User talk:Aschlafly

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Comment here

Hi! Thank for for creating this website.

Archive Index

Contents


Promotion

Thanks a lot Mr. Schlafly, I promise to make good use of my new rights. - PetyrB 12:33, 29 June 2014 (EDT)

Meritocracy

Andy, you have repeatedly stated that Conservapedia is a meritocracy, and you often rewarded editors by bestowing rights on their accounts. Therefore, I have to ask: has User:PetyrB some merits besides those which are on display here at Conservapedia? Otherwise, the promotion of his account is rather surprising:

  • His account is just a week old. The only other other account which I remember to have risen so quickly, was User:Markman
  • He hasn't made any substantial edit to an article, or started a new article
  • For an observer, his greatest merit seems to be that he agrees with you in everything.

I'm surprised how quickly User:PetyrB picked up the peculiar lingo of Conservapedia, terms like "talk pollution", "last wordism". Do you think he is such a fast learner? I remember the pattern, and I've seen the little atrocities (deleting comments, petty insults) before! Are you interested in repeating history over and over again?

--AugustO 15:28, 1 July 2014 (EDT)

User:PetyrB is another Markman/Bugler. Consider blocking him now. So far my track record is 100% being right when indicating someone is an insincere editor. And I don't expect to see User:PetyrB adding a lot of content to main space articles.
Here are 3 acid tests to consider in the future: 1) Is he/she creating a significant amount of main space article content? If no, this is definitely a red flag. 2) Does the person have an aggressive personality? If so, then they may be trying to get rid of good faith editors. 3) Does the person use language that I use or praise my favorite projects at Conservapedia? If so, the person may be engaged in mirroring in order to quickly gain rapport. Conservative 16:35, 1 July 2014 (EDT)
I think that you two are overreacting. AugusO, you talk as if Andy has officially made me his second in command. In reality, the promotion I have been granted is rather modest. He has given me blocking rights and Skipcaptcha. That's it. You stated that I "hasn't made any substantial edit to an article, or started a new article". I don't see why this is relevant for me to have block rights, you don't need to write any article in order to properly block a spammer, a vandal or someone with an inappropriate username. As far as I gather, Andy has given me blocking rights for my work in reverting vandalism, not for any edits I have made.
User:Conservaitve wrote "User:PetyrB is another Markman/Bugler." How exactly did you reach this conclusion? I have lurked for some time on Conservapedia, and I'm aware that there are some mischievous vandals who try to insert parody into our wiki. Why do you think I'm one of them? Do you find hints of parody in any of the edits I have made so far?
Anyhow, the reason why I came to CP is to contribute, not to be endowed with blocking rights. Should Andy revoke my blocking rights, it would not cause me any grief (although I do want to retain the Skipcaptcha, it is helpful when editing). I just hope that this exchange of ours will soon forgotten and that our next interactions on this website will be more cordial. - PetyrB 16:54, 1 July 2014 (EDT)
PetyrB, please feel free to prove me wrong by creating a significant amount of new main space content.Conservative 19:11, 1 July 2014 (EDT)
Creating more content for CP is why I registered here. It will take me some time to reach impressive achievements since I'm relatively inexperienced at wiki-editing, but I hope that within a few months at the most I'll be able to show you that I mean well. - PetyrB 15:02, 2 July 2014 (EDT)

Based on IP address research that Karajou just performed, the evidence is pointing to PetyrB being user Markman/Markoman. Conservative 16:39, 7 July 2014 (EDT)

Andy, PetyrB went on a spree to replace every occurrence of "Son of Man" by your "translation". I tried to undo these edits, as I think that the last word on this matter shouldn't be written by someone like him. --AugustO 17:27, 23 July 2014 (EDT)

George H. W. Bush

Are George H. W. Bush and Mike Crapo Conservatives or RINOs?--JoeyJ 05:16, 5 July 2014 (EDT)

George H. W. Bush was a RINO. I don't know enough about Mike Crapo to say.--Andy Schlafly 10:44, 5 July 2014 (EDT)
There was a place in my heart for Bush until he "chucked aside my free market principles" and he came out in support of the banking bailout. Nowadays, I call him George "I chucked my principles" Bush. Without principles, you're not a man at all. PeterKa 22:51, 5 July 2014 (EDT)

I suggest banning the parodist JamesWilson

I suggest banning the parodist JamesWilson or at the very least stripping him of his block rights.

