User talk:Aschlafly

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Comment here

Archive Index

New Jersey ballot propositions

Hi Andy,

I got the sample ballot in the mail for the November election in New Jersey. I was curious if you had a position on the two ballot propositions. Thanks, GregG (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2016 (EDT)

I am very much against the gambling proposition. It's idolatry that wrecks families and communities, and effectively steals from the less informed and less disciplined. Gambling also destroys the mind.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2016 (EDT)
Do you have an opinion on Proposition 2? There appears to be a lot of misinformation floating around. I know Bill Spadea of New Jersey 101.5 is strongly opposed to it, but maybe he's misinformed. I was wondering if you had reliable information and an opinion about the proposition. Thanks, GregG (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2016 (EDT)
I support Question 2. It ensures that the proceeds of gas taxes go towards transportation projects, not other things like underfunded pensions or Planned Parenthood. I don't know why any conservative would oppose Question 2. ht does Bill Spadea say?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2016 (EDT)
Here's a video of Spadea explaining his opposition as well as a caller's opposition. What I understood the gist of Spadea's argument to be is that the proposition doesn't actually dedicate funds to transportation, and that defeating the proposition would force the legislature to roll back the gas tax hikes. In other words, he believes the proposition is a misleadingly described Trojan horse (which, to be sure, is not unprecedented). But these kinds of issues are outside my field of expertise, so that's why I wanted to know how a conservative should vote on these issues. GregG (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2016 (EST)
It looks like the casino proposition has been resoundingly defeated. Proposition 2 still looks rather close. Trump is also doing much better than I had anticipated. GregG (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2016 (EST)

Archive 60

--AugustO (talk) 07:22, 20 November 2016 (EST)

Calming of the Storm - eight month later

Andy, it took you eight months to delete the factually false statement But "λέγω" -- the Greek term used for said in some versions -- does not appear in the Greek above from your Essay:Calming the Storm. Now I have given you another eight months to acknowledge that according to Mark, Jesus spoke to the storm aloud. But I understand that you were very preoccupied with the election: It is very unfortunate that your mother wasn't able to see Trump's ultimate triumph to which she had contributed so much - I want to express my belate condolences for your loss.

1) If you view Mark 4:39 (καὶ διεγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησεν τῷ ἀνέμῳ καὶ εἶπεν τῇ θαλάσσῃ Σιώπα, πεφίμωσο. καὶ ἐκόπασεν ὁ ἄνεμος, καὶ ἐγένετο γαλήνη μεγάλη.) in isolation, you may be allowed to try various, even anachronistic meanings of λέγω. But your proposals ("lay", to "cause to lie down," or to "put to sleep") don't work grammatically. Confer the Iliad, 14th book, verse 252 where Homer uses λέγω in this sense:

[...]ἐγὼ μὲν ἔλεξα Διὸς νόον[...] (I, indeed, laid to rest the mind of Zeus)

Here, you see, that λέγω in the sense of laying is a transitive verb and requires an accusative (νόον), while in Mark 4:39 you have a dative object (τῇ θαλάσσῃ). For short, your preferred meaning cannot be reconciled with the actual grammar.

2) If you view Mark 4:39 in context of the Gospel of Mark - and even the New Testament - it becomes clear that the only feasible translation of this verse is something like " [...]He said to the sea: "Silence, be still"): Mark uses the verb λέγω in 190 of his 678 verses, most often as the sequence

[form of λέγω][addressed person as dative object][direct speech]

You can see this e.g. in Mark 4:38-41:

38καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν ἐν τῇ πρύμνῃ ἐπὶ τὸ προσκεφάλαιον καθεύδων· καὶ ἐγείρουσιν αὐτὸν καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ Διδάσκαλε, οὐ μέλει σοι ὅτι ἀπολλύμεθα; 39καὶ διεγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησεν τῷ ἀνέμῳ καὶ εἶπεν τῇ θαλάσσῃ Σιώπα, πεφίμωσο. καὶ ἐκόπασεν ὁ ἄνεμος, καὶ ἐγένετο γαλήνη μεγάλη. 40καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Τί δειλοί ἐστε; οὔπω ἔχετε πίστιν; 41καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν, καὶ ἔλεγον πρὸς ἀλλήλους Τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν ὅτι καὶ ὁ ἄνεμος καὶ ἡ θάλασσα ὑπακούει αὐτῷ;

Here, in this short section, Mark uses the same construction four times (out of 190...). Do you really think that one time he just wants to express the opposite meaning to the other three times?

