occur. God has done much in my life, but if I were to jump in the ocean with the belief that God would pull me out, I'd be seeing Him sooner than I should. In the Bible it is mentioned for more than one person who came to Jesus and was healed that they did so only after they had first seen doctors and the doctors could do nothing. One of the Gospel writers, Luke, was himself a doctor. God made the world in such a way that there are things that can help with healing and health. As we learn these things, it would be foolish to avoid them. Learn together 23:35, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
What are you trying to say here? That the people who're prayed for might not die, and that proves that prayer has a healing power? Barikada 01:00, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
Barikada, I bet you also deny other examples of the unseen. Do you?--Aschlafly 00:39, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
I deny that which does not exist, Andy, but your accusation is unrelated to the topic at hand. Aside from that, is there a specific reason we will never see this on the front page? Barikada 01:00, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
Because besides the obvious attempt to discredit the Christian belief in prayer, the article simply states that if you are deathly ill and don't seek treatment you will die. This isn't exactly anything new here.
Believe it or not, this is a Christian wiki, and we have no need or obligation to post an article which attempts to discredit prayer, let alone one that uses a misleading argument. Surely you knew that already? HelpJazz 01:16, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
Indeed, HelpJazz. But they were seeking help... from God.
Really? I thought it was a Conservative one.
What's misleading about "Prayer is never an adequate subsitute for medical care"? Barikada 01:22, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
Have you been editing here long? HelpJazz 01:28, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
Long enough, Jazz, to realise that this is a sham. At best, this is a very elaborate parody. Ed Poor's articles, often consisting of little more than a quote from some random author or public speaker, speak volumes in support of this. At worst, this is an alternate universe, where conservative bias is favoured over truth. Crocoite's userpage speaks in support of this.
Just look at how Andy treats users. Long-time contributors like IDuan and you are insulted by him viciously on the few times you dare to disagree with him.
Andy's not alone in doing this-- my exchange with Karajou shows this. I give him a politely-worded request for a materials source, and he shouts me down with "You weren't in the Navy!"
Perhaps this place might've been an interesting place to debate if someone like PJR were at the helm, instead of a guy who threatens to report people to the FBI for no real reason.
I'm out. Tschüss. Barikada 18:16, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

I know that I am only very new here but I feel that there is probably just as many cases, if not more, of prayer not working than working. I know of many cases, off the top of my head, where deaths have occured by people spurning medical science and relying on prayer alone. AdenJ 01:24, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I think LT already answered this): nowhere in the Bible does it say to use prayer instead of medical care. At any rate, even if you could prove 100% without a doubt that prayer didn't work... what argument exactly are you using to convince me that a conservative Christian wiki should post it as a news article? HelpJazz 01:28, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

HelpJazz, please don't feed the trolls. I know it is sometimes fun to watch, but it is really pointless. Bohdan 01:37, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

  • grumble grumble grumble* Bohdan you watch me like a hawk! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HelpJazz (talk)
I admire HelpJazz's efforts to reason with the materialists here. Often unsuccessful, the occasional mind-opening effect is worth the disappointments.
Barikada probably, like most materialists, denies all that is unseen. He ducked a question about it. if Barikada lacked all of the five senses, then he might deny anything exists at all!--Aschlafly 10:30, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
And I'm sure that Rene Descartes would deny you exist, if he was here. Materialism nor idealism is the correct answer to such philosophical questions, or indeed religious ones. Dualism is the most commonly accepted form, and it makes the most sense, the body must be looked after just as the spirit must. God created doctors for a reason, to heal the sick through these men and women. to deny access to a doctor is to deny Our Lord and Saviour.
I think the article should be posted, because it shows that those who believe completely in idealism are incorrect. --BlotchesRepent 17:10, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