JamesWilson just gave a bizarre definition of fornication. Namely, he claims fornication includes sex within marriage not intended for procreation.[1] Setting aside the morality of sex inside of marriage not intended for procreation, this is certainly not fornication. Merriam-Webster, for example, defines fornication as "consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other".[2]

Secondly, he indicated on PetyrB's talk page that he wanted to have private email communications with him when I challenged PetyrB on being Markman the parodist. No doubt to give him suggestions on how to avoid detection as far as being a parodist.

Thirdly, correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall that JamesWilson's biggest "contributions" are to Elvis/Little Richard, etc. articles.

Fourthly, he has a penchant of attempting to curry favor with you which was a trait of Bugler, Markman, etc.

Fifthly, I have always suspected JamesWilson to be a parodist and so far my accuracy is 100%. Conservative 15:49, 8 July 2014 (EDT)

I saw that Conservative deleted and salted JamesWilson's user and user talk pages. However, he neglected to block the account. I don't know whether this was an oversight or an intentional decision. GregG 20:04, 8 July 2014 (EDT)
积水之激,至于漂石者,势也。鸷鸟之疾,至于毁折者,节也。 Conservative 21:36, 8 July 2014 (EDT)
I don't understand what you are saying (even with Google translate). Following the Conservapedia:Editing article and talk pages will help in effective communication on this project. Thanks, GregG 21:41, 8 July 2014 (EDT)
  • As of 05:16, 9 July 2014, JamesWilson has blocked himself. If he can block himself, can he unblock himself? This is getting curiouser and curiouser. PeterKa 01:40, 9 July 2014 (EDT)
He decided to get a new hobby because his days of being a parodist were effectively over. Conservative 02:08, 9 July 2014 (EDT)

Conservative, given that your accuracy is 100%, what do you think of User:Historybuff? For me, he takes great efforts to sound like a sock of yours! Would you take action? --AugustO 17:14, 2 August 2014 (EDT)

Tea Party Crusaders displays scammy advertisements

I was visiting the article "The country with second highest amount of abortions in the world decides to impose fines on abortions. Guess which country" on Tea Party Crusaders, linked on our front page. On the right side, there is a scammy advertisement simulating user interface elements, stating "Media content may not display properly. Download a new video content player now. Your system may not be able to play all media content and services available. Install new windows compatible software now." (For the record, my operating is Ubuntu 14.04). I have a screenshot that is available, but I cannot upload images to Conservapedia. I wonder whether Conservapedia should link to sites carrying advertisements that could significantly harm our readers. Many thanks, GregG 20:18, 8 July 2014 (EDT)

