In regards to the Gun Control issue
Aschlafly, as in Australia (as Phillip pointed) NZ has had conservative governments that have never changed gun laws in any significant way except for 1990 when someone went nuts with an assault rifle. This happened when a leftwing government was in power and they brought in stricter laws against Assault Rifles. Soon after (like a month or 2 later) a right-wing party took power and made no changes to this. Also, how do you explain that NZ and Australia with tight gun laws have far lower gun crimes than the US with its looser laws? I am interested in your reply. AdenJ 20:23, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
- The gun control imposed in New Zealand was not as strict as in Australia and Britain, so the political effect is not as pronounced. In fact, conservatives in New Zealand wisely opposed and defeated attempts to impose strict gun control, and because of that the leftist government in New Zealand does not enjoy as much power as in the other two countries. That said, the leftist government has enjoyed more power in New Zealand since the mild form of gun control was enacted in the 1990s than it held earlier.--Aschlafly 21:57, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
ahhh gun control in NZ is very strict. There is almost no hand-gun owndership and I think you'll find NZ gunlaws have rarely been challenged by either liberal or conservatives. Gun Control is almost never a political issue here and has nothing to do with Liberal's enjoying more power and, before and during elections, it is never raised as a platform to stand on. The only form of gun control imposed in the 1990's was, wisely, on assault rifles and was not opposed by the right-leaning parties. You didnt asnwer my other question.."how do you explain that NZ and Australia with tight gun laws have far lower gun crimes than the US with its looser laws?" AdenJ 22:04, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
- AdenJ, you sound clueless about politics, or perhaps you think that others can be fooled. The conservatives in New Zealand defeated a big leftist push for strict gun control in the mid-to-late 1990s, and have continued to defeat it ever since. Persistent leftist attempts to require registration of all guns, for example, have failed. The political effect is obvious, and conservatives tied the leftists in the last election.--Aschlafly 22:57, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
Aschlafly. You are clueless about NZ politics. Also, hand guns and assault rifles in NZ actually DO require registration!!!! Its the law here! Every gun owner must be licensed also NZ gun control has never been a policiting issue in any election. Gun laws have never been proposed to be loosened, at least not in the last 20 years. As for the tie in the last election, that had NOTHING to do with gun control. It was economic pressures. The right will when the next election, they have my vote, because the economy is in a downturn but not once has gun law ever been mentioned in this election year. Please answer my question here - "how do you explain that NZ and Australia with tight gun laws have far lower gun crimes than the US with its looser laws?" AdenJ 23:05, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
- AdenJ, address how conservatives have defeated strict gun control pushed by leftists in New Zealand ever since the mid-to-late 1990s, or get off my talk page. Thanks.--Aschlafly 23:14, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
(removed comments that failed to address the above point and heed its warning)
(Removed my edit as StatsMsn repeated)AdenJ 23:38, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
- I don't see how my comment failed to address the above point, but I'll try to make it clearer. Conservatives did not defeat strict gun control pushed by leftists in New Zealand since the mid-to-late 1990s. The right leaning party has been the one to introduce legislation, in some cases without the support of the left. These measures were withdrawn not because of a political backlash but because of submissions showing the restrictions were unfeasible in terms of being enforced. If you have specific incidents which show conservatives defeating gun control measures then please show them and I will happily admit that I am wrong, otherwise there is no point to address. StatsMsn 23:36, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
- No, StatsMsn, I don't have time to explain basic political maneuvering to you. Read some books about it, or spend more time reading on this site than you have been. Suffice it to say for the point at hand that strict gun control proposals in New Zealand have been defeated there since the mid-to-late 1990s, and political control in New Zealand has not swung to the left as Australia and Britain have.--Aschlafly 23:48, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
- Gun control measures have been defeated because they were deemed unenforceable, not because of the conservative lobby. The legislation for these measures were introduced by the right leaning, conservative party. Nobody has made any attempt to raise any evidence that conservatives were responsible for defeating the legislation, instead AdenJ and I have cited two examples about where conservatives were responsible for introducing legislation. As some, possibly more reliable sources state, gun control in New Zealand has the support of both conservative and liberal parties, it's just a case of finding a model which can be applied without being a strain on the system. Since you have made your final argument then this will be mine too, but just remember that you are debating two people who actually live in Australia and NZ, and that nobody is convinced by repeated claims without evidence. StatsMsn 00:04, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
Fine but you are wrong. I live in NZ remember. You do know that left has been in control for 9 years right? What did you mean when you said "political control in New Zealand has not swung to the left as Australia and Britain have"? AdenJ 23:51, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
- I think he's saying that because the more right wing political party holds government than the reason that the gun control laws were withdrawn is because of the conservative control. This does not address the fact that the conservative government introduced the laws in the first place. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong StatsMsn 00:04, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
