User talk:Aschlafly/Archive30

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Older News

Andy, thanks for archiving the older news articles to the Main Page/Previous Conservapedia Breaking News page. --Crocoite 09:53, 1 September 2007 (EDT)



Mr. Schlafly, does it count for extra if we do the essays and post them on conservapedia? --JessicaS 19:41, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

That works, JessicaS! By the way, you left something behind but we have it. In Christ,--Aschlafly 21:19, 13 September 2007 (EDT)


Thanks Rebecca told me, will I be able to get it next week?--JessicaS 22:48, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

Sure.--Aschlafly 22:51, 13 September 2007 (EDT)


When we take the practice test should we give you the score?--JessicaS 09:27, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Great question, Jessica! Yes, please, give me the test score. You can email it to me or, if you like, courageously post it on your own talk page. In Christ,--Aschlafly 10:46, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Ok it will be on my page in a few hours --JessicaS 11:16, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Wow, Jessica, that's fantastic! Hope other students follow your superb leadership. Lord bless you for your diligence and initiative!--Aschlafly 11:20, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

block policy

Our block policy states the following: "Unceasing reverts of articles, "tit for tat" editing and argument-without-end, on points contrary to the "Conservapedia Philosophy", or in defiance of an Administrator's instructions, are all cause for blocking a user."

What is meant by the "Conservapedia Philosophy"? Conservative 22:24, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

  • "Conservapedia Philosophy" is spelled out in the Commandments and CP Guidelines, mostly, Conservative. Of course the Manual of Style and Editing Guidelines come into all of that as well. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 22:33, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

Question on Reversion

Could you please explain your reason for reverting my edit the the Medical Marijuana page? I thank you in advance. --Goldstein 00:11, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

I reverted unsupported, pro-drug statements. The position of the federal government, most states, most medical professionals and common sense is that marijuana does not have significant medicinal benefits. Pushing marijuana for medical purposes is just an attempt to legitimize this narcotic. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 00:20, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
While that is true, did God not create this earth and everything on it? Could you not infer that He created marijuana for us to enjoy? Could you not argue that the federal government, most states, most medical professionals and common sense are actually going AGAINST the wishes of God when they prohibit marijuana? True, that is not what I directly said in my edit, but it is the essence of my edit.--Goldstein 00:28, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
If you eat poisonous mushrooms you die. It is evident not everything on the earth is put here for whatever use an individual may dream up. We will not go against medical research to include the position you have given based upon the reasoning you are providing. Please consider contributing in areas where research backs your conclusion. Thanks. Learn together 03:32, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

He did indeed give us the entire world to "subdue and cultivate". While I'm not user how to enjoy mosquitoes, I do know how to subdue them with DDT, one of the safest insecticides ever invented. Sharks can be turned into shark-fin soup or sharkskin shoes. There is anecdotal evidence that marijuana can help glaucoma sufferers, but I think Mr. Schlafly is right about the motivation of the "legalize marijuana" crowed. They are less interested in glaucoma patients than in so-called "recreational drug use", i.e., drug abuse. --Ed Poor Talk 20:05, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

Genesis 1 and Genesis 2

AmesG, said he asked you a question about Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. I thought you might like to read these two articles: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2194 and http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html#two Conservative 20:43, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

Request for comment

Hi, remember me from Conservapedia_talk:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia? I don't think you've quite made your point, so I was hoping that you might comment further. I'm completely willing to concede points where offered a substantiated argument. Also, I would appreciate it if you would address each of my concerns, rather than arguing the one. Thanks in advance, INTregued 13:51, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

Are you the guy who denies how gossip permeates Wikipedia??? If so, I'm not going to waste more time on this. Don't post further about this on my talk page, or your account will be blocked. Show you are a serious editor by contributing something substantive on this site, or return to Wikipedia. Thanks.--Aschlafly 14:19, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

Dialog?

Any chance we can work together on Deceit? This is getting a little harsh. --Ursus 17:26, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

You're pushing a liberal point of view. Deceit is factual and undisputed. Your changes are to dilute it or remove what is plainly true. Suggest improvements, but it is not going to diluted or modified to make it liberal. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:07, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
How exactly do my comments "(push) a liberal point of view"? A selection from my attempted change: "(deceit not being taught in public schools is) a potential manifestation of liberal deceit (liberals being oblivious to the basic moral underpinnings of our society)." --Ursus 18:52, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, I guess I misunderstood your edit. But it still is inappropriate, as being "oblivious" is not the same as actual deceit.--Aschlafly 19:14, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

Archive

Hey, I was notified that you wanted your archive 2 columns - so I went ahead and did that for you. When you add the next one though, uncomment the bottom part - to make a third collumn.--Iduan 22:14, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Well, he was notified I wanted it, at least! :p Column was getting too long.... THANK YOU Iduan! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 23:14, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

Atheism

Sir:

I was wondering if you'd be willing to provide some guidance on Atheism -- specifically:

  • Do you think it's better to have the article state "Atheists believe X" or "Atheists claim to believe X?"
  • Do you think the article should not state only psychological explanations for atheism (rebellion, relationship with father), and not state as one possible cause that some atheists are genuinely convinced by arguments, however weak those arguments might be?
  • Do you think the article should describe weak atheism as one of two forms of atheism or as an effort by atheists to water down the "true definition" of atheism, which is strong atheism? Ungtss 17:10, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
Ungtss, I thought we settled the atheist "believe" versus "claim to believe" issue. The article currently states atheists deny and/or disbelieve in the existence of God or gods. Secondly, it seems to me that your main issue is that you want the article to be more positive to atheists and not state that moral depravity is an issue in regards to the etiology of atheism which is clearly suppported by history, studies, and also has biblical support. Lastly, there is well cited article showing the atheist community made a concerted effort to redefine atheism in order to shift the burden of proof. I frankly do not find it surprising that people - especially liberals - try to define/redefine things to attempt to gain advantage. For example, abortionists say they are Pro-choice. Conservative 17:20, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
Conservative: I asked Mr. Schafly for guidance on three specific issues. I did this because you have summarily disregarded the stated opinions of at least two other sysops, turned the article into a polemic, and protected the article in order to make only a few minor changes], none of which justify monopolizing the article, debated interminably and purposelessly on the talkpage, and continually misrepresented me as some sort of "postmodern uberliberal," which I am not. I have asked Mr. Schafly because discussions with you have been fruitless, and will comply with his decision. Ungtss 17:30, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
Ungtss, I personally know of two sysops who agree with me in regards to the article content one of whom stated so on the atheism talk page. Secondly, I believe the talk page certainly supports my contention that you want to unreasonably make the article more liberalism friendly but I see no reason to give affirmative action to liberalism at Conservapedia when it is counter evidence. Lastly, the article currently states that atheists hold errant ideas so I don't know where the controversy is in regards to your aforementioned "arguments". Conservative 17:40, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
This is why we need Mr. Schafly's guidance, Conservative. Sysops are disagreeing, you are accusing me of things that are not true, you think that articulating the atheist POV as a pov, in an article about atheism, is "affirmative action" (rather than a description of the subject matter), and you've protected the article without justification. So why not let Mr. Schafly make his call? Ungtss 17:47, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
Ungtss, the bottom line is you hate that the article states the moral depravity is a factor in regards to the origin of atheism and offers evidence in regards to this matter. There is certainly plenty of evidence and this is certainly biblically supported. Your atheism defense lawyer tactics in regards to this matter are certainly apparent on the atheism talk page. Conservative 18:15, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
Riiiiiigght... and he says that isn't the case. Sounds like a good time for an arbitrator to get involved. And since Sysops are coming down on both sides, why not kick it up to "the Supreme Court?" Aziraphale 18:31, 6 September 2007 (EDT) <-meow? ACK! *dead*
Actually, I think that Ungtss lately has tepid support on his side in regards to Sysops. Given that this is Conservapedia and atheism is not exactly a conservative position I am not very surprised. Conservative 18:41, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
And if the debate was clearly "is atheism good or not?" then that would be a HUGE factor, of course. The trick seems to be that the two of you don't even agree on what you're disagreeing about. You can say he's got it completely wrong, and you may even be right, but it's still true that you two don't agree that you're even talking about the same thing. Doesn't that sensibly mean you go to a 3rd party, rather than go back and forth about it?
Heck, tell you what - if you'd like, I'll arbitrate for you. I know, I know, who am I? Right, exactly my point. I know neither of you, I share some views of each of you from what I can tell, and I have no vested interest in the outcome.
Feel free to say no, I'm just offering a neutral 3rd party who isn't entirely dumb to help out. Aziraphale 18:47, 6 September 2007 (EDT) <-What are we going to do today, Brain?
I'd accept your offer, if your decisions were binding in some way. Ungtss 18:50, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
Can't help you there, unless both of you simply agreed to be bound by it. Gentleman's agreement and all that. Aziraphale 19:06, 6 September 2007 (EDT) <-pistols at dawn would also work...
Aziraphale does great work. How about a recommendation, Aziraphale, which I can then review before deciding?--Aschlafly 19:07, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
Sounds like a great plan, sir. Thanks for your time. Ungtss 19:22, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

<- Y'all, let's move this off of his page while it's sorted out, please go to User:Aziraphale/Arbitration where we can dig in. Aziraphale 19:44, 6 September 2007 (EDT) <-that is all

History Lecture Series

These contain errors that I have repeatedly pointed out. You also - to your shame - deny genocide in former Yugoslavia. You refuse to reply to protests about these. Why do you deny genocide? Why do you persist in your failure to correct juvenile errors in your lectures? Pachyderm 18:59, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

Rather abrasive in your approach here, wouldn't you say? Give me an example and I'll look into it. In Christ,--Aschlafly 19:05, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
Look at the varied remarks I have made to your lectures. There are plenty of errors and I have politely poinyted out the true state of affairs: just one example, that French Somaliland did not become part of Somalia. As for your denial of genocide in fi=ormer Yugoslavia, seemingly on the grounds that these were lies put about by an 'anti-Christian' press about Moslem victims - words fail me. Be a man, admit your errors, do something about it. Pachyderm 19:08, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
Pachyderm, your tone and attitude discredit any merit in your arguments. Be polite and show me your very best example, or please play the role of an angry young man somewhere else. Thanks. In Christ,--Aschlafly 19:36, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

Schlafly, why do you deny genocide in former Yugoslavia? Pachyderm 19:45, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

I have not been discourteous. I have pointed out mistakes. I have asked why my numerous posts on that topic have been ignored. My post on that has been deleted. Furthermore, I ask you to justify your attitude of denial of genocide in former Yugoslavia. It is clearly stated in the lecture series - last or last but one. Pachyderm 19:50, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
You know you're at one with your bete noir Chomsky in expressing such views, don't you? Pachyderm 19:56, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

Here are your words: Anti-Christian press accused the Serbs of “ethnic cleansing,” or racially motivated mass murders, as the Serbs were allegedly killing off Bosnian Muslims.