GregG, please spare us your liberal hysterics. Conservative 21:25, 8 July 2014 (EDT)
I don't see web security as a partisan issue. Another advertisement I found imitated the Facebook mobile interface with a flashing notifications icon. Clicking the advertisement leads to a survey scam (also using Facebook's trade dress). GregG 21:46, 8 July 2014 (EDT)
GregG, I am not going to wrestle in the internet mud with an unreasonable liberal. You have cried wolf too many times before concerning your various petulant complaints. Game over. Conservative 21:57, 8 July 2014 (EDT)
Thank you for your input, Conservative. I will leave the resolution of this issue to Mr. Schlafly (screenshots are also available upon request). GregG 22:15, 8 July 2014 (EDT)
Against my better judgement, I investigated your complaint using an Opera browser with no advertisement blocker or other types of blocking on the Opera browser and it was a total waste of time. Please stop wasting my time. Conservative 22:27, 8 July 2014 (EDT)
If you have an e-mail address, I can send you the screenshots I took. Note that the scammy advertisements do not appear on every page load. GregG 22:30, 8 July 2014 (EDT)
The AppNexus network delivered the advertisements I mentioned above. There are other ad networks on TPC. GregG 22:35, 8 July 2014 (EDT)
You want my email address so you can pesterfest me about nothing at will and waste more of my time whenever you desire. Gehenna will freeze over before that happens. Conservative 22:39, 8 July 2014 (EDT)
  • The main Tea Party site is the Tea Party News Network. Tea Party Crusaders is a rather obscure site to be getting so much material from. PeterKa 02:11, 9 July 2014 (EDT)
Alexa ranks the Tea Party Crusaders website about 83,000 in the United States and I like a number of the stories they choose to cover. For example, they recently ran a number of: pro-life stories, Christian stories, anti-Obama stories, a godless Britain story, anti-atheism/evolution stories, pro-gun rights stories, anti-liberal stories, etc. They also chose to run a Christian athlete story recently.
Unlike many Tea Party websites, they have a strong emphasis on the social issues. Conservative 02:42, 9 July 2014 (EDT)

Here's another probably-fraudulent advertisement I found on TPC tonight: it states "CONGRATULATIONS! THIS IS NOT A JOKE! YOU ARE THE 100.000th VISITOR! Click here" (with the "click here" line in rapidly flashing black and white text). Clicking the advertisement leads to a "free product" scam, notable for requiring significant expense to obtain a nominally-free product (I will not make the obvious political comparison), one of which is a "$500 Unemployment Check", it also includes probably-fraudulent statements that there are only 5 or 6 products left, as well as testimonials of unknown provenance. Screenshots are available upon request. GregG 21:32, 7 August 2014 (EDT)

Another ad I found this morning is an imitation of a browser plugin notification stating "This content requires Java 12.3. Would you like to install now?" In fact, there is no version 12.3 of Java. Clicking the advertisement links to a page promoting a video playing application, which, in turn, pops up a fake Windows Vista/Windows 7 dialog stating "Your [software] Download is ready!" Screenshots are available upon request. GregG 10:02, 8 August 2014 (EDT)

Is User:CraigF2 a parodist?

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

I recently saw some edits of User:CraigF2. This one in particular makes me believe that the user is a parodist, though I would like a second opinion. Thanks, GregG 21:22, 16 July 2014 (EDT)

Your reversion was appropriate, and I don't disagree with your analysis.--Andy Schlafly 21:25, 16 July 2014 (EDT)
After reading User:CraigF2's user page recently, I said to myself this editor is probably an atheist posing as a Christian conservative. GregG's pointing out of this recent edit of his, greatly reinforces my suspicion and has cemented it in. Like JamesWilson, CraigF2's parodist career is effectively over as he has been spotted. I am emailing Karajou now. I think it is time for CraigF2 to develop a new hobby to replace his Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder. Conservative 23:16, 16 July 2014 (EDT)

Please unprotect my talk page

It was protected by User:Conservative without explanation. Many thanks, GregG 22:21, 19 July 2014 (EDT)

UPDATE: the page has been unprotected, but it is still troubling that an admin protected another user's user talk page without that user's request. Hopefully steps will be taken to ensure that a similar abuse of tools does not recur. GregG 22:32, 19 July 2014 (EDT)

Animation article and Brian34

You might want to lock the Animation page as it seems the socks of Brian34 et.al. are trying to create a revert war. I suggest you look into this issue. OraceHay 21:13, 20 July 2014 (EDT)

Common Core

Hi there, should a special article be written on Common Core that isn't an essay? I'm asking for approval before I start. Thank you.


