https://conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Mikers&feedformat=atomConservapedia - User contributions [en]2024-03-19T05:31:52ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.24.2https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexual_Agenda&diff=1035941Homosexual Agenda2013-02-22T23:08:28Z<p>Mikers: Undo revision 1035937 by Karajou (talk)</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Homosexuality}}<br />
The '''Homosexual Agenda''' is a set of beliefs and objectives designed to promote and even mandate acceptance and approval of homosexuality and [[Homosexuality|homosexual]] ideology{{fact}}, along with the strategies used to implement such. The goals and means of this movement include indoctrinating students in [[public school]]{{fact}}, restricting the free speech of opposition{{fact}}, obtaining [[special rights|special treatment]] for homosexuals{{fact}}, distorting Biblical teaching and science{{fact}}, and interfering with freedom of association{{fact}}. Advocates of the homosexual agenda seek special rights for [[homosexuals]] that other people don't have, such as immunity from criticism (see [[hate speech]], [[hate crime]]s){{fact}}. Such special rights will necessarily come [[zero-sum game|at the expense]] of the rights of broader society.{{fact}} '''''The homosexual agenda is the biggest threat to the right of [[free speech]] today.'''''{{fact}}<br />
<br />
President Barack Hussein [[Obama]] and nearly all [[Democrat]] politicians now advocate the homosexual agenda, reflecting the growing financial power of the homosexual network{{fact}}. Obama's self-centered obsession with his own reelection, and fundraising for his campaign, has caused him to create a national political issue out of this, rather than deal with other issues like the economy{{fact}}.<br />
<br />
'''''Among all the [[liberal]] belief systems, the homosexual ideology is the most self-centered or selfish''''' - unlike the vast charity performed by churches, homosexual charity can be considered an [[oxymoron]]{{fact}}<br />
<br />
Supreme Court Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] referred to the "so-called homosexual agenda" in ''[[Lawrence v. Texas]]'', 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (dissenting opinion). <br />
<br />
== The Homosexual Agenda ==<br />
<br />
Joseph P. Gudel, in ''That Which is Unnatural''<ref>[http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0108a.html "That Which is Unnatural" Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture] Part Two in a Two-Part Series on Homosexuality, from the Christian Research Journal, Winter 1993, page 8</ref> contended that the homosexual movement, <br />
<br />
:has been militantly demanding not just the homosexuals' right to do whatever they wish to do behind closed doors, but, more importantly, that society fully accept their lifestyle as both healthy and normal, even demanding special rights and legislation as an "oppressed minority." Gudel quotes various sources evidencing this. <br />
<br />
In a 1987 speech to the National Press Club in Washington, homosexual spokesperson Jeff Levi proclaimed, <br />
<br />
:We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right &#8212; as heterosexual Americans already have &#8212; to see government and society affirm our lives. <ref>Jeff Levi, in William Dannemeyer, Shadow in the Land (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1989), 86.</ref> <br />
<br />
In an article entitled "Gays on the March" in 1975, Time magazine quoted gay activist Barbara Gittings who stated: <br />
<br />
:What the homosexual wants, and here he is neither willing to compromise nor morally required to compromise &#8212; is acceptance of homosexuality as a way of life fully on a par with heterosexuality." In response, Time opined, "It is one thing to remove legal discrimination against homosexuals. It is another to mandate approval....It is this goal of full acceptance, which no known society past or present has granted to homosexuals, that makes many Americans apprehensive.<ref>Gays on the March," Time, 8 Sept. 1975, 43</ref> <br />
<br />
A primary goal of the homosexual agenda is to promote the lifestyle in [[public schools]].{{fact}} This occurred quickly and intensely after gay marriage was imposed in Massachusetts, where homosexual relationships are taught to children as young as kindergartners, as recounted by the decision of ''[[Parker v. Hurley]]''.<ref>The ''Parker v. Hurley'' decision explained, "In January 2005, when Jacob Parker ("Jacob") was in kindergarten, he brought home a 'Diversity Book Bag.' This included a picture book, Who's in a Family?, which depicted different families, including single-parent families, an extended family, interracial families, animal families, a family without children, and &#8212; to the concern of the Parkers &#8212; a family with two dads and a family with two moms. The book concludes by answering the question, 'Who's in a family?': 'The people who love you the most!' The book says nothing about marriage."</ref><br />
<br />
In a 1992 report by John Leo in U.S. News and World Report, he notes some books which were part of New York City's public school curriculum.{{fact}}<br />
<br />
The first-grade book, "Children of the Rainbow", stated on page 145, which states that teachers must "be aware of varied family structures, including...gay or lesbian parents," and "children must be taught to acknowledge the positive aspects of each type of household." {{fact}}Another children book is Heather Has Two Mommies, which is about a lesbian couple having a child through artificial insemination. Another book, Gloria Goes to Gay Pride, states, "Some women love women, some men love men, some women and men love each other. That's why we march in the parade, so everyone can have a choice."{{fact}}<br />
<br />
Leo commented, <br />
<br />
:A line is being crossed here; in fact, a brand new ethic is descending upon the city's public school system. The traditional civic virtue of tolerance (if gays want to live together, it's their own business) has been replaced with a new ethic requiring approval and endorsement (if gays want to live together, we must 'acknowledge the positive aspects' of their way of life).<ref>John Leo, "Heather Has a Message," U.S. News & World Report, 17 Aug. 1992, 16.</ref> <br />
<br />
Dr. Judith A. Reisman in her extensive ''Crafting “Gay” Children'',<ref>http://www.defendthefamily.com/_docs/resources/6390601.pdf</ref> reports that Harvard homosexual Toby Morotta, PhD, stated that in the 1970s, members of the Gay Activists Alliance - who were trained in the “zapping" of any who rebuffed homosexuality.<ref> Toby Marotta: THE POLITICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY: HOW LESBIANS AND GAY MEN HAVE MADE THEMSELVES A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL FORCE IN MODERN AMERICA, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1981 at 319</ref> And that these formed the “Gay Academic Union,” (GAU) which was made up of faculty and students in major universities. She states that the GAU has long fought for domination of its worldview within the academic community, and professional journals commonly assigned GAU and other homosexual peer reviewers to research touching on homosexuality, generally resulting in a quick death to possible unfavorable findings. <ref>See extensive reports in regular NARTH Bulletins as well as Ray Johnson, “American Psychology: The Political Science, at 53-57.</ref><br />
<br />
This and the general agenda is seen to be overall implementing a marketing strategy explained in a book called ''After the Ball,'' by [[gay rights]] activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in the late 1980s, in which a six-point plan was set forth as to how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior in a decade-long time frame:<br />
:"The agenda of homosexual activists is basically to change America from what they perceive as looking down on homosexual behavior, to the affirmation of and societal acceptance of homosexual behavior." <ref name="Winn07252003">''After the Ball'' (1989), quoted from Winn, Pete (7-25-2003) [ ''Q&A: The Homosexual Agenda''] Citizenlink</ref> "Thus propagandistic advertising can depict all opponents of the gay movement as homophobic bigots who are 'not Christian' and the propaganda can further show them [homosexuals]] as being criticized, hated and shunned..."<ref>After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen (Author) (p. 152-153)</ref><br />
<br />
[[Focus on the Family]] provides additional quotes from After the Ball, outlining key points of the homosexual agenda:<ref name="Winn07252003"/><ref>Kirk, Marshall K. and Erastes Pill (11-1987) ''The Overhauling of Straight America'' Available at [http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/overhauling.htm ''STRATEGIES OF THE HOMOSEXUAL MOVEMENT: "The Overhauling of Straight America"'']</ref><br />
<br />
#"Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible." (They use late night air waves and special channels, as well as their right to peacefully assemble to do so.)<br />
#"Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers." <br />
#"Give homosexual protectors a just cause." <br />
#"Make gays look good."<br />
#"Make the victimizers look bad." <br />
#"Get funds from corporate America."<br />
<br />
[[United States Supreme Court]] Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] wrote:<br />
{{cquote|Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.<ref>[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102#dissent1 ''LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS''] at findlaw.com</ref>}}<br />
<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_Eliason Vic Eliason] of [http://www.crosstalkamerica.com Crosstalk America] rightly points out that if all Americans turned homosexual it would only take a few generations for the United States to lose most of the population of the country through lack of procreation. This would make the US more vulnerable to attack by our enemies.<br />
<br />
== Specific goals ==<br />
<br />
The goals of the homosexual movement include:<br />
<br />
#Ignoring Christian morals and discouraging religiously based laws. {{fact}}<br />
#Reminding the world that marriage is a legal term and standing in the US, not a spiritual one as believed by Christians.{{fact}}<br />
#Ignore the clear message of the [[Bible]] that [[homosexuality]] is a sin and an abomination unto [[God]] because their first amendment rights allow them to.{{fact}}<br />
#Remind conservatives that there cannot be a gay gene, just like like there cannot be a "black gene" because complex things like these are caused by complex interactions between genes.{{fact}}<br />
#Censoring evidence that the "gay gene" is a hoax. After all, it would have to be multiple genes interacting together.<ref>[http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08a/born_gay_hoax/smith_0329/index.html ''Lesbian activists at Smith College riot, shut down Ryan Sorba speech on "The Born Gay Hoax" as police watch. See exclusive videos.''] Mass Resistance</ref><br />
#Censoring speech against homosexuality by branding it to be "hate-speech"<ref>[http://www.silencingchristians.com Video:Silencing Christians]</ref><ref>[http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2009/06/homosexuality-its-crime-in-england-to.html Homosexuality: It’s a Crime in England to State Christian Views]</ref><ref>[http://www.ccfon.org/view.php?id=745 Bishops fight for right to criticize homosexual lifestyle, 25th May 2009]</ref><br />
#Censoring biblical statements condemning homosexuality<ref>White, Hilary (04-21-2006) [http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/apr/06042105.html ''Court Upholds School Ban on "Homosexuality is Shameful" T-Shirt''] LifeSiteNews.com</ref> <br />
#Lobbying for equal employment rights.<ref>The Crimson Staff (10-13-2006) [http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=514950 ''A Box of Their Own?''] (opinion) The Crimson</ref><ref>www.afa.net, Homosexual Agenda Platforms from 1972 - 2000</ref><br />
#Expand hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation, which would be equally wrong for heterosexuals to do.<ref>Pelosi, Nancy Office of (09-28-2004) [http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Sept04/HateCrimes092804.html ''Pelosi: "Hate Crimes Prevention Legislation is Right Thing to Do, Long Overdue"''] From the office of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi</ref><br />
#Ending the military's and Boy Scout's restrictions on homosexuality<ref>''Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale'', 530 U.S. 640 (2000) (Boy Scouts); "Matlovich v. Secretary of the Air Force (591 F.2d 852, DC Circ. 1 978) (military)</ref><br />
#Stopping children as young as 5 years old from attending therapy to repair their sexual preference<ref>[http://www.thetaskforce.org/reports_and_research/youth_in_the_crosshairs National Gay and Lesbian Task Force:Youth in the Crosshairs]</ref><br />
#Teach tolerance of homosexuals in schools.{{fact}}<br />
#In places like Massachusetts and California, where the gay lobby is the strongest, it starts as early as preschool. They tell seven- or eight-year-old boys, "If you only like boys, there's a chance you may be homosexual," or "If you only like girls, maybe you are lesbian."{{fact}} Children at that age also do not have the hormones to experience sexual attraction, so they cannot understand this yet.<br />
#Demands protections from job discrimination. <ref>[http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/nondiscrimination/ENDA_main_page Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) | National Gay and Lesbian Task Force</ref><br />
#Suing an online dating website for discrimination. This was because sexual orientation is a federally protected group, as such, this company was breaking the law. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,454904,00.html Fox News - eHarmony to Provide Gay Dating Service after Lawsuit]</ref><br />
#Undermining the [[Essay:Quantifying_Mental_Strength|resolve]] of [[Homosexuality_and_choice#Choice_and_Genetics|latent homosexuals]] so that their will becomes too weak to resist the temptations of homosexuality<ref>http://www.thetaskforce.org/activist_center/resources_and_tools/challenge_exgay</ref><br />
#Pushing for legalized adoption by gay individuals and couples<ref>http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/parenting_and_family</ref><br />
#Indoctrination of public school children to support the homosexual agenda<br />
<br />
The state-by-state push for same-sex marriage can be viewed as a means to the above goals, or a goal in itself.<ref>[[Lewis v. Harris]]</ref> An example of this would be the recent New Hampshire law that makes same-sex civil unions legal.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/06/01/new_hampshire_law_makes_same_sex_civil_unions_legal/</ref><br />
<br />
Although notable gains toward achieving its goals continue to manifest, homosexual activists have recently been expressing a high level of dissatisfaction with the Obama administration. Commenting on such, Massresistance.org, an organization which opposes the homosexual agenda in [[Massachusetts]], noted that the President has, <br />
<br />
*signed an order extending federal benefits to same-sex partners.<br />
<br />
*pushed an extreme hate crimes bill in Congress.<br />
<br />
*declared his intention to repeal the Defense of Marriage.<br />
<br />
*pushed a pro-homosexual and transgender version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.<br />
<br />
*appointed homosexual activists to high level positions, including Harry Knox, of the homosexual lobby group Human Rights Campaign, and Kevin Jennings, founder of the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which educates kids in the public schools.<br />
<br />
*declared February to be "Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month."<br />
<br />
*Demanded the State Department allow gay couples to use their married names (from marriages or civil unions) on US passports.<ref>update@massresistance.org 6/24/2009 11:56 PM</ref><br />
<br />
=== Strategies and psychological tactics ===<br />
<br />
Homosexual activists are often seen as engaging in [[homosexual logic|specious argumentation]], such as attempts to controvert the consistent teaching of the Bible on homosexual relations (see [[homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]), and using false analogies, in order to gain acceptance of homosexuality. One common argument used by homosexual activists seeks to compare their quest for equal rights to that of others.<ref>Miner, Homosexuality, Civil Rights, and the Church</ref> This argument is countered by the observation that blacks were able to peacefully argue that mankind should not be "judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character"<ref>[http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm, Speech by Martin Luther King Jr.]</ref>, as the former yields no certain moral distinction. In contrast, homosexual activists seek acceptance of an immoral practice(s), and in addition, engage in certain coercive and manipulative means to do so. This includes the use of demonstrative protests, which appear to be designed to censure and intimidate those who oppose them in any way.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/socialsciences/sellinghomosexuality.html</ref><ref>http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89526</ref><ref>http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08c/Prop8/church_attacks.html</ref><ref>http://rebuildtheparty.ning.com/video/exodus-protest-park-street</ref><ref>http://theway2k.vox.com/library/post/homosexuals-persecuting-christians-and-mormons.html</ref><ref>http://www.hamiltonsquare.net/articlesRiotsSep1993.htm</ref><ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08050205.html</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95296</ref><ref>Muehlenberg, Bill, [http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2009/06/04/another-nail-in-the-christian-coffin/ Another Nail in the Christian Coffin], [[4 June]] [[2009]]</ref><ref>[http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09a/feder_0311/index.html Loud homosexual activists disrupt and halt Don Feder speech at UMass Amherst, despite police presence"]</ref> In addition, one pro-homosexual commentator recently took the homosexual community to task for being racist in their practice of homosexuality.<ref>LZ Granderson, ''Commentary: Gay is not the new black'', Cable News Network,July 16, 2009</ref> Another strategy used by supporters of the homosexual agenda is to publicly deny that such an agenda exists.<ref>[http://onug.us/content/christians-america-and-gay-agenda Christians, America, And The Gay Agenda]</ref><br />
<br />
While not all homosexuals agree with the use of deceptive psychological tactics, these have been promoted by leading homosexual activists. The aforementioned book, ''After the Ball'', is widely regarded as the handbook for the gay agenda, in which two Harvard-trained (homosexual) psychologists <ref>http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,152180,00.html</ref> Marshall Kirk (1957 - 2005) and Hunter Madsen (pen name ''Erastes Pill'', who was also schooled in social marketing) advocated avoiding portraying gays as aggressive challengers, but as victims instead, while making all those who opposed them to be evil persecutors. As a means of the latter, they promoted ''jamming,'' in which Christians, traditionalists, or anyone else who opposes the gay agenda are publicly smeared. Their strategy was based on the premise that, "In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector. The purpose of victim imagery is to make straight people feel very uncomfortable."<br />
<br />
"Jamming" [[homo-hatred]] (disagreement with [[homosexual behavior]]s) was to be done by linking it to [[Nazi horror]], advised Kirk and Madsen. Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered, hysterical backwoods preachers, menacing punks, and a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed. Thus, "propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths..."<ref>http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mbarber/080213</ref><ref>http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm</ref> <br />
<br />
Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, writes, <br />
<blockquote><br />
There can be no doubt that Christianity represents the greatest obstacle to the normalization of homosexual behavior. It cannot be otherwise, because of the clear biblical teachings concerning the inherent sinfulness of homosexuality in all forms, and the normativity of heterosexual marriage. In order to counter this obstacle, Kirk and Madsen advised gays to "use talk to muddy the moral waters, that is, to undercut the rationalizations that 'justify' religious bigotry and to jam some of its psychic rewards." How can this be done? "This entails publicizing support by moderate churches and raising serious theological objections to conservative biblical teachings." [The latter of which attempts [[homosexuality and biblical interpretation]] examine and expose.]<ref> [http://web.archive.org/web/20070927163416/http://www.gender-news.com/other.php?id=19 ''After the Ball--Why the Homosexual Movement Has Won,''] Thursday, June 3rd, 2004</ref><br />
</blockquote> <br />
<br />
Kirk and Madsen's open admission of their deceptive tactics is noted as most revealing: [O]ur effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof. "...the person's beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not"<ref>After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s, p. 152-153 (1989, Doubleday/Bantam)</ref> “The campaign we outline in this book, though complex, depends centrally upon a program of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long-established principles of psychology and advertising.”<ref>Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay’s in the 90s, p.xxvi</ref><ref>[http://banap.net/ Behavior and Not a Person]</ref> <br />
<br />
Similarly, author Robert Bauman additionally records: "It makes no difference that the ads are lies... because were using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones."<ref>The Gentleman from Maryland: The Conscience of a gay Conservative, by Robert Bauman, 1986, page 163.</ref><br />
<br />
The need for Kirk and Madsen to engage in such manipulation may be seen as being due to their sober realization of the nature of the homosexual lifestyle. <br />
<br />
“In short, the gay lifestyle - if such a chaos can, after all, legitimately be called a lifestyle - it just doesn’t work: it doesn’t serve the two functions for which all social framework evolve: to constrain people’s natural impulses to behave badly and to meet their natural needs. While it’s impossible to provide an exhaustive analytic list of all the root causes and aggravants of this failure, we can asseverate at least some of the major causes. Many have been dissected, above, as elements of the Ten Misbehaviors; it only remains to discuss the failure of the gay community to provide a viable alternative to the heterosexual family.”<ref>Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay’s in the 90s, p.363</ref><br />
<br />
David Kupelian, author of ''The Marketing of Evil,'' describes Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, stating, <br />
<blockquote><br />
Kirk and Madsen were not the kind of drooling activists that would burst into churches and throw condoms in the air. They were smart guys – very smart. Kirk, a Harvard-educated researcher in neuropsychiatry, work with the Johns Hopkins Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth and designed aptitude tests for adults with 200+ IQs. Madsen, with a doctorate in politics from Harvard, was an expert on public persuasion tactics and social marketing.<ref>http://pearl-diving.blogspot.com/2009/01/sold-on-homosexuality-marketing-of-evil.html</ref><br />
</blockquote> <br />
<br />
Marshall Kirk died in 2005 at the age of 47.<ref>http://www.americanancestors.org/PageDetail.aspx?recordId=134544248</ref> The cause of death has not been publicly revealed.<br />
<br />
Often cited as an early example of such tactics was the role of homosexual activists in persuading the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-II). Dr. Ronald Bayer, though being himself a pro-homosexual psychiatrist, described this removal as being the result of power politics, threats, and intimidation, rather than any new scientific discoveries.<ref>[http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/eleven.php Exposed: The Myth That Psychiatry Has Proven That Homosexual Behavior Is Normal]</ref> In so doing, like slavery before it, the homosexual agenda is seen to threaten basic freedoms, principally the First Amendment.<ref>Adams, Guy (11-8-2008) [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mormon-stars-face-backlash-after-gay-marriage-ban-1003967.html ''Mormon stars face backlash after gay marriage ban''] The Independent</ref> <br />
<br />
The charge of [[homophobia]] has also been increasingly evidenced as being part of a means of intimidation used in promoting the homosexual agenda. Due to what homophobia has been made to denote, that of being a repressed homosexual, or possessing an irrational fear of being approached by homosexuals, or of being a bigot persecuting victims, the widespread use of the term "homophobic" attaches a powerful stigma to anyone who may even conscientiously oppose the practice of homosexuality, thus silencing many who might otherwise object to it.<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/1995papers/socarides.html Thought Reform And The Psychology of Homosexual Advocacy<br />
Charles W. Socarides, M.D.]</ref><br />
<br />
