- Was that a posthumous publication? Do we know when he actually wrote it?--Aschlafly 17:25, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
- Franklin wrote it over a period of time, starting and stopping. He wrote the first few chapters in 1771, wrote more in 1784-5, and finished it in 1788. It was, like Ed Poor says, partly first published, posthumously, in French in 1791, and then translated into English in 1793.--Steve 19:53, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
- Thanks for the enlightening information. Obviously any claim that Franklin said he was a deist should have a date next to it, as people's religious views change throughout their lives. Moreover, no one should claim that a work is an autobiography if it was published without his consent, as in posthumously. The best I can infer from this is that Franklin viewed himself as a deist in 1771, but by 1787 (Constitutional Convention) viewed the world differently, and by the time he died he viewed it still differently again. If our entry about Franklin does not yet reflect this, then I'll change it now. Thanks for your efforts. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 00:16, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
- Further review reveals that Franklin did not even claim to be a deist in 1771, but merely said he was a deist in his youth! Really, the attempts by liberals to insist that Franklin was a deist towards the end of his life are astounding.--Aschlafly 00:50, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
- Aschlafly, you are ignoring some ambiguity about the meaning of the word "deist." At the end of his life Franklin was not a deist, according to current dictionary definitions of the word, but his stated views in his "Creed" accord pretty well with the definition of deist according to Edward Herbert of Cherbury, who coined the word. And that may have been the definition that was current in his time.
- Everyone in their life acquires what I'm going to call a stock of "fables," which are narratives that do have some connection with reality but have been grossly oversimplified and distorted. A good neutral example of one would be "Columbus thought the world was round when everyone else thought it was flat." The simple statement "The Founding Fathers were deists" is a good example of a liberal fable.
- It's certainly fair to say Franklin advocated public prayer, and admired Christianity in some sense. But he wasn't a traditional Christian or close to one, either. Dpbsmith 09:13, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
- It's common for liberals to deny that people find faith in life. Once an atheist or deist, always an atheist or deist, according to anti-Christians. Under this view, Abraham Lincoln was there an atheist (not true, he found faith as he grew older), and Benjamin Franklin was a deist (not true, he request divine intervention at the Constitutional Convention). Citing what Franklin wrote in 1771 about his youthful deism is obviously not proof that he was a deist at the Convention in 1787. Quite the contrary, as deists do not believe in divine intervention.--Aschlafly 15:03, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
Read Franklin's letters to Ezra Stiles, written one month before his death. The first paragraph shows his deist leanings, while the in the second one he acknowledges the value of Christianity, but doubts that Christ was the son of god. --McIntyre 17:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
- I did read them here: Benjamin Franklin. Franklin does not describe himself as a deist. Enough said. About Jesus's divinity, Franklin says he has not studied it and is open to the possibility. A deist, by the way, requires a non-interventionist God. Franklin rejected that.--Aschlafly 22:57, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
I must note the irony here in connection with a prior discussion. Liberals insist on calling all supporters of abortion "pro-choice" rather than "pro-abortion" because that is the term they use for themselves. But then liberals insist on falling Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson "deists" when they did not use that term to describe their views as adults! Franklin believed in an interventionist God and Jefferson frequently attended a Christian church until he died.--Aschlafly 15:18, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
A more careful reading of the letter to Stiles, written a month before Franklin's death, reveals his diest leanings. Franklin states that he believes in one God and that our behavior in this life dictates how we be treated in the next. Notice he does not identify the God, or use the term Christian. Sounds very much like a diest. As for the second paragraph, doubting if Christ is divine does not seem very Christian. Please respond to the content of Franklin's letter, rather than attempting to divert the discussion with references to current terms used in highly charged debates today. --McIntyre 15:45, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
- The most important aspect of that letter is that Franklin does not call himself a deist. He'd known the term all his life, and he clearly would have used it if applied to him. It did not. We should not call him by a religious name that he himself rejected. Surely you wouldn't claim that someone is a Catholic, for example, if the person himself rejects that label.
- Where do you get that Franklin "does not identify the God"??? He says, "Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe."--Aschlafly 15:54, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
- Odd, McIntyre, but that was what I was about to post to you. You are the one adding modern interpretations and your own suppositions, to almost 300 year old letters. Revisionist thinking at its finest! I think the fact that Jefferson attended church services weekly speaks louder than all the modernist "conclusions". --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:59, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
He was also familiar with the term Christian, and he did not use it. Plus, he doubts the divinity of Christ. That does not sound like a firm statement of Christian faith, does it? Eighteenth century deists tended to subscribe to the notion of God, but declined to identify the deity in question. As TK's objection: Where did you get the idea that I am using modern ideas? I also do not recall discussing Jefferson--McIntyre 16:04, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
- You didn't respond to our rebuttal of your claim that Franklin did not identify God. I assume you're conceding that Franklin expressly did identify God.
