User talk:JimmyRa
From Conservapedia
Hello. I'm curious to see how you reconcile this statement you made in response to me:
- This site has been on a "bash fat people" kick for a while, not just about the Obama officials, but also equating obese people with atheists, gays and lesbians. I'll be honest - I'm overweight. For the past few weeks, every time I come to the site, I feel like I've been slapped in the face with hatred. Maybe you don't think I've contributed enough to allow me my opinion, but I've done my best with my edits. I don't know what to do. I've enjoyed working on the various articles, but the atmosphere here for us fat people just isn't very friendly.SharonW 17:28, 10 June 2011 (EDT)
- No one here is aiming any of this in your direction. I'm sorry if you were hurt by it. But we can't refrain from addressing hypocrisy because it might step on some toes or seem politically incorrect. You can criticize someone for being an alcoholic without hating alcoholics. It is about hating the sin but loving the sinner. Sometimes revealing the truth can be painful, but silence and ignorance hurts more in the long run.JimmyRa 17:57, 10 June 2011 (EDT)
To this statement you posted earlier in the same thread:
- I'm not a liberal - I'm a person who has struggled with weight issues all my life and find it hurtful to read articles slinging mud at people because of their weight. I am about 60 pounds overweight, and have had men moo at me, had saleswomen tell me I'm too fat to shop at their store, and have had a lot of hateful comments directed toward me over the years. Is it too much to ask for some understanding about this issue? Every time I come to Conservapedia lately, I'm reminded about my high school and college years and the cruel things kids said and did to me then.SharonW 11:26, 10 June 2011 (EDT)
- Hiring this woman is a little like hiring an art thief to head the Smithsonian or a crack addict to head the DEA. It's just a bad combination, and it sends the wrong message. The Obama administration holds the White House and their doing their very best to destroy America, we can't afford to hold our punches. These criticisms are clearly effective or they wouldn't be hitting a nerve. Before criticizing Conservapedia I suggest you look to your own politics, faith, and waistline, to find the true source of your problem. In America today, we are fighting a kind of war for the future of our country, we can't afford to be overly squeamish.JimmyRa 11:32, 10 June 2011 (EDT)
Especially given the fact that you were the only one to attack me personally. And also, just when did fat people become the enemy?SharonW 15:04, 11 June 2011 (EDT)
- I'm sorry if you took that comment personally, it was after your comment but it wasn't specifically aimed at you, it was addressed to everyone on the other side of this debate. When I said to look to your waistline I did not mean fat people are evil and will therefore oppose criticism of Obama, I meant that someone who feels personally involved might focus on the personal level rather than considering the most important objective, criticizing the Obama administration. Just like those who are atheists or liberals will be distracted from what we should be focused on by their own distorted ideologies. We have to maintain focus. We can't be afraid of calling Obama deaf to America's troubles because we might offend the hard of hearing. We must maintain focus, and hit him as hard as we can and as much as we can, Americas future will depend on it. JimmyRa 20:52, 11 June 2011 (EDT)
- Well, I give you points for a different take on the old "don't take it personally" or "gee, you're too sensitive. I was just joking" routine. You simply used a “war” against Obama's policies as an excuse to label obese people as atheistic, lesbian liberals. Rather a broad brush you're using there (no pun intended.) I wonder what the end results will be at the conclusion of your war, when you attack people so indiscriminately. It looks as though you’re only interested in people exactly like you. I wish you luck with that. SharonW 13:37, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
- Thank you for the good wishes. I'm not only interested in people exactly like me, on the other hand I have very little interest in atheists or liberals. I never said anything about lesbians Sharon, was that a Freudian slip I detect? JimmyRa 16:31, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
- My husband of 27 years had a good laugh at the idea I'm a lesbian. I take it you haven't noticed the trend of this site to associate fat people in general with the aforementioned atheistic, liberal lesbians and/or gays - not just a single member of the Obama administration. My initial responses to the main talkpage were protesting the broad brush being applied here - did you understand that? Do you approve of that labeling?SharonW 21:36, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
- Your not quite seeing what's going on here, we are not after fat people. Have you ever seen us criticizing Rush for being a little heavy? We are not trying to associate the corpulent with atheists or liberals. We aren't after fat people, honest. But when a democrat has a weakness we'll go after it, especially if it highlights their hypocrisy. Because you share some of the traits being criticized your focusing on that, rather than directing your attention where it should be. If you were to use a narrow brush it would take forever to paint a house, which is why we have to do all we can before Obama paints the White House red. JimmyRa 21:53, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