In relation to such oppression, psychologist Nicholas Cummings, former president of the American Psychological Association (APA), observed, "Homophobia as intimidation is one of the most pervasive techniques used to silence anyone who would disagree with the gay activist agenda." As an example of such fear within the APA, in addressing 100 fellow professionals Cummings related that while writing "Destructive Trends in Mental Health," with psychologist Rogers Wright, a number of fellow psychologists were invited to participate. However, these flatly turned them down, as they feared loss of tenure, loss of promotion, and other forms of professional retaliation. "We were bombarded by horror stories," Dr. Cummings said. "Their greatest fear was of the gay lobby, which is very strong in the APA.<ref>[Psychology Losing Scientific Credibility, Say APA Insiders http://www.narth.com/docs/insiders.html]</ref><br />
<br />
Noted homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein, in his article, ''The Gay Agenda stated'': "Homophobic inclinations alone, even without any actions, should be criminal and punishable to the full extent of the law."{{fact}}<br />
<br />
Erik Holland, author of ''The Nature of Homosexuality'', perceives that homosexuals have become so reckless in labeling others homophobic that "anyone who questions their labeling someone [is] a homophobe himself. Even quoting factual statistics about the connection between homosexuality and AIDS is allegedly homophobic." In addition, according to pro-homosexual author Vernon A. Wall, "even acceptance of homosexuality can be seen as a form of homophobia, because to talk about the acceptance of homosexuality is to imply that there is something about homosexuality that needs acceptance."<ref>http://www.homosexinfo.org/Homophobia/HomePage</ref> <br />
<br />
It may be speculated that if the liberal use of the term homophobia is not primarily a psychological tactic, then it indicates a psychological condition on the part of those who use it in which they imagine that those who oppose them are fearful of them, or of being one{{fact}}<br />
<br />
===Influence in the academic world===<br />
<br />
Professor Jerry Z. Muller described in an article titled ''First Things'' (Aug/Sept. 1993) how the homosexual lobby has gained widespread acceptance in the educational realm. <br />
{{cquote|[Their] strategy has been remarkably successful. With a rapidity largely attributable in large part to a total lack of articulate resistance, homosexual ideology has gained an unquestioned and uncontested legitimacy in American academic life. Within the academy, as within nonacademic elite culture, the definition of opposite to homosexuality as "homophobia - a definition which implies that it is impossible to give good reasons for the cultural disapproval of homosexuality - is the best evidence of the success of this strategy.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=cbfVg_1qhe0C&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&dq=David+W.+Virtue+scots+college&source=bl&ots=aDW7a615Gn&sig=Y1cLsx5sCQTgUUDJ88b5AKPRkNg&hl=en&ei=8skISpP1AcGktgfi2PzsCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPR14,M1 Homosexuality, by F. Earle Fox, David W. Virtue, p. 12]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Opposing Christian Agenda ==<br />
<br />
Liberals are critical of Christian groups that oppose homosexuality. These criticisms include Christian activities of:<br />
<br />
*Threatening to shut Salvation Army soup kitchens in New York if they cannot exclude homosexuals from employment <ref>[http://chicago.gopride.com/news/article.cfm/ArticleID/1824489]Salvation Army Uses Homeless To Fight Gay Benefits </ref><br />
*Encouraging email activism<br />
*Producing and disseminating gay reform information<br />
*Influencing local media in what stories they produce<br />
*Lobbying local, state and federal government officials to vote in the desired way on pending legislation<ref>[http://www.cwfa.org/about.asp Concerned Women For America] About page</ref><br />
*Calling anyone who supports gay rights a 'sinner' or other untrue insults.<br />
<br />
==Opponents of the Homosexual Agenda ==<br />
Some well known individuals/groups in the [[United States]] who actively oppose the homosexual agenda are: [[Focus on the Family]], [[Peter LaBarbera]]'s American's for Truth, the [[Traditional Values Coalition]] ([[Louis Sheldon]] is a chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition), and [[Matt Barber]] of [[Concerned Women of America]].<br />
<br />
==Further reading==<br />
*[http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/lively.html Homosexuality and the Nazi Party] by Scott Lively. Excellent discussion of the anti-Christian and homosexual origins of the Nazism.<br />
*[http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/hsx/ Documentation of the links between homosexuals and the Nazis] by the Government of Israel. <br />
*[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPCollectionNews.asp?ID=131 2008 McDonald's and the Homosexual Agenda], Baptist Press<br />
*[http://www.couplescompany.com/FEATURES/politics/2004/Selling%20Homosexuality.pdf Paul E. Rondeau, Selling homosexuality to America (PDF)] [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/730694/posts Or html form]<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[ACT-UP]]<br />
*[[Anti-Defamation League]]<br />
*[[Homosexual belief system]]<br />
*[[Gay rights]]<br />
*[[Homophobia]]<br />
*[[Hate speech]], [[Hate crime]]<br />
*[[Homosexual logic]], used to justify and promote the homosexual agenda<br />
*[[Homosexuality]]<br />
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]<br />
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]<br />
*[[Homosexualization]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
<br />
{{liberalism}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]<br />
[[Category:Homosexuality]]<br />
[[Category: Liberal Deceit]]</div>Mikershttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal_censorship&diff=1035940Liberal censorship2013-02-22T23:05:37Z<p>Mikers: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{uncited}}<br />
'''Liberal censorship''' refers to [[liberal]] attempts to mute all opposition to liberal beliefs, is one of the core tenets of liberalism, and is an almost exclusively liberal practice in modern times. Deceitful techniques of liberal censorship include:<br />
<br />
*Liberal opposition to [[free speech]] forced [[Tim Tebow]] to cancel a speaking event at a large church because its pastor has opposed the [[homosexual agenda]]<br />
*Expelling a young athlete from the [[2012 Summer Olympics]] because she tweeted a joke about immigration, despite her apology, thereby destroying her dream and years of hard work<br />
*Monopolizing discussions and repeatedly talking more than the other side, despite saying nothing coherent<br />
*Censoring readership of the Bible by deceptively pulling people from it, as in their formative years<br />
*Feigning offense in order to censor [[classroom prayer]] and religious symbols<br />
*Branding statements as "hate speech," with the ultimate goal of marginalizing the Bible in that way<br />
*Intimidating sponsors of conservative speaking events by harassing them<br />
*Seeking information about donors to traditional marriage referenda in order to harass them<br />
*Engaging in violent protests at [[conservative]] events, or vandalizing conservative [[wiki]]s on the [[Internet]]<br />
*Banning a legitimate contributor from all or part of a website because of remarks he made on ''a different website''<br />
*Censoring quotations from the Bible that contradict their [[fluffy bunny|personal opinions]] of [[cafeteria Christianity|what God meant to say]]<br />
<br />
Liberals inevitably demand censorship of ideas that challenge their views, and thus attempt to silence all criticism of their ideology by slandering conservatives and other opponents as "[[racist]]" and "[[reactionary]]", legally enforce [[political correctness]], and establish legislation making many forms of religious speech illegal under misnamed "[[hate speech]]" laws. This is especially true in the most its most extreme political manifestation, [[Communism]].<br />
<br />
The NRSC makes this claim:<br />
*Realizing that their ideas couldn't compete in the [[Free Market]], [[Democrats]] schemed for ways to crush [[conservative talk radio]]'s success. Their answer? The so-called "[[Fairness Doctrine]]". Revival of the "Fairness Doctrine" would have the chilling effect of censoring conservative talk radio by requiring radio stations to air liberal content. Air liberal content or your station license will be revoked. It's unfortunate that Democrats are willing to trample on our [[First Amendment]] rights for political gain.<ref>[http://www.nrsc.org/CostOfDemocrats/StopLiberalCensorship/ NRSC petition]</ref><br />
<br />
In an attempt to divert attention from this demand, liberals charge that conservatives also censor when they can. An example some give is Conservapedia. They claim that edits that disagree with the prevailing conservative viewpoint here regularly lead to a block, even though Conservapedia says it does not block for ideological reasons <ref>For example, a Conservapedia administrator makes the charge [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=561372&oldid=561371 here] and a previous administrator admits that he and the site owner engaged in ideological blocking [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=561457 here]</ref>.<br />
<br />
Unlike liberals, Conservapedia does not censor on ideological grounds. Occasionally it is necessary to take action to prevent liberals from abusing its hospitality to ideas by seeking to damage or destroy the project through waves of vandalism from outside and deep cover subversion from within. Such action is necessary to protect and defend freedom of expression.<br />
<br />
== Liberal Totalitarianism ==<br />
The result of pervasive and institutionalized liberal censorship is termed ''liberal totalitarianism.''<br />
<br />
Such attempts to remove first amendment rights (see [[Fairness Doctrine]]), along with [[gun control]] and the outlawing of [[creation science]] and even [[homeschooling]], have led many critics to note the parallel between the modern liberal movement and 20th century [[totalitarian]] regimes. The censorship of school prayer is consistent with [[Fascist]] beliefs.<ref>Jonah Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning"</ref><ref>Edmund Burke Institute [http://www.edmundburkeinstitute.org/documents/The_Just_Cause_Liberal_Totalitarianism.pdf]</ref><ref>[http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/p_hollrah/06262007.htm The Nazification of the American Left], Paul R. Hollrah, ''New Media Journal'', June 26, 2007.</ref><br />
<br />
Georgia Congressman [[Paul Broun]] claimed that [[Barack Obama]] may seek to establish a [[Marxism|Marxist]] [[dictatorship]] in the United States.<ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iRxZox4GFoIweckPDP1oRhKBlHOwD94CDDM80</ref><br />
<br />
=== Gun Control ===<br />
The term Liberal Totalitarianism extends to liberals' attempts to breach the [[Second Amendment]] by banning weapons. By removing guns, a government can remove citizens' ability to resist totalitarianism, as occurred in [[Nazi Germany]] and [[Soviet Russia]]. As Thomas Jefferson stated, "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."<br />
<br />
== See Also ==<br />
*[[Censorability]]<br />
*[[Hate Speech]]<br />
<br />
==Notes==<br />
<references /><br />
{{template:liberalism}}</div>Mikershttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexual_Agenda&diff=1035933Homosexual Agenda2013-02-22T21:41:25Z<p>Mikers: Extensive uncited claims and opinions tagged with the {{fact}} tag in compliance with the conservapedia manual of style.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Homosexuality}}<br />
The '''Homosexual Agenda''' is a set of beliefs and objectives designed to promote and even mandate acceptance and approval of homosexuality and [[Homosexuality|homosexual]] ideology{{fact}}, along with the strategies used to implement such. The goals and means of this movement include indoctrinating students in [[public school]]{{fact}}, restricting the free speech of opposition{{fact}}, obtaining [[special rights|special treatment]] for homosexuals{{fact}}, distorting Biblical teaching and science{{fact}}, and interfering with freedom of association{{fact}}. Advocates of the homosexual agenda seek special rights for [[homosexuals]] that other people don't have, such as immunity from criticism (see [[hate speech]], [[hate crime]]s){{fact}}. Such special rights will necessarily come [[zero-sum game|at the expense]] of the rights of broader society.{{fact}} '''''The homosexual agenda is the biggest threat to the right of [[free speech]] today.'''''{{fact}}<br />
<br />
President Barack Hussein [[Obama]] and nearly all [[Democrat]] politicians now advocate the homosexual agenda, reflecting the growing financial power of the homosexual network{{fact}}. Obama's self-centered obsession with his own reelection, and fundraising for his campaign, has caused him to create a national political issue out of this, rather than deal with other issues like the economy{{fact}}.<br />
<br />
'''''Among all the [[liberal]] belief systems, the homosexual ideology is the most self-centered or selfish''''' - unlike the vast charity performed by churches, homosexual charity can be considered an [[oxymoron]]{{fact}}<br />
<br />
Supreme Court Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] referred to the "so-called homosexual agenda" in ''[[Lawrence v. Texas]]'', 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (dissenting opinion). <br />
<br />
== The Homosexual Agenda ==<br />
<br />
Joseph P. Gudel, in ''That Which is Unnatural''<ref>[http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0108a.html "That Which is Unnatural" Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture] Part Two in a Two-Part Series on Homosexuality, from the Christian Research Journal, Winter 1993, page 8</ref> contended that the homosexual movement, <br />
<br />
:has been militantly demanding not just the homosexuals' right to do whatever they wish to do behind closed doors, but, more importantly, that society fully accept their lifestyle as both healthy and normal, even demanding special rights and legislation as an "oppressed minority." Gudel quotes various sources evidencing this. <br />
<br />
In a 1987 speech to the National Press Club in Washington, homosexual spokesperson Jeff Levi proclaimed, <br />
<br />
:We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right &#8212; as heterosexual Americans already have &#8212; to see government and society affirm our lives. <ref>Jeff Levi, in William Dannemeyer, Shadow in the Land (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1989), 86.</ref> <br />
<br />
In an article entitled "Gays on the March" in 1975, Time magazine quoted gay activist Barbara Gittings who stated: <br />
<br />
:What the homosexual wants, and here he is neither willing to compromise nor morally required to compromise &#8212; is acceptance of homosexuality as a way of life fully on a par with heterosexuality." In response, Time opined, "It is one thing to remove legal discrimination against homosexuals. It is another to mandate approval....It is this goal of full acceptance, which no known society past or present has granted to homosexuals, that makes many Americans apprehensive.<ref>Gays on the March," Time, 8 Sept. 1975, 43</ref> <br />
<br />
A primary goal of the homosexual agenda is to promote the lifestyle in [[public schools]].{{fact}} This occurred quickly and intensely after gay marriage was imposed in Massachusetts, where homosexual relationships are taught to children as young as kindergartners, as recounted by the decision of ''[[Parker v. Hurley]]''.<ref>The ''Parker v. Hurley'' decision explained, "In January 2005, when Jacob Parker ("Jacob") was in kindergarten, he brought home a 'Diversity Book Bag.' This included a picture book, Who's in a Family?, which depicted different families, including single-parent families, an extended family, interracial families, animal families, a family without children, and &#8212; to the concern of the Parkers &#8212; a family with two dads and a family with two moms. The book concludes by answering the question, 'Who's in a family?': 'The people who love you the most!' The book says nothing about marriage."</ref><br />
<br />
In a 1992 report by John Leo in U.S. News and World Report, he notes some books which were part of New York City's public school curriculum.{{fact}}<br />
<br />
The first-grade book, "Children of the Rainbow", stated on page 145, which states that teachers must "be aware of varied family structures, including...gay or lesbian parents," and "children must be taught to acknowledge the positive aspects of each type of household." {{fact}}Another children book is Heather Has Two Mommies, which is about a lesbian couple having a child through artificial insemination. Another book, Gloria Goes to Gay Pride, states, "Some women love women, some men love men, some women and men love each other. That's why we march in the parade, so everyone can have a choice."{{fact}}<br />
<br />
Leo commented, <br />
<br />
:A line is being crossed here; in fact, a brand new ethic is descending upon the city's public school system. The traditional civic virtue of tolerance (if gays want to live together, it's their own business) has been replaced with a new ethic requiring approval and endorsement (if gays want to live together, we must 'acknowledge the positive aspects' of their way of life).<ref>John Leo, "Heather Has a Message," U.S. News & World Report, 17 Aug. 1992, 16.</ref> <br />
<br />
Dr. Judith A. Reisman in her extensive ''Crafting “Gay” Children'',<ref>http://www.defendthefamily.com/_docs/resources/6390601.pdf</ref> reports that Harvard homosexual Toby Morotta, PhD, stated that in the 1970s, members of the Gay Activists Alliance - who were trained in the “zapping" of any who rebuffed homosexuality.<ref> Toby Marotta: THE POLITICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY: HOW LESBIANS AND GAY MEN HAVE MADE THEMSELVES A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL FORCE IN MODERN AMERICA, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1981 at 319</ref> And that these formed the “Gay Academic Union,” (GAU) which was made up of faculty and students in major universities. She states that the GAU has long fought for domination of its worldview within the academic community, and professional journals commonly assigned GAU and other homosexual peer reviewers to research touching on homosexuality, generally resulting in a quick death to possible unfavorable findings. <ref>See extensive reports in regular NARTH Bulletins as well as Ray Johnson, “American Psychology: The Political Science, at 53-57.</ref><br />
<br />
This and the general agenda is seen to be overall implementing a marketing strategy explained in a book called ''After the Ball,'' by [[gay rights]] activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in the late 1980s, in which a six-point plan was set forth as to how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior in a decade-long time frame:<br />
:"The agenda of homosexual activists is basically to change America from what they perceive as looking down on homosexual behavior, to the affirmation of and societal acceptance of homosexual behavior." <ref name="Winn07252003">''After the Ball'' (1989), quoted from Winn, Pete (7-25-2003) [ ''Q&A: The Homosexual Agenda''] Citizenlink</ref> "Thus propagandistic advertising can depict all opponents of the gay movement as homophobic bigots who are 'not Christian' and the propaganda can further show them [homosexuals]] as being criticized, hated and shunned..."<ref>After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen (Author) (p. 152-153)</ref><br />
<br />
[[Focus on the Family]] provides additional quotes from After the Ball, outlining key points of the homosexual agenda:<ref name="Winn07252003"/><ref>Kirk, Marshall K. and Erastes Pill (11-1987) ''The Overhauling of Straight America'' Available at [http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/overhauling.htm ''STRATEGIES OF THE HOMOSEXUAL MOVEMENT: "The Overhauling of Straight America"'']</ref><br />
<br />
#"Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible." (They use late night air waves and special channels, as well as their right to peacefully assemble to do so.)<br />
#"Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers." <br />
#"Give homosexual protectors a just cause." <br />
#"Make gays look good."<br />
#"Make the victimizers look bad." <br />
#"Get funds from corporate America."<br />
<br />
[[United States Supreme Court]] Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] wrote:<br />
{{cquote|Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.<ref>[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102#dissent1 ''LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS''] at findlaw.com</ref>}}<br />
<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_Eliason Vic Eliason] of [http://www.crosstalkamerica.com Crosstalk America] rightly points out that if all Americans turned homosexual it would only take a few generations for the United States to lose most of the population of the country through lack of procreation. This would make the US more vulnerable to attack by our enemies.<br />
<br />
== Specific goals ==<br />
<br />
The goals of the homosexual movement include:<br />
<br />
#Ignoring Christian morals and discouraging religiously based laws. {{fact}}<br />
#Reminding the world that marriage is a legal term and standing in the US, not a spiritual one as believed by Christians.{{fact}}<br />
#Ignore the clear message of the [[Bible]] that [[homosexuality]] is a sin and an abomination unto [[God]] because their first amendment rights allow them to.{{fact}}<br />
#Remind conservatives that there cannot be a gay gene, just like like there cannot be a "black gene" because complex things like these are caused by complex interactions between genes.{{fact}}<br />
#Censoring evidence that the "gay gene" is a hoax. After all, it would have to be multiple genes interacting together.<ref>[http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08a/born_gay_hoax/smith_0329/index.html ''Lesbian activists at Smith College riot, shut down Ryan Sorba speech on "The Born Gay Hoax" as police watch. See exclusive videos.''] Mass Resistance</ref><br />
#Censoring speech against homosexuality by branding it to be "hate-speech"<ref>[http://www.silencingchristians.com Video:Silencing Christians]</ref><ref>[http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2009/06/homosexuality-its-crime-in-england-to.html Homosexuality: It’s a Crime in England to State Christian Views]</ref><ref>[http://www.ccfon.org/view.php?id=745 Bishops fight for right to criticize homosexual lifestyle, 25th May 2009]</ref><br />
#Censoring biblical statements condemning homosexuality<ref>White, Hilary (04-21-2006) [http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/apr/06042105.html ''Court Upholds School Ban on "Homosexuality is Shameful" T-Shirt''] LifeSiteNews.com</ref> <br />
#Lobbying for equal employment rights.<ref>The Crimson Staff (10-13-2006) [http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=514950 ''A Box of Their Own?''] (opinion) The Crimson</ref><ref>www.afa.net, Homosexual Agenda Platforms from 1972 - 2000</ref><br />
#Expand hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation, which would be equally wrong for heterosexuals to do.<ref>Pelosi, Nancy Office of (09-28-2004) [http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Sept04/HateCrimes092804.html ''Pelosi: "Hate Crimes Prevention Legislation is Right Thing to Do, Long Overdue"''] From the office of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi</ref><br />
#Ending the military's and Boy Scout's restrictions on homosexuality<ref>''Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale'', 530 U.S. 640 (2000) (Boy Scouts); "Matlovich v. Secretary of the Air Force (591 F.2d 852, DC Circ. 1 978) (military)</ref><br />
#Stopping children as young as 5 years old from attending therapy to repair their sexual preference<ref>[http://www.thetaskforce.org/reports_and_research/youth_in_the_crosshairs National Gay and Lesbian Task Force:Youth in the Crosshairs]</ref><br />
#Teach tolerance of homosexuals in schools.{{fact}}<br />
#In places like Massachusetts and California, where the gay lobby is the strongest, it starts as early as preschool. They tell seven- or eight-year-old boys, "If you only like boys, there's a chance you may be homosexual," or "If you only like girls, maybe you are lesbian."{{fact}} Children at that age also do not have the hormones to experience sexual attraction, so they cannot understand this yet.<br />
#Demands protections from job discrimination. <ref>[http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/nondiscrimination/ENDA_main_page Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) | National Gay and Lesbian Task Force</ref><br />
#Suing an online dating website for discrimination. This was because sexual orientation is a federally protected group, as such, this company was breaking the law. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,454904,00.html Fox News - eHarmony to Provide Gay Dating Service after Lawsuit]</ref><br />
#Undermining the [[Essay:Quantifying_Mental_Strength|resolve]] of [[Homosexuality_and_choice#Choice_and_Genetics|latent homosexuals]] so that their will becomes too weak to resist the temptations of homosexuality<ref>http://www.thetaskforce.org/activist_center/resources_and_tools/challenge_exgay</ref><br />
#Pushing for legalized adoption by gay individuals and couples<ref>http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/parenting_and_family</ref><br />
#Indoctrination of public school children to support the homosexual agenda<br />
<br />
The state-by-state push for same-sex marriage can be viewed as a means to the above goals, or a goal in itself.<ref>[[Lewis v. Harris]]</ref> An example of this would be the recent New Hampshire law that makes same-sex civil unions legal.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/06/01/new_hampshire_law_makes_same_sex_civil_unions_legal/</ref><br />
<br />