(Oh, and thanks for giving me blocking rights!) Atum 17:28, 22 July 2014 (EDT)

Yes, a regular entry on Common Core would be great! Thanks in advance for starting one.--Andy Schlafly 17:36, 22 July 2014 (EDT)

Republican Politicians

Hello there. I said this in an edit summary, but should something be done about the pages for Conservative and Liberal figures? There are all of these pages that are being ridiculously elaborated upon, such as Atheism, yet for some political figures, they're just a few lines long. Anything I need to do about this, as if it's Conservapedia, it's pretty important to know about the politicians. Thank you. Atum 12:33, 26 July 2014 (EDT)

More development of the entries about political figures would be terrific!--Andy Schlafly 12:41, 26 July 2014 (EDT)
P.S. But politicians tend to be followers of culture and ideas, rather than leaders. The term "political leader" is a bit of an oxymoron.--Andy Schlafly 12:42, 26 July 2014 (EDT)
Talking of political leaders Andy, what is your opinion on Marco Rubio? He seems to be the leading candidate for the Republican 2016 election at this early stage. He has a lot going for him, his youth will appeal to younger voters and whilst no RINO, he seems more moderate than some so could pull the undecided or swing voters who would not back some other choices. He seems like a good option to me.--ColinP 15:16, 26 July 2014 (EDT)
Marco Rubio was brought from obscurity by conservatives and elected by them. But after he was elected, he made the mistake of thinking he had a brighter future with moderates and RINOs. It's doubtful he can regain the conservative support he had previously.--Andy Schlafly 21:07, 27 July 2014 (EDT)

Orwellian changes of Conservapedia's history

Conservapedia proven right shows numerous examples of predictions made by Conservapedia which became true. What happens when there is a prediction - prominently on display and repeatedly made - which doesn't become reality?

In 2012/2013, we read on the main page of Conservapedia news-items like the following:


50 page Question Evolution! booklet. Question Evolution! Campaign runaway train is going to be released

Feb 15, 2012


A Question evolution! campaign group now has 3 writers and at least 3 Question Evolution! booklets/books will be coming out. Some of the booklets/books will be designed for young people.

May 1, 2012


A 15 questions for evolutionists booklet and book for middle school students will soon be coming out and they are going to be heavily promoted and distributed.

Jun 19,2012


SS Evolution! passengers get on your life jackets! A barrage of 100+ page Question evolution! campaign booklet torpedoes is headed your way!

Sep 19, 2012


The Question evolution! book for middle school students, edited by a Christian apologist, gains in popularity.

Jul 11, 2013


Canadian teacher at a Christian school will be serving as a science editor of the Question evolution! campaign book for middle school students.

Jul 18, 2013

And many more...

Two and a half years later, this book hasn't been published. This is a prediction boldly made by Conservapedia on its main page (without any qualifiers) which just was wrong. But instead of owning up to it, gritting your teeth and admitting that such things happen, another way was chosen: I had to link to the news-items using the internet archive, as every mentioning of this book was erased from the history of the main page and even from discussions on the archives of the main talk page! Though the "book for the middle school" was announced (according to my memory at least) on many talk-pages, User talk pages and even articles, now, you just find deleted revisions.

This reminds me of the erasure of Leon Trotsky from all documents and even photographs in the Soviet Union! But alas, such an attempt to change history will always be incomplete, and thereby counterproductive: How do you reply to someone who says "Obviously they are right at Conservapedia proven right, but that is not surprising, as they erase all the cases when they are wrong."

I'm aware that you, Andy, probably won't react to this problem - and I'm afraid that this is something your sysops count on. As User:Conservative said in another deleted revision to User:GregG:


GregG, if you have any concerns or complaints about this matter, I/we would recommend that you take them to the owner of the website godspeed. I/we predict that you will get the "Schlafly ignore" - AGAIN!

