User talk:Rich P

From Conservapedia

Great job on the Unicorn page! PhilipB 21:40, 23 February 2007 (EST)

Contents 1 New Washington Coin 2 Kangaroo vandalism 3 kangaroo article 4 Please ask Aschafly to be a Sysop/Admin 5 Kangaroo baramin 6 Chuck Norris 7 Kangaroos hopping mad

New Washington Coin

Your images are exactly what the article needed. Dpbsmith 06:42, 3 March 2007 (EST)

Kangaroo vandalism

Good catch on that vandalism. It turns out that the same user vandalized several other pages last night and it went unnoticed until now. MountainDew 02:32, 8 March 2007 (EST)

kangaroo article

Why do you keep reverting the kangaroo article? I'm not vandalising. Those are contributions.

You keep removing information about the baraminic relations of the kangaroo subkinds. How is removing information a contribution? Dr. Richard Paley 01:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

1. I change 'currently native' to 'native' because 'currently native' doesn't make sense.

2. I am not simply removing the info about balamins or whatever, I am replacing it with species. Most people in Australia refer to kangaroo species (I have never heard of kangaroo baramins)AshesToAshes 01:49, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

1. It is necessary since the Creation model of kangaroo origins has them originally being native to the Middle East. The word "currently" is compromise to allow both views to be heard.

2. What people in Australia refer to them as is irrelevant as American English is to be used on Conservapedia (see the Commandments). Dr. Richard Paley 01:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, American English in writing the article. The Australian word should be included if it has cultural/historical significance. --Hojimachong^talk 01:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Then create an "Australian Cultural/Historical Significance" subsection and explain the Australian customs relating to kangaroos. The introduction text should be in a neutral American voice. Dr. Richard Paley 01:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

"Australian Cultural/Historical Significance" subsection? That is a ridiculous suggestion. It is an Australian animal, there is no need for such a section.

How is it a ridiculous suggestion? This is an American encyclopedia, not an Australian one. Next you will be telling us that we should say that the kangaroo is a tawny "colour" and that it keeps its joey in its "boot". Dr. Richard Paley 02:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

The creationist theory may suggest a Middle East origin but you didn't even write that in the article.AshesToAshes 02:07, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

"According to the origins theory model used by creation scientists, modern kangaroos, like all modern animals, originated in the Middle East" Please read article before editing. Thank you. Dr. Richard Paley 02:08, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Then that should be mentioned in the opening paragraph. Saying that they are currently native to Australia and then not mentioning anything else, what do you expect? The Middle East thing should be mentioned in the opening paragraph too then, or change 'currently native' to 'native'AshesToAshes 02:14, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Every detail can't be mentioned in the opening paragraph. That is what all the other paragraphs below are for. This is simple common sense. Dr. Richard Paley 02:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Then leave out about where they are native two. If there are two theories and only one is presented in the opening paragraph, then it is biased.AshesToAshes 02:21, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

"Currently/now native to" is not biased since it is true for both Biblical and Darwinian worldviews. It is a perfectly reasonable compromise. Please stop being obstinate. Dr. Richard Paley 02:25, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, I admit I was being a bit too fussy about it, sorry. On another note, please don't mark things as vandalism without even checking.AshesToAshes 02:30, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Please ask Aschafly to be a Sysop/Admin

Please ask User:Aschlafly to be a Sysop/Admin. I think you would be a good one. By the way, http://www.google.com gives Conservapedia's Baraminology article their 8th ranking out of over 12,000 articles. Conservative 07:18, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Kangaroo baramin

I'm removing the bit about the Kangaroo baramin because it is unsourced. If you can supply a source, please reinstate it and reference it. Philip J. Rayment 23:33, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Chuck Norris

You are right, and BND is wrong about the views of Norris. I blocked BND's account for 2 hours to give him a chance to read up on what Norris actually said.

Typical liberal propaganda tactic is to blur the distinction between (a) the thing you love or hate and (b) what a public figure said about that thing. What we need to do is start with clearly and accurately reporting what public figures say. --Ed Poor ^Talk 17:33, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Kangaroos hopping mad

MylesP comments re: Dr. Richard Paley's reference to "...Darwinists who want to turn Conservapedia into Wikipedia through a slow death of a thousand cuts", 20 March 2007" in the Talk Page for "Kangaroo", entry 6: "Native??"

The good doctor Paley might find some of my ruminations concerning precisely this subject on my User Page of some interest. The irony has probably escaped you (unless you are a Doctor of Philosophy) but "a thousand cuts" nicely describes the technique behind "Occam's Razor", which is the removal of elements of an argument which are determined to be unnecessary to the validity of the argument pursued. Science is not just one giant farrago of every imaginable entity. That's Hinduism, or Masonic Lore. Science amasses data, but it REDUCES principles. The history is science is a thousand and ten thousand "cuts". Anyway, have I gander at what I wrote, and see what you think. Btw, I didn't see any reference on your page as to what you are Doctor of, and from what much respected Ivy League college. Perhaps you could satisfy my curiosity on this matter? (As this is an old thread, I will post a copy of this note on your User Page. MylesP 23:22, 31 October 2008 (EDT)