Although notable gains toward achieving its goals continue to manifest, homosexual activists have recently been expressing a high level of dissatisfaction with the Obama administration. Commenting on such, Massresistance.org, an organization which opposes the homosexual agenda in [[Massachusetts]], noted that the President has, <br />
<br />
*signed an order extending federal benefits to same-sex partners.<br />
<br />
*pushed an extreme hate crimes bill in Congress.<br />
<br />
*declared his intention to repeal the Defense of Marriage.<br />
<br />
*pushed a pro-homosexual and transgender version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.<br />
<br />
*appointed homosexual activists to high level positions, including Harry Knox, of the homosexual lobby group Human Rights Campaign, and Kevin Jennings, founder of the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which educates kids in the public schools.<br />
<br />
*declared February to be "Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month."<br />
<br />
*Demanded the State Department allow gay couples to use their married names (from marriages or civil unions) on US passports.<ref>update@massresistance.org 6/24/2009 11:56 PM</ref><br />
<br />
=== Strategies and psychological tactics ===<br />
<br />
Homosexual activists are often seen as engaging in [[homosexual logic|specious argumentation]], such as attempts to controvert the consistent teaching of the Bible on homosexual relations (see [[homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]), and using false analogies, in order to gain acceptance of homosexuality. One common argument used by homosexual activists seeks to compare their quest for equal rights to that of others.<ref>Miner, Homosexuality, Civil Rights, and the Church</ref> This argument is countered by the observation that blacks were able to peacefully argue that mankind should not be "judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character"<ref>[http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm, Speech by Martin Luther King Jr.]</ref>, as the former yields no certain moral distinction. In contrast, homosexual activists seek acceptance of an immoral practice(s), and in addition, engage in certain coercive and manipulative means to do so. This includes the use of demonstrative protests, which appear to be designed to censure and intimidate those who oppose them in any way.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/socialsciences/sellinghomosexuality.html</ref><ref>http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89526</ref><ref>http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08c/Prop8/church_attacks.html</ref><ref>http://rebuildtheparty.ning.com/video/exodus-protest-park-street</ref><ref>http://theway2k.vox.com/library/post/homosexuals-persecuting-christians-and-mormons.html</ref><ref>http://www.hamiltonsquare.net/articlesRiotsSep1993.htm</ref><ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08050205.html</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95296</ref><ref>Muehlenberg, Bill, [http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2009/06/04/another-nail-in-the-christian-coffin/ Another Nail in the Christian Coffin], [[4 June]] [[2009]]</ref><ref>[http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09a/feder_0311/index.html Loud homosexual activists disrupt and halt Don Feder speech at UMass Amherst, despite police presence"]</ref> In addition, one pro-homosexual commentator recently took the homosexual community to task for being racist in their practice of homosexuality.<ref>LZ Granderson, ''Commentary: Gay is not the new black'', Cable News Network,July 16, 2009</ref> Another strategy used by supporters of the homosexual agenda is to publicly deny that such an agenda exists.<ref>[http://onug.us/content/christians-america-and-gay-agenda Christians, America, And The Gay Agenda]</ref><br />
<br />
While not all homosexuals agree with the use of deceptive psychological tactics, these have been promoted by leading homosexual activists. The aforementioned book, ''After the Ball'', is widely regarded as the handbook for the gay agenda, in which two Harvard-trained (homosexual) psychologists <ref>http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,152180,00.html</ref> Marshall Kirk (1957 - 2005) and Hunter Madsen (pen name ''Erastes Pill'', who was also schooled in social marketing) advocated avoiding portraying gays as aggressive challengers, but as victims instead, while making all those who opposed them to be evil persecutors. As a means of the latter, they promoted ''jamming,'' in which Christians, traditionalists, or anyone else who opposes the gay agenda are publicly smeared. Their strategy was based on the premise that, "In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector. The purpose of victim imagery is to make straight people feel very uncomfortable."<br />
<br />
"Jamming" [[homo-hatred]] (disagreement with [[homosexual behavior]]s) was to be done by linking it to [[Nazi horror]], advised Kirk and Madsen. Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered, hysterical backwoods preachers, menacing punks, and a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed. Thus, "propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths..."<ref>http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mbarber/080213</ref><ref>http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm</ref> <br />
<br />
Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, writes, <br />
<blockquote><br />
There can be no doubt that Christianity represents the greatest obstacle to the normalization of homosexual behavior. It cannot be otherwise, because of the clear biblical teachings concerning the inherent sinfulness of homosexuality in all forms, and the normativity of heterosexual marriage. In order to counter this obstacle, Kirk and Madsen advised gays to "use talk to muddy the moral waters, that is, to undercut the rationalizations that 'justify' religious bigotry and to jam some of its psychic rewards." How can this be done? "This entails publicizing support by moderate churches and raising serious theological objections to conservative biblical teachings." [The latter of which attempts [[homosexuality and biblical interpretation]] examine and expose.]<ref> [http://web.archive.org/web/20070927163416/http://www.gender-news.com/other.php?id=19 ''After the Ball--Why the Homosexual Movement Has Won,''] Thursday, June 3rd, 2004</ref><br />
</blockquote> <br />
<br />
Kirk and Madsen's open admission of their deceptive tactics is noted as most revealing: [O]ur effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof. "...the person's beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not"<ref>After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s, p. 152-153 (1989, Doubleday/Bantam)</ref> “The campaign we outline in this book, though complex, depends centrally upon a program of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long-established principles of psychology and advertising.”<ref>Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay’s in the 90s, p.xxvi</ref><ref>[http://banap.net/ Behavior and Not a Person]</ref> <br />
<br />
Similarly, author Robert Bauman additionally records: "It makes no difference that the ads are lies... because were using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones."<ref>The Gentleman from Maryland: The Conscience of a gay Conservative, by Robert Bauman, 1986, page 163.</ref><br />
<br />
The need for Kirk and Madsen to engage in such manipulation may be seen as being due to their sober realization of the nature of the homosexual lifestyle. <br />
<br />
“In short, the gay lifestyle - if such a chaos can, after all, legitimately be called a lifestyle - it just doesn’t work: it doesn’t serve the two functions for which all social framework evolve: to constrain people’s natural impulses to behave badly and to meet their natural needs. While it’s impossible to provide an exhaustive analytic list of all the root causes and aggravants of this failure, we can asseverate at least some of the major causes. Many have been dissected, above, as elements of the Ten Misbehaviors; it only remains to discuss the failure of the gay community to provide a viable alternative to the heterosexual family.”<ref>Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay’s in the 90s, p.363</ref><br />
<br />
David Kupelian, author of ''The Marketing of Evil,'' describes Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, stating, <br />
<blockquote><br />
Kirk and Madsen were not the kind of drooling activists that would burst into churches and throw condoms in the air. They were smart guys – very smart. Kirk, a Harvard-educated researcher in neuropsychiatry, work with the Johns Hopkins Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth and designed aptitude tests for adults with 200+ IQs. Madsen, with a doctorate in politics from Harvard, was an expert on public persuasion tactics and social marketing.<ref>http://pearl-diving.blogspot.com/2009/01/sold-on-homosexuality-marketing-of-evil.html</ref><br />
</blockquote> <br />
<br />
Marshall Kirk died in 2005 at the age of 47.<ref>http://www.americanancestors.org/PageDetail.aspx?recordId=134544248</ref> The cause of death has not been publicly revealed.<br />
<br />
Often cited as an early example of such tactics was the role of homosexual activists in persuading the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-II). Dr. Ronald Bayer, though being himself a pro-homosexual psychiatrist, described this removal as being the result of power politics, threats, and intimidation, rather than any new scientific discoveries.<ref>[http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/eleven.php Exposed: The Myth That Psychiatry Has Proven That Homosexual Behavior Is Normal]</ref> In so doing, like slavery before it, the homosexual agenda is seen to threaten basic freedoms, principally the First Amendment.<ref>Adams, Guy (11-8-2008) [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mormon-stars-face-backlash-after-gay-marriage-ban-1003967.html ''Mormon stars face backlash after gay marriage ban''] The Independent</ref> <br />
<br />
The charge of [[homophobia]] has also been increasingly evidenced as being part of a means of intimidation used in promoting the homosexual agenda. Due to what homophobia has been made to denote, that of being a repressed homosexual, or possessing an irrational fear of being approached by homosexuals, or of being a bigot persecuting victims, the widespread use of the term "homophobic" attaches a powerful stigma to anyone who may even conscientiously oppose the practice of homosexuality, thus silencing many who might otherwise object to it.<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/1995papers/socarides.html Thought Reform And The Psychology of Homosexual Advocacy<br />
Charles W. Socarides, M.D.]</ref><br />
<br />
In relation to such oppression, psychologist Nicholas Cummings, former president of the American Psychological Association (APA), observed, "Homophobia as intimidation is one of the most pervasive techniques used to silence anyone who would disagree with the gay activist agenda." As an example of such fear within the APA, in addressing 100 fellow professionals Cummings related that while writing "Destructive Trends in Mental Health," with psychologist Rogers Wright, a number of fellow psychologists were invited to participate. However, these flatly turned them down, as they feared loss of tenure, loss of promotion, and other forms of professional retaliation. "We were bombarded by horror stories," Dr. Cummings said. "Their greatest fear was of the gay lobby, which is very strong in the APA.<ref>[Psychology Losing Scientific Credibility, Say APA Insiders http://www.narth.com/docs/insiders.html]</ref><br />
<br />
Noted homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein, in his article, ''The Gay Agenda stated'': "Homophobic inclinations alone, even without any actions, should be criminal and punishable to the full extent of the law."{{fact}}<br />
<br />
Erik Holland, author of ''The Nature of Homosexuality'', perceives that homosexuals have become so reckless in labeling others homophobic that "anyone who questions their labeling someone [is] a homophobe himself. Even quoting factual statistics about the connection between homosexuality and AIDS is allegedly homophobic." In addition, according to pro-homosexual author Vernon A. Wall, "even acceptance of homosexuality can be seen as a form of homophobia, because to talk about the acceptance of homosexuality is to imply that there is something about homosexuality that needs acceptance."<ref>http://www.homosexinfo.org/Homophobia/HomePage</ref> <br />
<br />
It may be speculated that if the liberal use of the term homophobia is not primarily a psychological tactic, then it indicates a psychological condition on the part of those who use it in which they imagine that those who oppose them are fearful of them, or of being one{{fact}}<br />
<br />
===Influence in the academic world===<br />
<br />
Professor Jerry Z. Muller described in an article titled ''First Things'' (Aug/Sept. 1993) how the homosexual lobby has gained widespread acceptance in the educational realm. <br />
{{cquote|[Their] strategy has been remarkably successful. With a rapidity largely attributable in large part to a total lack of articulate resistance, homosexual ideology has gained an unquestioned and uncontested legitimacy in American academic life. Within the academy, as within nonacademic elite culture, the definition of opposite to homosexuality as "homophobia - a definition which implies that it is impossible to give good reasons for the cultural disapproval of homosexuality - is the best evidence of the success of this strategy.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=cbfVg_1qhe0C&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&dq=David+W.+Virtue+scots+college&source=bl&ots=aDW7a615Gn&sig=Y1cLsx5sCQTgUUDJ88b5AKPRkNg&hl=en&ei=8skISpP1AcGktgfi2PzsCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPR14,M1 Homosexuality, by F. Earle Fox, David W. Virtue, p. 12]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Opposing Christian Agenda ==<br />
<br />
Liberals are critical of Christian groups that oppose homosexuality. These criticisms include Christian activities of:<br />
<br />
*Threatening to shut Salvation Army soup kitchens in New York if they cannot exclude homosexuals from employment <ref>[http://chicago.gopride.com/news/article.cfm/ArticleID/1824489]Salvation Army Uses Homeless To Fight Gay Benefits </ref><br />
*Encouraging email activism<br />
*Producing and disseminating gay reform information<br />
*Influencing local media in what stories they produce<br />
*Lobbying local, state and federal government officials to vote in the desired way on pending legislation<ref>[http://www.cwfa.org/about.asp Concerned Women For America] About page</ref><br />
*Calling anyone who supports gay rights a 'sinner' or other untrue insults.<br />
<br />
==Opponents of the Homosexual Agenda ==<br />
Some well known individuals/groups in the [[United States]] who actively oppose the homosexual agenda are: [[Focus on the Family]], [[Peter LaBarbera]]'s American's for Truth, the [[Traditional Values Coalition]] ([[Louis Sheldon]] is a chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition), and [[Matt Barber]] of [[Concerned Women of America]].<br />
<br />
==Further reading==<br />
*[http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/lively.html Homosexuality and the Nazi Party] by Scott Lively. Excellent discussion of the anti-Christian and homosexual origins of the Nazism.<br />
*[http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/hsx/ Documentation of the links between homosexuals and the Nazis] by the Government of Israel. <br />
*[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPCollectionNews.asp?ID=131 2008 McDonald's and the Homosexual Agenda], Baptist Press<br />
*[http://www.couplescompany.com/FEATURES/politics/2004/Selling%20Homosexuality.pdf Paul E. Rondeau, Selling homosexuality to America (PDF)] [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/730694/posts Or html form]<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[ACT-UP]]<br />
*[[Anti-Defamation League]]<br />
*[[Homosexual belief system]]<br />
*[[Gay rights]]<br />
*[[Homophobia]]<br />
*[[Hate speech]], [[Hate crime]]<br />
*[[Homosexual logic]], used to justify and promote the homosexual agenda<br />
*[[Homosexuality]]<br />
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]<br />
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]<br />
*[[Homosexualization]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
<br />
{{liberalism}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]<br />
[[Category:Homosexuality]]<br />
[[Category: Liberal Deceit]]</div>Mikershttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=1035928User talk:Ed Poor2013-02-22T21:07:29Z<p>Mikers: /* Posts on an article. */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div>Archive: <br />
[[/1|1]] <br />
[[/2|2]] <br />
[[/3|3]]<br />
[[/4|4]]<br />
[[/5|5]]<br />
[[/6|6]]<br />
[[/7|7]]<br />
[[/8|8]]<br />
[[/9|9]]<br />
[[/10|10]]<br />
[[/11|11]]<br />
[[/12|12]]<br />
[[/13|13]]<br />
[[/14|14]]<br />
[[/15|15]]<br />
[[/16|16]]<br />
[[/17|17]]<br />
[[/18|18]]<br />
----<br />
<br />
[[Image:Ed poor grinning.jpg|right|thumb|114px|Ed Poor on campus]]<br />
<br />
<!-- New comments at the bottom, please. --><br />
<br />
<br />
== Writing Plan ==<br />
<br />
Hello Mr. Poor,<br />
I would like to submit a writing plan. While I haven't been asked for one, I feel this would best help keep me on task and contribute the most productively. You seem to know an awful lot about this wiki stuff, and I'm still new at it, so if you could help me that would be great.<br />
I think I'd first like to help contribute to the various book articles around the site by adding in examples of the influence of Christianity, as a lot of books have Christian overtones that aren't currently listed. I'm thinking I'd like to start by drawing parallels between the story of Jesus in the Gospels with One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Please let me know if this would be acceptable.--[[User:JeremiahJ|JeremiahJ]] 18:10, 6 January 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Probably not. Please email me a draft. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 20:02, 17 January 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Request ==<br />
<br />
Hello Mr. Poor, I have submitted a request [[Talk:Atheism#Addition_of_Information_on_Charity_and_External_Links_Request|here]] but it was never attended to. Could you please have a look at it? Thanks, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]]<sup>[[User talk:Anupam|Talk]]</sup> 23:19, 28 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Image Upload Request ==<br />
<br />
Hello Ed Poor, I hope this message finds you doing well. I was wondering if you could upload [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Young_Galaxy_Accreting_Material.jpg this image] for use in the article I recently created. I look forward to hearing your response. Thanks, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]]<sup>[[User talk:Anupam|Talk]]</sup> 03:32, 7 March 2011 (EST)<br />
:Hello Ed Poor, could you please add [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] to [[Template:Nb Atheism|this template]]? I really appreciate it! With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]]<sup>[[User talk:Anupam|Talk]]</sup> 11:14, 7 March 2011 (EST)<br />
::Hello Ed Poor, I need two more images for the article I created which are available [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Independent_assortment_%26_segregation.svg here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John_Lennox.jpg here]. Recently, [[User:JMR10]] uploaded my previous one, for which I am thankful. Could you ask him to do the same for these two or could you please do these for me? I highly appreciate it. Thanks, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]]<sup>[[User talk:Anupam|Talk]]</sup> 19:40, 7 March 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
== I seem to have messed up the Ada article ==<br />
<br />
My proxy keeps dropping stuff, so the picture at the top is busted. Also, I had to cut down the reference, because the captcha can't make it through. It should have a left bracket, and h,t,t,p, etc., and a right bracket after the "pdf". I wonder if you could please fix it for me. I will contact Andy about getting my IP range restored.<br />
<br />
What I was going to put in the talk page (and will do once things get straightened out) is that the two cited articles are very shallow, having only 7 and 3 sentences, respectively. They both refer to a "plan", but that's because the word "program" hadn't been coined in the computer context. She really was the first person to write "code".<br />
<br />
I'm sorry about this. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:08, 5 April 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I read her notes, and it doesn't look like a [[computer program]] to me. A charitable view might be that it's a [[specification|spec]], but there's no flowchart and no [[source code]]. Don't be sorry, just get it right. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 18:21, 5 April 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
What did you expect this "source code" to look like? The term "source code" implies both a programming language and "machine code" that the source code is assembled or compiled into. Assemblers, compilers, and programming languages wouldn't be invented for another hundred years (by Grace Murray Hopper, John Backus, and others.) The same goes for the other accoutrements of modern software development, like flow charts and specifications. In fact, even the terms "software" and "program" hadn't been invented.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, assuming that you accept that she had to write "machine code", what would you expect machine code to look like for a machine that reads its instructions with rods poking through holes in large punched cards running around on a track, and does its arithmetic by counting teeth on turning gears? It wouldn't look much like Intel 586 code.<br />
<br />
The fact is, the lines of Ada's written algorithm were intended to be punched into lines of holes in Babbage's cards, once the "analytical engine" was built, which it wasn't.<br />
<br />
By the way, what I was being "sorry" for was not the content of my edit, but the fact that an extremely buggy proxy messed up the article and wouldn't let me fix it, despite several tries. Andy has been working with me to fix the network problems, and DMorris fixed the broken picture and hyperlink while my access was broken. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 20:39, 6 April 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Then it would be more accurate to say that she described an algorithm. That's not the same as a computer program, even if she was hoping that Babbage's machine might be programmed to carry out the algorithm.<br />
<br />
:An encyclopedia should be precise and unbiased, not used to create "factoids" for use in publicity campaigns, such as promoting [[women in science]]. <br />
<br />
:I don't say she had to write machine code, but rather to be the "first programmer" she would have had to produce a [[computer program]]. If you have seen it, please show it to me. Otherwise, I'm going to make an editorial decision that she produced an algorithm rather than a program. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:18, 7 April 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:*Let's say that [[Ada Lovelace]] wrote one of the first comprehensive descriptions of an algorithm to generate [[Bernoulli numbers]]. But until I see the actual sequence of instructions, including [[if-then]] or [[loop control]] statements, I'd hesitate to call it an actual [[computer program]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:17, 17 May 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==The anti-Semitism of liberals==<br />
I love how libs reveal their true selves. No matter what we say or do in describing them, they come here just to confirm it all. So when they want to emphasize "Jew" in "karajou", I'll be more then happy to get a gold Magen David to wear around my neck, join my brothers and sisters in the synagogue every week, and show everyone else just how hate-filled and intolerant these liberals really are. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:20, 12 April 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Please help! ==<br />
<br />
Hi! I tried to add the information for Edo to the Tokyo article and for some reason,. it stripped a bunch of stuff out when I saved. Now when I try and revert the edit I made, I keep getting a internal server 500 error. Please can you revert for me? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:19, 14 April 2011 (EDT)<br />
:It's ok, I fixed it! [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:30, 14 April 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm glad it worked out for you. My Japanese name is "Edo". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:04, 14 April 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Nice speed on reverts ==<br />
<br />
You beat me to every one! Nicely done--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 20:05, 24 April 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Thanks. I'll pass that on to my secret bot. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 20:10, 24 April 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Thanks for noticing me ==<br />
<br />
I must be doing something right. Every time I mention alternate viewpoints, and no one sees fit to revert my edits, I get vandalism to my talk page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:48, 10 June 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Jeb Bush ==<br />
<br />