Folks, your comments are so unresponsive and politically naive that I'm not going to waste time debating this with you. If and when you acknowledge that strict gun control has been defeated in New Zealand for a decade and that it has not swung as far left as Australia and Britain, where strict gun control was imposed, then I'll respond. Also, don't rely on liberal style point #7 by claiming special authority just because you live somewhere. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 10:32, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
- My impression from the other side of the Tasman is that New Zealand is more to the left than Oz. Admittedly, not living there and not taking a special interest in it, I'm not so familiar with it, but they did ban nuclear ships from their waters, and I think did take in people that Australia rejected as illegal immigrants (or something like that). Philip J. Rayment 10:55, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
I almost feel depressed buy your willful ignorance, a little scan of the internet would show I am correct. You could have learnt something from me, a citizen of a country you obviously know nothing about but instead you create a falsehood and stick with it even when presented with knowledge to the contrary and finally when you have no where left to go you throw down the 'your liberal' card to stifle debate. I could tell you my political history even, degrees and work history within politics to prove I am not politically naive as you say but that would make me more of a liberal wouldn't it? And, as you so ask of others, why cant you answer a simple question? "how do you explain that NZ and Australia with tight gun laws have far lower gun crimes than the US with its looser laws?" AdenJ 17:04, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
- If you're such an expert, then you should know that the leftists in New Zealand pushed hard for gun control in 1999, but the conservatives defeated and blocked that effort and have continued to block gun control ever since. During that period Australia, which passed stricter gun control, has swung further to the left, while New Zealand has moved increasingly towards the right. In the most recent election, the leftists in New Zealand nearly lost power and now the country is even split, while Australia is completely controlled by leftists. Now, you could have explained that, right?--Aschlafly 19:50, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
Since you have insulted me I will no longer debate you. The facts are above, you have provided none of your own. Safe to say that compared to you, I am an expert on NZ. And you still have not answered my question as I dont believe can answer it. Good day. AdenJ 19:57, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
- AdenJ, you're right. My tone was insulting and I apologize. I hope you accept my apology.--Aschlafly 09:17, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
Dont worry about it Andy.Thanks though AdenJ 06:00, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
I have noticed that you mention the classroom prayer frequently. I am a Hindu and I don't want my child to be compelled (by peer pressure or from an authority figure like teacher) to sit through a Christian prayer. Can I ask you a direct question? Will you be happy for your child to be coerced to sit through a muslim or Hindu prayer every day? Please give an honest answer. --Vishnudas 14:54, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
- The content of the prayers can reflect the wishes of the participants, and can change from time to time. Your argument is not an argument for censoring all prayer in the classroom.--Aschlafly 20:28, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
- Sorry Andrew, that was not the question. My question was - Will you be happy for your child to be coerced to sit through a muslim or Hindu prayer every day? I would appreciate an YES or NO answer. Thanks --Vishnudas 13:00, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
- The simple answer is "no". Neither I nor anyone I know supports coercing anyone to sit through any prayer. I've never heard of coerced prayer being imposed anywhere.
- Now that I've answered your question, please answer mine: would you suggest a classroom prayer for a classmate who has a sick parent, and whom you know would be grateful for it? Anyone who objects may, of course, excuse himself and step outside for the brief moment.--Aschlafly 13:55, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
- Wouldn't it be better for everybody if there was a moment of silence at the beginning of each day, where each kid would/could pray according to their own beliefs, there would be no coercion, no peer pressure, and everyone could be equally involved. I think that alot of people who oppose school prayer might compromise like this. ---user:DLerner--- 02:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
- It was ruled unconstitutional in New Jersey over 20 years ago. Learn together 03:42, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
- Also, silent prayer is not going to comfort (or possibly help) the classmate in need nearly as much as vocal prayer would. Notice how my question remains unanswered by "Vishnudas", despite my answering his question.--Aschlafly 09:14, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
- I think Vishnudas was mistaken when he used that term. Just as you suggested in your example, Aschlafly, any classmate objecting may excuse themselves and step outside, so there is no "coercion" occuring! Similarly, if a teacher wanted to lead the class in a muslim or Hindu prayer (assuming there were some in the class who desired to do so), it would not be coercion either, if anyone objecting could simply excuse themselves and step outside for a brief moment. Feebasfactor 13:51, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
- Feebasfactor, I answered Vishnudas' question, and now he can answer my mine. In fact, I'd like to see your answer to my question. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 14:52, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