- I would also like a concession that Franklin was not a deist towards the end of his life before moving on to the very different question of whether Franklin was a Christian. More generally, I don't want a perpetuation of the liberal view that people cannot grow into stronger faith. Many do.--Aschlafly 16:11, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
Franklin does identify there is a god or deity of some sort. But he does not identify it as Christian. Why do you want a concession that Franklin was not a deist? It appears (based on his writings up to the end of his life) that he was.--McIntyre 16:25, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
- McIntyre, unfortunately I can only conclude that you don't have an open mind about this. Perhaps you're repeating something you heard elsewhere and won't reconsider your views about it. Franklin strongly believed in an interventionist God and that disqualifies him from being a deist. Franklin did not call himself a deist. It's slanderous to insist that Franklin was a deist, and a sign that you're pushing an agenda based on bias. Enough. Please move on to another topic here with more of an open mind. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 17:06, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
- This reminds me of a larger theme called "debunking the founding". The idea is that whatever flaws there may be in America's founding (and Founding Fathers) somehow invalidates America's special claim to being a Godly nation. Like, since we didn't immediately abolish slavery, we are worthless slime.
- Don't forget the prayer embedding in our patriotic song: "God mend thine every flaw and crown thy good with brotherhood". America is great because it strives to be good. It is the cream of the crop and will continue to be as long as it so strives. --Ed Poor 17:57, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
Aschlafly, I think your desire that McIntyre concede that Franklin was deist is unfortunate. He has cited primary sources--Franklin's own writings--rather than "something he heard.", He also correctly noted that Franklin did not identify the god in question--all hallmarks of eighteenth century deism. If someone does not have an "open mind" on the subject, as you put it, it is not McIntyre. I even think I know who McIntyre is, and when I see this person this weekend, I will ask him. He is really quite a scholar.--Jamest 12:12, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
- The insistence on liberals describing Franklin as a deist continues to amaze me. I'll bet the correlation between those who insist Franklin was a deist and liberals is nearly 100%. It doesn't matter if the claim is made by a scholar or a student. Liberals want Franklin to have been a deist, even though Franklin himself implicitly rejected that label and prayed for divine intervention, something deists rejected.--Aschlafly 12:22, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
You should not be amazed. A reading of eighteenth century diest works reveals they have nothing against praying, and you have not addressed this point: Franklin never says he is a Christian, but he did say he was a deist. You say it "does not matter" who makes the claim, and that you willfully choose not to address the point that the writings McIntyre noted were Franklin's own. I think it is rather obvious who has the closed mind in this debate. --Jamest 12:42, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
By the way, the thought occurs to me: why do you reject what a Franklin scholar has to say? Surely a scholar has read more works by and about Franklin than you. Why do you reject their assertions out of hand or wish for them to concede something that they know--base on their research--is not true? Conservapedia wants to accurate and true, right? --Jamest 12:55, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
- James, please disclose your political point-of-view along with that of the "scholar". Let me guess: do both of you oppose prayer in the classrooms of public schools? Enough said.--Aschlafly 13:11, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
We are discussing the past, not the political present. So, why bring up school prayer? What does that have to so with Franklin's deism?--Jamest 13:17, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
- It explains your views. If you're opposed to prayer in the classroom, then there is over a 90% chance that (1) you'll insist that Franklin was a deist and (2) you believe in evolution. That extraordinary correlation suggests that the facts are irrelevant. If you're not open-minded about prayer in the classroom, then it's futile to expect you to be open-minded about these other issues.--Aschlafly 18:41, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafly, I fail to see how my position on school prayer (which, by the way, you do not know) is germane to a conversation regarding Benjamin Franklin’s spiritual beliefs. You also do not know my position regarding evolution (I am also uncertain as to how that is relevant to this conversation). As for your other suppositions (the 90% figure), do you have evidence to support this? Now could you please show a little intellectual integrity, and address the substance of McIntyre’s arguments, rather than engaging in distractions? I do have an open mind about such matters sir, and I hope that you have the same. --Jamest 08:23, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
- I do know, with 95% certainty, what your positions are on classroom prayer and evolution. The 95% confidence level is all that science requires. I know your positions with greater certainty than I know what the weather will be like tomorrow.
- But why do you refuse to disclose your positions? Are you embarrassed about them? Do you feel they are indefensible? Conservatives don't hide their views; liberals do. Why?--Aschlafly 10:26, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafly, my positions on school prayer and evolution would probably surprise you. I do not discuss them because they are not germane to the topic at hand, namely, Benjamin Franklin’s spiritual beliefs. Please show a little intellectual integrity, stick to the topic, and stop engaging in distractions. Could you please address McIntyre’s arguments?--Jamest 10:34, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
One more thing Mr. Schlafly. I do not know how you arrive at a figure of “95% certainty.” But I will share one observation with you. I have long noticed that a debater who employs distraction and non-sequiturs is in a desperate position. Will you respond to McIntyre’s argument? Or are you unable to do so?--Jamest 11:05, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
- James, liberals crave attention and don't mind being deceitful. See Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia. Whether you are a liberal or not, I observe that you are not willing to be forthright about your views here, so my time is better spent discussing issues with others. Please leave my talk page, which is respected as one's castle here on Conservapedia. See Differences with Wikipedia. Thank you and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 11:25, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafly, I am hardly a liberal. I will comply with your rules and stay off your talk page. However, if one does not have the intellectual fortitude to debate, one should not make unfounded assertions, such as “Franklin was not a deist” that are based on belief, rather than rigorous historical scholarship. Good day Sir.--Jamest 13:43, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
- I don't find you to be forthright in stating your views. You may say that you are "hardly a liberal," but I'm not fooled by that. I'm 95% confident that you oppose prayer in the classroom, and that you believe in evolution.