New Atheism Article

Hello, would anyone like to see my possible atheism article? I know it is a little rough. The criticisms could be added to the bottom of the article, or a new page could be created for them. Also, quotes for atheism would be nice. It is right here--Phillipps 12:58, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Let me know what you think. I also used all of the existing references.--Phillipps 13:18, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
I did not put in any criticisms in because the existing ones are frequently duplicated, and with little order.--Phillipps 17:46, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
Sorry, it seems to have been deleted.--Phillipps 18:28, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
If anyone is curious, I put a summary of what I had on the "Possible Atheism Article" on the Atheism talk page.--Phillipps 18:45, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

O.K., I have redone my alternative "Atheism" article and put it on the "Atheism" talk page.--Phillipps 22:11, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

O.K., I have put it here--Phillipps 22:34, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

It seems as if I have been the only writer on the Main Page talk page today. Please ignore the link.--Phillipps 22:40, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

The Clean Energy Scam

"The Amazon was the chic eco-cause of the 1990s" pretty much sums it all upp well. Read the whole article here [2]. Etc 05:55, 30 March 2008 (EDT)


The fourth news item should read "Conservapedia unveils its new and expanded Intelligent Design article to complement its top search engine result ranked Theory of Evolution article." BlinkadyblinkRAGE 23:57, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Spot the moronic liberal bias in these recent headlines

debate moved:

Perhaps Debate:Fetus versus Baby.-DParker 20:04, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Downright bizarre political news

According to World Net Daily, Richard Scaife is backing Hillary Clinton. As anyone who remembers Scaife's anti-Clinton campaign in the 1990's can attest, this is... odd. Might even belong on the front page. --Gulik5 22:09, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

April Fools Day

Happy April Fools Day to those of us just starting it. I didn't see any pranks today, maybe something will happen here? TheGySom 06:15, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Doubt it... although it would be nice. -- Mitch U/T/C 06:47, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Unrelated point: Thanks for putting your sig in Times. It may have helped me figure out why my browser is acting weird. -CSGuy 16:04, 2 April 2008 (EDT)


I must admit I was somewhat alarmed when I heard of this site; however, now that I see it I find my fears to be unfounded. This is but a minor corner of the universe where like-minded sheep come to silence their minds. You block pages from being edited; you make unfounded claims that are just as biased as the liberal bias you claim to detest; and anyone who thinks differently from you gets themselves a spot on the "deceit" page. Generally, I find your pages to deal solely in extremes.It is in the end quite sad; sad for america, sad for the world, sad for humanity in general. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billgates (talk)