I'm trying to reorganize the information, not leave it out. If you notice, I'm working on the article quite a bit. May I please revert your revision? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:05, 14 June 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Sure. I'm frequently too bold and hasty. And that's the wonderful thing about a wiki. Nothing is ever really deleted; it's all in the article history. Go for it! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:09, 14 June 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Technical question ==<br />
<br />
I'm lobbying for a separate namespace for the Conservapedia Bible Project. The idea is that each verse gets its own ''article'', which can be used rather as a template. I see a couple of advantages:<br />
*verses can be quoted more easily: instead of copying the whole verse, only a short link (like <nowiki>{{:CBP:John 20:8}}</nowiki> ) is neccessary to get a neat result: <nowiki>{{:CBP:John 20:8}}</nowiki><br />
*thereby, the use of the CBP is encouraged over other translations.<br />
*if there is a change in the CBP, the afflicted verses don't have to be tracked down manually, but the change is applied automatically throughout the wiki.<br />
<br />
To accomplish this, a new namespace has to be created. That shouldn't be too difficult, as there are only a few exemplary pages prefixed with ''CBP:'' at this moment.<br />
<br />
But after this, the namespace has to be filled with the existing translated verses. My question: is your bot up to this task?<br />
<br />
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:53, 8 July 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== madonna ==<br />
<br />
Hi, please strongly reconsider your desire to create a "kinder article." In stating that madonna is a person who has changed to being more spiritual you are buying to the liberal media's lies. It sounds like a madonna fan attempting to weave their bias in, which of course you are not. I think you may want to do more research, and read my recent additions as she is still, if not more so, a wicked and hateful person who has sucked millions of children into raunchy culture, dated murderers and mocked our Lord Jesus Christ who gave his life for us. Madonna deserves only the truth.[[User:Legolas2186|Legolas2186]] <sup>[[User talk:Legolas2186|Talk]]</sup> 13:14, 14 July 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:And I just had a long conversation with some Wikipedians in Central Park last month, about whether CP is more neutral than WP. Now you want "conservative bias" to denounce [[Madonna Ciccone]]? Not even Wikipedia's BLP policy would allow that. <br />
<br />
:I wonder whether you are a liberal '''tempting me''' to add bias, just so you can accuse us of being biased. Well, if so, I choose not to cooperate, my dear elf. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:45, 14 July 2011 (EDT)<br />
::I think Legolas here might be a parodist. Would you mind looking into him? [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:12, 15 July 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Ed, your compassion sounds a little misplaced to me. Do you also visit the Fred Phelps, Bernie Madoff, Ted Bundy, and Charles Manson pages asking people for some "Christian charity" to tone those down too? Look into me all you want please. I dislike Madonna because she has mocked our lord Jesus Christ. Conservative people have respect for Christ end of story. The reason society has degraded is by giving raunchy people like madonna a free pass and pity. I'm the one who wants to print the ACTUAL history of madonna that the liberal media has left out such her dating the felon Chris Paciello. I only want the truth about her in the article. Why is that so bad? I thought this was the one place that might allow the truth.[[User:Legolas2186|Legolas2186]] <sup>[[User talk:Legolas2186|Talk]]</sup> 10:34, 17 July 2011 (EST)<br />
:Ed, can you please look into this guy? He is an obvious parodist. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 15:55, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br />
First of all - Ed is a senior sysop at this site - I don't know why a few of you have taken upon yourself to post on [[User talk:Aschlafly|Andy's talk page]] when Ed is more than capable of dealing with an alleged parodist on his own. Secondly, just because he is posting radical things on a talk page does not make him a parodist. Looking at his contributions, you ''could'' argue that he is edit warring, but since Ed is simultaneously the user in the revert war and an admin, it is up to his judgement as to whether or not a block is deserving. Your collective alarmism has now spread across three talk pages. That's enough.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 16:00, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br />
::@NickP, your very.... quick to call somebody else a parodist. Why not leave that to the pro.'s to decide?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:06, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::Several others have also pointed out the fact that he acts very suspicious. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:13, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br />
::::Saying he "acts suspicious" and saying he's a 100% no way im wrong about this Parodist is two completely different things.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:16, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I prefer what Wikipedia old-timers used to call "soft security". Just help me fix the articles in question. Everything will sort itself out. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 23:34, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==EdBot==<br />
Ed, I left three (actually six) problem Categories that need some sort of merging at [[User_talk:EdBot]]. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:56, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Sorry, EdBot did not survive the MediaWiki upgrades. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:21, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br />
::Does that mean it's all got to be done manually? Moving 200 entries into another Category?<br />
<br />
:::Only if they really have to be moved. (Meanwhile, if anyone has an idea how a bot can "log in" with the new MediaWiki software, let me know.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:33, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Creating_a_bot#Logging_in This] should help. Indeed, the whole [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Creating_a_bot page] is quite interesting. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:40, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== A request concerning recent events ==<br />
<br />
Hi Ed,<br />
<br />
I'm very sorry to come to you with this, but I honestly don't know where else to turn at this point. You have always struck me as the voice of reason and level-headedness here.<br />
<br />
Simply put: the current altercation on Andy's talk page is out of control. I recognize that I have no authority to tell sysops what they should or shouldn't do, but it seems to me that basic common courtesy calls for not filling up Andy's talk page with arguments and accusations. Moreover, the very public nature of the dispute is encouraging other users to join in. Some of them are doubtless sincere; others, I suspect, may in fact be parodists seeking to fan the flames (I notice a LOT of recently created accounts.) <br />
<br />
Regardless, the fact remains that Andy's talk page has been turned into a general forum for accusations and arguments. At this point, it's degenerated to the level where people are making absolutely vicious personal attacks against certain of the participants. (Kudos to JamesWilson for promptly reverting the most egregious of these.)<br />
<br />
You know the other sysops better than most of us; you talk to them; I would certainly hope they trust and respect your opinion. Is there anything you can do to persuade them to take a step back, cool down, and wait for Andy to respond at this point? Everyone involved has made their positions clear; further acrimony can serve no useful purpose.<br />
<br />
I'm sorry to trouble you with this, but I really feel that this is both inconsiderate to Andy and deleterious to the Conservapedia project as a whole.<br />
<br />
Respectfully,<br />
<br />
--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:05, 28 July 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Thanks for the vote of confidence, but shouldn't I check with Andy before barging in? It may be that he prefers to let everyone air their opinions. It is not just his courage but his wisdom and compassion that attracted me to this project. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:59, 5 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==[[User:MRellek]]==<br />
Ed, per the site owner, Administrators [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=892763 "instructions...are to be followed"] is no longer operable. I have emailed you a copy of Mr. Schlafly's approval. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:32, 6 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Oh, sorry. I was hasty. Feel free to unban MRellek, if you feel I was out of line. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:32, 6 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::Thank you, Ed. I'm trying to get the other sysops to do more warnings & shorter blocks; let's get a sense of community here. After all, we've known many of these editors (the RW neighbors) for several years now. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:37, 6 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel ==<br />
<br />
Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel. I invited someone to edit Conservapedia and they were blocked and they should not have been. I got the block overturned. So I think there is room for improvement in Conservapedia's blocking policy. You can sign up [[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. I invited active Syops/Admins plus people with blocking rights who might wish to be Sysops. If I left anyone out, please let them know about the panel. The people with blocking rights can sign up [[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. The panel will probably convene when Iduan is back from his summer vacation or fairly soon afterwards. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:47, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I think I got signed up somehow, after jumping into a discussion. <br />
<br />
:Can we have non-sysops on the panel? I'd like to invite a friend from Wikipedia to join it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 18:00, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== If I understand correctly, you are the local math expert. ==<br />
<br />
If so, maybe you can take a look at [[Relativistic mass|this]] and some of that editor's other contributions. They seem pretty obscure/specialized for the general reader, to me, at least. Thanks! [[User:MrMorganH|MrMorganH]] 10:15, 14 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Not an expert, but I know a lot about high school math. Andy's brother knows much more than I do. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:55, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Revert ==<br />
<br />
Good morning (afternoon?) Ed, why was my comment reverted? I can't see why it should be? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:54, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Gosh, you're quick on the trigger. See your talk page for my response. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:58, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::I am indeed quick on the trigger, I like Westerns you see..:-) I have responded to you on my talk-page and re asked the question in a more cordial manner. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:59, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun ==<br />
<br />
The panel proceeding have begun here: [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings]] You can start making your edits to the page should you wish to do so. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:59, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Farewell ==<br />
<br />
Ed, in all sincerity you are by far the most interesting person I have met at Conservapedia. I regret that we couldn't get along better, though we did manage to improve a number of things. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:12, 18 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:We'd have gotten along better if we more goals in common. Building a trustworthy encyclopedia apparently was not one of them.<br />
<br />
:In [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=893745 this drive by attack] you dodged my request for specific instances of the problem you complained of. (Note: saying "all of them" is a a typical liberal dodge. That's like global warming alarmists saying, "Just look at the temperature record; the evidence is all there."<br />
<br />
:For those listening in to this fascinating drama, the difference between real science and liberal junk science is that real scientists provide examples of what they're talking about, so that anyone can check it out and see for themselves. Liberals and other pseudoscientists '''pretend''' that they've already made the point.<br />
<br />
:It reminds me of Japan, which always (1) says that it "already apologized" for the [[comfort women]] episode while steadfastly (2) refusing ever to admit that it did anything wrong. They are hoping we'll all be too polite to mention that #1 contradicts #2. <br />
<br />
:Nice try on the parting shot, but your pretense of trying oh so hard fools no one. You're always welcome to come back if you '''ever''' choose to help this project instead of undermining it with trickery. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:41, 19 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Pontiac==<br />
Hi Ed, thanks for your help archiving my page. I know you are very experienced with Wikis, but I was wondering why you removed what I wrote about the government shut down of Pontiac destroying American history. A lot of people were really upset about Pontiac's closure and there are lots of websites and articles proving this, why can't it be in the article? I will differ to your judgement because you are so experienced, but just want to understand your reasoning. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 22:46, 19 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:It can't be in the article until you find a way to make it trustworthy. Use references. You can't just write stuff off the top of your head, because you are not an established author. You are in fact an anonymous person, and we don't even know whether Craig is your real name. <br />
<br />
:If there's a lot of proof for your assertion, be sure to provide references, like:<br />
:*The New York Times reported that after GM was taken over by the government, brands like Saturn and Pontiac were sold or eliminated (link and/or date)<br />
<br />
:If you need help formatting references, lots of people here can help. But '''you''' must supply them. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:43, 20 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
==Pictures==<br />
Hi Ed, how do I add pictures? --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 16:08, 20 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:You can't add pictures, until you've made enough useful contributions to earn upload rights. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:34, 20 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::In addition, Craig, you can use [[Conservapedia:Image upload requests]] until you earn uploading privileges. A Sysop will do it for you.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:59, 20 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::Ok, I'll work even harder to earn my rights! I also wanted to apologize for being so familiar, my mom pointed out that I should be calling you Mr. Poor. I always call adults by their last names in real life, but on the internet I usually forget. Also thanks Mr. Wilson for your advice about upload requests. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 13:24, 21 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::::No worries. I wouldn't mind if you called me James or Jim, but I'm glad your mother has taught you well. Also, you will need a lot more work to earn uploading privileges, just so you know. Happy editing in the meantime!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 14:21, 21 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Edit conflict ==<br />
<br />
Just got edit conflicted by you on the Morse code page - what are the odds we'd both be working on it! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:19, 24 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:One thought leads to another ... not such long odds. Sorry about stepping on your work. Feel free to revert, and I'll recover later. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:22, 24 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::Its all OK, I added my work to your version. Great minds think alike, more like an average mind in my case but you catch my drift...:-) [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:24, 24 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== signature ==<br />
<br />
I hope you don't mind, but I borrowed the format of your signature to use for my own. It's simple and to the point, but looks nice as well, so I thought I would use it as well. Thank you! [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] <sup>[[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]]</sup> 16:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I copied mine from someone else, so "[[Pay It Forward]]." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:27, 27 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::Oh, ok. Thanks for letting me know! [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] <sup>[[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]]</sup> 09:23, 28 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== like wikipedia? ==<br />
<br />
i looked up [[milk]] and [[butter]] how is this conserivtive? is it like wikipedia at all what can i add? ty. --[[User:Rainbowboiz|Rainbowboiz]] 00:35, 28 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Not unless your spelling improves. And we are not so much "conservative" as [[trustworthy]]. Unlike Wikipedia, we really do try to avoid political bias. Add anything that is correct and useful. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:17, 28 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Meat Loaf ==<br />
<br />
I know his stage name is much better known (I'm writing the article on him, obviously), but wouldn't you think using the subject's real name is more appropriate for an encyclopedia? If you think the article should be titled under his stage name, you're the boss, but I thought I might want to point that out. Thanks!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 11:14, 1 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage ==<br />
<br />
Please help me as I am fairly new to this wiki. I have attempted to propose a discussion for deletion on this particular page. Before disccussing this, I have followed the instructions on templates via the help index [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Articles_for_deletion]] to add it to a discussion for deletion but this does not seem to work so I have not proceded further - with hindsight I should have guessed there was something wrong by the lack of entries on this page. <br />
My reason for wishing to commence this discussion is that I suspect the article (created by a user who does not appear to have an active talk page) seems to me to be parody and trolling to debase the credibility of this project. In my opinion, most of the logic followed in nearly every assertion is spurious and often uses blatant synthesis that a ten year old could question. It is to such an extent that I don't think an "improved" version would be posible. Of course, others may have different oppinions which is why I am trying to be fair and open it for rational discussion. What is the correct procedure? Thank you in advance - answer to my talk page [[User:DavidMilton|DavidMilton]] 19:54, 7 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I'm not sure what the correct procedure is. Maybe you could post on the talk page, showing a few examples of "spurious" assertions. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:46, 7 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Ok I can do this, but I'm surprised that hte Help feature supplies a redundant page on discoussing articles for deletion. I was also under the impression that you had Sysop/Admin powers and would be familiar with such policies as it is a feature on other wikis. [[User:DavidMilton|DavidMilton]] 13:31, 8 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Actually I know policy fairly well and do have Sysop/Admin powers. Either provide the requested examples, or drop the matter. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:47, 10 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Sid 3050 ==<br />
<br />
Sid 3050 was blocked for three month for ''trolling''. The only edit he made during the day before his block seems to be to answer to your question in a section above (''So, will it go away if you ignore it?'') - see his [[Special:Contributions/Sid 3050|list of contributions]]. You had personally addressed this comment (''But I'll take a look at Sid's material below now, just to be a good sport.''), so you should be able to judge whether such a comment is ''trolling''. Could you please review Sid's block? In a timely fashion? Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:17, 15 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Sid was trolling. Whether this justifies a three month block is up to the admin in question. <br />
<br />
:I'm always open to suggestions for making Conservapedia more trustworthy. If you have anything specific in mind, please speak up.<br />
<br />
:Of particular interest to me would be any material relating to the contrast between conservative and liberal viewpoints on American political issues, as well as philosophy, religion and science. To my regret, repeated invitations to include users who are ideological opponents of this project have not met with an enthusiastic response. It's almost as if they wish to conceal their ideological differences; ironically, this could be seen as self-censorship. <br />
<br />
:If anyone wants to describe liberal POV here they may, provided only that it is clearly labeled as such - not presented as gospel. This should not be an onerous requirement: it's the same as Wikipedia's NPOV policy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:42, 15 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Vandalism ==<br />
<br />
Help! A user called CortA is currently vandalising articles. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:15, 15 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:OK, Andy blocked him. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:17, 15 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Misled by RonLar ==<br />
<br />
I was quite astonished by your last actions. I slept over it and want to clarify my earlier remark.<br />
<br />
*I'd appreciate if you would be less generous with your slight innuendos (''"thanks for nothing!"'', ''"misled by RonLar"''): these make it difficult to assume ''good faith'' on your side. And they have the annoying tendency to backfire...<br />
<br />
*my statement ''"Where is the right place to propose an alternative viewpoint? Surely not in the article itself, but on its talk-page. This is a simple necessity for all protected articles, but a good idea for most of those articles some sysops feel strongly about."'' is hardly misleading - even though it is not written by a native speaker! In fact, it is echoing the sentiments of Conservapedia's [[Conservapedia:Editing etiquette|editing etiquettes]]:<br />
<br />
:::* '''You should discuss changes made by an Administrator before reverting their edits. Administrators are charged with seeing that article content is in line with Conservapedia guidelines. [[Edit war]]ring with an Administrator usually results in a temporary block.'''<br />
:::* '''You should not alter the editorial content of an article away from a [[conservative]], or [[Christian]], or [[family friendly]] "tone" without discussing proposed changes on the talk page.'''<br />
:::*'''Never make substantial edits to an article without discussing your changes first on the talk page. If you have a reasonable expectation that other editors will accept your change(s), the changes are just formatting / copy editing, you should proceed.'''<br />
<br />
*Inserting an alternative viewpoint is most certainly a ''substantial edit'' - and the etiquettes advise you to discuss such an edit at first on the talk-page.<br />
<br />
*So, I made a true statement, in accordance with Conservapedia's policy on editing, and you '''misread''' it. To reiterate: You weren't '''misled''', you simply '''misread''' it. And this misunderstanding (of your part) you took as a reason to erase the whole section and seemingly not to read the rest of my comment? Deleting a section on censorship is always a little bit ironic... <br />
<br />
*BTW: whether the article is protected or not is not of any interest for the discussion of censorship! A library does not only censor the books it throws from it shelves, but the books it doesn't allow into it shelves in the first place!<br />
<br />
*I put the whole section up [[User:RonLar|here]], so you can read it carefully again. Take your time, but nevertheless, react timely - you said that would be important....<br />
<br />
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 12:05, 16 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
:At this point, I think it's become abundantly clear that complaining about censorship will get you nowhere. I realize users will come up and be frustrated by certain site traditions, but that's just the way Conservapedia is run, RonLar.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 13:41, 16 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Sorry, I thought you were saying the article was protected. <br />