- The question is "would you suggest a classroom prayer for a classmate who has a sick parent, and whom you know would be grateful for it?" If I knew the classmate would be grateful for it... I would say, yes, I would. To clarify that condition - I might not suggest a Christian prayer per se for a child that I knew was Muslim, Hindu, atheist, etc, but I believe that is understandable. Other than that, there's no reason the class could not say a prayer (certainly no harm in it), especially for the good of a classmate in need. Feebasfactor 14:47, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
- Thanks for your answer. I can't imagine anyone saying "no" to this, any more than one would say "no" if asked if he would give water to a person dying of thirst. But, as you can see from this page, some do say the equivalent of "no, I would not suggest a classroom prayer for a classmate who has a sick parent, whom I know would be grateful for it."--Aschlafly 16:14, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
- While vocal prayer may be more effective, there is a great history of silent prayer (see begining of Samuel I). With vocal prayer you have the risk of leaving out many kids of different faiths. If say, they would begin with what Christians call the Lord's prayer, I wouldn't want my kids in that, just like you might not want your kids saying the Amidah or Shema. I am all for schools having a moment of silence for the parents to tell their children what to do. As for the atheists, they can use the time for silent contemplation on making the world a better place. ---user:DLerner--- 21:17, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
- You said, "While vocal prayer may be more effective ...." Stop right there. It is more effective and so that is what should be done. Those who refuse to help a classmate in a time of need with what is "more effective" need to reexamine their own values. I hope you don't find yourself in a time of need and your friends refuse to be "more effective" in helping you. The rest of us do need help from time to time, preferably the "more effective" kind.--Aschlafly 11:04, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
- But is it more effective?
|“|| Matthew, Chapter 6: |
6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
Thank you for your reply and sorry for replying to your question late.
1. When I asked you whether you will be happy for your children to be coerced to sit through a prayer of another faith, you said no. So why do you expect others to be happy to allow a teacher to lead a class room in prayer?
2. Regarding your question: My answer is No. The reason being the same as what I explained above. I will personally offer any help or solace I can to the classmate. I prefer hands those help to lips those pray. There is no evidence that prayers help. --Vishnudas 14:23, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
- While you may argue that no coercion occurs, and those who object could step outside, we all know that is not the case. Peer pressure is an observed effect, and one could be pressured to stay even if they're not comfortable with a classroom prayer. (It's the same effect that stops people from putting their hands up in class - you know you'll be in the center of attention) Why would there be prayer in the classroom anyways? Could there not be an optional after-class prayer group? ATang 15:00, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
- ATang, do you think "Vishnudas" is authentic, or an impostor? I'd say odds are 10:1 that his name is not really "Vishnudas", and he's not really a religious Hindu.
- Most people who object to classroom prayer, by claiming someone of a different religion might be offended, actually object for an entirely different reason. Remember: there are many people hostile to religion who do not think lying is wrong.--Aschlafly 17:43, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
Nice video on youtube
I thought it was a nice video Andy.
Congrats on the class, I didn't realise you taught so many kids! And you even teach liberals! (the kid with the Che Guevera shirt :)) הצלחה רבה!
The Che shirt was one of those ones with the red line through the centre. It appears to be an anti-che tshirt AdenJ 02:26, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for the compliment. Teaching students has had a big positive effect on me, and I'm grateful for the opportunity.--Aschlafly 09:16, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
[Category:Days of the year]
We have a whole bunch of these pages that exist, but not all of them. Are we going to make the rest or mass delete them? ---user:DLerner--- 22:50, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
- Not sure where that stands. Hopefully some other editors more familiar with this particular project will give us some guidance. Let's wait for a day or two and see if anyone makes a suggestion.--Aschlafly 23:00, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
- I believe a choice was made a while back not to create individual date entries. I certainly wouldn't add any extra ones to what is already there. Learn together 02:26, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
- If a decision was made, why not wipe out the rest? ---user:DLerner--- 02:29, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
The rules state "Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages". Yet, I find that your posts and edits are all about pushing an opinion, rather than sticking to facts.--lizard1959
Mapplethorpe and Essay
I created a page on Mapplethorpe. Take a look and see if you have any objections; PJR and I are working on a point he had.
On another note, I replied to the comments you left on my essay. I don't know if you care to respond (possibly it's not a big issue to you, and that's okay), but if you do, it's here. No worries either way.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 22:37, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
- I am still waiting for further action on Mapplethorpe. The article is finished, inasmuch as I can see, and any further edits can be done by the community here. Please put it up.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 23:55, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
Please Delete My Account
Dear Mr. Schlafly,
After taking a close look at this sight, I've become disgusted with what I've seen in terms of the repression of information and rational thought. Please remove my account as I no longer wish to be associated with this site. Thank you.