- I know liberals insist on having the last word. But this is my talk page, and the last word will be mine. Don't post here again on this issue. Thank you and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 14:08, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
You still did not try to answer professor McIntyre. I thought this was about Franklin? Why are you talking about prayer and evolution? --Willed 22:38, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
- Nice try, "Willed". You're a sock of Jamest, and both account IDs and IP address have just been blocked for this.--Aschlafly 22:44, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
- Ok, then. I'm not a sock of Jamest or Willed, but I second the question. Why bring up questions about evolution and school prayer when they are irrelevant to the question of Franklin's faith and McIntyre's research? JohnSmith 15:26, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
- Someone who insists on censoring classroom prayer, even when everyone in the class wants to pray, is going to have a bias on issues related to religion. He should disclose his position so that others can evaluate his bias. So should you if you are going to insist that Franklin was a deist towards the end of his life.--Aschlafly 15:47, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
- There are laws against smoking marijuana to prevent the harm it causes. But there is no harm from praying in a classroom, while there is much good. Also, praying is a form of speech, unlike smoking marijuana. At bottom, liberals insist on censoring speech in the classroom. But notice how they won't admit it. Those who insist on censoring prayer in the classroom are unlikely to be objective in evaluating the faith of others, such as Benjamin Franklin. It's a bit like asking a Red Sox fan what he thinks of the Yankees this year; the answer is not likely to be objective. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
Your response to the above posters does not make sense. They are trying to discuss Benjamin Franklin, and you try to make it about prayer. You also say you are 90% or 95% sure about their positions, but you provide no proof. It appears that you are really afraid of debating McIntyre on this point. He also seems to have proved his point, and you keep trying to distract people from the discussion. Why don't you simply discuss the Franklin/Deism question?--Franklin 18:54, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
I just read the conservapedia entry on Andrew Schlafly and I am very surprised. I am sure a graduate of Harvard law school knows that changing the subject is not a valid form of argumentation. If anything, it is the mark of an intellectual coward.--Franklin 19:20, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
- We don't allow that kind of name-calling here. I've given you a very lenient block of only 2 hours. Next time it will be an infinite block if you engage in name-calling on someone's own talk page. See how Conservapedia differs from Wikipedia and have some respect for someone's talk page here. Thanks.--Aschlafly 19:31, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
Thank you for being lenient in your block. But the question remains: Why does a man of your obvious education and intelligence not forthrightly respond to McIntyre? Surely you can articulate a good argument for your position rather than engaging in distractions.--Franklin 22:19, 28 May 2007 (EDT) Its nice the way that, failing to adequately change the subject when you are losing, you send Karajou to threaten the debaters on their talk pages. Classy, and, might i add, very Christian.GoddisapprovesofbulliesKarajou 23:07, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
- Thank you for your sarcasm, but no thank you for your name. You will be blocked, but allowed to re-register with a non-offensive name, unless you turn out to be a sock.--Aschlafly 23:15, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
I tend to agree with the above poster (but I agree his name was improper). Now, enough with the distractions. Please respond to McIntyre--Franklin 06:15, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
- Franklin, what am I missing here? Is this some debate forum? Is there some obligation that a user here incurs, in being forced to answer? I say this not to be argumentative, but some will take it so. I just have never figured out what about an online encyclopedia makes so many believe there is some burning need to debate every entry. I know people who are editors of traditional ones, and they assure me none of this constant arguing ever occurs? Is is because CP is branded and self-identified as a Conservative and Christian POV friendly? Is that all there is to this constant strife, that those who do not agree have set it as their "mission" to make the "nutty Christians" fall into line? You do know, right, that has been tried for thousands of years with any real success whatsoever? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 06:42, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
TK, I don't think you are missing anything. But surely you do not think that simple unsupported asserations trump scholarship do you? I don't think that anyone is trying to make "nutty Christians" as you put it, fall into line. But to avoid responding to dircet questions, and avoidance of the issue is unseemly. So I ask again. Please address the question, please address McIntyre, and quit trying to change the subject. --Franklin 08:23, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
- What I believe is that any person whatsoever has the inviolable right to refuse to respond, without prejudice. Intellectual discourse must come without rancor or "demands", and be in a civil tone, for any advancement to occur. I suggest sending a personal email, or even perhaps waiting a day or so to cool this item down a bit. Now, I am bowing out here. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 09:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
Intellectual discourse should be done without rancor and I think most of the people that have posted here have avoided that. However, trying to divert the issue by raising issues of prayer, evolution, etc., does not advance the discussion.--Franklin 09:07, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
Wow. I have been away a while and I had no idea the discussion would expand like this! I notice one poster thinks he knows me (and I am pretty sure I know him). On to other matters. Do you concede that Franklin was a Deist, and if you do not, please articulate your reasons. Best, Mac.--McIntyre 10:55, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
Anything wrong with the Constitution Party?
