User talk:British cons

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search
This article has been proposed for speedy deletion. The reason given is: It is obvious vandalism, sarcastic mockery, or inappropriate according to The Conservapedia Commandments.


Thatcher and Tracy C Copeland

Tracys edits were superious, inflammatory and politically biased hence my reversion of her edits. I inadvertently took out other users edits and I am sorry for that. My internet connection has been down so I have been unable to address this until now. Please carry on. Regards --AustinM 11:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

As I said, I'm going to leave both the Margaret Thatcher and John Major articles alone as I don't want to re-start the flame war, although I would point out that I was a member of the Conservative Party for 20 years before I moved to the US, through the second half of Thatcher's time in office and the whole of Major's - while I understand (even if I don't agree with) Austin's deletion of the allegedly 'gossipy' section of Margaret Thatcher, I do not accept at all his deletion of the John Major article, which was sourced from the Conservative Party's own website, or of his deletion of TK's "notable Thatcher quotes" section.
I do agree with you, 'Conservative' seems to mean something else here. In my opinion, 'Conservative' means and always has meant a belief that individuals know better than the government how to run their lives. Here, it seems to mean opinions being forced down people's throats in a way that would make Peter Mandelson blush. Tracy C Copeland 13:57, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Ooo...Doubleplus badthink! LOL Crackertalk 14:03, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Hello AustinM. Well, having quickly looked at her edits I don't think they were either inflammatory or politically biased. There seems to be some debate over an alcoholism comment (though I can't seem to turn up the actual edit now) but if that one statement was wrong then that one statement needed to be debated and corrected. Sadly, I am not able to comment on whether her comments were generally "superious", but that may have something to do with the fact that I am not familiar with the word. Is it American English? --British_cons (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Hello Tracy. Yes, I'd support that as an example of a British Conservative belief. Are you going to do a Peter Mandleson article?  :-)--British_cons (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Hello Cracker. I can't decide if your comment is profound, surreal or - shall we say - medically induced. --British_cons (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
I meant superfluous. I felt that the edits on Thatcher cast aspersions on a great ally of America and amounted to little more than a attempt to sully her name. --AustinM 10:20, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
If the additions are true and verifiable then they meet the criteria of Conservapedia. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they shouldn't be in the article. Crackertalk 14:36, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
  • British Cons, thanks for the grammatical corrections on the Thatcher page. Finally someone who actually does (simple clean-up) what they say! Tracy....I will look at the other pages, as I get me feet wet as a Sysops, okay? Thanks for keeping an eye out, all of you! Always feel free to drop me a line, or get at me on IM, if something comes up. --TK 06:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

David Cameron article

(Also posted to User_talk:TK) I've deleted some trivia from and expanded the article on David Cameron but it's still very short - as you two appear to be the only others here with an interest in the British party, would you be willing to take a look at it and see if there's anything further you can add, especially given that I no longer live there so may not be up to date with any new developments, and also that my changes seem to keep being reverted for no apparent reason. (As regards an article on Mandelson, I don't feel up to doing it given that he's such a controversial figure.) Tracy C Copeland 08:49, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Tracy, I did a rather quick search on Cameron, and there isn't exactly a treasure of information available. If you have mainstream sources you can point me to, put them on my talk page, okay? --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 18:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

British 'conservatism'

British Cons seems to subscribe to a version of Conservatism that is not laced with Christian values and seems to be rather lukewarm, rather like tea. I worry that his principles are largely pragmatic, and that he lacks the true passion of his convictions that we like to have here in the States. However, British Cons does add useful counterweights, but I wonder what the utility of such a token liberal is, in the broader sense? I don't mean to be controversial, here, just realistic. DunsScotus 15:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

You may well have made a deeply profound, and perhaps interesting, point Duns. Sadly, it is so deeply profound that I don't fully understand it. But, if I had, I'm sure I would have welcomed it with the reverence it might have deserved. Nevertheless I accept it in the spirit in which I hope it may have been sent.--British_cons (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

see Conservativism British Conservatives support Laissez-faire economics, privatization and lower taxation. This is true also for American Conservatives, but American Conservativism also puts emphasis on moral values, and preservation of Constitutional rights (such as the right to bear arms which liberals oppose) -- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

American Liberals want to have countless institutions be set up the government, even when the job could obviously be done better by a private institution, and at the same time some of them want to legalize heroin, but if the substance were to be legalized the AIDS rate would go up because of people sharing needles, it would also increase drug-induced crime to such an extent it would cheaper to regulate the substance, instead of having it legalized, American Liberals support legalization of w yet at the same time say they would never do w, nor let their children do w. Basically American Liberals support the pillars of the communist manifesto, yet at the same time refuse to admit being communists, many American liberals will call themselves progressives and other terms so as to try not to alienate conservatives when they give a speech. -- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Most conservatives are not young earth creationists, I personally believe in Evolution and other scientific theories which may be disputed by this site, I am part of the Secular Right, in that I am conservative for Secular reasons, although I am personally religious, I was born to very Liberal Atheist parents. -- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

I can see why there is criticism on this site of evolution, since many Biologists are staunch opponents of religion, one of the many reasons why people say they reject evolution is because they say it implies there is no God, I can see why people see that, but that doesn't prevent them from believing Theistic Evolution, which means they believe Evolution happened but the process was being used by God to create the species -- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Hello Deborah, and thank you very much for taking the time to comment. I'd love to reply, but there is so much that I disagree with that I don't know where to start. :-( Nevertheless, if you could tell me if there's any particular point you'd like a response to then I'd be happy to oblige. Cheers. --British_cons (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Can you tell me what the major issues in British politics are? -- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Stand up to be shot