<br />
::Also, I'm astonished to think that you consider adding alternative viewpoints to be something that has to be '''cleared''' with a sysop first. My understanding of project policy is that all contributors are free to describe non-conservative, non-Christian views ... especially on an article describing a controversy between the two sides. <br />
<br />
::Has someone told you you can't describe the liberal or secular viewpoint on some topic? (Or did you try to sneak in such a viewpoint without proper attribution)? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <br />
<sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:38, 16 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::*Apology accepted. Perhaps you could revert your reaction to this misunderstanding by reintroducing the section which you erased from your talk-page?<br />
:::*Please read [[User:RonLar#Again, the previous example of ideological censorship, in detail]] - all of it, not only the first sentence. This should answer some of your questions.<br />
:::*Please address the incident which I mentioned there.<br />
:::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 16:56, 16 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Eh? I thought you wanted help. Please answer my question: Has someone told you you can't describe the liberal or secular viewpoint on some topic? (Or did you try to sneak in such a viewpoint without proper attribution)? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 20:39, 17 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::How is it a sensible use of my time to answer new questions when you seem to ignore my answers to your old ones? Please remember your statements:<br />
:::::{{Cquote|<br />
:::::''Unless you can show at least one diff, where a senior editor censored something ... merely because it disagreed with some conservative shibboleth ... than you ought to stop saying this. I address this not so much to you, as to those who follow you or travel alongside you.'' }}<br />
:::::and<br />
:::::{{Cquote|<br />
:::::''I asked for an instance of ideological censorship.''}}<br />
:::::Well, you find it here: [[User:RonLar#Again.2C_the_previous_example_of_ideological_censorship.2C_in_detail]] Of course I am willing to answer any question concerning this specific example of censorship, especially those which indicate that you read the whole comment.<br />
<br />
:::::Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 02:41, 18 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Nearly two weeks later: Did you take a look? Or even better, did you read the whole thing? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 18:17, 1 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Anti-Clancy cracks? ==<br />
<br />
In general I'm a Clancy fan but I think some of the criticism you removed was valid. For example by the time he wrote "The Bear and the Dragon" his standards of research had perceptibly dropped (The AH-64 has a 20mm gun? Really?) and "Red Rabbit" and "The Teeth of the Tiger" were frankly rubbish. Maybe some of the criticisms should stay? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:09, 17 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Anything can stay if properly sourced: X said Y about Z. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 23:10, 17 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::What would be an acceptable source? I have all Clancy's books; would they be acceptable sources for pointing out declining standards of technical accuracy? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:20, 17 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::LOL, '''your''' interpretation of Clancy's writings would be (what is called at Wikipedia) original research. If you don't know what I meant by 'properly sourced', then you're unqualified to contribute anything further to this project. If you do know, you're just toying with me. Godspeed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 23:23, 17 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough. What I'd do is reference both Clancy's books and technical sources that contradict them, such as the fact that the AH-64 does NOT have a 20mm gun. Like I said I'm generally a Clancy fan - "Without Remorse" may just be the best thriller ever written - but his last few books have been a bit disappointing and his research has definitely slipped. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:28, 17 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::What I would propose is to remove the comments about "The sum of all fears" - a nuclear weapon could be built with a table saw and a small lathe, never mind optical milling equipment - but keep and expand on the comment about the declining level of technical accuracy. The divergence of the Ryanverse from reality isn't important because it IS fiction, but the declining level of research and tendency towards unrealistic assessments of real-world capabilities IS important. For example "The Bear and the Dragon" is utterly unrealistic even in the Ryanverse. If China invaded Russia they'd get about ten feet over the border before being annihilated. The fortifitions on the Sino-Russian border make the Maginot line look like a sand castle on the beach, and they were actually designed by strategic thinkers. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:44, 17 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
On second thought, maybe I'm being too hard on you. I recently started tutoring schoolchildren, and I'm learning to be more patient with their quaint notions. After all, making wrong guesses and getting them corrected is often the best way to learn. Shall I not condescend to grant you the same grace? ;-)<br />
<br />
I've read all Tom Clancy's [[Jack Ryan]] and [[John Clark]] novels. I always assumed that any discrepancies were inserted on purpose; Clancy certainly would have no reason to put correct information on how to make a suitcase-sized nuclear bomb in his books: what conservative would want to inspire a copycat crime? <br />
<br />
If you want to include "criticism" by some published author who says an attack helicopter does or does not have a certain sized gun, go ahead. He's also not very accurate about the software used in the stock market, although it was a key plot element in ''[[Debt of Honor]]''. (Come to think of it, if a man knew everything and wanted to make money betting on horse races, he would know not to put all his winnings on the next race ("[[John Doe]]" TV series pilot). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:56, 24 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Language ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Big_Bang_theory Language like this] makes me extremely uncomfortable: "when grownups talk", "woman's logic is strange, don't you think", etc. (especially this in his earlier statements: "and being educated briefly by my grandpa in matters "of faith", mostly about "Catholic errors", and the absolute need to be trufhful, my concern was that the Catholics are wrong on one more point since the Big Bang was proven wrong in 1985")<br />
<br />
First, I am not a woman. My identity is very well known and I am quite easy to find. Ottava means eight, and Ottava Rima means Eight Rhyme, a type of rhyming pattern used in Italian epic poetry. Second, his language is condescending, misogynistic, religiously bigoted, etc. Third, his claims about the Big Bang Theory are rather strange, conspiratorial, and nothing I have ever heard by any legitimate scientist. I cannot honestly believe that he is a real conservative but I believe he is a plant just like many of the people who vandalize. His job is to produce some of the most absurd stuff to try and make conservatives look awful. If I am wrong, I am wrong, but his language does not seem like something that is appropriate. I talked to Geoff Plourde about this quite a bit tonight because it bothered me a lot. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 22:44, 18 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Um ==<br />
<br />
[[Atheism and obesity]] - is this a joke? It seems to be just a list of fat atheists. It even has random tidbits like "Chuck Norris endorses the Total Gym exercise system.[59]" I know many priests who are overweight, and many religious people who are. I know many atheists who are ultra thing and anorexic. <br />
<br />
"Christian and Library of Congress researcher's explanations of reports of UFOs " How would that even deal with atheism and obesity? Yet it is in there. <br />
<br />
The page looks like it was created to make Conservapedia and conservatism look really bad. Sigh. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 22:58, 18 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:User:Conservative is good at attracting readership to this website. The [[Atheism and obesity]] seems to me a bit of payback for the liberals who call Rush Limbaugh a big, fat idiot. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:57, 24 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::And in his payback, he demeans everyone who is overweight, including myself. I've dealt with mean-spirited behavior from people about weight the majority of my life - there is no acceptable reason for being hostile about the issue. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:53, 24 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== You were looking for ideological censorship? ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bestiality&curid=88619&diff=920267&oldid=920266 easy to find] --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 23:52, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Not as easy as you say. See [[Talk:Bestiality]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:44, 24 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Senior Admin assistance ==<br />
<br />
Hi Ed, I would like to bring something to your attention as a senior administrator. I have been in private communication with User:SamCoulter over the last few weeks. There is nothing in his attitude and comments to me in private and his behaviour here on Conservapedia to suggest this user is anything but sincere. He was recently blocked for the edit [http://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/SamCoulter here] (the last edit he made - I will not link directly to it because the topics are extremely offensive and not family friendly). For this effort he was blocked for three months. His edit was a) relevant b) correct according to the article linked and c) was a link which was on the front page already. It seems that some users wanted to quote the article without implying the articles conclusions as they were at loggerheads with a users personal opinion. I don't think the user should have been blocked but now he is I won't remove it but I do believe that 3 months is extremely heavy-handed. I don't want to create controversy so I will not chnage the block myself but I am bringing this up with you and User:Karajou also (I am unable to contact the blocking sysop). Thank you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:11, 25 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::Keep him blocked. He vandalized twice. In fact, I am going to increase the time blocked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 25 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
::::Do you have evidence of this vandalism? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:04, 25 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::::If you want to defend those recent contributions be my guest. If you want to wrangle with me about them, it is not going to happen. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:09, 25 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
::::::I tell you now '''there was no vandalism''' you are blocking a user for adding sourced and factual material. You are blocking him for no reason! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:09, 25 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Sorry, but it's actually very easy to avoid a block. I suggest you start coaching new users about courtesy, project goals, etc. <br />
<br />
I myself disagree with the project goals of RW, but they haven't given me any long blocks. Why? Because I follow their rules in their house.<br />
<br />
Adolescents often have trouble figuring out what the rules are, or trouble realizing the benefits of following them. (In the long run, civil disobedience campaigns against beneficial institutions such as Democracy and Free Markets simply backfire.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:52, 2 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I respectfully disagree with you. It's incredibly ''easy'' to get blocked on this site, because honestly, it appears to depend on the whim of the blocking editor (doesn't like what's being said because it's contrary to the blocking editor's opinion, got up on the wrong side of the bed, had a fight with someone in real life and are taking it out on editors here at CP.) You yourself just handed out an ''infinite'' block for ''defending'' someone.<br />
<br />
:Many editors, myself included, have protested User:Conservative's articles and his method of defending them. If anyone objects, he automatically deems them an atheist/evolutionist, etc., which at least in my case, is far from the truth. I object to several things. First, his use of "obese" as a ''ad hominem'' attack against people whose ideas he disagrees with. I've dealt with bullying behavior about weight most of my life, and have tried to point out to him how hurtful his taunts are, but he thinks it's amusing, and the other sysops here (yourself included) appear to agree. I'm all for a good discussion about ''ideas'', but when the attacks become personal, and all-inclusive, then yes, I'm going to protest.<br />
<br />
:Second, most of the articles are just ''badly, badly written''. They meander ''miles'' away from the original topic, they tend to be a bunch of quotes lumped together, and in many of them, the point that he's trying to make is missed completely. The actual subjects might be valid, and important enough to warrent an article on them, but creating 10 articles that say the same thing, and that can (and should) be consolidated into one, '''''well-researched and well-written document''''', is just poor scholarship. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 12:53, 2 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Well, thank you for not giving me an excuse to block you! ;-) Very well written . . .<br />
<br />
::As I've said elsewhere, [http://ameriwiki.wikkii.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=4073&oldid=4071] I disagree with the stance of "the admin" who is making ''[[ad hominem]]'' attacks on atheists; I think it's a misguided attempt to attract readership.<br />
<br />
::If anyone's had a '''good''' edit reverted for a bad reason, they can just let me know. Just remember: if anyone is criticizing to condemn, I'm not interested, but if they want me to change things, I'm the man who can do it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:03, 2 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== BrentH's block ==<br />
<br />
I see you blocked BrentH for trolling and reverted 2 of his edits. He linked [[Professor]] to an existing article here on CP, [[Professor values]]. Why was that trolling? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:55, 1 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
:Perhaps prior edits?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:01, 1 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
::User: Ed Poor did not appreciate the section right above this one--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 21:14, 1 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::BrentH made a perfectly reasonable and respectful suggestion. It would appear from the edit history that he was referring to an article about Winona Ryder, created by Ed Poor, which contained one piece of trivia but no basic information regarding the person whatsoever. What BrentH said is simply common sense, and I too cannot see how this can justify a block. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 22:45, 1 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
::::Indeed, certain longstanding members of this community seem to have rather thin skin. I did not see BrentH's post as offensive or out of line--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:54, 1 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== This is an encyclopedia. ==<br />
<br />
You wrote that on my talkpage. ''This is an encyclopedia.''. Well, if it is articles like [[bestiality and Britain]] ahould be deleted because, as I have pointed out numerous times, it has nothing to do with bestiality and Britain. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:27, 2 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Article deleted. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Ed+Poor&page=&year=&month=-1&hide_patrol_log=1]<br />
::Hey thanks Ed. Just for the record though I wasn't "bothered" by the content so much as bothered by the ''lack'' of content. As the commandments say - everything must be true and verifiable which that article clearly wasn't. Many thanks. I must admit - I have a lot of respect for you and karajou. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:54, 2 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::Ed, evolution was birthed in Britain and secularism has grown rampant in their country. Now their society is a mess and there is rioting in the streets. In addition, the'' Guardian'' just published a puff piece on bestiality. I say enough is enough and it's time their moral rot is exposed. I realize that pointing out that folly and consequences of atheism/evolutionism annoys liberals, but so what. Not only are they grossly and obviously in error, but atheists/evolutionists have shown themselves [[Atheism and cowardice|to be timid little bunnies]]. I restored the article because I feel confident that Conservapedia can stand up to foolish and timid little bunnies. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:21, 2 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
::::Enough with the insults conservative. I am neither a liberal nor an atheist and am sick to death of you accusing me of such. The article has nothing, I repeat '''nothing''' about the practice in Britain. I say again '''nothing'''. You poor scholarship is on show and we can ''all'' see it. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:02, 2 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
::::::Ed, a Brit was trying to bring over his deviant farming practices to the United States as can be seen [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7600523/British-man-51-arrested-at-bestiality-farm.html HERE]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:28, 2 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::::::::You misread the article, Conservative. The Oregon farm is owned by an American. The British man was visiting it. Read [http://www.examiner.com/headlines-in-seattle/seattle-convicted-cocaine-smuggler-arrested-likely-into-bestiality-liking-sex-with-animals here] for a version of the story that makes who owned the farm clearer. <br />
[[File:Keldaby goats.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|An exclusive British art gallery was criticised for displaying a highly offensive bestiality oriented painting which featured a [[goat]] just yards from The Ritz hotel and where it could be seen by children.- The Daily Mail online (MailOnline), August 5, 2011 ''The explicit art that shows bestiality with a goat just yards from The Ritz'']]<br />
::::::::There is no way I'd let children any where this site with Conservatives despicable articles all over the place. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:54, 2 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::::::::::Max, I heard Oregon was pretty liberal. It figures the farm was in Oregon. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:30, 2 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
::::::::::::I heard that most states are pretty liberal... But that doesn't make the rumors true. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 22:34, 2 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
Oregon voted for Obama plus fairly recently they had the most atheists per capita in the United States. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:57, 2 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
:Omaha, Nebraska also voted for obama but calling it liberal is very silly--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:58, 2 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/25/new-poll-identifies-most-liberal-and-conservative-states/ Oregon is liberal] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:07, 2 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
:I'm slightly confused as to why it's relevant or not that Oregon is liberal. After all the state DOES have a law against bestiality, so that argues against liberals being tolerant of it. --[[User:ColSharp|ColSharp]] 08:33, 3 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
::Since when do liberals obey the laws on the books in the first place? This photo [http://www.conservapedia.com/File:1915b7ec753fa9d0352885dc23da4469.jpg] is proof that liberals have no intention of obeying laws regarding littering. They trashed Washington D.C. ''when they got their way'', January 20, 2009. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:10, 3 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::There's a law in New Jersey about recycling, yet I know several conservatives who refuse to recycle. Why is this? [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 13:26, 3 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Request for Admin assistance ==<br />
<br />
To all senior admins and sysops. I am being repeatedly abused by user:conservative who, among other things, accuses me continuously of being an atheist simply because I point out some of the holes in his articles. See [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=113357&diff=924642&oldid=924636 here for the latest accusation]. I have asked him numerous times to desist with his sneering name calling as I find it offensive to have my faith questioned and nothing is ever done. He state’s I am atheist because I don’t agree with some of his ridiculous contentions. In actual fact it isn’t even that I disagree with him it is that I point out his shoddy research, poor scholarship and his berating, insulting and sarcastic behaviour towards others. I am of the opinion now that he is purposely calling me names because he knows I don’t like it which is unchristian, impolite and, above all, insulting. Is anyone going to teach this man some manners? Has Conservapedia become a place where Conservative is allowed to behave this way without any warning or comeuppance but all other editors and warned and blocked for minor infractions. He is in continual violation of the commandments yet NOTHING is done whereas people like myself are always watching out to avoid being banned. Well, fine, ban me if you like. I probably will be after this posting and no doubt Conservative will cackle with glee at “winning” again. But laugh Conservative, you win nothing. I post this is full knowledge that I might be blocked banned and insulted by you in my absence and I have always remained polite and civil plus I can hold my head up high. Hopefully one of you will take a stand and insist on standards of civility. But I don’t hold out much hope. Thanks, many of you were kind, decent people whom I enjoyed working with and I pray for you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:21, 5 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
:I am disappointed in you most of all Ed. Coming from wikipedia and being the first to jump on others for incivility you ignore when it comes to the ruling chaste of Conservapedia. You should be ashamed. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:48, 12 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::Max, I think you assume entirely too much about my dispositions. You really don't know what extent I "cackle" or if I "cackle" at all. You also don't know what value I place on "winning". In fact, you don't even know if I am one person or a team. I/we remain inscrutable. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:24, 12 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
::::User:Conservative, this is getting silly. You wrote for instance:<br />
::::::''Actually KhalidM, I have a very outgoing personality and a university professor friend of mine told me that I would make a great administrator because I can be very diplomatic. While I realize that I will never cultivate a large atheist or liberal fan club, I can live with that. Conservative 20:34, 5 October 2011 (EDT) ''<br />
::::So, while your grammatical gender may be undetermined, your number isn't. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:44, 13 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== King George I ==<br />
<br />
The article of [[King George I]] was deleted as a ''creation of vandals''. On the talk page I read the comment of User:RJJense: ''I added much new text, all of which I wrote, and previously posted on Citizendium.'' I looked up the article at Citizendium and it seemed to be quite informative - certainly not vandalistic! Could it be restored? I'd like to insert a valid link into [[elector]]s.<br />
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:57, 13 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::I restored the last version by RJJense. I feel confident that his last version was a good article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:34, 13 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
:Thanks - it really seems so! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:57, 13 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