I'd like to hear your thoughts. --AugustO (talk) 09:08, 20 November 2016 (EST)

Let's take a look at the Gospel of Mark

I'm going to list the occurrences of the verb λέγω in the Gospel of Mark to demonstrate that he used this verb exclusively to indicate speaking. Therefore, the statement

But the real meaning of "λέγω" is to "lay", to "cause to lie down," or to "put to sleep." It has a connotation of speaking only when used in a context of verbal communication such as putting an argument to rest, which is not the case here in observing nature.

is at best misleading and should be removed from Essay:Calming the Storm. --AugustO (talk)

August, your exegesis is extraordinary!!! But as before, you are being too literal. Mark was not on the boat. He was a child being homeschooled by a woman disciple of Jesus. If someone wrote that Trump told himself to be more politically correct, then that would not mean that he actually verbalized those words, right?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2016 (EST)
Thanks. It seems that we - at last agree - at something: Mark describes a verbal command of Jesus to the sea.
You may say that he got this wrong. But to do so, you have to disavow what he has literally written. For doing so, you should have a very good reasons, as the danger of cherry-picking the Gospel arises! Mark wasn't there, but you weren't there neither: why should your insights trump his report? Just because it neatly fits your ideas of quantum mechanics - which may or may not be true?
Generally, I find it easier to argue in accordance with scripture than in contrast to it.
As for your example: Mark wasn't a MSM journalist, and Trump is not Jesus. Trump may be inspirational, but Mark was inspired.
--AugustO (talk) 03:00, 25 November 2016 (EST)
But I think you're being too literal, August. The issue is whether Mark's ostensible reference to a verbal command could mean something more abstract. If, as someone who was not there, declared that "Trump told himself he would never do that again," then that should be interpreted to mean that Trump thought that, not that he verbally said it. If, as someone who was there, declared the same thing, then a translation as a verbal instruction would be more appropriate.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:17, 25 November 2016 (EST)
  • Your example is lacking context - and that's what this section is all about. You seem to view the verse in isolation: Mark uses λέγω in all of his verses to indicate a verbal communication - e.g., the command to a demon.
  • Luke, Mark and Matthew all describe the reaction of the crew: in all three gospels the verb ὑπακούω is used - the storm obeyed (in the sense of listening to a command). The crew never marvels that Jesus had just to look at the storm, the crew always admires the spoken command.
  • Mark could have used a verb like ὁράω to describe that Jesus just had to observe the storm by looking at it - it's quite a common verb in the Bible, too. He didn't.
  • All this makes it clear that Mark (and Luke and Matthew) report spoken commands to the storm. Perhaps it hasn't happened that way, but than you have to argue against the obvious translation of scripture!

--AugustO (talk) 19:52, 25 November 2016 (EST)

Featured articles

Do we still do featured articles? There are a few that I'd like to nominate. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2016 (EST)

Nominations are welcome! Ideally, they should have popularity and influence. Thanks!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2016 (EST)

Protection capability problems

Hello Mr. Schlafly, I found out today that the protection capabilities that I have only protect articles and images only so autoconfirmed users can edit them. Problem is, as I'm sure you can tell, every registered Conservapedia user is autoconfirmed, even vandals, thus making this capability useless. Is there any way you could change this capability so that it means something? Lately I have been trying to protect all images that I uploaded or requested to be uploaded per our image protection policy. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2016 (EST)

I have the same issue. It seems there is a limited number of levels which can be protected to. Since we can't out-protect ourselves (prevent ourselves from editing a page) it seems that the only level that we can protect to is autoconfirmed. --David B (TALK) 21:38, 22 November 2016 (EST)


You'll unperson Trump as a RINO within two years. I was just saving you some work. Get ahead of the curve now, and you might even be able to spin it as Conservapedia Proven Right. JohnZ (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2016 (EST)

Appreciate your humor, John. So far Trump looks more conservative than even Ronald Reagan was. Hopefully that will continue. Happy Thanksgiving Day.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2016 (EST)
If you read the Book of Proverbs, you will see that Solomon was very conservative. And he had 700 wives and 300 concubines. :) Conservative (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2016 (EST)

Popular French website wrote an article on Conservapedia. About 40% of Conservapedia's traffic is now overseas

The popular French website Telerama (which is one of the top 5,200 websites in the world in web traffic and one of France's top 250 websites in popularity) did a recent article on Conservapedia located HERE.

Here is an excerpt from the article (translated via Google translate):

"Onservapedia is fast becoming a benchmark in the ultra-conservative sphere in the United States and today has more than 100,000 records and 581 million page views since its inception. The most read, besides the homepage, the one on the "homosexual agenda", atheism, Barack Obama, Adolf Hitler, and ... Wikipedia. The ascent of Donald Trump has shed new light on the site, which is often cited in the conservative Glenn Beck radio show, and is referenced on many pro-Republican websites, convinced that all mainstream and Internet media In general are leagued against conservative ideas. More worrying, Conservapedia is still used as a working tool at Eagle Forum University, an online education program created by the conservative and creationist lobby of Phyllis Schlafly."[1]

The Atheism and suicide article may have hit an emotional hot button for that Frnechman given its prominence in the Telerama article (picture atop Telerama article, citing of the article).

According to two popular web traffic analysis websites, about 40% of Conservapedia's traffic now comes from outside the USA. Conservative (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2016 (EST)


It doesn't seem like you intended to delete all this info at the bottom of the newsfeed [2]. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2016 (EST)

Great catch! I restored it, except for one headline that was intentionally trimmed. Thanks!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2016 (EST)

Fair use?

File:Sanger Euthenasia Society.jpg

Yes. Great discovery!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2016 (EST)

Fake News

Mr. Schlafly, would you please add the information I added today on Fake News to the news feed? This is big news, and it shows that liberals are responsible for the "fake news" hysteria. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2016 (EST)

Thank you! --1990'sguy (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2016 (EST)
It is a great story. Thank you!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2016 (EST)
You're welcome. I should note, however, that PeterKa was the one who originally brought the article up on the main talk page. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2016 (EST)