Despicable. Pachyderm 20:02, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

This issue is not going to go away. Pachyderm 20:19, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
  • I have no idea where you have repeatedly voiced your opinion of "mistakes" and I cannot speak to that, Pachyderm. I can speak to the tone of your posts here. If there is some problem, I haven't seen it voiced on the 1700+ pages I am watching, nor have I seen any email from you about it. But you are using a rather broad brush on a most complicated matter, IMO. Please, rather than continuing to be contentious, email me and let me know what you see as the problem. The issue might not go away, but continuing the disrespectful line you are, you will. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 20:26, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
TK, I made repeated points on the talk pages of the (largely protected) lecture articles; and where the articles weren't protected I even so had the courtesy not to alter the lectures but to make points/express opinions on the talk pages. I received no acknowledgement, despite most of the points being factual matters of little controversy. The apparent genocide denial is of a different order and requires explanation/deletion. For just a fragment of what the Serbian forces/JNA were up to in Bosnia, see Srebrenica Massacre. To describe such actions as 'alleged' genocide reported by an 'anti Christian' press is wrong: factually, and morally. Pachyderm 20:34, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
Neither the JNA nor the nation of Serbia were found guilty of committing genocide. And the JNA was not involved in the Srebrenica massacre. It was dissolved in 1992. Bohdan 21:32, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
Pachyderm, there's a lot going on in this site and not every comment gets an immediate response. Trust me, your suggestions on those talk pages would be addressed in due course. But we need facts. "Genocide" is a very strong allegation. The term should not be used like racism, resulting in dilution of the meaning of the term. Real genocides, like the Holocaust and genocide of Armenians, have real evidence. Where's your best evidence? Give us your best resource or two, with data and details. In Christ,--Aschlafly 21:46, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Good idea, Pachyderm, would be to get in touch with Bohdan....he is very knowledgeable about the topic, I understand. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 22:31, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
I won't have time to compile a full article until next week but this CIA reprot blames Bosnian Serbs. "Our analysis shows that the vast majority of the ethnic cleansing carried out in Bosnia since 1992 can be attributed to the Bosnian Serbs". https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/1995/ddi_testimony_8995.html
The report was dated 1995 and the death toll cited is far too low: several thousand men and boys were murdered by Bosnian Serb forces at Srebrenica alone.
According to this report, there were 97,000 know direct victims of the ar in Bosnia of whom 65.88% were Bosnian Muslims, 25.62% Bosnian Serb, 8.01% Bosnian Croat. The remainder included Roma and Jews. In terms of purely civilian casualties, 83.33% of the dead were Bosnian Muslims. http://bavault.blogspot.com/2007/07/bosnias-book-of-dead-numbers-and-memory.html Pachyderm 12:20, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

And another article on atrocities in Bosnia, describing Bosnian Serb tactics of murder. Atrocities were committed by all sides and against all sectors of the population in Bosnia-Herzegovina between 1992 and 1995. But the Serb strategy of gender-selective mass executions of non-combatant men was the most severe and systematic atrocity inflicted throughout. The war in Bosnia can thus be considered both a genocide against Bosnia's Muslim population, and a gendercide against Muslim men in particular. http://www.gendercide.org/case_bosnia.html I'd be interested in your reaction to these pieces. Pachyderm 12:38, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Pachyderm, I don't have an ax to grind about this, but I'm not going to trivialize genocide or racism by accusing people of it without basis. I studied your CIA link about it does not even remotely suggest, let alone prove, genocide as you claim. Note that the CIA testimony was during the Clinton Administration to justify military intervention, and thus can be expected to overstate the truth. Even then, it's a far cry from claiming, let alone demonstrating, genocide.--Aschlafly 14:48, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
I pointed out that the statement was made in 1995, and that the figures were a gross understatement. What about the other reports? These amply disprove your assertion that Anti-Christian press accused the Serbs of “ethnic cleansing,” or racially motivated mass murders, as the Serbs were allegedly killing off Bosnian Muslims. Pachyderm 15:16, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

FYI

Well, we did it. We forged a link in the court-packing plan to KGB operatives. Tommy Corcoran was appointed by FDR to sell the idea to Congress. Izzy Stone wrote speeches for Corcoran to do just that. Corcoran was the man who covered up the Amerasia scandal, and Stone was working for cash for the KGB in addition to his $1500 a month salary (an incredible sum in those days) at The Nation, so its hard to label him on ideological diehard. [1] Duncan Lee, counsel to Office of Strategic Services head Bill Donovan, was the highest placed of about 24 KGB operatives in the OSS. Lee worked in Corcoran's law firm, Corcoran and Youngman.