=="New Ordeal"==<br />
Hello, I noticed that you placed the quotation marks around the term "New Ordeal." As you have probably noticed I have been attempting to fix that article. Quite frankly, the article is pretty bad to start with and several of the references that prior authors cited have nothing to do with the topic. Do you know if there is procedure in which this article may be recommended for deletion? --[[User:Padams|Padams]] 15:33, 15 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Better to mark it as an essay. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:31, 19 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Block of AugustO ==<br />
<br />
I looked at [[Conservapedia:Editor's_guide#If_you_get_blocked]]:<br />
<br />
''If you get blocked, it's probably because you (1) broke the rules and (2) ignored hints, requests and/or warnings. So the first thing you should do is review your communications with others here, particularly those who are admins. Have you been trying to get along by following our practices and supporting our goals, or have you been trying to change our ways? If you are new here, it's best to go along to get along. After you have contributed a lot, we'll be more likely to listen to your suggestions, but breaking the rules will just end up with eliminating you from the project. ''<br />
<br />
::*I can't think of any rule which I broke<br />
::*I was requested to ''to do some charitable work somewhere instead''. I'm already engaged in such work, so this doesn't apply...<br />
::*I don't try to ''change our ways''. I try to correct factual errors (e.g., ιδού can be translated as ''at this moment'' or that it is right to call ''Carolus Martellus'' the grandson of ''Carolus Magnus''.)<br />
<br />
''Perhaps upon reflection you may realize that you'd rather be part of the project than insist on your own way. You might want to apologize and get unblocked. ''<br />
<br />
::*I don't insist on my own way and I apologize if anyone feels insulted by my criticism.<br />
<br />
''If you want to discuss your block, '''do not create a new account'''. Rather, use one of the following methods to appeal the decision (listed in order of preference). ''<br />
<br />
::*Here, I obviously failed. <br />
<br />
1. ''Contact the person who blocked you (see below).<br />
::*tried<br />
2. ''If you get no reply after a reasonable amount of time, you may contact any Administrator.<br />
::*tried<br />
3. ''Email cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com giving the name of the Administrator or editor who blocked you, and the date, and it will be forwarded on to them. <br />
::*tried<br />
<br />
''If you contact more than one person about this, please do them the courtesy of letting them know who else you have tried contacting. ''<br />
::*This should be obvious from the header of my emails.<br />
<br />
''Contacting an Administrator or editor can usually be done by one of the following methods: ''<br />
*''Use the "Email this user" link in the toolbox. This, however, will only work if both you and the Administrator or editor have enabled this on your/their respective accounts.<br />
*''The Administrator or editor may have provided an email address or other contact information (e.g. AIM) on their user page. <br />
<br />
::*This section seems to be obsolete: ''email this user'' doesn't work for any of the administrators I tried to reach. And I couldn't get Ed Poor's email address via his user page. So we are in a [[Catch 22]] kind of situation...<br />
::*I emailed to <code>aschlafy@aol.com</code>, <code>conservapedia@zoho.com</code> and <code>cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com</code>. I didn't get any reply (is 1-2 days a ''reasonable amount of time'' to wait? I thinks so...) to my short email which stated: ''I understand that my criticisms of CBP and the World History Lectures are quite unwelcome, but they are hardly trolling! I'd appreciate if you lift my block.''<br />
::*So I decided to create a new account to appeal the block, hoping that the advice against this action is as obsolete as other sections of the ''editor's guide''.<br />
[[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 07:56, 26 October 2011 (EDT) (AugustO)<br />
:::August, I think you should start a career in sales. You certainly have the persistence to be a good salesman. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:47, 26 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Ed Poor, the block of AugustO is now more than a week old. I tried to reach you via various channels - could you please lift the block as the stated reason ("trolling") doesn't apply? [[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 11:09, 31 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Please get a [[writing plan]] from him and get it to me, and I'll consider it. Meanwhile, any sysop is free to unblock him. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:01, 31 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
::Is that any official Sysop, or anyone with Block rights? I'd be happy to unblock Mr O so that he can post his writing plan.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:25, 1 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::On second thoughts, perhaps I'll just go ahead. Please reverse my action if I'm overstepping the mark.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:33, 1 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*Thanks for the unblock!<br />
*I read the article on the [[writing plan]], and I'll try to provide you with one. This would be easier if a ''sample plan'' were provided. But nonetheless, here it is:<br />
<br />
Mainly I'm interested in the CBP. Mind you, I'm not ''Junker Jörg'', I'm not capable to create a translation on my own which stands for hundreds of years. But I think that translating the Bible in a group, and extensively discussing your work is a marvelous way to get a greater insight into the ''Book of books''. While doing so, I try to dig into what Conservative calls the ''ANE culture'', as you can see [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#Issue_with_translation_of_John_4:53|here]], where I try to shed light on timekeeping during the Roman empire.<br />
<br />
When I came here, I thought that there would be a group of likewise interested individuals, but at the moment there seems to be only one other editor with similar interests.<br />
<br />
As my approach to the CBP generates quite a few edits on talk-pages, I balance these with edits to articles. These tend to by connected somehow with my namesakes (August of Saxony, Ernest August of Hanover), the history - or just happen on pages where I read something which puzzled me :-)<br />
<br />
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Abortion issue ==<br />
<br />
It would be a great idea to merge the articles. In fact, if you were interested in expanding the article, I might be interested in helping.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 14:28, 29 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Yes, please help me organize this. We should give prominence to conservative views, but let's steer away from censoring liberal views. It would be nice if liberals could see '''why''' conservatives believe differently. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:43, 29 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
::OK!--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 14:48, 29 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
::I merged the articles and added a bit on abortion and political ideology. How is it?--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 21:53, 31 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Thanks for the change but==<br />
perhaps it should be bed bugs (plural), and now when i make an edit and it goes thru, if i try to make another one i get "Someone else has changed this page since you started editing it" but no one has. Going back to page and trying anew results in the same. 3.1: longetivity should be longevity. <br />
<br />
Jesus is Lord, thanks[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 07:58, 5 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Blocking policy improvement panel member - please give your feedback here ==<br />
<br />
Blocking policy improvement panel member - please give your feedback [http://conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Panel_members.2C_please_give_your_feedback_below HERE]<br />
<br />
Your assistance would be much appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:05, 16 November 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I have explained my ideas in private email to you and Andy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:50, 11 December 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
== a few messages to you ==<br />
<br />
There are a few messages to you here: http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Air_superiority [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:14, 26 May 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Thanks ==<br />
<br />
Thanks for picking up some of my "wiki litter" that I left behind (redirects to non-existent pages). I will try to be more diligent as far as not littering in the future. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:22, 11 June 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:You're welcome. And don't bother yourself: it's better for you to focus your time on building the wiki, while less talented contributors like myself do the routine housekeeping. <br />
<br />
:If I had your writing skill, I'd be making whole article like you do. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:34, 12 June 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== A message to you from Cipe ==<br />
<br />
Fixing a MediaWiki message: <br />
<br />
Hello,<br />
<br />
Could you perform the edit I described [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&oldid=992864#Edit_request here, on very bottom of the page]? I asked Aschlafly but he's probably busy now.<br />
<br />
Best [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 15:33, 13 July 2012 (EDT)<br />
::I know the basics of Wiki coding and not the advanced level coding. I would ask someone else. Try Ed Poor. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:32, 13 July 2012 (EDT)<br />
:::Unfortunately, I cannot edit Ed's talk page. Could you suggest someone different? Or message him?<br />
<br />
:::The change is rather small and requires only copy-and-paste. More directly: you can copy contents of this: [[User:Cipe/MW_fix]] to: [[MediaWiki:Revision-info]]. Even if my suggestion is wrong, it can be reverted, so there is no danger. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 16:41, 13 July 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Okay, I did it. But where can I see the results? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:53, 13 July 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Thank you very much. You'll see it when checking older revision. Here is an example: [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&oldid=991546].<br />
<br />
I noticed that MediaWiki has a different message when you're checking current revision. I'll prepare fix in a moment. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 17:55, 13 July 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:The message seems to have logged me out. I think it needs fixing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:56, 13 July 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I also got logged out, but only once. I can consistently see the new message now. Perhaps the software logs out when a edit to MediaWiki is made. Could you please copy [[User:Cipe/MW fix 2]] to [[MediaWiki:Revision-info-current]]? I promise it's the last change :) It is shown for a permalink to current revision. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 18:08, 13 July 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I don't think that's it. I think you need to put the '''www.''' in front of '''www.conservapedia.com''' --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 18:09, 13 July 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::It seems to work. I can see the messages: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&oldid=991546 for past revisions] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&oldid=992065 for current revision]. Thanks for changing. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 18:19, 13 July 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Thank you for unlocking your talk page ==<br />
<br />
I really appreciate being able to get in contact with you directly when the circumstances arise. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 18:39, 13 July 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Thank you ==<br />
Now he can try to justify what he said about the article. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 14:29, 14 July 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== File:GoreFireBreathing.jpg ==<br />
<br />
Do you think it would be appropriate to use this image in the [[Current TV]] article? It's already in Gore's main article, so why not include it in the article about his obscure TV network on channel 9800 on my TV? --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 20:35, 15 July 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== apology. ==<br />
<br />
Hey, I just wanted to apologise for the comments I made related to you, they were impolite and unnecessary. I don't have anything against you or anything, I just posted something that I thought was relevent without thinking how it would be taken by anyone other than myself, as it happened they were rude and quite personal. I acknowledge that I behaved quite badly, and in future I will try to avoid giving you, or others, offense. So..... virtual handshake?[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 06:18, 18 July 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Oh, don't be so dramatic. Just comment on the articles and issues of the day, and forget about personalities. That's how this project's supposed to run. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:33, 18 July 2012 (EDT)<br />
::lol. Nah it's difficult to tell over the internet how people are reacting, so for all I knew you could have been quite insulted or something, and I had to make sure that I was being very clear. Anyway, cool[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 01:03, 19 July 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I'm not sure you get it: We don't want personal remarks on this wiki, clear or not. You need to be clear only about one thing: what you intend to write about an article topic. You must not comment on other users in any way. Is '''that''' clear? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:01, 20 July 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== On Personal Attacks ==<br />
<br />
Dear Mr. Poor,<br />
<br />
As someone who has been the subject of personal comments (see [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=987753&oldid=987715], [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=987827&oldid=987777], [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=987956&oldid=987955], [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=990739&oldid=990566]), I would like to share my opinion on Conservapedia's policy on personal attacks.<br />
<br />
I think it is very appropriate to make '''relevant''' comments on editing and other wiki behavior to determine what the best practices are with regards to editing and other actions and, if necessary, to instruct users who may not know better about such practices. For example, I have informed two administrators about redacting the automatically-generated deletion log entry to remove sensitive material. I have also asked one administrator to include source information in that user's uploaded images, requests with which this user has complied. Likewise, if someone has a habit of posting comments on talk pages without signing them, it is appropriate to inform them of how to sign posts. Further, if someone is about to violate 90/10, a warning is definitely appropriate. None of these have to do with the real-life '''personality''' that these editors, many of whom are brothers and sisters in Christ, have; these comments focus on on-wiki '''behavior'''.<br />
<br />
Further, I think that if someone is going to make a statement regarding real-life facts or Conservapedia's commandments, policies, and best practices, it is appropriate to debate this statement '''without going into personality details'''. Such debate may very well include Socratic or rhetorical questioning as a argumentative device.<br />
<br />
Of course, Mr. Schlafly is the owner of the site, so he has the final say in this, but I'm sure he would agree with what I have written. Although attacks on another editor's real-life personality should generally be removed, I do not see the need to remove good-faith debate and discussion over user '''behavior''' at Conservapedia.<br />
<br />
Thank you for reading this. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:36, 21 July 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Yeah, thanks, Greg. If I err on the side of "absolutely nothing about the person" to an absurd point, please continue to help me out. I'm mainly opposed to comments like, "You're a jerk" or "I don't have to follow the rules." <br />
<br />
:Nothing wrong with '''friendly''' personal comments, like, "Thanks for pointing out that a rigid, absolutist enforcement of the rules may not be wise." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:01, 22 July 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Hey Ed ==<br />
<br />
I saw your Arbcom case over at Wikipedia just today looking through for cases of bias there. :) Wikipedia's - nuts, huh? Lol. I ran into the Obama bias team over there in Scjessey, Wikidemon, and company, back in late 2009. It's become so hopelessly biased by now you've just got to laugh. They know they're keeping all controversy out of the Obama page and how biased they are, and don't care. Well, all my facts are at Conservapedia's services now. :) Anyway, just saying it's nice to see another ex-Wikipedian here I guess - hope we get some more! :) --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 01:15, 22 July 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Tehpwn3r==<br />
'User names based on your real name or initials are '''preferred'''' does not state that you will be blocked. [[User:Conservative|Also]].--[[User:Wishnaka|Wishnaka]] 19:51, 25 August 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*Inappropriate user name. It has been a general principle that one's user name be "based on one's real first name and last initial", though there are a number of reasons why that is not always practical. The point is that we don't like the kind of foolish "handles" that are often used in various blogs and social web sites. If you run afoul of this by accident, you will be asked to create a new account, and doing so will not be considered sockpuppetry. Of course, some user names are essentially just vandalism, and are treated that way.<br />
<br />
== Randall7 ==<br />
<br />
If you don't object, I suggest shortening his block to maybe 3 days. His remark, while rude and impertinent, did have some substance, and a hard block doesn't serve to do anything but cause more unhappiness. Thanks for considering,<br />
[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 20:48, 25 August 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:If you unblock him, you're responsible. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 20:54, 25 August 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I recommend keeping the week. And don't > dont. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 21:01, 25 August 2012 (EDT)<br />
:::Thanks for pointing out the typo.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 23:35, 25 August 2012 (EDT)<br />
==Michael Baumgartner==<br />
Dear Mr. Poor,<br />
Please do a careful side-by-side comparison of [[Michael Baumgartner]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Baumgartner&oldid=509330054 the Wikipedia article]. I did a google search on "Michael Baumgartner" and came up with a number of sources including the Wikipedia article. I took notes from all of the sources, and wrote a new article based on my notes. I honestly believe that the article uses a different set of sources, covers ideas in a different order, and covers the topic differently than Wikipedia. Please take another look, and if you agree, please restore [[Michael Baumgartner]]. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 14:05, 27 August 2012 (EDT)<br />
*I understand the workload you face. Could you please look at the article and reconsider? [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 14:51, 27 August 2012 (EDT)<br />
*:Already restored in good faith; I trust you, and I'm not going to compare it closely. I'll leave that to others. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:54, 27 August 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== My condolences ==<br />
<br />
On the death of the Rev Dr Moon. [[User:JuanMotame|JuanMotame]] 18:54, 2 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
==Thanks==<br />
Thanks for the welcome. I wonder if you could help me. I tried [[Special:MovePage/William. J. Fulbright]] but apparently I don't have permission. The page should be at [[J. William Fulbright]], the name of the founder of the Fulbright scholarship program.<br />
:Done. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:26, 4 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Sun Myung Moon ==<br />
<br />
You changed the first sentence of the protected article on [[Sun Myung Moon]] from the present to the past tense. Could you take care of the rest of the article, too? Thanks. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 05:35, 5 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
*Feel free to take care of that yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:01, 5 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
::I took care of it. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 13:21, 5 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
:::Thanks to both of you! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:32, 5 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Requesting Assistance ==<br />
<br />
Mr. Poor, I'm relatively new here and don't completely know my way around. Would you please look at my comment concerning [[Talk:American Atheists and their challenges in terms of overweight leadership personnel|American Atheists and their challenges in terms of overweight leadership personnel]]. If my view is in line with the site, I'm quite certain that a template or procedure is needed at this point. If my views are not in line with the site, please feel free to remove that comment as you see fit. You seem experienced here, so your guidance is requested. --[[User:Nouniquenames|Nouniquenames]] 00:03, 21 October 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== [[Psychological manipulation]] ==<br />
<br />
I've noticed that you moved/redirected the above article to [[Essay: Psychological manipulation in the Bible]] on grounds "not a general article; case study uses a Bible story". I've got somewhat confused about this step, because IMHO the article is general and only the case study section itself contains a "Bible story". In fact the rest is a combination of various sources, some of them far from having anything to do w/ Bible at all. I was by far not completely done with that article and now I actually do not know how to continue working on it. It says now "This Is An Original Work. Contributors should add their signatures to the end section. If published, a notice will be posted and, if desired, contributors will be recognized." but that was not my idea at all, I would be more than happy if anyone could help to extend that, in my opinion, general article. If I could suggest anything then I would like to suggest to move only the 'case study' section to the essay realms and keep the rest as general article with hyperlink to that essay in appropriate, perhaps 'See Also' section. I also deem as deficiency that article does not appear in the Psychology category now, I believe it belongs there.--[[User:AK|AK]] 10:35, 31 October 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==[[Objections to evolution]]==<br />
As for your rationale for redirect on 'Objections to evolution', namely "I thought we already had plenty of articles opposing the Theory of evolution", I agree with you that "we have", but still would dare to oppose the redirect on grounds that 'Objections to evolution' is an article that brainwashes people at WP and enjoys special defence by witch-hunters who heavily suppress any different points of view there thus I believe it is of significant importance to have available alternative view on the same topic under the very same title.--[[User:AK|AK]] 10:50, 31 October 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Quote Templates ==<br />
<br />
I was doing some ''random page'' editing and found that there was a whole load of quote templates you created a while ago that link to nowhere and nothing seems to link to them. It seems the template for linking these quotes never got off the ground. I'm proposing that these either be deleted or put into some sort of quote page as I don't think there much use at the moment (except for possibly taking up server space). Kind Regards [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 02:00, 2 November 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==[[Unificationism]]==<br />
I am not surprised to see you make changes to the Unificationism page in defense of your church, but why did you remove the part in which Moon told an interviewer, "God is living in me and I am the incarnation of himself." "The whole world is in my hand and I will conquer and subjugate the world." [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19459920?print=true]<br />
<br />