I have a user box stating that I support the Constitution Party. If you are unaware of them, this is their platform. However, a request was made on my talk page that I remove the user box from my user page so that the template can be deleted. Just wanted to seek guidance on how to proceed. Thanks. HeartOfGoldtalk 22:38, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
- I did remove the reference to the template on my user page, though I replaced it with the code to generate the same code. As my user page is my castle, I assume this is acceptable. Meanwhile, I do disagree with the reasoning about why the userbox template should be deleted. HeartOfGoldtalk 22:47, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
- Please see our guidelines, HeartOfGold. Your efforts have been mighty here, and well appreciated! However many things happen in the realm of Admins that users cannot possibly know anything about, eh? So RobS's request was totally in line, and within our Guidelines, that the requests of Administrators be complied with. It had nothing to do with politics, or your chosen party, I assure you. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:47, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for being cooperative, HeartOfGold. I look forward to reviewing your future edits. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 01:10, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
Observation & Request for Guidance
I just heard about your site & joined it. I wondered if you had any suggestions for me. I'm a new editor with experience in history. That's my request for help - my observation is that your guys seem to be banning left & right. I think they're stifling new users.
I realize, too, that (having read the Commandments) I'm toeing the line of 90/10. As I said above, if you give me some ideas, I'm gonna start contributing :-).-RenegadeNinja 12:07, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
- Welcome! We ban vandals, who are mostly liberals attempting to disrupt and censor this site. Legitimate editors are welcome. We have American and World History lectures here that provide a great resource for ideas for new historical entries. Also, entries that anticipate the "on this day" events of upcoming dates are most welcome. You can find from search engines the upcoming "on this day" happenings for May 19, 20, 21, etc. An entry for the Spanish Armada linked on the front page today would be great! Welcome again and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 14:57, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
- Actually, Andy, if you'll remember, some of your more aggressive sysops ban legitimate editors who happen to be not far-right conservative or YEC. You actually have not been a big offender, thank God, but legitimate, non-vandal contributors who try to help inject information that is "not doctrine" are pretty quickly tossed. BTW, I do have contributions to make, so don't ban me yet. I promise I'll make some good ones.AStojanovic 23:14, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
- Now why was TK selected in the above line "more aggressive sysops" by an extremely new user? Karajou 23:51, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
- Actually, Andy, if you'll remember, some of your more aggressive sysops ban legitimate editors who happen to be not far-right conservative or YEC. You actually have not been a big offender, thank God, but legitimate, non-vandal contributors who try to help inject information that is "not doctrine" are pretty quickly tossed. BTW, I do have contributions to make, so don't ban me yet. I promise I'll make some good ones.AStojanovic 23:14, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
- Both of the above complaints about "stifling new users" are by folks who have not yet made a single substantive edit. Folks, how about making some substantive edits and then let's chat? Thanks and, as I told "RenegadeNinja", Godspeed to you.--Aschlafly 23:58, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
- Well, Astojanovic, I can't remember reading something more moronic in the recent weeks. First, I am not a YEC. Second, I am not "born again", as Ronald Reagan said: "I was born right the first time." As a Reagan Conservative, I hardly think you could find me "far right" in any legitimate expert opinion. But thanks for the belly laugh! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:38, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
Please check your email
My DEFAULTSORT activities
Please see Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style#Persons, where I added a note about adding a DEFAULTSORT tag. The DEFAULTSORT tag allows articles to be correctly alphabetized when the articles appear in lists or categories of other articles. I added some notes about individuals with multiple or concatenated surnames, and I am not sure my contribution was correct when it comes to individuals such as Vicente Fox Quesada. I assume you may have some knowledge in this area; if so, please help, but if not, my apologies. Also, you might have noticed that last night, being tired, I conducted quite a bit of routine maintenance so that articles on individuals will be correctly alphabetized when they show up in lists or categories (I did not create, edit, or move any categories last night, though I support efforts to change and/or reorganize the "political people" category, per discussion on Category_talk:Political_people.) HeartOfGoldtalk 12:42, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
- I don't fully understand this but it seems to be a big help with the issue of alphabetizing individuals. So please continue and Lord bless you for your untiring efforts.--Aschlafly 12:55, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
- Trying for a more streamlined look, Andy...."Political People" is a category that we contemplate renaming into something, perhaps just a top tier "Political" or separate "Elected Officials". HeartOfGold and I were discussing more help for the non-wiki initiated, like putting more explanations on the technical pages, explaining why certain things, like categories, default sort, templates are there, and what they do, and how/why they help. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 13:01, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
- Super! Thanks much, TK. Lord willing this just grows and grows!--Aschlafly 13:06, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
Alright, feel free to spread misinformation and bias to non-Christians. But, just so you know, I posted Ninetyte's edit summary "remove liberal bias" to FSTDT. I am currently logging out, and I have forgot my password, so there will be no need to contact me back. I will be compelled to create some socks and removeany bias, unless you regard spherical views being presented as one. Also, please view this entry from Wiktionary:
to try to achieve a result.
So, "political correctness" or -in relity, and not some bizarre ultra-conservative world- neutrality is allowed, unless you would care to form a new definition of "strive" in your "Conserviktionary". NPOV will be upheld by my sockpuppets and my compatriots, who happen to have excellent computing skills.
P.S. Do not try to block my IP adress. I specifically possess TCP/IP modifying software and I will care to modify the respective parameters. I am also fully capable of impersonating other users here, simply by identifying their passwords. Surprisingly, you shall not see any vandalism by me or my fellows in the future, unless you consider neutrality to be vandalism to your closed minds.