The case of I.F. Stone remains controversial, and someone in CP [2] even added this remark : "Stone remained a major hero to elements of the liberal media in the United States following his death just months short of the fall of the Berlin Wall...Wikipedia of course got into the act and ended its own lengthy section of the I. F. Stone article by stating, "years of tailing by agents, informants, illegal car searches, and even pawing through his trash produced not a shred of evidence of clandestine activities." < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I._F.Stone. Accessed online May 1, 2007] > Rob Smith 21:48, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

2nd request

Hi. I had asked for night time editing privileges some time back when I was new. I understand not getting them then. I was working of Acts (of the Apostles) last evening when I suddenly couldn't finish since the lockdown kicked in. (I finished it today.) I did incur one block during my tenure here, when, (I assume) a light-hearted exchange with Conservative was (apparently) misconstrued by another sysop. As I was going out of town anyway, I didn't even notice it much.
I see you might not be "in" today. That's okay. Just keep me in mind next time you're updating the User Rights Log. Thanks. Samwell 17:36, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

  • This is something usually recommended by Administrators for Mr. Schlafly's action, Samwell, but I am certain he will notice your recently completed article! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 18:16, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Samwell, I'll get your request once I address some other issues first. In the meantime, you might contribute some other substantive entries so we have more to review. In Christ,--Aschlafly 14:45, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Explain the distinction between "lie" and "deceit"

Please. And stop calling me a liberal!!!-RichardParker 18:35, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

I don't recall calling you a liberal, though everything I've seen from you here fits that description, and you haven't contradicted it. I doubt you'll provide any reason to doubt it in your reply to this.
I'm not going to feed your or anyone else's need for attention here. Read our entry for deceit if you don't know what the word means, and find a good dictionary if you're still clueless. Thanks and Godspeed. I'm returning to substantive entries and am not likely to respond further about this.--Aschlafly 18:41, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Upload rights

Greetings,

What must one do in order to gain upload privileges? In my experience, articles are greatly enhanced by relevant images. --Turing100111010 19:40, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

It would help if you id. reflected your real name rather than a string of digits. Do your digits signify something special? Godspeed.--Aschlafly 19:41, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
Ah, 100111010 is 314 in binary. Closest I could easily get to π in a reasonable number of digits ;). Alan Turing was the father of modern computer science, y'know.
While your request may not be accepted at this time, please point out pictures that you feel should be downloaded for the benefit of Conservapedia. While you won't be putting the pictures in the articles yourself, the outcome will still be the same. Thanks Learn together 01:04, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

BTW, I would be interested in seeing your opinions on the hypothetical scenario I proposed in the debate I started. --Turing100111010 20:25, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Turing, Consciousness has another "s". I'll move your debate page to the correct spelling. For the chance of upload privileges, I suggest you make some more positive contributions to the mainspace of this project. Jallen |  ►talk  23:28, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Alright no problem - thanks for the heads up!--IDuan 00:58, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

terrorism

Schlafly, I have edited world history lecture 14 to remove your apologia for IRA terrorism. And why is it 'unfortunate' that Michael Collins was killed? He was a terrorist whoi lived by the sword and died by the sword. Spare your tears for the many hundred murdered by US-financed and supported IRA terror gangs. Pachyderm 09:04, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Pachyderm, I'm going to revert your biased and incorrect changes to Lecture 14. Your change to the Armstrong quote was wrong. Your blaming the American judiciary for terrorism in Northern Ireland is absurd.--Aschlafly 09:08, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
Crooked and terrorism-supporting American judges have refused to extradite convicted terrorist criminals to the United Kingdom which, I might remind you, is an ally of the US. This is documented fact. And your support for those murderous gangsters mystifies me. Yiou are forever banging on about how Christians have higher moral standards than anyone else. Does the Sixth Commandment mean nothing to you? Pachyderm 09
23, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Regarding the Atheism Arbitration

Executive Summary

Instruct the following be done:

  • Consolidate the "Types of Atheism Further Explained" into the opening paragraph.
  • Encourage trusted users (i.e. Philip Rayment, TK, Conservative, Ungtss) to work together to streamline the Criticisms section. Not "just" to shorten it; there's a lot of repetition in there.
  • Mild admonishment is needed for Conservative. He is passionate about the subject, but he's "swinging wildly" to borrow a boxing term. Stay on topic, and feel free to bring up other topics in addition if so desired.

Arbitration

Hi Andy,

I've looked through the entire talk:Atheism archive, solicited feedback on a dedicated page (user:Aziraphale/Arbitration), and even tracked down a (the?) few comments left on user talk pages related to the issues on the Atheism page. user:Conservative and user:Ungtss are clearly both passionate about the content of the article. As can happen (you've dealt with this a lot here on Conservapedia, surely!), passion has caused some muddying of the issues. In the end, in my opinion, the primary argument is over what the threshold is for defining atheism accurately before proceeding to the criticisms / rebuttal of atheism. They've crossed swords over it in a few different sections, but it's the same issue each time.