CP has a self-proclaimed conservative bias, hence the name-- but conservative bias is good, as it is more trustworthy than liberal bias like on Wikipedia. Cheers, Lyra Belaqua talk 13:13, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Why exactly. I'm not being facetious (necessarily) but for why do you assume that this is the case. Shouldn't the science pages show what accepted science does (not that accepted science is definitely right, but it is what the majority of scientists have derived from the evidence)? It is not PROVEN but are you not arrogant to think that you know better, when every Intelligent Design supporter's "Proof" of irreducible complexity is swiftly dealt with and, ahem, disproven? There is no reason why this web-site shouldn't exist, as there are people who think as it's writers do, e.g. they don't want their children exposed to truth too early, but shouldn't it be marketed as "Truth from a neo-con perspective" rather than implying that it is based on what the greatest minds of the world have decided upon. --Revilo314 13:31, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Most of the science pages do have what mainstream science says, but also (unlike Wikipedia) points out problems with the mainstream views and covers opposing views. Philip J. Rayment 09:13, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
This may sound very revealing, but there's no absolute truth, it's all relative. Truth by definition is biased to the learner, so what matters is how close to absolute truth we get. Evolution cannot be proved and niether can creationism or intelligent design. Based on observation, the conservative version, if you will, of the truth is more reliable. Whatever science, or the greatest minds, says about ID or evolution, for example, a liberal spin will make the information less reliable. A scientific proof is not an absolute proof, also. Lyra Belaqua talk 13:46, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
"...there's no absolute truth...": So I guess that statement's not the absolute truth! Philip J. Rayment 09:13, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
And a conservative spin wouldn't? I don't think I look at anything with a liberal spin. And a liberal spin doesn't denote a bias towards evolution. Liberalism implies a willingness to take up new things. Evolution and other scientific ideas that this website is against are nothing new, and have been accepted as the most likely explanation for ages. I don't think I look at anything with a liberal spin. I base what I think on what evidence there is, as we all should.
The "Evolution" was an example. This wiki isn't against science, it is against liberal spin on science, which tends to favor it more than conservative bias. Modern liberals tend to write away many of the arguments against evolution, as an example, when some of them are quite convincing, though evolution has a large amount of empirical evidence to support it. Both ID and evolution are scientific theories, if in a meta way in some cases. Niether can be fully proven. People should recognize that. Lyra Belaqua talk 14:40, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Irreducible Complexity has not been 'disproven'. The best that can be brought up is speculation of possible paths that Behe hadn't considered. I see that you claim that liberalism implies a willingness to take up new things. Like Intelligent Design? I think what you mean is liberalism implies a willingness to take up new things as long as they fit within the already established pathways that liberals allow -- while at the same time claiming 'tolerance' and 'open-mindedness. Learn together 19:41, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Well said. Philip J. Rayment 09:13, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
So, in other words, Liberals are humans. I'm sure Andy, at least, will be shocked at this revelation. --Gulik5
Intelligent Design isn't a new thing. It is a very old thing, harking back to the middle ages where science was used to support creationism etc. but with a new name. It is the right way to go about changing the views of accepted science, but i am not yet convinced, and I dare say very few others are. I did say disproven in a silly way, you are right, I was thinking of the flagellal motor - cell-membrane pump discussion. I think the liberals YOU speak of must be an american thing, we don't have anything of the sort in the UK, just excessive political correctness. Perhaps I shouldn't say Liberalism, I should say Enlightenment... --Revilo314 12:20, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Sounds fun. you never know. HE HE HE. [user:Pimanjim314]

Wilberforce descendant condemns abortion

This is a great article, anybody think it should be on the front?

On the front! Karajou 13:06, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Bosnia flap

I'm sorry, but that GI story is simply ludicrous and unfounded. ABC disproved the story. The notion that Mrs. Clinton did all those things is very hard to get my head around. Lyra Belaqua talk 13:19, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

LOL, it was an April Fools Day joke. --Ed Poor Talk 13:20, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Wow, I feel stupid! :-) Lyra Belaqua talk 13:21, 1 April 2008 (EDT)


One of the "news" stories is this: "Superdelegates are Another Dysfunctional Liberal Fix [8] ", with a link to an article attacking the existence of Democratic superdelegates. But it seems very curious to me that it is not mentioned anywhere by the author of the column or by Conservapedia that the Republican party also has "superdelegates"; they call them "unpledged delegates" and they vote however they want, holding their positions by virtue of their leadership within the party. They are, in fact, the exact same thing, and there are hundreds of them. They don't happen to matter this time around for the Republicans, but it is still pretty funny that whoever wrote the column and Croicite, who posted it here, didn't happen to know that the Republican system is like the Democratic in this regard. You can find out more here. So anyway, Croicite, you might want to take that down, or you could amend it to read: Superdelegates are just another Dysfunctional bipartisan fix".--TomMoore 14:27, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Your link is broken, and your claim is incorrect. The Republican Party does not have a system like the Democratic superdelegates, which was a liberal attempt to avoid the democratic process that produced the George McGovern fiasco.--Aschlafly 16:09, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Well, I'm sorry the link didn't work. Here it is, fixed I think: here.
Please explain how the unpledged delegates differ from "superdelegates," since to all appearances they have an identical function: they are party leaders (governors, mayors, and so on) who serve as delegates to the convention and whose vote is not reflective of the popular vote. To me, it seems pretty cut and dry. What is the difference, specifically?--TomMoore 19:12, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