- QED, we will make sure that QED is never associated with this site. I do think it is quite odd that your parents named you QED, however. Conservative 23:47, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
It's short for Quantum Electrodynamics. My parents thought the full version was too long. I wouldn't have been able to bubble in my full name in standardized tests. They should have picked something shorter like Conservative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by QED (talk)
- You totally beat me to it, I was going to ask what person names his kid "Conservative," and what kind of person names his kid "Aschlafly," or "Karajou," or....-MLizer 00:06, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
- In the case of Aschlafly, that is (a shortened version of) his name. Philip J. Rayment 06:15, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
- Anyways, the insult was lame, [Conservative], lamer than your normal little JPEGs with stupid captions —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MLizer (talk)
"QED", it didn't take much for you to give up once you encountered logical opposition to your rants. So you have resorted to what is known as a Parthian Shot, a favorite of liberals who give up here rather than continue to seek the truth.
We don't delete accounts. This is a wiki, if you haven't yet been able to figure that out.--Aschlafly 00:25, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
Sigh...not at all. It's just that, as I was typing out a response, I decided to check the talk pages a bit more thoroughly. All of my arguments have already been made and ignored by editors before me. I would simply be wasting my time. All I can do now is hope that someone wanting to learn more about relativity will have commonsense enough not to use this place as a source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by QED (talk)
- "QED", you deleted factual information from the Theory of Relativity and, when you didn't get your way, starting acting like Johnny Cochran rather than a scientist in interested in the truth. When that was pointed out about your comments, you ran away while attempting Parthian Shots. That's not science.--Aschlafly 08:47, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
You don't delete accounts? Then what about the people listed on this page?  What did MarkD, Gulik, BlackLotus, DeanS and GabeM have to do to get their accounts removed (to be transparent, this info is courtesy of the wiki Whose Name Shall Not Be Mentioned)? I would rather not resort to random vandalism, simply to get my account removed. Sorry for not signing my previous posts; I didn't realize sigs weren't automatic. QED 14:12, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
- An account and a user page are two different things. We can delete user pages (although in your case you never created one, but there is your talk page) but the account remains, and you could still edit, and recreate your user pages. We can also lock user pages, preventing any further editing, or we can even delete then recreate a blank user page and lock it. We can also block your account to prevent you using it again (unless you e-mail us and ask for it to be unblocked). But of course you could blank your own user talk page, and simply choose to not edit here again. But any edits that you made will still be listed as being made by you, as is the case with any edits made by other editors listed in your link to deleted pages. Philip J. Rayment 18:50, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
- "rational thought" - Be wary of people who regularly use that phrase. Jinxmchue 18:54, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for the clarification Philip. QED 19:15, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
- "QED", it's silly to demand to take anything back from a wiki. It reminds me of how communists demand the return of books written by a one-time hero who has suddenly become disfavored by the Party bosses. Words (or accounts) cannot be taken back or censored in an attempt to express disfavor of the recipient of those communications.--Aschlafly 23:45, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
Up for any original research in regards to atheism and suicide?
Here is something I found at the NY Times regarding a potential link between atheism and suicide and it might be worth researching Dr. MacArthur's conclusion in light of any current evidence that is available:
The above material was published in the NY Times on September 17, 1894
It would be interesting to look at the rates of atheism in various countries and to also look at their rates of suicide.