I'm not sure you can be a Conservative in the Conservapedia sense as UK Conservatism seems rather different than American Conservatism in both history and philosophies although they share some basic ideas. I'm not sure you qualify as a liberal. I'm not going to list everyone who just objects to me keeping notes on my personal page. I don't plan to watch you so you won't be listed. Sorry. oh and the "make sure information is factual" is only an issue for people who have it on their page in combination to some vague reference to a basic disagreement with conservatism...that doesn't apply to you. Richard 17:17, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Mmmm. So - no knock on the door at 2am? I'm rather disappointed. I was really looking forward to something to justify my paranoia.  :-(--British_cons (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Good luck

You were one of the sane ones! I wish you good luck, it was fun working with you. Tmtoulouse 12:59, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Didn't they ban you?Tracy C Copeland 14:48, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Ah, darn. A pity to see you go. Understandable, but still a pity. Sanity seems to be something this site doesn't tolerate. --Sid 3050 04:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Cheers, I'm still watching, to see how things go, but I've personally decided that contributing is a waste of time.--British_cons (talk) 05:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Mhhh, you're absolutely right. It is a waste of time. I think I'll limit myself to minor format edits and talk pages until I know where things are going. Right now, especially after the last... two nights, things seem to be going way downhill. Not just for non-YECists, but also in general.
The reaction after the whole Richard incident reminded me a lot of the problem of security researchers who got court orders after demonstrating a software vulnerability. Richard showcased a serious vulnerability in the system, and Andy bans him and announces that he has unmasked a bad guy. Immediate problem solved, underlying issue seemingly ignored (I kinda hope that it's not and that Andy is actually much smarter than he shows, but I fear that he's not).
I think it's only a matter of time before the next "on wheels" vandal will just invest a week or so to become sysop - it certainly looks easy enough. Or heck, why should they bother? Some of the current sysops and editors are doing an ace job at driving away the more reasonable contributors, ensuring that this site will quickly spin into complete self-parody. The ominous Panel is just the coup de grâce. --Sid 3050 05:49, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, the ominous, anonymous panel. Who are they? They don't seem to have much impact on the articles or anything else. Remember the vote on evolution? There were, what? four votes on the pro-article side? Where were they? Is a group of semi-educated teenagers training the be ministers - who don't even take an interest in the project - really going to pontificate on scientific issues? --British_cons (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, our vote doesn't mean anything. Quoting the Webmaster: "There is no such thing as a 'consensus document' on Conservapedia." That sorta says it all. And how are we able to say anything about its members when they're all anonymous? Almost any editor or sysop on this wiki may be a panel member. Sure, the loudest voices on that Talk page most likely aren't in Andy's class, but other than that... who knows?
If anything, the panel should set clear, site-wide goals. Having a case-by-case basis will lead to chaos. Right now, Conservapedia says it's "neutral to the facts" and at the same time injects massive bias (and often simply redefines "fact", apparently). The Evolution debate mostly happened because the rules don't say "We are biased towards YEC and don't like 'evolutionist' science. Do Not Disturb."
What will happen once we have a decision in the Evolution case? A vote on the Homosexuality article? Followed by a vote on the Kangaroo article? Followed by a vote for a new Commandment? --Sid 3050 12:25, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Mmmmm, it should be interesting to see the children's decision on the Evolution article. What form will it take? A long reasoned judgment which says that the rules of the site stipulate that the article is fine, and it should be locked as it is? Or a short decision simply saying that it's fine as it is? Any bets?--British_cons (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
I wouldn't bet money on it, but based on our interaction with the panel so far (=none), the second version sounds more plausible right now. I think either the Webmaster or Andy will drop by one of those days and simply say "The Panel has decided XYZ. The end." --Sid 3050 13:35, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
I know what my guess would be... As I said to you earlier, while I consider myself about as 'pure' a Conservative as there comes (as you probably also remember, knocking on doors in the later Major years did separate out the sheep from the goats if nothing else), ironically I find myself much more in agreement with the people "the panel" are condemning as "liberal agents". It is a real shame that so many people seem to be being driven away so quickly. Tracy C Copeland 13:38, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, I assume the children's decision - symbolically engraved on tablets carved from the wood of the original ark and delivered by their profit Andy - will be final.
And yes, I agree with you Tracy. When I looked at the list of liberal beliefs my reaction was - "Doesn't everybody believe in most of this?"--British_cons (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm sorry to see you go, Cons. And I will pray for you, pray that you will see the light, and not live--for too long--in the shadow-lands of intellectualized belief. Verily, the Lord did say unto us that all wisdom will be in the mouths of innocents. And home-schooled children certainly apply. DunsScotus 17:32, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I am, as ever, humbled by the piety which you so effortlessly ooze Mr Scotus. I shall indeed miss the occasional opportunity to exchange profound intellectual insights with an august personage such as yourself. However, I've decided to keep active on this talk page. So, if at any time you feel inclined bestow some spiritual spiritual enlightenment thereon, it will always be welcome.--British_cons (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Horatio Nelson

I have attempted to take a stab at putting more than a single line in this article, as Nelson does deserve better than that. Do you think you can add more to it, from a British point of view? Karajou 09:14, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Welcome back

Nice addition to Social Darwinism. Will we be seeing more of you? --Ed Poor Talk 17:57, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

I think that the occasional edit will be all that you can expect. :-) --British_cons (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
Personal tools