Are you saying the BBC made that up? [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 08:23, 14 November 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
:You can put that back in. Sorry for the delayed answer; my day job keeps me pretty busy. <br />
<br />
:Be advised, though, that Rev. Moon himself disputed the ''conquer and subjugate'' quote, telling Newsweek interviewers that he had been quoted out of context. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:35, 20 November 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Way to stop the spammers ==<br />
<br />
From Aschlafly's talk page <br />
Yesterday after I prayed an idea came to me (most likely from god) to stop the spammers from registering the spam accounts. If we can move away from user captcha and instead use a question that requires some knowledge (for example what team does tim tebow sit on the bench for or which team did he turned around) as the spambots will be completely flummoxed by this. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 09:16, 19 November 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
:The questycaptcha is excellent for this purpose. It stops ocr bots, and most paid spammers. The code would be:<br />
<br />
require_once( "$IP/extensions/ConfirmEdit/ConfirmEdit.php" );<br />
$wgCaptchaClass = 'QuestyCaptcha';<br />
$arr = array (<br />
"A question?" => "An answer!",<br />
"What is this wiki's name?" => "Conservapedia",<br />
'Who is Tim Tebow' => 'An athlete',<br />
foreach ( $arr as $key => $value ) {<br />
$wgCaptchaQuestions[] = array( 'question' => $key, 'answer' => $value );<br />
}<br />
Which you would place in /rootfiledirectory/localsettings.php[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 15:54, 19 November 2012 (EST)''<br />
<br />
: Given your considerable experience in operating and maintaining wiki's like Wikipedia and convservapedia, do you think you would be able to implement this ? Regards [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 05:12, 23 November 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
==A serious Biblical matter==<br />
<br />
Aschlafly wrote the essay [[Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?]]. This wouldn't have been to problematic, but now he puts his outlandish idea into an article in the main space ([[Epistle to the Hebrews]]). First he wrote:<br />
{{cquote|"The [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] is the nineteenth book of the [[New Testament]], and one of the greatest mysteries in all of intellectual history: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and '''the most plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it.'''"}}<br />
[[User:Iduan]] toned this down somewhat, so that we read at the moment:<br />
{{cquote|"The [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] is the nineteenth book of the [[New Testament]], and one of the greatest mysteries in all of intellectual history: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and '''one plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it'''."}}<br />
<br />
I couldn't find any Biblical scholar who shares this idea, I couldn't find any authorative figure who promotes this - and this isn't much of a surprise if you read the epistle for yourself! The only "scholar" who has proposed this "theory" in the last 2000 years is Andrew Schlafly. <br />
<br />
I tried to delete this sentence, and then I tried to make it clear that this idea is a personal insight by Andrew Schlafly. My edits were reverted: any reader of this encyclopedia gets the impression that this theory is something commonly known or well discussed. That's utterly untrue. <br />
<br />
I tend to be quite strict on Biblical matters - I'm often accused of being nitpicky. As one of the sysops of Conservapedia who was active in 2012 I ask you to weigh in on this problem: maybe it is just me and most of the of you and your fellow sysops think that it is acceptable to present an insight of a single person '''in a Biblical matter''' (an insight shared by virtually no one) as a plausible theory. But - as the title of this section indicates - for me this is a very serious matter.<br />
<br />
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:26, 25 November 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
:If your purpose for marking it as Mr. Schlafly's idea is to discredit it, then you're barking up the wrong tree. Anyway, the page is just an essay, and the entire page is therefore pure Schlafly. What's wrong with that? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 23:37, 5 December 2012 (EST)<br />
:*''"Anyway, the page is just an essay, and the entire page is therefore pure Schlafly. What's wrong with that? "'' As I tried to convey with the phrase "this wouldn't have been to problematic", there is nothing wrong with the essay [[Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?]]. But I think it ''is'' problematic that the ''insight'' of the essay spills over into a page in the main space, i.e., [[Epistle to the Hebrews]], and becomes a ''fact'' during this process.<br />
:*''"If your purpose for marking it as Mr. Schlafly's idea is to discredit it, then you're barking up the wrong tree."'' It's the other way round: stating the ''insight'' in an article in the main space without making it clear that the only source for this idea is Andrew Schlafly is lending it an improper credibility. If you read an unsourced, unmarked statement in an encyclopedia, the reader generally takes it as a kind of common knowledge, even more so if he is e.g., a high-school pupil.<br />
:--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:28, 6 December 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
Conservapedia is a mix of opinion and fact. Each is clearly marked. Talk pages are filled with unsourced claims, and we make very few efforts to police such talk.<br />
<br />
If there is currently an unsourced, unmarked statement in an article that needs attention, please point it out to me. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:09, 12 December 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thank you - if unsourced, unmarked statements are reintroduced into the article, I'll point them out to you! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:02, 12 December 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Hello ==<br />
<br />
Im new here and need some help. I figured I would go to you since you seem very involved in the community. I recently tried to instate an article about R*tional Wiki and suddenly it was deleted. I thought since we had an article about Wikipedia that we could write about wikis. I also noticed that it had been deleted several times by the same people. Why? The words are spam filtered to. I feel that we need to write about the faults and propaganda of this completely biased website. Not to mention they completely badmouth you in the most rude ways. Please help...--[[User:Colesmithsayshi|Colesmithsayshi]] 14:18, 31 December 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Mass Wedding ==<br />
<br />
I was wanting to know what is the significance of mass weddings in the unification church ? I see your church has recently conducted it's first mass wedding since the very untimely death of the great Sun Myung Moo. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 10:05, 17 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Not sure how to respond to messages. ==<br />
<br />
I am not sure how to answer the message you sent me. There does not seem to be a way to respond attached to the message you sent. Do I just respond in this open forum? Thanks.<br />
<br />
== Posts on an article. ==<br />
<br />
Ed,<br />
Im sorry I am new to the wiki process. I have responded to comments that you posted on my talk page regarding edits to the page "homosexual agenda". I would ask that you review them and respond as you see fit. Thanks, Mikers.</div>Mikershttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Homosexual_Agenda&diff=1035927Talk:Homosexual Agenda2013-02-22T21:05:36Z<p>Mikers: /* The concept of a homosexual agenda */</p>
<hr />
<div>Scalia mentioned that in a dissenting opinion, which isn't binding law. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 00:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Vic Eliason passage should be removed ==<br />
<br />
I write this because I have met VE here in Wisconsin and believe he'd be uncomfortable with the logic of including this information in this particular article. The passage: "Vic Eliason of Crosstalk America rightly points out that if all Americans turned homosexual it would only take a few generations for the United States to lose most of the population of the country through lack of procreation. This would make the US more vulnerable to attack by our enemies." Nobody believes that homosexuality is contagious, like a virus, and the probability is 0% that "all Americans" would turn homosexual. I doubt that any homosexual, including activist leaders, would think it would be possible at all or even desirable. There is as little temptation for a heterosexual to want homosexual sex as there is for homosexuals to want heterosexual sex. Also, the comment about the US being more vulnerable to attack because the country doesn't procreate also makes no sense, given that the likelihood of that happening for this reason is 0%. Three other potential problems. 1) The passage is completely undocumented. 2) The link for biographical information for VE is to Wikipedia. Couldn't someone here write an article about him for CP? He has been, after all, a leading figure in Christian radio for 40+ years. 3) Besides being unrelated to the topic of the article and having 0% possibility of describing a real situation, the passage detracts from the credibility of the article and CP. This passage should be removed.<br />
<br />
== WOV's got a point ==<br />
<br />
Not only that, but this entire article is biased tripe. It presents the "homosexual agenda" from a one-sided perspective, and is filled with hate commentary. '''I recommend the entire thing for deletion.'''<br />
<br />
Scalia's remark is regretful and a blemish on the pages of the U.S. Reporter, up there with Scott v. Sanford. But let's not expand it still further.<br />
<br />
I have cleaned up biased and vitriolic language as best as I can, but this entry deserves deletion.<br />
<br />
Seconded. If this is a homosexual agenda, then what homosexual wrote it? This is nothing but political game-playing: Identify a group as ''The Enemy'' and then brand them haters and abusers of family, children, and country. It makes dehumanising them so much easier. - Suricou<br />
<br />
: I didn't see anything "hateful" in it. The Scalia reference was not intended to be about what is binding law, obviously. There was nothing binding about his phrase. I'll note that it was in dissent.<br />
<br />
: The edits to this article were completely inappropriate, turning it into a liberal puff piece. Wikipedia exists for that. Actually, your edits made this even more liberal than Wikipedia's article on the same topic!<br />
<br />
: The hour is very late and I need to lock this page to guard against vandalism or conversion to a liberal message. I can unlock tomorrow. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Presenting both points doesn't make it a liberal puff piece! It presented only one perspective (Focus on the Family), and referred to the Shepard incident as OVERBLOWN. That's awful!! I consider my entry a moderate tack, but if you can think of an acceptable compromise that preserves an unbiased perspective, be my guest. It shocks me to see you go against your own commandments, though, about not including bias, and not importing a political perspective. I have tried to, and continue to try to, do the same.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 02:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Instead of the http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm cite you may want to use this one [http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm] This cite goes straight (NPI) to a section of the book ''After the Ball''. -)[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:24, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Thanks. Will do tomorrow. Goodnight, Cracker!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
I would definitely change the "promote homosexuality in schools" to "promote acceptance of homosexuality in schools". Definitely sounds like they're trying to make me gay. --[[User:Splark|Splark]] 21:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree with the comments of [[User:AmesG|AmesG]] and [[User:Splark|Splark]]. The idea that one's ideological opponents have a specific "agenda" is an all-too common one, but such agendas are more often touted by those who oppose than by those who support a group. That a Supreme Court Justice referred to it, or that it's in some leaflet somewhere, isn't substantive evidence that it exists.. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Aren't those five points of the "homosexual agenda" linked to more of a strategy than an "agenda"? And, aren't they the standard strategy for all interest groups? 1. Talk about your issue. 2. Show your group is harmed unless you get what you want. 3. Provide facts so people can justify agreeing with you. 4. Portray yourself and your point of view as right and moral. 5. Portray your opponents and their point of view as wrong and immoral. 6. Get corporate or other financial support. Every group and lobbying organization does that, and I don't know that singling out gays and the gay rights movement as doing that is really informative.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 11:23, 15 March 2007 (ED<br />
<br />
I will go on the record and say that yes, there is a homosexual agenda. As a homosexual myself, I'm pretty much in the middle of it. All we want is to be treated the same as any other tax-paying American. If my partner is injured, I would like to be able to have the same visitation and decision-making power as a husband/wife would. I would like to be able to transfer property when I die without having to jump through a million legal hoops. Many people claim that we want "special" rights. We really don't. We just want to be treated the same as everyone else.--[[User:Patthew|Patthew]] 12:01, 12 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I think this page is extremely biased. It presents only one side of the issue and is locked to prevent the other side from responding. Proof of a bias of another kind here.<br />
-Gasmonkey<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Everything you post must be true and verifiable ==<br />
<br />
This entry violates the first (and perhaps most important) Conservapedia commandment. There is no homosexual "agenda" -- no "they" who "wrote a book", no 10-point plan. It's the same kind of paranoid nonsense that's in the articles here on Joseph McCarthy and Alger Hiss (WP has far more accurate articles on both subjects, with the one on Hiss very clearly identifying areas of controversy), with conspiracy-theorist types quoting and sourcing one another. I propose this entire article for immediate deletion. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 10:56, 22 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Agreed. The "Homosexual agenda" is no more factual than the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Delete, or recreate as an article about the popular (?) but false belief in this "agenda." [[User:Pkoad|Pkoad]] 00:21, 29 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:It refers to the [[gay rights]] activism, which may be a [[grassroots]] movement but which has multiple goals which are easily identified. The Liberal POV that such goals are non-existent is a kind of denialism. <br />
<br />
:It will be good for the article to discuss this denial, in conjunction with [[gay rights]] critics who oppose the points which the denialists says no one advances. (Not worded right, but I think you get the gist.) See you all tomorrow. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 00:29, 29 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::There's no more gay agenda other than there was a "black agenda" before ''Brown'' came down. The gay agenda is equal treatment. Oh no, quick, ma, shut the doors! Equality's a-comin'!-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub><br />
<br />
:::I'd say "keep it" so the world can really see how these strange nutkins think. But in the interest of humanity, decency, and honesty, it is a pack of paranoid, politico-religious agenda lies. Really, really strange nutjob lies. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:51, 28 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:'''Keep:'''Let's assume for one moment that the homosexual agenda is complete hogwash and homosexual activists don't believe in it: Isn't the fact that Conservative Christians do believe in it enough to keep the article so that the "opinions" of Christians about homosexual activists be here. The fact that many talk about it is clear evidence that this is a valid article--[[User:Djcreativity|Djcreativity]] 15:47, 9 May 2009 (EDT)<br />
::Shouldn't we present information that is factual, and not misleading, though? If the intention of the article was to present Christian responses to gay rights activism, it should be presented as such. Given that ''After the Ball'' was published twenty years ago, presenting it as an active force in the gay rights movement (rather than as a foundation of the movement as a whole) is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? If we were talking about the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam we could reference Malcom X and Louis Farrakhan, but to act as though their works were part of current politics and national discourse would be misguided at best, and flatly wrong, at worst. --[[User:Jfavor|Jfavor]] 00:40, 20 May 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Opposing Christian Agenda ==<br />
<br />
I can't work out what the point of the "Opposing Christian Agenda" section is. The sentences don't make sense, and the referenced page does not mention homosexuality or gay. I propose the section be deleted by someone with the privilege to edit the article. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:33, 9 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I think it's not nearly explicit enough. More than anything else except perhaps abortion, the homosexual subversion of Christian values is illustrative of the influence of Satan upon liberals and other leftists, and his influence through them on our society. Should I rework the section to include such? --[[User:Nathan|Nathan]] 22:20, 11 February 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Improvements ==<br />
<br />
Shouldn't ''Gayness'' in part 1. of the agenda be ''Gaiety''?<br />
The term ''[[homosexual protectors]]'' in part three surely merits its own article. Is this the same as ''[[Homosexualist]]s''? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:11, 27 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Any attempt to trivialize or confuse the issue will be frowned upon here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
We should delete the cite at the bottom saying that homosexuality caused Nazism. That's a truly disturbing allegation.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 12:59, 27 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Especially considering that the Nazis actually murdered thousands of homosexuals during World War II.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 18:32, 7 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Yes they did, but it was because of Hitler. NOT homosexuality. And waaay more Jews were killed than homosexuals, giving Jews a larger spotlight. [[User:Clorox|Clorox]] <small>I'm liberal, but I don't edit pages-just [[User talk:Clorox|talk page]]s. don't worry.</small> 23:25, 3 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
'''<br />
I believe langauge needs to be corrected in the the first bullet of the list of homosexual goals. It currently states "Censoring sections of the bible condemning homosexuality." The source cited is an article about an offensive tee shirt being censored not the bible its self. There needs to be eaither a new source about Homosexuals attempting to change the bible or the wording must be changed to "preventing materials that denounce homosexuality from being displayed publicly."<br />
<br />
Reference number "8" rrefers back to the Conservapedia site. In order to maintain integrity it must refer to an ouside source if one is not provided the reference and quote should be deleted. Currently it is a logical fallacy and is not up to encyclopedic standards. Someone not dyslexic (i.e. somone who isn't me.) should get on that.<br />
<br />
== Very Informative ==<br />
'''<br />
<br />
Excellent portrayal of the truth. This is a nice breather from the left-wing saturated wikipedia.com. If you agree with the article, you should check out the highly accurate article on homophobia. Everyone knows that the creation of homophobia is a foundation of the gay agenda.<br />
<br />
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homophobia<br />
<br />
Wikipedia is subject to open edits that don't reqier an account. Are you suggesting that the monitors of wikipedia aka "everyone who can type" has a liberal bias?<br />
<br />
== Is this real? ==<br />
<br />
This article seems like a parody. I can't believe that... oh yeah, I'm at conservapedia. I can believe anything. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
As well as the mysterious reference to a "leading book in the homosexual movement", it refers to a book claiming that the Nazi Party supported homosexuality. Clearly this has to be satirical. Either that, or someone has a serious case of paranoia - all the sources, as well as being of dubious credabililty, point towards independent events but the whole point of the page is to talk about a shadowy conspiricy - a 'Secret Society' of homosexuals trying to gayify the world. I suggest deleting the whole page - and if it reappears in a similar form, delete and protect. - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]<br />
<br />
<br />
== Agendas ==<br />
So since there are so many references on this wiki to the "homosexual agenda" can we also cite the "Conservative Agenda" or "Republican Agenda" or "Christian Agenda"? {{unsigned|prof0705}}<br />
:I don't see why not, as long as they sourced and reasonably recognizable as phrases in common use. In fact, here, I would expect an article on [[conservative agenda]] to be very good. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:56, 13 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
This article violates the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] (number 2: cite sources and 5: personal opinion). <br />
#It claims to quote Focus on the Family for the definition of The Homosexual Agenda without giving a specific reference, and FotF is only claimed to be quoting "a leading book in the homosexual movement" without even bothering to name the book or its author.<br />
#The two bulleted points in "The Goals" (about 8-year-old boys and 12-to-14 year olds) are stating as fact the opinion of Craig Osten, a vice president at the Alliance Defense Fund.<br />
#Several of the other references to that section are either citing journalist's or lawyer's opinions, not facts or any quote from the people who are alleged to hold the agenda under discussion. <br />
<br />
I am prohibited from editing the page but I suggest that the Agenda is moved to the top, and the original source for it cited, rather than a vague second-hand reference. The judge's quote should then be indented as a block quote so it is more clearly identifiable as quoting the judge. The Goals and Opposing Christian Agenda should be cleaned up and cite proper sources not opinions, or be more clearly marked as only opinions of people who oppose the Homosexual Agenda. If Conservapedia could handle it, even a quote from someone who supports it would be good. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 06:06, 19 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:[[Conservapedia:Commandments]] (number 2: cite sources and 5: personal opinion) is superceded by [[Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks]]:<br />
::''Sysop's and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked.''<br />
:Note: ''Their <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Special:ListUsers/sysop sysops]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> instructions, as to Conservapedia policy [...] are to be followed'', which means if a sysop has decided it is so it is so. If you continue to argue you may get blocked.<br />
:[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
What about Hot man on man/woman on woman action? I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that homosexuals were pretty in favor of that.<br />
<br />
== Is this really as big as people make it out to be? ==<br />
While I personally do not like anyone being too open about their personal lives, especially concerning anything to do with sex, still when I hear about a "Homosexual Agenda" I can only think of another fear that other people once tried to infect people with: it was called "The Protocols of The Elders of Zion." I think some of you may understand my point... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:15, 27 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Yeah, I don't really understand why people even care if someone is homosexual or not. If you're not a homosexual yourself you're not gonna be involved with homosexuality so why even care? It doesn't affect you in that case. If someones is homosexual, then fine. Let them be. Has nothing to do with you. [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:33, 28 January 2009 (EST)<br />
:Do you not care about God, JohnKite? Do you not care about His society? Do you not acre about moral erosion, disease, and the future of humanity? Do you not care about what is right and what is wrong? [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 11:35, 28 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Please remove the reference to Scott Lively's propaganda book==<br />