Conservative 14:14, 20 July 2014 (EDT)

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

AugustO, evolutionists claim that truly astounding things can happen given enough time. Why do you doubt the cited news stories you indicated were on the main page? It has only been 2 1/2 years according to you. Conservative 19:51, 27 July 2014 (EDT)

Sorry, missed my signature - I - User:AugustO wrote the text above. --AugustO 19:55, 27 July 2014 (EDT)
  • I don't doubt that the stories once could be read on the main page, and that these stories were discussed on various talk-pages, though great efforts were taken to make every mentioning of the booklet disappear.
  • Could you please try for once to stand by your announcements and your actions? Did you mean by soon
  1. in a million of years
  2. in a couple of years
  3. soon
  • No Sun-Tzu, no weaseling, no I call you back, but I'm very busy now, no you don't know who of my split persona made these announcements. Please, please, please, talk the talk AND walk the walk. --AugustO 09:42, 2 August 2014 (EDT)

While you're waiting for a little booklet, how about a task from you, AugustO: prove evolution to be a fact using empirical evidence. What I have seen during the past few years is a deliberate attempt by critics to kill the message by killing the messenger. So what if a mere booklet cannot be produced; they've been trying to shut up Conservative since before this website was created, and they don't care that evidence has been presented which shows them to be completely and totally wrong (am I correct in saying that, Horace?). So here's the thing: if anyone does not like what we are saying about evolution; if anyone does not like what we are proving about evolution; if anyone does not like the fact that we are supporting GOD and His creation according to the Bible, that is just too bad. Karajou 12:26, 2 August 2014 (EDT)

  • Thank you, Karajou, for taking an interest in this exchange! I think that it is very important that the older and more experienced administrators share their experience with the younger ones, who - like Conservative - are high-school students, but nevertheless have quite a bit of responsibility here at Conservapedia. I've said it before: I think that it is a good idea to make pupils an integral part of the administration of this website BUT these pupils shouldn't be left alone; they should be guided by Andy and others.
  • Normally, the (non-)existence of a "mere" booklet is a non-event, but during 2012 and 2013, there was no other item of news more extensively covered at the main-page than this "Question Evolution! campaign booklet" and the "Project 200+" - so, not I'm the one who blew this thing out of proportion!
  • And then, suddenly, it became taboo, the histories of pages were deleted and even archives containing announcements for the booklet were altered, creating the impression (at least here at Conservapedia), that no one has ever heard of this book. This is absurd!
  • I hope that you agree that such an act of apparent censorship doesn't help to maintain idea of a "trustworthy encyclopedia"!
  • A minor may think that it is a brilliant tactic to yell "just kidding" when an elaborate stunt has misfired, and to sweep any evidence under the carpet. I think it is the task of those to whom he is looking up, not to indulge him and to discourage such a behavior, as it is unbecoming for an adult.
  • I'm not trying to shut Conservative up, but I criticize some of his actions. And taking responsibility for your actions (and not hiding behind Chinese quotes, or a sudden influx of work...) is an important lesson in the school of life.
--AugustO 13:33, 2 August 2014 (EDT)
AugustO, in 2013, Conservapedia reported on an announcement(s) made on another web property that indicated an event would happen "soon" as you indicated above. You also indicated that you don't know when "soon" is. I realize that immature people are often impatient. Aren't you making a tempest in a teapot? Conservative 17:43, 2 August 2014 (EDT)

AugustO, the root of your problem is that you cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions of the Question evolution! campaign and it upsets you. Prominent evolutionists have indicated that the origin of life is part of the evolutionary paradigm. [3] Of course, this means that the Question evolution! campaign stumped evolutionists with its very first question! Conservative 18:25, 2 August 2014 (EDT)

@Conservative:
  1. The news item doesn't read "Some obscure blog made announced that a Question Evolution! campaign booklet for middle school pupils will be published soon". In fact it reads like any other prediction in Conservapedia proven right.
  2. Do you think that any reader of these news-items has read "soon" meaning anything other but "in the near future", or worst "in a couple of months time"? If you wanted to indicate with "soon" "during the next few millenia", the whole situation gets worse: you were misleading your readers! Please take a look at the upper left corner: "CONSERVAPEDIA - THE TRUSTWORTHY ENCYCLOPEDIA".
  3. When you flooded the main-page with announcements about this booklet, you created the tempest. Please, don't try to deflect from this fact.
  4. What do you think of User:Historybuff? Please take a look at #I suggest banning the parodist JamesWilson. I hope that you prove immune against flattering edits!
@Karajou:
I don't think that one should encourage weaseling. Sadly, Conservative's comment above is an example of evading responsibility, and not taking responsibility.
--AugustO 18:22, 2 August 2014 (EDT)

AugustO, you had an opportunity to go up against the biology major VivaYehshua in an audio recorded debate relative to the 15 questions for evolutionists that would have been broadcast by the popular YouTube Christian channel Shockofgod with over 20,000 subscribers. You wimped out. Your comment about "evading" rings rather hollow.