Conservative 11:58, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
- Very interesting. Your link is to a login page. Is this a pay-per-view article in the NYT? Sounds like it's worth my purchasing, if that's the case.--Aschlafly 13:21, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
- Here is another resource about atheism and suicide: http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html I am going to do more research. Conservative 14:35, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
One more resource: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/12/2303 Conservative 14:51, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
- Andy, try this link and I think it will work: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9507E2DC1131E033A25754C1A96F9C94659ED7CF
Dear Mr. Schlafly, please can you say why you reverted my factually-correct edits? I thought this was a Wikipedia-style website in which people are free to add things as long as their edits can be backed up. Dnotice 14:23, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
- I explained the reversion immediately on the talk page for the entry. Please discuss there. Thanks.--Aschlafly 14:24, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
I have numerous questions concerning your edit of the Kitzmiller article. Could you answer them? They are posted on the talk page. --Jimmy 19:34, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
I wanted to point out to you for future reference that your use of the grammatical construction "you continue to protesteth" on the talk page for the liberal intellectualism essay is actually incorrect. "Protesteth" is a verb conjugated in the third person singular. The infinitive is "to protest." Sorry to bother you, but I thought you might like to be made aware. --IlTrovatore 22:57, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
I agree. Based on your past comment history, and your tendency to focus on the importance of grammar and spelling in responses, I am sure that you are immensely interested in improving your own grammar and vocabulary. I hope that you find this suggestion greatly improves the quality of your comments and responses. IlTrovatore and I only seek to make this site better, and grammatically superior to wikipedia. --AndrasK 10:21, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
- Shame on me!!!! Can I ever regain your trust???--Aschlafly 13:29, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Was that sincere? I would hate to think that you've violated your own standards yet again:
"Sarcasm in comments to edits will result in the blocking of an account, for obvious reasons. This is a high quality site and it will remain that way. Thanks.--Aschlafly 22:58, 6 March 2008 (EST)" --IlTrovatore 18:47, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Interesting news story
Here is an interesting news story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080602/ap_en_mo/imagine_lawsuit for several reasons. One of them is it is a ruling on what can be used according to copyright law. Just wondering what your thoughts are on this, if you'd care to comment? Thanks, -- Taj 18:00, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
- Thanks much, Taj! Posted, as suggested. Fascinating indeed.--Aschlafly 18:07, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
I am surprised that you saw fit to make threats to me after I made what I believe to be a sensible and accurate edit to the censorship article. Could you please explain what motivated your unusual reaction. --HHCrippen 19:03, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
- Your deletion edit was ideological and unjustified. Then you insisted upon doing the same deletion edit after someone fixed it. Prayer is censored in the classroom, and denials of that are not credible. Don't continue to pretend that liberal censorship is not censorship. It is.--Aschlafly 19:06, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
You need to respect people better
I have never in my life belived in god and I hardly know anyone who does, and we are not crazy. You are crazy for beliving in a (wo)man in the sky—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Katsu (talk)
I think you (or any other admin) should look at the edits by Alfred123. They are in extremely poor taste and boarder on rascism. I have alerted my feelings to him on his talk page also if you care to look. Thanks and I hope you enjoyed your dinner! AdenJ 01:31, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
- You might be right. Trusted admins are looking into this now. Please let me know if there are further concerns.--Aschlafly 09:07, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
- Glad you're looking into it Andy - his edits in at least some places are definitely racist. Murray 11:07, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
What have I said that is racist? Tell me and I will leave and never return.
Alfred123 11:26, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Thanks Andy. AdenJ 16:46, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Might pay to keep an eye on Al321. A new user and the username looks suspiciously like our friend above. AdenJ 18:52, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Are Mormons Christians?
First of all, I don’t appreciate be called a Provocateur, because that is a ludicrous statement. According to the definition that your site gives, a Provocateur is someone who “thrives on provoking conflict for the sake of conflict alone.” That’s not something that pertains to me at all. I have worked very hard lately to contribute positively to this site. If you don’t believe me, check my edit history. I’ve even created a few pages. Besides, a Provocateur is a person whose motivation for “fighting” is just to fight. Since I haven’t stated any motivation, you really can’t make that claim with any legitimacy. You don’t know what my motivation is, so your just making assumptions. Wrong assumptions, I might add. I debate, (which I don’t consider fighting) because I’m interested in logical, rational discussion on controversial issues. And there is consistency to my arguments, and I can back up and document my arguments. So please don’t make claims about me that are simply ridiculous.
Now, why was the Debate: Are Mormons Christians? debate page deleted? The reason you gave was that is wasn’t “encyclopedic”. Now, in fairness, take a look at some of the other debates on there. Most have nothing to do with a scholarly encyclopedia. Heck, there’s an entire section dedicated to “funny” debates. So how the deuce can those things be left on there and the other page deleted? That’s not consistent. Conservapedia boasts about not blocking for ideological reason. Well, considering that I’ve been blocked before for even bringing up the topic, and that the page is continuously blocked, that implies an ideological motivation to me. Don’t get me wrong, though. I’m not trying to accuse you or anyone else of anything. I’m just saying that is appears ideologically motivated.
On the other hand, I will apologize for recreating the page after it was deleted. I simply assumed it was someone who didn’t like it just trying to get rid of it. I wasn’t aware that only Sysops could delete a page. So, sorry for breaking the rules there. Ultimahero 13:44, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
- I'm not going to read all of your rant above. I'd guess you're a liberal based on your talk, talk, talk. Regardless, say it concisely or forget about it.--Aschlafly 14:17, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
I would like my username to be renamed to NathanG. It is quite a bit easier to pronounce than this one. Thank you for your time. +_+ always tired Nate 15:36, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
- That's fine, as long as it isn't someone else's name. Please confirm.--Aschlafly 15:38, 7 June 2008 (EDT)