Given Conservapedia's focus, there can be no doubt that the article is going to include a thorough and comprehensive rebuttal of atheism; Conservative has been working diligently on this and I'm sure he'll continue to do so. That said, I do think that he is erring by over-minimizing the actual description of atheism. I consider it this way: if you want this article to develop a group of students who simply know that "atheism is bad," his material is probably sufficient. If, on the other hand, you want to develop students who can argue intelligently and persuasively against atheism, then a clearer explanation of the subject is needed.

Please note, I'm not trying to bring Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" in through the back door. Conservapedia doesn't have, and doesn't want, that policy and I respect that. That said, I suggest the following, which are specific responses to the dispute between Conservative and Ungtss:

  • The opening "paragraph" is currently one sentence long, containing a brief definition. Given that Conservapedia currently has separate pages on weak atheism and strong atheism as break-out topics of their own (albeit works in progress, but then that's the point of a wiki) it seems that starting off with a more thorough explanation is reasonable. There is a section later in the article called "Types of Atheism Further Explained" that would do better as an expansion of the opening paragraph.
  • There is an ongoing argument as to the "tone" of the article; as I said earlier, this is another symptom of the fuzziness between defining atheism and refuting atheism. I believe that it is currently quite shrill. As user:Philip J. Rayment says, "[s]imply by fairly presenting the facts about atheism, it should be clear that it is not a rational position to take. In other words, if you describe a false view accurately and fairly, it should be obvious that it's a false view." As I said before, Conservative is clearly passionate on the subject, but I think it's causing him to seem frantic, which serves his own argument poorly. To give just one example: in the section "Denials That Atheists Exist" he cites Sir Francis Bacon, Cornelius Van Til and Dr. Greg Bahnsen on the subject of the non-existence of atheism. In the very next section, he mentions an MSNBC article (for less than a sentence) that supposes there are atheists, and then re-states the Bacon, Van Til, and Bahnsen arguments.

Also, generally speaking, the "criticisms" section is sprawling and repetitive. As a lawyer yourself, you know that the best argument is rarely the longest one.

I recommend that the article be unprotected, as it didn't seem to be a target of vandalism so much as passionate debate. With several trusted users, including user:TK and Philip J Rayment, as well as Conservative and Ungtss (who are both valuable contributors to the page in my opinion) working on the page I doubt that it is in danger of becoming a pro-atheist screed.

  • Of secondary importance (to this arbitration, not to them), Conservative and Ungtss are involved in a lengthy debate about what constitutes "moral depravity." I think it's an interesting conversation in general and don't see any reason for them to stop, although this one point bears making: Conservative seems too willing to draw a large conclusion ("atheists are morally depraved") from one data point ("atheists give less to charity.") I don't doubt that he can make the moral depravity case, but he's leaning awfully hard on the one point. Being "uncharitable" is, in and of itself, a Bad Thing(tm) after all, it doesn't need a worse-sounding name to it. It can HELP prove the larger point, of course.

Conservative and Ungtss have many different opinions on how the article should be framed, and this doesn't cover all of them. However, it would be more exhausting than exhaustive for me to keep going over every single one. I think you'll provide useful guidance for the future development of the article if you follow my suggestions, and encourage them to, at a minimum, accept each other as honest contributors.

Regards, Aziraphale 17:32, 10 September 2007 (EDT) <-and with that, the Lone Ranger rides off into the sunset...

Aziraphale, while I appreciate your input and efforts I cannot say that your commentary was valid in total although I did make a change just now to reflect some valid criticism. I thank you for the opportunity to hear constructive criticism. However, I certainly do not believe that the issue of moral depravity being a causal factor of atheism is of secondary importance to the article. This has been a very large issue in regards to the article and a lot of conflict has arisen in regards to this matter. More importantly, you stated that I am "too willing to draw a large conclusion from one data point" in regards to moral depravity being a causal factor in regards to atheism. This is clearly untrue. The article clearly not only gives material on charitable giving in regards to American atheists but gives data on atheistic regimes and mass slaughter (in respect other periods of history) as well as survey material in regards to atheists and immoral views. In addition, it gives the biblical view of atheism. Specifically, the article clearly states the following: Moral depravity has been demonstrated in the atheist community through history and through various studies.[3][4][5][6] The Bible asserts that "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." (Psalms 14:1 (KJV)). The biblical fool is said to be lacking in sound judgment and the biblical fool is also associated with moral depravity. For example, the biblical book of Proverbs states: "A wise man is cautious and turns away from evil, But a fool is arrogant and careless. A quick-tempered man acts foolishly, And a man of evil devices is hated. The naive inherit foolishness, But the sensible are crowned with knowledge."(Proverbs 14:16-18 (NASB)). The book of Proverbs also has strong words regarding the depravity of biblical fools: "The desire accomplished is sweet to the soul: but [it is] abomination to fools to depart from evil." (Proverbs 13:9 (KJV)). Regarding the deceitfulness of fools Proverbs states: "The wisdom of the sensible is to understand his way, But the foolishness of fools is deceit." (Proverbs 14:8 (KJV)). Noted Bible commentator and clergyman Matthew Henry wrote regarding atheism: "A man that is endued with the powers of reason, by which he is capable of knowing, serving, glorifying, and enjoying his Maker, and yet lives without God in the world, is certainly the most despicable and the most miserable animal under the sun."[7] I would briefly conclude the moral depravity and the etiology of atheism issue by stating that I believe the evidence is not the problem as far as demonstrating the link between moral depravity and atheism in regards to its origin but the problem is liberal ideology attempting to override the evidence. Next, although people do go to sections they are interested in and fail to read other sections, I agree with you that the Bacon/Van Til/Bahnsen material does not have to be briefly noted and I deleted it. As far as the tone of the article being allegedly shrill, I would point out that you failed to give even one example of its alleged shrillness. Clearly, if the article was indeed shrill you should have been able to give one example. Lastly, if the article is revamped in regards to expanding the first section I believe the attempts of the atheistic community to dilute the definition of atheism in respect to how the enyclopedias of philosophy define it should come immediately after the definition given by encyclopedias of philosophy. Clearly we are an encyclopedia and we should give primary weight to how the encyclopedias of philosphy define the standard definition of atheism and quickly and duly note attempts to vary from their standard definition. Conservative 21:01, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Hi Conservative,