No, an unpledged republican delegate is essentially the same thing as a superdelegate, they just haven't got any play this election because of McCain's early win. Mayan 17:21, 1 April 2008 (EDT) Link

No, I don't think that is true, as the concept of an "unpledged delegate" is completely different from a "superdelegate".--Aschlafly 17:49, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
You perhaps don't know that "superdelegate" is not an official term in the DNC. Even though pretty much everyone uses it, even party officials, the official term is "unpledged delegates." And their function is the same as that of the unpledged delegates in the RNC. If you think differently, please explain exactly how.--TomMoore 19:12, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

It's been a day with no further response, Andy. I see you are on right now and I know you prowl the recent changes page like a tiger, so you'll see this... please either explain the differences or remove that news story. Don't just ignore it until it is archived, simply because it is inconvenient to confront the glaring error.--TomMoore 14:07, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

My understanding is that the Democratic superdelegates have a completely different history and precedent from the Republican unpledged delegates. I looked for a good online explanation but have yet found one. Not everything in politics is written down. I don't have more time to spend on this now but the widely used term "superdelegates" is only used in reference to the Democrats, and that is informative.--Aschlafly 15:09, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
Hope this helps clarify for all - its from the Washington Post, and backs up what Mayan was stating...
An estimated 463 unpledged delegates will attend the Republican Party's national convention. Though not officially required to vote for a particular candidate, most of the party's unpledged delegates are chosen through elections. Only 123 of the party's unpledged delegates are appointed automatically by virtue of their position in the party (for the most part, these are members of the Republican National Committee). These 123 are comparable to the Democratic Party's "super" delegates." [1]
 ::: --DinsdaleP 18:53, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
Helpful, yes, very much. But it doesn't back up the claim that the unpledged Republican delegates are just like the Democratic superdelegates. Quite the contrary: only a tiny fraction of the Republican delegates are like the 20% Democratic superdelegates.--Aschlafly 19:21, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
Okay, so your argument is that while they have the same function, there are more Democratic unpledged than there are Republican unpledged? And that is what makes them different? Just to be clear.--TomMoore 14:21, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
For comparison purposes, "Superdelegates" in this case refers to unpledged delegates who get a vote based on their position in their respective party, and who can vote for whomever they want regardless of primary results. For the Democrats these are 795 out of a total 4,047 delegates, or 19.6%. For the Republicans these are 123 out 2,380 total delegates, or 5.2%. Regardless of how any of them choose to vote, based on the numbers the Democratic Superdelegates have roughly four times the influence on the outcome than their Republican counterparts. --DinsdaleP 13:10, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Misleading headline

The main page news says that UN general secretary wants 'Fitna' banned. The article does not say anything like that. I hope you are not misled by the name Ban!--Kajira 15:29, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Hahahha! I missed that one! Yes, I guess DanH (the sysop who added that) didn't understand that "Ban" was the first name of the current UN Secretary-General.--TomMoore 15:35, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
They quietly went ahead and changed this, but I don't expect they will be saying "Sorry about that, you're right and we're wrong." Not in the vocabulary.--TomMoore 19:13, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Accuracy, like virtue, should be its own reward. Not much would get done in this world if everyone expected some form of payment of validation for their good works! But please accept the thanks of just another editor for catching that. I haven't checked to see if it was wrong, but accept you word for it. --₮K/Talk 19:21, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Indeed, accuracy should be its own reward. Courtesy should be, as well, but there's precious little of that given to anyone who isn't "in" on this site. It sets a standard for "gotcha" and "winning" for everyone else, like when you edited Phillip J. Rayment's user talk in contravention of the rules and were caught.--TomMoore 19:35, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
I'm "they", and I'm sorry about that, you're right and we're wrong. --Ed Poor Talk 19:23, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Really, it's not me who is right... it was Kajira (a very funny name for this site). But on behalf of all users, I accept this sysop apology and mark this historic moment, when someone who was inconvenient was apologized to rather than banned.--TomMoore 19:35, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
The tendentious remark marks you as a true liberal, TomMoore! --₮K/Talk 19:55, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Yes, only liberals can master sarchasm. Dang! I just proved I was a liberal! Ha ha April Fools! HelpJazz 19:58, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
TK, I note that you are indulging in personal remarks. That is against Conservapedia guidelines. You're on probation, so you should probably be careful.--TomMoore 20:05, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Threat to Homeschooling