- Thank your for your Parthian Shot, which was not the first we've received. Though we obviously disagree, I wish you all the best. Feel free to have a change of heart and return in the future. Lord willing, we'll be even better then.--Aschlafly 15:15, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
Suggestion (not a Parthian shot)
I've been hanging around here since, oh, early-mid March. While I haven't the time/skill to contribute as much as others, I've tried to do a fair job here, making edits and suggestions, cleaning up after the occasional vandal, and so forth. And though I'm strictly a centrist (maybe even a little right of center) politically, I've tried to be mindful of this site's goals, and have tried to keep my edits "conservative" (AmesG I ain't). My primary goal has been to try to help make Conservapedia a reliable source of information. However, it becomes increasingly obvious that my contributions are unwelcome, mild though they be. So be it--I'll be signing off for good and spending my energies where they're better needed.
- Before I go, however, a serious suggestion...It's quite clear that anything even remotely smacking or suspected of being insufficiently conservative is not wanted here (and there's nothing wrong with that, as it's your project and you can run it as you desire). As a consequence, however, the sysops and others spend an inordinate amount of time policing that, reverting, blocking, arguing, etc, when they could be adding and editing. So, if the wiki software allows, you might want to implement a procedure whereby new members/editors are not allowed access to article pages until they have proved themselves. If they have some suggested text to add/change, they can post it on the talk pages, and those with full edit privileges may use it or not, as they see fit. And no arguing on said pages--that nonsense just goes 'round and 'round, never moving forward (maybe change "Talk" pages to "Suggestion" pages). Only after a user has shown that they understand the site's vibe should they be promoted to editor (and there doesn't need to be a complicated process involved--it should be patently obvious who gets it and who doesn't, and at that point any sysop should be able to grant edit power). As for the rest, toss them overboard at the first opportunity; This business about banning people over and over is rather ridiculous--at the point when someone has received 5 or 10 or 20 bans it should be painfully obvious they don't belong here.
- Good luck with your project, and God Bless.--WJThomas 17:21, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
WJ, I've never had a conflict with you, but you only made about a dozen substantive edits in over two months. We have many e
Your contributions are welcome. If you stuck around and did more, then your suggestions would carry more weight. When delivered as a Parthian shot, the best I can say is thanks and hope you return to do more sometime. Godspeed to you, and hope you can come back to do more.--Aschlafly 18:02, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
Hello. In reference to the folloing message you sent me: "Did you copy and paste Neighborhoods of Jacksonville, Florida? That is only allowed if you wrote it. Thanks.--Aschlafly 17:36, 17 May 2007 (EDT)" ... The answer is "yes", I wrote every word. Took some time too. Add to it if you like. -- Starfleet7 19:05, May 20, 2007 (EDT)
- Great work. Thanks much. Godspeed in your efforts and hope you can write more here.--Aschlafly 23:33, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
Thank you for blocking me, Mr. Schlafly. I appreciate knowing that I can not take a vacation without being suspected as being a criminal. Reaganomist2 20:45, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
- This is your only edit??? Unless you contribute to the encyclopedia, then I'm afraid you'll be blocked again. Godspeed and please improve this encyclopedia, as so many others are.--Aschlafly 20:47, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
- Click the above link. That is my old account that you blocked for being 'recenttly inactive' and 'likely a sock'. Reaganomist2 20:49, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
Thank you. I will be sure to notify you next time I plan not to keep up with my commitment to this site. Reaganomist 21:23, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
- Sir, the blocking was obviously a mistake, and I apologize; no one accused you of being a criminal. I'm a bit troubled by your negative postings here. Can we cheer up a bit and be more constructive? I look forward to learning from your future edits. Lord willing, you'll help improve this encyclopedia as many other editors are. Thank you.--Aschlafly 21:28, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
I believe Reaganomist to ba a sockpuppet account. RobS 21:32, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
- So what about that, Reaganomist? Perhaps you are a fake after all? I must say, your sarcastic and exaggerated comments above do not inspire confidence, and your edits have not been much help. What sayeth thou?--Aschlafly 21:41, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
- Andy, after much searching, DanH found GodlessLiberal's (previously banned user) posts on another wiki where he admitted to being Reaganomist here, and hatching a plan to accuse Bohdan of being Ice, which was carried out on DanH's talk page just a few days later! He now sleeps again with the fishes. God's speed to him. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 23:58, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
Yes that's me. And I have many, many more. GLib 17:35, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
I just fixed a typo in the link for your archive pages as there appeared to be a gap between the current page and the last available archive. BrianCo 03:08, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafly, I notice that you have created several articles about legal cases. Souldn't they be categorized in some way? I would do it myself but am not sure of how categories are organized here. BrianCo 04:11, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
- Great idea. How about "Category:Law"? Thanks.--Aschlafly 09:40, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
How about a pic for your personal article?