AugustO, if only you had taken up the debate offer. Then you would be taken more seriously. Conservative 01:10, 3 August 2014 (EDT)

Even if I were the biggest wimp in the universe, I'd still see that you didn't address any of the points #1 - #4 above. Such an action is known as changing the topic or evading the question. --AugustO 02:34, 3 August 2014 (EDT)

Sissel upheld by D.C. Cir.

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

I wonder how the D.C. Circuit's recent upholding of the dismissal in Sissel v. HHS is going to affect Hotze. Also, I found a website hosting the briefs in Hotze online, so I was wondering how to go about writing a comprehensive Conservapedia article on the case (as well as, if copyright law permits, hosting the full text of the briefs on Conservapedia). Thanks, GregG 21:49, 29 July 2014 (EDT)

Great comment, Greg. The Sissel decision ruled on the Origination Clause, but did not address all of the arguments on that Clause that have been presented in the Hotze case. Maybe I can write and post an analysis.
As to briefs, I'm not sure what (if any) copyright issues exist. Presumably as long as you give credit, the doctrine of fair use would apply.--Andy Schlafly 22:14, 29 July 2014 (EDT)

The latest Obama attack on arbitration

Here. Perhaps it can be featured on our main page. Thanks, GregG 20:16, 30 July 2014 (EDT)

That is an interesting erosion of arbitration! "The president's order will also prohibit companies pursuing government contracts from requiring their workers to agree upfront to mandatory arbitration ...," your link explains.--Andy Schlafly 23:59, 30 July 2014 (EDT)

Blacklisted word

I can understand why the word "b*tcoin" may be associated with spammers, and needs to be blacklisted. However, I justed edited Wikimedia Foundation and could not save my edit until I replaced the i with an asterisk. Could an admin please go back and correct the spelling? If necessary, suspend the blacklist for a minute. Many thanks, Wschact 01:08, 9 August 2014 (EDT)

On further thought, perhaps "b*tcoin" should be removed from the blacklist. If it were, I would add Seth Meyer's comment to the Reliability section of the main Wikipedia article and start a separate article on b*tcoin. It is important to understand the conservative perspective on alternative currencies: 1) a large part of our nation's international influence comes from the role of the US dollar as the currency of international trade, and 2) alternative currencies are used by criminals, such as Russian identity theft rings and international drug cartels to evade law enforcement. B*tcoin is designed to evade law enforcement, and it undercuts our nation's international influence. Thanks, Wschact 11:42, 9 August 2014 (EDT)
I know that folks are very busy, but I am uncomfortable with the letter i being replaced by an asterisk. Could I please get some assistance on this matter. Many thanks. Wschact 07:59, 11 August 2014 (EDT)
It should be updated as requested. Thanks for your patience.--Andy Schlafly 17:47, 11 August 2014 (EDT)
I have now corrected the spelling in Wikimedia Foundation and added the Seth Meyers' quote to Wikipedia. May I start the bitcoin article as outlined above, or is that a sensitive subject that should be left to a more experienced editor? Many thanks, Wschact 19:05, 22 August 2014 (EDT)
An encyclopedic, lawful article about bitcoin would be fine.--Andy Schlafly 15:01, 23 August 2014 (EDT)

Conservapedia cited in a prestigious book against atheism

On occasion, I butted heads with Roman Catholic, theistic evolutionist editors such as GregG, TK and NKeaton.