I appreciate your response, you again prove how passionate you are on this subject. I'm not out to pick a fight, but I will say to you that the response you've just given, in it's length and, in my opinion, over-use of ersatz evidence, is a clear example of what I mean by "shrill." Perhaps I am using the word in a non-standard fashion? That's possible.

I feel comfortable with the recommendations I've made to Andy. You're certainly welcome to make your defense as you see fit. Regards, Aziraphale 22:48, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

  • The information, as requested by Andy, has now been passed. This is not the place for any of the participants to be debating or questioning. That can be done via email to Andy, on the article's talk page, but it isn't something that belongs here, IMO. Everyone, please give Andy a chance to consider the findings and reflect, before deciding on a course of action! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 22:53, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
Aziraphale, first given that I am calmy editing Conservapedia, I find your repetition of the "passionate" charge rather unmoving and personally unconvincing. More importantly, you didn't tell me how my evidence was "ersatz" so perhaps it is your objections being "ersatz" that is the problem. Lastly, given my response to your reasonable criticism I think that is further evidence of your inability to mind read regarding my state or non-state of passion. I am hardly an individual that is blinded to reason vis a vis passion and my response to constuctive criticism is evidence of that. Thus, I think your focus should be on my actual material rather than attempt to mind read. Conservative 23:14, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
Describing someone as "passionate" is not a criticism or insult. Philip J. Rayment 23:21, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
Beat me to it, Philip, thanks. Aziraphale 23:22, 10 September 2007 (EDT)


  • I posted some good advice above. And I just posted on Conservatives talk page. I urge everyone to leave this alone. After Aziraphale's requested report, there is absolutely no reason any of the parties should be posting here. None. They can email Andy with any additional information they feel will be needed. This is not the place for taking issue with Aziraphale or his findings. Please stop! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 23:27, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
sorry, TK, I missed your admonition earlier. Zipping it! Aziraphale 23:29, 10 September 2007 (EDT) <--zzzzzzzzzip~ *tossing motion*
This has nothing to do with the report or the findings, but what exactly was the point of this arbitration if Andy was just going to make the decision himself? It seems kind of worthless. No offense to Aziraphale of course. I'm sure he did a fine job. Bohdan 23:37, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Bohdan, read the section about, "Atheism", where Andy asked for the arbitration....--şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 23:42, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
"Aziraphale does great work. How about a recommendation, Aziraphale, which I can then review before deciding?--Aschlafly 19:07, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
Bohdan, I disagree with you in principle. If Aziraphale had given more support for his assertions and given less opinion it could have been productive. Conservative 23:46, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
The hole thing seems a little too Wikipedia for me. Bohdan 23:47, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
  • I would point out my posts above and urge you to abide by it as well, Comrade. Seriously. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 23:51, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
Alright, where's the appropriate page for discussion about the usefulness of arbitration, based on the one that just took place? Bohdan 23:56, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Since it was asked for by the Owner, done at his request, as he requested, and it is now over, nowhere. You can, as I posted above, email Andy. If this was of some burning concern to you, you could have inserted comments this past week and weekend on the arbitration page. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 00:00, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

Had the finding been that Ungsst had been in the wrong, I doubt you would have complained. I find this to have been a fair process, and as Mr. Schlafly is the owner of the site and pays for it himself, what he says goes. DanH 00:37, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

Reply

Thanks much to Aziraphale for his fine efforts to arbitrate this. I hoped to have an answer by now, but unfortunately our course in Conservapedia:American Government 101 starts tomorrow (Thursday) and I've had to work further to prepare the materials. I will continue to review the comments and efforts above and take some more time to resolve this. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:04, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

Resignation

Mr. Schlafly, I have been very busy lately and my contributions have fallen off. I will be unable to continue with Conservapedia. If you need a new sysop to fill my vacant spot, User:Learn together would get my recommendation. Thank you for letting me be a sysop, and for having this site. I hope it grows and overtakes wikipedia. Good luck with the project, Bohdan