- OK, thanks. Not sure I have one, but I'll take a look.--Aschlafly 09:41, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
- You've been superb in your edits and blocks. THANK YOU!--Aschlafly 18:36, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
WOW already!!! As me and Jimmy calculated (a while back) to catch up with Wikipedia, we need to do 10,000 entries for 13 years. Not to disheart anyone. Lol I cant believe it though. Started as a class vote to do it and work on it as homework.... Wow I cant believe it!--Will N. 10:48, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
Thank you Mr. Schlafly. You have been a great inspiration with my school work and everything. You have helped me greatly in everything dilberatly or not. Thank you so much for Conservapedia and I hope it last a long time.--Will N. 12:59, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
I think I am being framed  "Bohdan May 22nd, 2007 at 12:59 am Now that I have been given sysopship and gained Andy’s trust, I was wondering if you guys had any suggestions on how I should vandalize CP. I don’t want to make it so obvious that I get caught. Some help would be greatly appreciated." I did not post this.Bohdan Talk 13:07, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
- I wouldn't worry too much about it, it is an obvious and juvinile attempt to smear your good reputation. I certainly would have recognized it as such. HGHeartOfGold talk 13:13, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
- THhis Icew3dge guy is very good at what he does seems like. He keeps coming back again and again. Why doesn't he go somewere else and vandalize? People are funky.--Will N. 13:17, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
- Most of this isn't the several people using the "Ice" account, but Tmtoulouse, ColinR, AmesG, AKjeldsen, Palmd and Sterile, among others and their many socks. The poor things are so devoid of a life, they crave argument for arguments sake. Feel free to contact me for a more complete list. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:18, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
- The problem of forgery is real. The first time I spoke to Jimbo Wales online at #wikipedia, his first comment to me was "How do I know it's really Ed Poor?" I had to tell him something I had only said to him on the phone, to prove it was me.
- We are trying to become a "trustworthy encyclopedia", and there are people who are trying to break down or sabotage that trust. I cannot fathom their motives. :-( --Ed Poor 17:50, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
This site deserves at least 70-80% of the vandalism it receives. Most of the users TK lists above would have been perfectly happy to contribute constructively if their viewpoints had been accorded something approaching equal recognition. Almost to a man, they were willing to let YEC and other zealotry stand as long as they had some reasonable right of reply somewhere in the article in question. Instead, they had to fight tooth and nail for every scrap they got and now you block them all. Trustworthy encyclopedia? You blew it... --Robledo 18:43, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
- What a perfect illustration of liberal morality! Under your logic, someone would be justified in vandalizing property if told to leave. Many liberals do think that way. Thank you for your comment, and I'm putting this in the Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia.--Aschlafly 19:04, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
- Sorry, I really hate to interject here but your analogy is a little spurious Andrew. If you had said you invited them into your home (this encyclopedia is free to edit) and you asked them for a debate (again, this is free to edit) then threw them out because you disagreed you'd at least be honest. I'm not here to cause trouble, far from it, but painting your detractors thus is no way to prove we're better than them. If the Conservative party in the UK was a little slower to criticise and a little faster to offer an alternative we'd have a better government over here. Win the debates and the hearts and minds will follow. Fingermouse 19:19, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
- Conservatives in the U.S. don't dilute our message, and perhaps we're stronger for it. The point is this: vandalism is never justified. The liberal above claimed that vandalism is justified if someone tells someone else to leave the property. Don't allow that logic, not for a minute. A property owner can tell someone to leave for any reason he wants, or for no reason at all. That does not justify that person then vandalizing the place.
- I trust you can see an analogy to many crimes, from juvenile delinquency to full blown terrorism. Don't defend the underlying rationale in any way, shape or form. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 19:25, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
- When phrased like that, I see exactly where you are coming from Andrew. I tend to be a little forgiving myself but perhaps I just see the follies of youth. God willing, in a few years, many of these vandals will mature a little and decide to contribute more to society. Fingermouse 19:34, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
Garbage, and you know it. The "vandalism" here can be corrected at the click of a button, unlike broken windows or graffiti. No property is destroyed or damaged in any meaningful sense. Your concern should be why people want to subvert your project, and whether the behaviour of some of your administrators is feeding that desire. Some will continue to "vandalise" simply because it's a Christian site (the 20-30%); the rest could be brought on board with evidence of more even-handed treatment of editors and differing viewpoints. You have the opportunity to make many of your problems disappear. I suggest you take it. --Robledo 19:57, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
- Ahhh....so your point would be the "victim" is the cause? Somehow our POV and rules are the cause? Much the same as a woman dressing sexy "invites" being raped? Interesting logic there! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:00, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
- Robledo, the vandalism is exactly what the word means: the destruction of other persons' property, causing the victims to waste time and effort. You used the word yourself. For you to try to blame the victim of vandalism is an outrage, and I suspect you know it. Nowhere in your messages do you admit the vandalism is "wrong". Instead, you imply that it is justified to vandalize. Take your message to the general public, to a court of law, to a respected institution, or to your parents and see how many agree with you. ZERO.--Aschlafly 20:17, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
Why was this user blocked? The blog log lists:
18:54, 27 March 2007 Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked "Richard (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (he knows why)
- Is Richard a friend of yours? Take a look at his edits and comments and then ask again if you still don't understand.--Aschlafly 17:30, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
- Reasons for blocks are not offical ones, merely short hand for the Sysop doing the block. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:44, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
GofG, while a 5-minute review of Richard's edits would likely answer your question, I'd like to set a precedent here: One editor does not have standing to demand the reason for a block of another editor. In legal terminology, that means you lack "standing" to assert a privilege for someone else. One reason for this is simply to conserve resources for those who are asserting their own cause, and to minimize distractions. In this case, you don't want to spend your own time reviewing Richard's edits, but you are wasting our time instead. No thanks, and Godspeed in a return to our edits.--Aschlafly 18:35, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
- Some just seem to insist that because Wikipedia is run one way, and has some established rules, anyone else starting a wiki is somehow bound to their rules. Another case of NLPOV. No Logic Point Of View. :S --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:02, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
Good luck with your project
- Thanks and all the best to you. Hope you can return and continue to contribute in the future. Thanks much for your efforts so far. Godspeed to you.--Aschlafly 22:28, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
- You're welcome. I don't think I will be back. I am considering starting a Christian World View encyclopedia, where content that subverts advertised POV is censored and/or marganalized, but where merit is measured in quality, not quantity (just a difference, not a judgement--as I said previously, I understand your goals of critical mass and/or tipping point). HGHeartOfGold talk 02:55, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
- You've delivered a bit of a Parthian Shot, but we've seen worse. Quality here is far higher than on rival wiki encyclopedias. Try using the "Random page" option on rival wikis and see all the junk that pops up. I guess you've noticed that I had to revert edits made on the Scopes Trial during your watch, and soon I will have to revert some of your edits on that entry also. "Poetic license" as a term to describe liberal deceit???? Oh please. Regardless, Godspeed to you.--Aschlafly 12:12, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
- Higher quality? You're kidding, right? --Sysiphus 22:52, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
You seem to know what's going on quite a bit for a new user. DanH 22:56, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
- Good observation, DanH.