You may want to post this article by John Stossel in the "breaking news" section. [3]--Mathewson 13:10, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

What a great article! John Stossel isn't as bad as I thought.--Steve 16:03, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
John Stossel is the man! He has a lot of good (Walter Williams-style) essays about wealth and greed which I really enjoy as well. I just wish he wouldn't post on Grammar people! HelpJazz 14:19, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

CNN + autism is front-paging a few articles on autism + vaccines at the moment. Dunno if it suits the suits or not... Aziraphale 14:22, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Yes, actually CNN's reporter interviewed me by phone for that in-depth piece, but I guess I didn't make the cut! I told CNN that a legal challenge to mandatory vaccination would not likely prevail.--Aschlafly 14:36, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Pro-life activist Ferrara attacked by Communists

Pro-life activist Ferrara was attacked by Communists in Bologna, Italy. He was to give a speech for his election campaign for the elections to be held on April 13, 14. But groups of Communists started to shout against him, then threw eggs and even stones. Police did little, they mainly protected Ferrara from an assault; Ferrara was then forced to end his speech and was escorted by police in order to avoid any harm against him by the riotous crowd. Article in Italian.

I will look for a link to an article in English as soon as possible. Thiudareiks 18:21, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

I'd like to post an English version along with your Italian version as soon as you find it. Leftists loathe real free speech and will do whatever they can to censor it.--Aschlafly 18:22, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
Video of the event, still in Italian. 15 people were injured. Thiudareiks 18:31, 2 April 2008 (EDT), I suppose we'll have to wait till tomorrow for an article in English, Google News doesn't find any article yet. Let's check again tomorrow. Thiudareiks 18:34, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
I posted what we have so far. The irony is that the women don't realize or, more likely, don't care that abortion is hurting those who have it.

Links in English: [4], [5] Thiudareiks 13:50, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Grammar Quibble

Breaking News item about the Conservapeidan college tour says that there was a "statewide college event in Ann Arbor". Can't have a "statewide" event in a single city. Perhaps you meant "an event at a state college in Ann Arbor" (ie-UofMichigan)? Or was it based at UM and teleconferenced to other, lesser, colleges statewide?--RossC 08:26, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

No, I think that is clear: the event was attended by students from all across Michigan.--Aschlafly 09:06, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
Oh, okay, that makes sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RossC (talk)
On another note, shouldn't it read "Why we shouldn't have gun control."? As it reads now, it implies that America doesn't have gun control... but it does. DrCB 18:00, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
Relative to the rest of the world, most of the U.S. does not have gun control.
Please pardon me, I think we're not communicating successfully. My definition of Gun Control would be any laws or statutes that prohibit or hinder the purchase of firearms. Do you feel the same or do you define gun control as total ban on guns (ala, England) DrCB 18:12, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Drew U

I want to go see whoever the Conservapedian speaking is, but there is no information provided about the speaker or the event, and the Drew Calendar of events ([6]) has nothing, either. Could someone tell more information, or at least the building and time?--TomMoore 14:21, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

The details are not yet available. Like most meaningful campus events, this is sponsored by one of the student groups.--Aschlafly 18:10, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
Are these talks open to the public, or by invitation only? I would have liked to attend the one at Princeton since I live nearby, but little was mentioned about it until it was over. --DinsdaleP 19:43, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
Your question is an excellent one, and I don't know the answer. At Princeton University, only students attended and there was no indication that it was open to the general public. At George Washington University, there did seem to be attendance from the general public. New Jersey homeschoolers could be hosting controversial events that will be open to the general public, and will be announced here.--Aschlafly 22:24, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Interesting item for Main Page