I am very touched my friend with your confidence in me, but I hope you realize how much you are loved and appreciated here for your strong contributions and dedication to this site. I hope you will think about this and see if you believe in your heart that you may still be able to fill a positive roll. Anyone attempting to be a sysop in your place would have large shoes to fill. Learn together 01:52, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
I'll post it here, since I don't want to restore your talk page. I've blocked you, but I don't mind if you unblock for the time being. It seems a little erratic for this sudden resignation. Good luck in the future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jallen (talk) 01:54, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
Bohdan, I've thought about this all day. In light of your tremendous contributions, I urge you to reconsider your resignation. Perhaps a short vacation will cause you to change your mind. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 17:46, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
We want you here Bohdan! --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 18:01, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
Returning the favor -- you can't talk me into staying and then take off yourself, man:). Ungtss 18:04, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

Please reconsider. You have been great at Conservapedia and I(And many others) will be very sad to see you leave.--BethTalk2ME 15:23, 12 September 2007 (EDT)


  • I received the following from Bohdan yesterday, and I don't think he will mind me sharing part of it here:
"Please, tell Aschlafly that it is better if one of the active users gets my sysop status, rather than me. I did what I came to CP to do, and am now moving on. I have completed my articles.
I wish CP all the best. I have about 5 articles on my watch list and its set to email me if they are changed. Any biased changes will get me to come back and revert of course, but I am now finished editing. (And yes, I am now completely done at that other wiki too. That's final!)
Goodluck, and extend my best wishes and thanks to all the sysops and to Mr. Schlafly, I really had fun editing. ---Bohdan"

--şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 21:55, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

suggestion

I think recognition is generally appreciated by people and it can be a motivator for people as well. I also think that creating original content that is well cited is also important. I suggest as of October 1, 2001 we replace the article of the month with an article of the week and we state which Conservapedian created that new article. We can vote on the article and to meet the criteria of the article of the week it must be original content and well cited. Since the search engines want original content and not merely copy and pasted material (and penalize articles that are copied) and since readers want well cited articles I think the proposed article of the week with the creator duly noted would be nice for our contributors and beneficial to our readers as well. Any feedback? Conservative 22:24, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Yes, it is generally a good idea, along with the removal of too many article links that make the front page a cluttered mess. I think the Sysops will discuss your idea, and talk about how to implement it, Conservative. I don't think you meant to imply the current article of the month is a copy and paste job, did you? Recognition is always important, so thanks for your good idea! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 22:32, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
TK, I didn't imply that the current article of the month is a copy and paste work. Secondly, here is a tool to make sure the article of the week meets the criteria of originality here is a resource: http://www.webconfs.com/duplicate-content-filter-article-1.php Lastly, I have no problem with quotes in the article of the week but copying and pasting should be a disqualifier. Conservative 22:44, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
In principle, articles on Wikis are collaborative efforts, so in principle the creator of an article may not be the main contributor. In practice, many articles here are totally or largely the work of one individual, and acknowledging those individuals is a good idea, but we need to recognise that many articles are not the work of one individual and it therefore may not always be practicable to acknowledge any one person. Otherwise, it does seem to be worth considering further. Philip J. Rayment 23:38, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
I have no problem recognizing more than one person if it was a collaborative effort. I also think that recognizing quality is worth doing. Conservative 23:58, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Well you know what Forrest Gump said about quality, don't you? "Qulity is as quality does". Meaning it is in the eye of the beholder. However, like Philip said, it is something worth further discussion, and we will be doing that, in our usual manner, Conservative. I am happy you are so considerate of the many other editors who make this place what it is! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 00:17, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Has Bohdan been unblocked?

Andy expressed regret at Bohdan leaving and asked him to reconsider. At about the same time, he was blocked. Has Bohdan been unblocked and has a email been sent to him saying he has been unblocked and we want him to return? Conservative 22:53, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

Bohdan was unblocked within hours of being blocked. I don't know if any e-mail was sent. Philip J. Rayment
I will send the email. Conservative 23:32, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
For some reason, the email option is not open on his discussion page so I was unable to email him.Conservative 23:34, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
I didn't say that one wasn't sent; just that I don't know. And he may not have realised that he was even blocked in the first place. Philip J. Rayment 23:38, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Philip, there is an old Internet saying: "Don't feed the troll." But since some of them seem to have absolutely no sense of decorum, sometimes it is easier to just indulge them in what isn't their business, and it plainly states above that he was unblocked, publicly posted by Jallen. Here is another email I received:

--Original Message--
From: Bohdan
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 9:23 AM
To: TK
Subject: Conservapedia e-mail

First, thanks for unblocking me.

Second, my leaving had nothing to do with our discussions.

Third, if there is a need for a sysop to replace me, give my recommendation
for either Learn together or Tash, as both have proven that they are
capable of the position.