- I've always been a believer in doing a job meticulously and correctly the first time rather than rushing through it and doing it sloppily. You tend to have less clean-up and repair work at the end. And I'll never condone attacking a person based on physical traits rather than ideas. No matter who they are. SharonW 10:20, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
- Your not quite seeing what's going on here, we are not after fat people. Have you ever seen us criticizing Rush for being a little heavy? We are not trying to associate the corpulent with atheists or liberals. We aren't after fat people, honest. But when a democrat has a weakness we'll go after it, especially if it highlights their hypocrisy. Because you share some of the traits being criticized your focusing on that, rather than directing your attention where it should be. If you were to use a narrow brush it would take forever to paint a house, which is why we have to do all we can before Obama paints the White House red. JimmyRa 21:53, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
- My husband of 27 years had a good laugh at the idea I'm a lesbian. I take it you haven't noticed the trend of this site to associate fat people in general with the aforementioned atheistic, liberal lesbians and/or gays - not just a single member of the Obama administration. My initial responses to the main talkpage were protesting the broad brush being applied here - did you understand that? Do you approve of that labeling?SharonW 21:36, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
- Thank you for the good wishes. I'm not only interested in people exactly like me, on the other hand I have very little interest in atheists or liberals. I never said anything about lesbians Sharon, was that a Freudian slip I detect? JimmyRa 16:31, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
- Well, I give you points for a different take on the old "don't take it personally" or "gee, you're too sensitive. I was just joking" routine. You simply used a “war” against Obama's policies as an excuse to label obese people as atheistic, lesbian liberals. Rather a broad brush you're using there (no pun intended.) I wonder what the end results will be at the conclusion of your war, when you attack people so indiscriminately. It looks as though you’re only interested in people exactly like you. I wish you luck with that. SharonW 13:37, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
- I'm sorry if you took that comment personally, it was after your comment but it wasn't specifically aimed at you, it was addressed to everyone on the other side of this debate. When I said to look to your waistline I did not mean fat people are evil and will therefore oppose criticism of Obama, I meant that someone who feels personally involved might focus on the personal level rather than considering the most important objective, criticizing the Obama administration. Just like those who are atheists or liberals will be distracted from what we should be focused on by their own distorted ideologies. We have to maintain focus. We can't be afraid of calling Obama deaf to America's troubles because we might offend the hard of hearing. We must maintain focus, and hit him as hard as we can and as much as we can, Americas future will depend on it. JimmyRa 20:52, 11 June 2011 (EDT)
Off-topic postings
Headings clearly indicate the subject matter of discussion threads, and off-topic, lengthy commentaries are likely to be reverted.--Andy Schlafly 17:51, 27 November 2011 (EST)
- I'm sorry if I cut off communication at any point, I'm having a bit of difficulty accessing the site.
- I think the fundamental concerns about the project expressed by several now blocked editors should take preference over the stylistic correctness of talk page discussion. To focus on such a point rather than addressing the larger issues raised by the community is an example of the concerns I raised in my comment related to your training as a lawyer. Do you have any input on the points I raised beyond their relation to the original subject heading? JimmyRa 18:10, 27 November 2011 (EST)
- This site has had the 90/10 rule since almost the beginning. It is essential to being productive. This is not a chat site, or talk forum. Unique visitor traffic continues to increase at Conservapedia because of its substantive content, and that is where the focus of editing should be.--Andy Schlafly 18:20, 27 November 2011 (EST)
- If the 90/10 rule is used that way than great. However if it used as a club with which to batter all those who disagree with you, it might tend to hinder the development of a healthy community. Scan through the last 500 recent edits and see how many of them relate to "substantive content ... where the focus of editing should be". Than compare the ratio of useful to off topic edits with what you find on Wikipedia using the same method. I believe this experiment will reveal a problem. Confronted with this problem you have two options; one is to ignore the problem and let it continue, the second it to face the problem and try to deal with it. It is only through the second course that improvements can be made. I would very much like to have that conversation. But, if you are entirely pleased with where Conservapedia is right now than it is unnecessary. JimmyRa 21:39, 27 November 2011 (EST)