Here's an interesting item for Main Page news that they're posting on Fox news today - Human feces push back date of origin of Man to 14,000 years ago! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MakeTime (talk)

If you think that's a good article for the Main page of Conservapedia, I'm glad you're not an administrator. --Crocoite 09:55, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Bill Gates will Not Be Silenced

After the above comment "ha", the first Billgates was blocked. Why exactly? I believed that this was an open forum for social conservatives; a place to exchange, talk about, and write ideas in the form of articles. Apparently, this is not so. I did not realize that offering criticism of Conservapedia deserved the blocking of one's ip. In fact, I believe my comment sparked a friendly debate on bias and the relativity of one's perception of truth. Of course now I realize there is an actual award for blocking so many people... it is somewhat Orwellian in a kind of surrealist way. Billgates2


What is the relevance of having Barack Obama mentioned in the headline regarding King? It seems a bit silly. McCain and Clinton were not there either. AdenJ 17:22, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Because Obama's a liberal and no one like him. =P FernoKlump 19:26, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Indeed. He's not even a real professor so I'm told. AdenJ 19:29, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Think for yourself and you'll be doing yourself a big favor.--Aschlafly 19:35, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

I always think for myself AdenJ 19:53, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

OK, let's test that. Childbirth prevents against breast cancer. No one disputes it. Abortion, as a substitute for childbirth, must therefore increase breast cancer. Liberals who don't think for themselves deny that. Do you?--Aschlafly 20:17, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
I am sorry, sir, but your logic is somewhat flawed. As having a child is not a predetermined coarse of action, if a woman has a child it decreases her risk of breast cancer. However, conversely, if a woman opts for abortion, it does not increase her risk of breast cancer, it she merely does not decrease it. Her risk stays the same. Lyra Belaqua talk 23:37, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

So, I have to agree with your position above in order to prove I think for myself? Hmmm something is wrong here. AdenJ 20:23, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

I happen to know that such a simplistic argument shouldn't be used to settle an argument about whether someone thinks for themselves. There is evidence that delaying childbirth poses a slight increase in breast cancer rates. The idea that this somehow correlates to abortion is something that fringe science accepts, not the science that promotes legitimate medicine. I also happen to know that AdenJ was blocked for an alleged 90/10 violation even though his talk edits comprised only 76% of his total edits. But that’s not too surprising; I've been blocked four times even though I never violated the official written rules. --Jimmy 23:51, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
Obama doesn't fit the conservapedian definition of a professor, so he cant' be one. Or does he fit the conservapedian definition of a liberal? He does have professor values. I wonder why they are so insistent that he lied about being a professor, when professors are all evil liberals. If he was a professor he would be more likely to commit murder, right? These people give me a headache sometimes. FernoKlump 19:39, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
Ferno, I'm afraid that if you ever really had a point here, it was lost in your rambling. --FrankRingo 19:44, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Lol, i tend to do that when I talk . . . FernoKlump 19:49, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Politicians make money after leaving office. Film at 11.

Um, yeah. Most politicians, after leaving office, make fat stacks of cash. George Bush The Elder hasn't exactly retired to live a monastic lifestyle, and neither has Jimmy Carter or Newt Gingrich, as far as I can tell. So, is this really front-page worthy? --Gulik5 01:16, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

News story

Here's a story that might go well on the main page. A Vodka company in Mexico, Absolut, had an advertising campaign in which they used pictures of a Mexico that included most of the southwestern U.S. such as Texas, Arizona, and California.
Absolut said the ad was designed for a Mexican audience and intended to recall "a time which the population of Mexico might feel was more ideal."
JeffreyBean 23:10, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
I don't really understand the outrage over this ad, and why it would go on the front page. DanH 23:11, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Heston duplicate

The news about Charlton Heston's death is a duplicate, it is also further down in the news section. HermanH 16:09, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

You're right, but the picture and info are different. I revised it further accordingly. Thanks.--Aschlafly 17:01, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

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