Good luck with the Conservapedia project, I hope it grows and passes
wikipedia,

-Bohdan

--şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 23:55, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

Warning

Which edits were unhelpful? -DrSandstone

Your edits to deceit and Perpetual Motion Machine. Those were the only two I checked, and found both lacking in value, unfortunately. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 14:24, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Edits

Would you like me to keep track of my own edits for the class? --BethTalk2ME 14:29, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Sure, Beth, that would be great! You can scout for potential future teammates also for when we start our contests. In Christ, --Aschlafly 14:31, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

OK!--BethTalk2ME 14:32, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

The page I will be keeping track of my edits can be found here.--BethTalk2ME 14:37, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Very nice. Wow, that really makes it convenient! Thanks.--Aschlafly 14:38, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Your Welcome!--BethTalk2ME 14:41, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Copyright question

Mr. Aschlafly, please pardon my questioning, but a significant portion of Conservapedia:General disclaimer appears to have been copied from Wikipedia:General disclaimer. As you may be aware, this would seem to be a violation of the GFDL, since Conservapedia asserts copyright and does not attribute the text to Wikipedia. I don't mean to cause any trouble, but I would appreciate a comment on this issue. I've announced all the relevant information about who I am on my userpage, and I hope you and other admins will realize that I'm just trying to address some issues through calm and courteous discussion rather than trolling to annoy people or any similar behaviour. Thank you, Nihiltres 22:56, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for alerting me to this, because that page had been changed from what I had written. I reverted back to the simpler, clearer content that I had written. In Christ,--Aschlafly 23:09, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

I have a few questions about The Government Class

Hi, so I have started making a few new articles for the US Government class homework. I have a few questions though- I don't have the textbook, would it be possible for someone to write the review questions from the chapters somewhere on conservapedia? I would rather look at those than do 25 more points of edits...Also, is there some central place where I can see how many points I have earned and how many others have earned (I think I am at 18 but I'm not sure). Also, when is the homework due? If you would like to reply on my talk page that would be good, but I'll check back here too. Thanks, SPierce

I'll reply further on your talk page. Basically, the class started last Thursday, and the homework is due by this upcoming Thursday. Some students have completed the homework already. The textbook is not essential to the course. You can do well simply by reviewing, editing, and entering information here. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 23:48, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Vandelism Needing Reverting

For some reason my computer won't let me revert the vandalism on George Orwell and Big Bang Theory. Help would be appreciated, thanks --Tash 09:31, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

I got them. Jinkas 09:35, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Contest

Shouldn't Contest be moved to Conservapedia:Contest, since it's specific to Conservapedia and not an encyclopedic article? --Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğθαλκ 11:50, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

OK, that's a good idea, Hoji! In Christ,--Aschlafly 13:28, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
Correction. We already have another entry with Conservapedia:Contest. Let's just leave Contest there for now. After we get this contest off the ground we can reconsider. Thanks again, Hoji.--Aschlafly 14:18, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia Logo?

I've created a possible replacement to the current logo if you think it's a improvement, --Tash 17:20, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Very interesting! What source did you use for the flag? We can reuse anyone else's design. In Christ,--Aschlafly 17:27, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Here's the [8]source for the American flag in the background. I originally thought the source was a federal.gov but it now that I look at the site I think it's a state.gov. I'm not sure if that means the photo is still under pubic domain or not?--Tash 17:36, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

No, state government is not always public domain. We can't use it as a logo unless we're 100% sure. Thanks anyway. Maybe you can replace that flag with one that is definitely public domain. In Christ,--Aschlafly 17:43, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
Oh well:( I should have double checked the source to make sure it was a real .gov. I'll try to email the site to see if I can get permission to use the image (not likely to happen though unless a conservative answers the email...) and start on a similar logo with a public domain photo. Thanks for your help--Tash 17:53, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Tash, don't fret...I have had very good luck getting permissions from State webmasters. Most of the time they have stolen the image from somewhere else....;-) --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 19:11, 16 September 2007 (EDT)


Supreme Court Class

Will we be beginning soon?

Thanks, Josh

Yes, we will. I'm just getting the American Government class off the ground first. Feel free to participate in that first as a warm-up, as other people are at contest. The Supreme Court is more advanced and will start as soon as things are running smoothly in American Government. Thanks.--Aschlafly 15:23, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Contest Page

Should I keep track of what I do and record it on the contest page or are you doing that? I know you have a lot of other things to keep track of and I have no problem doing it... DeborahB. 15:15, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

That appears to be what everyone is doing so I suppose that is what we should do...--BethTalk2ME 15:18, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Yes, that would be great if everyone recorded their own progress on the talk pages. The point totals are only approximations. If you are unsure whether edits qualify as minor or "quality", for example, then just assign an average point value of 3 (halfway between 2 and 4) for each edit. You could do likewise for assigning points to new entries if you are unsure. Also, feel free to move yourself up the rank as your point total surpasses the person above you. Thanks!--Aschlafly 15:21, 17 September 2007 (EDT)
Ok...thanks for the reponse! DeborahB. 15:28, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Values Voter Debate

Thanks for putting up the link to the Values Voter Debate. While I'm certainly not a "values voter" I found it refreshing and enlightening to see a debate that was different from the main stream debates, which seem to be full of rhetoric and catchphrases, not actual debate. Unfortunately I missed a good hour and a half of it, but what I saw was very interesting. HelpJazz 22:36, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

The debate was more refreshing and informative than most. Thanks for your feedback and your contributions to the material on this site!--Aschlafly 22:44, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Checks & Balances

Can you give me some examples of the checks and balances that the site uses? Fernando507 23:27, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

We adhere to clear, simple, and effective rules. This greatly reduces bias. Wikipedia rejects most of these rules, with predictably biased results.--Aschlafly 23:34, 17 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Don't waste your breath on this user, Andy. He has already made an intolerant and insulting post to Joaquin, showing exactly the kind of person "Fernando507" is. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 00:40, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
Personal tools