- To prove my point, I just went to Wikipedia and typed in the silliest term I could think of: "duh". And what do you know: Wikipedia has an equally silly entry for it! I'm going to enter that Wikipedia's insight into our Wikipedia entry now.--Aschlafly 23:11, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
- No, that wouldn't work. Sports have rules! What we're really witnessing is a craving for attention by these liberals. They want someone to recognize them.--Aschlafly 23:20, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
So basically, when they cannot win debates or political arguments, they turn to attacking a person, or thing, as some sort of.....deflection? Is that not the highest form of intellectual dishonesty there is? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 23:26, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
- How about this: we'll set aside 15 minutes each day to give special attention to the liberals who need it. Then they won't have to spend 24 hours a day spewing nonsense in a futile attempt to attract someone's attention!! It's win-win.--Aschlafly 23:42, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
- Excellent! Only they will need at least 30 minutes. Maybe while watching Bill O'Reilly, so we won't be totally bored? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:15, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
Look at user Elite.. poor spelling and potential vandalism. Wasn't sure how/who to report this to. --CastleVania 15:05, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
- Thanks. I gave Elite more time, but your concern proved to be right and I eventually blocked Elite.--Aschlafly 15:53, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
- Thanks for your quick attention. It's great that you really put so much time and energy into this site! --CastleVania 19:59, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
front page looking good :)
Hi Andy! I love the look of the front page today, "Celebrating 10,000 entries" it looks like a party invitation! lol. I have also enjoyed reading the other main page features, especially the "Today in History", "Daily Historical Quote" and "Daily Bible quote" - informative and interesting. Congrats to the new Sysops & Best Wishes for Conservapedia's continued growth and success. --Taj 15:41, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
- Thank you! Hope you can stick around and edit some more along with the rest of us. I really enjoyed your Golden Gate Bridge--Aschlafly 15:54, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
- Thanks! I'm glad you enjoyed it. :) I also enjoy researching and writing the pages, I learn from it, and like to share the info. I've written a few new pages, I think the most recent are: Jeddah and Eleanor Roosevelt. I hope to be able to contribute more, and will have more time after finals! God bless --Taj 17:00, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
NEW HOME SALES POST LARGEST GAIN IN 14 YEARS; MEDIAN PRICE DROPS BY LARGEST AMOUNT ON RECORD!
Watch FOX News Channel or go to http://foxnews.com for more
- Infi-blocked. You can also report problems like this at Conservapedia:Abuse. --Ed Poor 12:28, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
- Right, forgot about that. Thanks.NSmyth12:30, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
I was wondering if I could be a sysop again now that I'm back full-time. If not, I'll gladly submit my name for discussion on the sysop nomination page as I recognize that there are others who are better qualified than I am. Just thought I'd ask. Nsmyth16:44, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
I hope the "no using Wikipedia" rule doesn't apply to the featured pictures (particularly the animals), as all of them are OK to use as long as they are attributed properly. Would using these be OK? --Hojimachongtalk 18:12, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
- Sure, please use any images in the public domain or from Wikipedia pursuant to its rules. Godspeed to your efforts, Hoji.--Aschlafly 18:13, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm not sure whether this is the right place to ask about this, but there's really nowhere else I've found - this is regarding the Conservapedia Witchcraft "article". The only factual information to be found in this piece is that the word Witchcraft is spelled correctly. I and others have tried to correct this article, but our changes have been labelled "biased vandalism" and the article is now locked. Is there any way we can unlock this article, fix all the inaccuracies and then have it locked again? --LunarStorm 21:39, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
- LunarStorm, I beleive you have been talking about this with Sysop PhilipR, no? Rather than post here for Mr. Schlafly to help, I would respectfully refer you back to PhilipR, okay? Thanks! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 09:06, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
I thought that you might find this a little interesting. Especially the part of the EU literally violating Poland's sovereignty and attempting to make their laws for them. I find it a little frightening. I love the in-existant "right to abortion". Богдан Talk 23:58, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
- Lord bless you, Justine! If you want to give me an assignment to block a few hundred of the remainder, then I'll work with you on this!--Aschlafly 15:43, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
- GOD BLESS YOU, JUSTINE!!!! THAT'S FANTASTIC!!!!--Aschlafly 09:51, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
Featured Article Candidate
- Excellent idea! Done! (see front page)--Aschlafly 10:52, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
I understand that a person's user space may be their castle, but is their a way to stop this user insulting Jews from his castle window? Fox 11:56, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
- Nevermind, I see he got a justly deserved boot :) Fox 11:57, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
- Hoji, Fox....what is with you guys and hating HTML? You know I don't understand, lol. Feel free, as I am sure I would not do it correctly, and then be attacked for that. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 12:39, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