I just found out that John J. Pasquini, Th.D., a Roman Catholic priest and scholar, cited my Conservapedia atheism articles three times in his book Atheist Persona: Causes and Consequences (the book has 77 footnotes and cites Conservapedia atheism articles in footnotes 34, 64 and 67).[4] The book was favorably reviewed by Michael Behe (a leading proponent of intelligent design theory), Paul Vitz and Michael Egnor (also a proponent of intelligent design) and was published by the academic publisher University Press of America.[5]

The book only cited the Encyclopedia Britannica once. :) Conservative 14:10, 23 August 2014 (EDT)

Very good achievement!--Andy Schlafly 15:02, 23 August 2014 (EDT)
I read the beginning of the book and its table of contents and he appeared to gain a significant amount of his information from the Conservapedia atheism article. Conservative 15:34, 23 August 2014 (EDT)

Constitution course and state constitutions

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

Have you considered a comparative discussion of state constitutions, either as part of the Constitution course or as a separate course. I think it would be really interesting for students to contrast state constitutions with each other and with the federal Constitution. GregG 14:00, 30 August 2014 (EDT)

A great suggestion, Greg, but state constitutions are not really in the same league as the U.S. Constitution in eloquence, brevity, or tremendous design. It would be like teaching a course about the Mona Lisa along with ... ordinary art. Maybe the contrast would be edifying.--Andy Schlafly 14:24, 30 August 2014 (EDT)
I think someone could offer a college level course of "Constitutions and the political process." State Constitutions serve a much more political role than the Federal Constitution because they are easier to amend and the voters only look at them when they are up for amendment. A good example is Virginia. In 2010 over 80% of the voters approved a constitutional amendment authorizing a real property tax exemption for the principle residence of service members with a 100% disability. Politicians favored it because it allowed the state legislators to demonstrate that they are pro-veteran. However, this begs the question as to why the Virginia Constitution is so rigid in its overall treatment of real property tax assessment. (Answer: they don't trust the county-based tax assessors.) So, as soon as the amendment past, people started to ask why there is no exemption for the surviving spouse of a service member killed-in-action? (After all, a dead service member is more than 100% disabled.) So, on the 2014 ballot we will vote on a second very narrow constitutional amendment. This gives politicians a second chance to show that they are pro-veteran. Maybe in 2018 we can do an amendment for veterans currently enrolled in college under the GI-Bill? Wschact 01:08, 31 August 2014 (EDT)

Scam ads, CNAV edition

I was viewing a CNAV article, and an ad appeared stating "Update Your Video Plugin [triangle pointing right]: See & Download Your Favorite Videos With [Name of Software] It's Free [checkmark]". Clicking the ad leads to a fake dialog box (in the style of Windows Vista) with title bar "Required Update", dialog title "Recommended Update", and text "The latest version of New Player [note: not the name of software in the ad] with critical security fixes is ready to install now / It wouldn't take too long to upgrade - and you'll get all the latest improvements and fixes." Screenshots available on request. GregG 21:35, 1 September 2014 (EDT)

Another advertisement for what appears to be the same product has the heading "(4) New Plugin Update !" and a fake title bar, minimize and close buttons, and mouse cursor moving through the ad. GregG 21:36, 1 September 2014 (EDT)

Another advertisement I found has the text "COME CLOSE to YOUR RUSSIAN AFFAIR"; no further comment needed. GregG 21:39, 1 September 2014 (EDT)

Meanwhile, on TPC I found headlines in the RevContent sponsored content plugin reading "Hottest Actresses That Bare It All", "Celebs Who Flash More than Their Winning", "Sexiest Celebrity Boobs in Hollywood", and "The Best Bodies on REEF Girls Ever" (the last has a picture of women with extremely skimpy underwear. GregG 22:02, 1 September 2014 (EDT)

There are no ads on this website, and this website has no control over off-site ads. But your criticism has been forwarded and I've since been told the off-site ads will improve. Thanks for mentioning this.--Andy Schlafly 21:36, 2 September 2014 (EDT)
Personal tools