User talk:Zmidponk

From Conservapedia

• *sigh* you are only escalating aggressions between liberals and the conservatives at this site beyond where it already is. Just really, shut up, you're not helping anything, you're only stirring things up, and it makes you look TOTALLY stupid that you refuse to argue outside of your own biased viewpoint. --Puellanivis 00:20, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Really? I am 'escalating' aggressions by pointing out that deleting the factual phrase 'Christians believe that this is true', and replacing it with the opiniated one of 'this is definitely true' is in contravention of the site's own rules? Zmidponk 10:26, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Hey, be nice now... After all, it's only a debate. Debates are a) the proper place (if any) for those sort of posts, and b) hardly ever payed attention to anyway! Zmidponk, you're not at fault here. But certainly, Puellanivis, if you see any unhelpful and biased posts in the article talk spaces, feel free to point it out to the user. Feebasfactor 00:36, 19 December 2007 (EST)

That is true, but he is in violation of the 90/10 rule. Andy wants people to make positive contributions more than just using this site as a soapbox. It would be nice to see some edits. There are many noncontroversial topics that could be augmented or created. Learn together 00:41, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Unfortunately, it is the 'controversial' pages that need editing to conform to the rules of this site, and, for the most part, they are locked, so they can't be edited. Which is what I'm pointing out. I can't see how it can be called 'using this site as a soapbox' to ask it to conform to it's own rules. Zmidponk 10:26, 19 December 2007 (EST)

First, I would like to apologize, my behavior was in poor form, and reflected poorly upon CP. To address your question, again, just like Wikipedia CP has a policy of "Ignore All Rules" when it comes to ensuring that the site is kept towards its intended target, a conservative encyclopedia by wiki. Contraversial pages are prone especially to liberals coming in, and asserting their POV with a conviction that they are absolutely right, just as well conservatives go to WP, and assert their POV with a conviction that they are absolutely right. Both sides presume to be speaking the absolute truth. The difference is where that absolute proof is placed. On the primarily liberal Wikipedia, that absolute proof is with science. However, on Conservapedia, that absolute proof lies with God, and his inspired words from the Bible. If a scientific principle disagrees with the Bible, then it simply can't be true, because the Bible is infallable. --Puellanivis 14:19, 19 December 2007 (EST)

WARNING

Your account will be blocked if you continue to delete material as you have been. Your actions have already been reverted 3 times, and if a 4th reversion is required then your account will be blocked.--Aschlafly 17:58, 29 January 2008 (EST)

I am deleting material that, to put it bluntly HAS ZERO EVIDENCE BACKING IT UP. This is your site. If you have a problem with Commandments 1, 2 and 5, CHANGE THEM. Until you do, ABIDE BY THEM. Zmidponk 18:00, 29 January 2008 (EST)

I really don't think taking a hostile tone, especially to the site owner, is in your best interest, or the interests of anyone involved. So I'm giving you a short block to cool down. Andy, please undo my block if you feel I'm stepping on your toes... just trying to help :-) -MexMax 18:02, 29 January 2008 (EST)

I couldn't care less if you think it's in my 'best interests' to not take that tone or not, quite frankly. It is abundantly clear that Aschlafly is putting his own, personal opinion as to whether Dawkins is a 'proper professor' or not on Dawkins page and is abusing his authority in order to prevent this being corrected, despite there being abundant evidence on the talk page that he is completely, totally and utterly wrong. Apart from anything else, that is arguably libel, especially considering this website describes itself as an 'encyclopedia'. As for 'cooling down', I am, in fact, perfectly cool. The simple fact of the matter is that Aschlafly is wrong, and is breaking his own Commandments in order to enforce his wrong views as 'fact', and all I am asking Aschlafly to do is abide by his own rules, or change them to ones he WILL abide by. Not to do one of those two things shows him up to be an utter hypocrite of the highest order. Zmidponk2 18:17, 29 January 2008 (EST)

It's not arguably libelous. It is clearly libelous. --Horace28 18:19, 29 January 2008 (EST)

Andy is inserting his own opinion regardless of any evidence and is refusing to allow any compromise? You don't say. SSchultz 19:47, 29 January 2008 (EST)

Assuming you have a point, I'd say that you have a better chance of getting it accepted - IF you use facts and reasoning rather than accusations and personal remarks. --Ed Poor ^Talk 18:54, 29 January 2008 (EST)

How's about the fact that every bit of evidence Aschlafly has produced to 'prove' that Dawkins is not a 'real professor' has been proven to be either irrelevant or flat-out wrong? How's about the fact that Merriam-Webster, the very people, according to the article, who define 'professor' in a manner that Dawkins does not fit, categorically deny this, and say that,'Since Dr. Dawkins holds two PhDs (in addition to numerous honorary degrees) and teaches at Oxford University, it is appropriate to use the title "professor" for him'? How's about the fact Oxford University has an entire mini-site dedicated to the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science, and, in there, repeatedly refers to Dawkins as a 'professor'? How's about the ample evidence presented on the talk page, most notably by OurMike and British_cons, that Dawkins was conferred his professorship in the normal manner, and there is no reason to question his 'professorship'? In short, how's about every single piece of evidence that has repeatedly been brought up in the talk page many times in the past several MONTHS, which has either been ignored by Aschlafly, or he has accused people of fabricating it? Even when given explicit instructions as to how to obtain this evidence for himself, in a manner that would leave it's authenticity in no doubt whatsoever, he refuses to do so, and, instead, continues to try to claim it is 'fake' or the people providing it 'do not have the authority to do so', without actually providing any evidence of this claim at all. For my 'facts and reasoning', see the discussion on this matter in the Dawkins Talk Page and Talk Page Archives. All the arguments have been made, and the balance of the evidence is clearly MASSIVELY in favour of Dawkins being a 'real professor', so to say otherwise, as I said above, is arguably libel. For that reason, if no other (such as conforming to the Conservapedia Commandments about verifiability, for example), the page should be altered, as I did, to reflect this. Zmidponk 20:03, 29 January 2008 (EST)

I should also point out that this 'discussion' has been going on since at least early October, and the only things that have changed between now and then is the article has become more and more erroneous, due to edits by Aschlafly (and any attempts to correct it reverted, usually by Aschafly), and the evidence proving he is wrong has been mounting higher and higher, so why is more discussion needed? Zmidponk 20:20, 29 January 2008 (EST)

You were warned above not to revert Aschlafly's edits. When you started an edit war today, I blocked you. When you come back after this block, you are further warned that reverting Aschlafly's edits will earn you a longer block. --Crocoite 14:57, 6 February 2008 (EST)

By reverting Aschafly's edits, I am applying the Commandments of this site (specifically Commandments 1, 2 and 5). If Aschafly has a problem with the rules, he has the power to change them. Until he does, I will continue to apply them. Zmidponk2 23:31, 6 February 2008 (EST)

Zmidponk, sometimes what you call "bias" is actually truth. There are countless different biases and opinions out there, and equally countless conclusions to draw through them. But only one can lead to the Truth. You show poor judgment in fighting the True one. May God have mercy on you for doing so. --JacobM 15:05, 6 February 2008 (EST)

Try reading through the talk pages and the talk page archives. If you do, you will see that it is abundantly clear it is most definitely NOT the 'True one' I am fighting, so God's mercy is not needed. Thanks for the thought, anyway. Zmidponk2 23:31, 6 February 2008 (EST)