- Hey TK you forgot to mention its based on an idea of mine. Surely I deserve some credit too? WhatIsG0ing0n 06:25, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
- Whenever the contents of any User page violates the CP Guidelines, Bejamin we will. Perhaps you should check them out....--Sysop-TK /MyTalk 08:13, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
A small doubt on protection against automated attacks: "To help protect against automated account creation, please solve the simple sum below and enter the answer in the box (more info):
16 - 2 = <box>" It remains unclear to me as to how this protects against automated account login. Similarly, elsewhere on the site, this seems to be the primary Captcha used. Evaluating expressions should be pretty simple, right? Do correct me if im wrong. Thanks, Arpith
Why isn't there a page on Scientilogy? --Tetra 18:15, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
- The topic attracted vandalism by enemies of this site. We don't need that kind of distraction. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:23, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
- The following users, most blocked, share IP 18.104.22.168:
Tetra (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 22:15, 28 May 2007) (Earliest: 22:11, 28 May 2007) 
Ghoti (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 22:09, 28 May 2007) (Earliest: 23:01, 26 May 2007) 
Catfish (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 02:08, 25 May 2007) (Earliest: 23:53, 24 May 2007) 
Gulik3 (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 04:34, 22 May 2007) (Earliest: 01:21, 22 May 2007) 
Stop Calling Me a "Liberal!"
I think my politics are far more radical than liberal. Liberals are bourgeois who want to change the system. My politics favor tearing down the system. Sevenstring 19:38, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
- So sorry, Sevenstring, but when did I call you a "liberal"???
- Is there anyone, just anyone, who admits that he's a liberal? Why so much denial?--Aschlafly 20:22, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
- LMAO! Hoji, you and I have talked lots. You aren't particularly Liberal compared to many of my friends. Sorry, this isn't an attack, but just an observation, lol. Many Conservatives here think I am Liberal. Of course they are wrong, but I just don't acknowledge their POV, as everyone is entitled to one. Sevenstring, have you thought of joining some board? Political Palace over on EzBoard seems radical enough.... --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 22:06, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
Just to let you know, I just read about your mother in Mark w. Smith's book The Official Handbook of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. She is listed at the end as an "inspirational individual". But he didnt write about CP in his list of conservative websites :( Богдан Talk 21:52, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
- I guess we're flying under the radar!!! Ha ha ha. :-) --Aschlafly 21:55, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
- No matter what one might think of her political POV, Phyllis Schlafly is indeed an inspirational figure! She attended Washington University in St. Louis, and in 1945 (this was a time of few women doing this) earned a master's degree in political science from Harvard University, and a law degree from Washington University in 1978. She worked as a researcher for several Congressmen, and was known for her abilities to find accurate and meaningful research under deadline pressure, and was always completely in command of the facts. She single-handedly beat back the so-called Equal Rights Amendment. This is not an exaggeration. She opposed the ERA because it would require women to serve in combat, and because she believed it would take away legal rights of wives already in place, and would negatively influence family life. Without being active in the "arena" few readers here can understand the huge sacrifices she has made for her country. I recommend her book The Power of the Positive Woman(1977) to all of you. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 22:24, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
What is the rationale behind the blanking and protecting of blocked users' pages(other than the obvious cases of profanity and the like)? It seems to me like a waste of time and it is sometimes rather annoying. (For example I was trying to read the page of our good friend (sarcasm) AmesG but it had been blanked and protected. --Ben Talk 08:18, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
- Oh, we have all of his pages, and as a Sysop, I believe you can see them. If you need more from AmesG contact Karajou, he can enlighten you lots. The reason is, once someone has been blocked from using CP, would we not be out of our minds to leave the kind of personal attacks and half-truths these Liberals spew? Unless you believe we should provide a free platform for haters? Once they are gone, they are gone. We give people many chances here. Once they have refused our hand to work together to build a great Conservative and Christian-friendly encyclopedia, all we can say is: Godspeed to them! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 08:39, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
Pastor Martin Niemöller
User:TK's activities brought this to mind:
- When the Nazis came for the communists,
- I remained silent;
- I was not a communist.
- When they locked up the social democrats,
- I remained silent;
- I was not a social democrat.
- When they came for the trade unionists,
- I did not speak out;
- I was not a trade unionist.
- When they came for me,
- there was no one left to speak out.
- Pastor Martin Niemöller
- WhatIsG0ing0n 09:11, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
- Yes! A fine example of Liberal's non-actions throughout history! Thanks for reminding us, once again, why we must remain dedicated to resisting their attempts to turn this place into yet another secular-relativist wiki.--Sysop-TK /MyTalk 09:15, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
- That's all - user deleted already. --Aulis Eskola 13:34, 29 May 2007 (EDT)