This is propaganda. It seems you don't allow neutrality here. [[User:GayMan|GayMan]] 21:51, 28 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I agree. Numbers 1-5 on there are kinda <i>wrong</i>, and number 6 tops it off as crap. [[User:Clorox|Clorox]] 23:11, 3 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Hey, now... ==<br />
I'm LGBT and I'm certainly not aware of any sort of "agenda" being discussed. Perhaps this is just a typical case of right-wing paranoia? --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 18:07, 17 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
You're not aware because you're not hive-minded. The agenda is memetic, therefore you're not all going to know about it. --[[User:Pious|Pious]] 18:21, 24 June 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==What the hell?==<br />
<br />
The “homosexuality agenda" was created by Focus on the Family, which you say later in the article, ACTIVELY OPPOSES homosexuality. You wouldn’t let me post Jon Stewart quotes on the Bush page, so why is this kind of crap aloud here? [[User:Tesfan|Tesfan]] 11:43, 23 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
This is exactly the sort of thing that inspires violence against homosexuals. Be more neutral.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 12:34, 27 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Good luck pal, I've been saying that for months. And watch your language, they'll ban you for that here. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 12:46, 27 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Politics and science==<br />
<br />
Dr. Ronald Bayer, writing in Homosexuality And American Psychiatry: The Politics Of Diagnosis said the APA decision was a political one, not a scientific one: "The result [of the APA removal of homosexuality from the DSM] was not a conclusion based upon an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times." [http://traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/Homosexuality101.pdf]<br />
==Liberal Deceit==<br />
I suggest we change the category from Deceit to Liberal Deceit because liberals universally support the gay agenda. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 22:26, 26 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
*Good idea! --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 23:08, 26 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Bad idea. It's not deceit. [[User:Clorox|Clorox]] 23:16, 3 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
Again I find myself disturbed by the language of absolutes that have infested this site. There are liberal and homosexual philosophies mentioned in this site that some liberals and homosexuals don't have simply because they don't know about them- and it's certainly not a stretch of the imagination to say these people are generally ignorant. Are children in Africa who die young damned simply because a missionary doesn't exist where they live and they couldn't have possibly heard the good news about Christ? I think not. I believe they get another chance to. --[[User:Pious|Pious]] 18:26, 24 June 2011 (CDT)<br />
<br />
==Sources?==<br />
<br />
Are there any sources besides those accusing the gay agenda? There's no evidence of any organized "agenda", and all of the goals and such are provided by those opposing it. Best case, this is an article about a pundit talking point, and worst case it's a conspiracy theory masked as an encyclopedia article. Shouldn't it at least mention that there has never been any evidence of even a mildly organized or centralized gay agenda? The fact that it's permanently locked further undermines CP credibility. [[User:RWest|RWest]] 12:32, 13 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Specific suggestion:<br />
:Focus on the Family quotes below from a leading book in the homosexual movement which outlines the points of the homosexual agenda:<br />
There is no source cited here. The source is "The Overhauling of Straight America," an article which appeared in the November 1987 issue of a gay magazine called ''The Guide''. [[User:Shii|Shii]] 22:44, 23 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: Thanks, I just added an online link to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 23 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Mottos? ==<br />
<br />
The edit replacing "beliefs" with "mottos" was unjustified. There is a (baseless) belief system inherent in the homosexual agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:41, 12 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== References: "small looks better" ==<br />
<br />
Why? All the other articles I've seen have references at regular text size. What's particular about this article that it needs to have really tiny footnotes? [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 17:24, 28 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Homosexuality in Congress==<br />
<br />
In a recent discussion with a friend of mine, we discussed what is here called the "homosexual agenda". In addition to the notion of whether "everyone has an agenda" (something I would consider adding to the Debate pool if anyone would like clarification of my terms/beliefs here, I brought up the notion of whether or not there exists a disproportionate number of homosexuals or, unfortunately, scandals regarding previously latent homosexual desires among otherwise Conservative men (Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Bob Allen, the Glenn Murphy scandal), and whether this constitutes the corrupting nature of power, or, as my friend (a somewhat eccentric, Ron Paul-supporter type) suggests, whether these men are "moles" (his term, not mine) representing a quote, "homo infiltration". To put it bluntly, imagine the Manchurian Candidate, but with sodomy. <br />
<br />
I was wondering if anyone here (I imagine you have all put some effort into the research and sourcing for this article) had ever heard trustworthy sources, blogs, or essays dealing with such a belief. I obviously don't support the endorsement of wingnut theories, but if it is a more widespread belief among self-avowed Republicans and conservatives, then I think it bears mentioning. I wait to see if any such evidence exists. [[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 10:48, 9 September 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Iran?==<br />
This site considers Iran as an example for how to deal with homosexuals?? I hope this is a joke; otherwise, this is one of the sickest, most hateful websites I've ever seen. You claim to follow Jesus, and then condone executing homosexuals?? This must be an example of following the hard-ass God of the Old Testament.{{unsigned|User:Pete5383}}<br />
<br />
:This site does not condone the murder of homosexuals by the state. It is a true statement on Iran and most Muslim countries are no different. So yes, they oppose the homosexual agenda but that doesn't correspond to the section which talks of political/cultural opposition. Instead, a foreign section needs created and the FACTS put in the proper place.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:37, 17 August 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Merge from "pro-Gay"==<br />
<br />
Thanks for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexual_Agenda&curid=69968&diff=877518&oldid=877453&rcid=1187531 merging this point] from the "[[pro-gay]]" article. I sure wish I had '''bothered to look''' for the diff before undoing your careful work. *sigh* --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:44, 9 June 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Homophobes==<br />
<br />
Westboro is probably the only authentically "[[homophobic]]" group in the USA. They used to have a "God hates fags" website. No one takes them seriously, on either side of the ideological battle lines. They are the poster boys for [[hate speech]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:00, 2 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Charity==<br />
<br />
:Cut from lede:<br />
<br />
:* Liberals generally give much less than conservatives to charity, but charity work by gays in particular is virtually non-existent.<br />
<br />
:This needs references, if true. But I don't believe it - or maybe I just don't understand it. Isn't [[Gay Men's Health Crisis]] a [[charity]]? (Or is it merely a [[non-profit organization]] '''without''' a charitable purpose? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:44, 12 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Just happened to see this, and so here is some data:<br />
<br />
On average, weekly churchgoers donate 3.8% of their income to charity, compared to 0.8% for those who never go. Independent Sector (charitable clearing house): Atheists won't save Europe by Don Feder; http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27937<br />
<br />
Religious citizens who make $49,000 gave away about 3.5 times as much money as secular citizens with the same income. They also volunteered twice as often, are 57 percent more likely to help homeless persons, and two-thirds more likely to give blood at their workplace. Arthur C. Brooks' Who Really Cares. http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2008/001/8.11.html<br />
<br />
In 2006, Americans gave 1.66% of their aggregate income to charity, with donations totaling US$182 billion. This rate of giving is more than double that of Canadians, who gave 0.76% of aggregate income (CA$8.4 billion in total) to charity in 2006. http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/Generosity_Index_2008.pdf<br />
<br />
See [http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Statistical_Correlations.html here] for a table of many comparison btwn states, and [http://247wallst.com/2011/12/15/americas-most-and-least-charitable-states/2/ here] for recent stats on giving per state. <br />
<br />
$8.8 billion worth of goods and services that churches are giving overseas to developing (“Third World”) countries. This figures out to be nearly 40 percent of the foreign aid provided by the United States to the same region. U.S. foreign aid to those same countries is $23.5 billion. Carol Adelman of the Hudson Institute, from Notre Dame University study. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Church/Default.aspx?id=118566<br />
<br />
Giving as a percentage of income was higher at the depth of the Great Depression in the 1930s (3.3 percent of per capita income in 1933) than after a half-century of unprecedented prosperity (2.5 percent in 2004) John Ronsvalle and Sylvia Ronsvalle, The State of Church Giving through 2004: Will We Will? 16th ed. (Champaign, Ill.: Empty Tomb, 2006). ^<br />
<br />
The proportion of adults who tithe dropped by 62 percent in the past year. (2) Just 6 percent of born-again households tithed to their churches in 2002. (3) Tithing, when it occurs, is generally among Protestants: 5 percent of adults who attend Protestant churches tithed last year, compared to less than one-tenth of 1 percent among Catholics. (4) Among the groups most likely to tithe are people over 55, college graduates, Evangelicals, Republicans, conservatives, and residents of the South—but there was no segment among which at least 10 percent tithed. George Barna. News release by Barna Research Group, May 19, 2003. ^<br />
<br />
Including religious, American households overall gave 3.5% of their income to charity, with approx. 33% going to to religious institutions. Utah was the state with the highest average per-capita charitable contributions, followed by Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee and Arkansas. Professor Arthur Brooks, 2005. http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2005/February/200502181639511CJsamohT5.593508e-02.html<br />
<br />
A liberal researcher who was surprised at finding that showed conservatives being more giving, set out to do a more thorough analysis, only to confirm the findings: http://blog.geoiq.com/2009/01/07/dataset-of-the-day-who-is-more-generous-republicans-or-democrats/ <br />
<br />
Also, the top 10 most generous countries are:<br />
<br />
1. United States<br />
2. Ireland<br />
3. Australia<br />
4. New Zealand<br />
5. United Kingdom<br />
6. Netherlands<br />
7. Canada<br />
8. Sri Lanka<br />
9. Thailand<br />
10. Laos<br />
<br />
The United States’ first place in the rankings marks a significant improvement from 2010, when it ranked fifth. Other countries making significant gains include Liberia, which went from 39 to 14, and Morocco, which leapt from 33 to 12. http://www.worldvision.org/news/new-report-ranks-most-generous-countries. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 22:27, 27 February 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Kirk and Madsen== <br />
The WP page on Marshall Kirk [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Kirk#Health] has this but which i cannot find a source for:<br />
<br />
"Marshall suffered from severe migraine headaches that were preceded by a strong desire to talk in a rapid monologue. He found that if he gave into these "babbling fits", the headache would be alleviated. He had other medical problems and suffered from bouts of depression that required electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) on three occasions. Because of the negative effects on his memory, he considered ECT to be the last alternative to avoid death. In part due to this medical history, his knowledge of pharmacology was usually greater than that of anyone who treated him. When he died, he was found alone in his apartment by two friends."<br />
<br />
Also cannot find anything on Hunter Madsen (pen name "Erastes Pill")[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 23:54, 24 February 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
== The concept of a homosexual agenda ==<br />
<br />
A blocked user wrote (in part):<br />
<br />
:I made several edits to this page which either eliminated the presentation of personal opinion as fact or which placed notes that statements were not verifiable and were not accompanied by a citation. I find the article as a whole fairly interesting because whether or not an actual homosexual agenda exists, the concept of a homosexual agenda most definitely exists either as an actual agenda held by gay activists or as a perceived agenda by those who oppose acceptance or expansion of rights.<br />
<br />
:None of the changes I made changed the fundamental content of the article, but simply attempted to enhance the article by removing or noting items that lacked references to verifiable data or which were expressions of personal opinion (both of which are forbidden by the conservapedia commandments). This was met with immediate reversion of the edits (which is fine) and blocking of my account from making further changes and blocking of the IP address from which I logged in (which is unacceptable). As you can see on the history page, this was done by user Markman.<br />
<br />
:I understand that a site such as conservapedia is probably subjected to significant attempts at sabotage, but it is unfortunate that the sight has become inhospitable to legitamate attempts to improve the quality of the site by removing mere statements of personal opinion which are un-referenced, un-substantiated, and and un-verifiable.<br />
<br />
:Conservapedia could have been a great resource, but it has, unfortunately, allowed itself to become nothing more than a site that presents propaganda and opinion as fact in violation of its own commandments.<br />
<br />
Overlooking for the moment the apparent admission that you have logged in under a new username to evade a block, your unsigned comment gives no particulars such as a "diff" to support your complaints. Please use the proper channels if you want a more substantial response. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:57, 22 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
Please do not jump to conclusions. I did not create a new account to evade a block. I checked the previous username this morning and it was no longer blocked. The user that blocked me (Markman) gave as one of the reasons for the block, that I had used a user name which violated conservapedia policy (a policy which I searched for but could not find). Out of respect for Marman's complaint about my user name, I created a new acount in order to comply with the conservapedia policy on usernames (which, again, I could not find). I am sorry, but I am not familiar with this forum and I don't really know what "diff" means. Finally, I also do not know what would be the proper channel for this commentary. I read (in its entirety) the page linked as "conservapedia commandments" and all the pages linked to from that page. Im also not sure what you mean by "unsigned". I was logged in when I made the original comments and I didnt realize that a signature was needed in addition to being logged in. Also, I did not intend to use inflammatory language in the initial post. It was more a reaction to being blocked under false pretenses and I did not mean to offend anyone. Sorry about my ingorance of this forum, but I am new to the entire wiki process. Is there some sort of tutorial or guidelines available on the site? Thanks, Mikers.<br />
<br />
:Here's the [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexual_Agenda&action=historysubmit&diff=1035658&oldid=1035638 diff] of Markman reverting this user's edits. Mikers is right that at least some of the sentences he deleted are in clear violation of Conservapedia guidelines. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 13:07, 22 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
One last point, Ed. In the message you sent me you stated that I should not hesitate to point out editorial problems with conservapedia as long as I avoid inflammatory language. However when I pointed out editorial problems with this page and edited the page to resolve them, I was immediately blocked. There does not seem to be a way to appeal blocks and without an appeals process, conservapedia does not encourage the free exchange of ideas which it claims to be encouraging. There should be a mechanism for appealing and complaining about those members who arbitrarily block users who simply disagree with ideology or because they point out serious problems with articles (such as lack of evidence or citations to back up personal opinions presented as fact in violation of conservapedia commandments 1 and 5). It would seem to be impossible to point out members who inappropriately block users without creating a different acount which is a violation of conservapedia policy. It seems that the conservapedia system is constructed to prevent fair and thoughtful challenges to articles which present personal opinion as fact without evidence or challenges to facts presented in the articles. What would you suggest a user do if he or she is blocked simply for making a reasonable edit to a page? What would you suggest for a user who believes that he or she was inappropriately blocked by a user without sufficient basis? Thanks in advance for your input, Mikers.</div>Mikershttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Homosexual_Agenda&diff=1035926Talk:Homosexual Agenda2013-02-22T21:04:39Z<p>Mikers: /* The concept of a homosexual agenda */</p>
<hr />
<div>Scalia mentioned that in a dissenting opinion, which isn't binding law. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 00:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Vic Eliason passage should be removed ==<br />
<br />
I write this because I have met VE here in Wisconsin and believe he'd be uncomfortable with the logic of including this information in this particular article. The passage: "Vic Eliason of Crosstalk America rightly points out that if all Americans turned homosexual it would only take a few generations for the United States to lose most of the population of the country through lack of procreation. This would make the US more vulnerable to attack by our enemies." Nobody believes that homosexuality is contagious, like a virus, and the probability is 0% that "all Americans" would turn homosexual. I doubt that any homosexual, including activist leaders, would think it would be possible at all or even desirable. There is as little temptation for a heterosexual to want homosexual sex as there is for homosexuals to want heterosexual sex. Also, the comment about the US being more vulnerable to attack because the country doesn't procreate also makes no sense, given that the likelihood of that happening for this reason is 0%. Three other potential problems. 1) The passage is completely undocumented. 2) The link for biographical information for VE is to Wikipedia. Couldn't someone here write an article about him for CP? He has been, after all, a leading figure in Christian radio for 40+ years. 3) Besides being unrelated to the topic of the article and having 0% possibility of describing a real situation, the passage detracts from the credibility of the article and CP. This passage should be removed.<br />
<br />
== WOV's got a point ==<br />
<br />
Not only that, but this entire article is biased tripe. It presents the "homosexual agenda" from a one-sided perspective, and is filled with hate commentary. '''I recommend the entire thing for deletion.'''<br />
<br />
Scalia's remark is regretful and a blemish on the pages of the U.S. Reporter, up there with Scott v. Sanford. But let's not expand it still further.<br />
<br />
I have cleaned up biased and vitriolic language as best as I can, but this entry deserves deletion.<br />
<br />
Seconded. If this is a homosexual agenda, then what homosexual wrote it? This is nothing but political game-playing: Identify a group as ''The Enemy'' and then brand them haters and abusers of family, children, and country. It makes dehumanising them so much easier. - Suricou<br />
<br />
: I didn't see anything "hateful" in it. The Scalia reference was not intended to be about what is binding law, obviously. There was nothing binding about his phrase. I'll note that it was in dissent.<br />
<br />
: The edits to this article were completely inappropriate, turning it into a liberal puff piece. Wikipedia exists for that. Actually, your edits made this even more liberal than Wikipedia's article on the same topic!<br />
<br />
: The hour is very late and I need to lock this page to guard against vandalism or conversion to a liberal message. I can unlock tomorrow. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Presenting both points doesn't make it a liberal puff piece! It presented only one perspective (Focus on the Family), and referred to the Shepard incident as OVERBLOWN. That's awful!! I consider my entry a moderate tack, but if you can think of an acceptable compromise that preserves an unbiased perspective, be my guest. It shocks me to see you go against your own commandments, though, about not including bias, and not importing a political perspective. I have tried to, and continue to try to, do the same.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 02:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Instead of the http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm cite you may want to use this one [http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm] This cite goes straight (NPI) to a section of the book ''After the Ball''. -)[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:24, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Thanks. Will do tomorrow. Goodnight, Cracker!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
I would definitely change the "promote homosexuality in schools" to "promote acceptance of homosexuality in schools". Definitely sounds like they're trying to make me gay. --[[User:Splark|Splark]] 21:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree with the comments of [[User:AmesG|AmesG]] and [[User:Splark|Splark]]. The idea that one's ideological opponents have a specific "agenda" is an all-too common one, but such agendas are more often touted by those who oppose than by those who support a group. That a Supreme Court Justice referred to it, or that it's in some leaflet somewhere, isn't substantive evidence that it exists.. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Aren't those five points of the "homosexual agenda" linked to more of a strategy than an "agenda"? And, aren't they the standard strategy for all interest groups? 1. Talk about your issue. 2. Show your group is harmed unless you get what you want. 3. Provide facts so people can justify agreeing with you. 4. Portray yourself and your point of view as right and moral. 5. Portray your opponents and their point of view as wrong and immoral. 6. Get corporate or other financial support. Every group and lobbying organization does that, and I don't know that singling out gays and the gay rights movement as doing that is really informative.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 11:23, 15 March 2007 (ED<br />
<br />
I will go on the record and say that yes, there is a homosexual agenda. As a homosexual myself, I'm pretty much in the middle of it. All we want is to be treated the same as any other tax-paying American. If my partner is injured, I would like to be able to have the same visitation and decision-making power as a husband/wife would. I would like to be able to transfer property when I die without having to jump through a million legal hoops. Many people claim that we want "special" rights. We really don't. We just want to be treated the same as everyone else.--[[User:Patthew|Patthew]] 12:01, 12 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I think this page is extremely biased. It presents only one side of the issue and is locked to prevent the other side from responding. Proof of a bias of another kind here.<br />
-Gasmonkey<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Everything you post must be true and verifiable ==<br />
<br />
This entry violates the first (and perhaps most important) Conservapedia commandment. There is no homosexual "agenda" -- no "they" who "wrote a book", no 10-point plan. It's the same kind of paranoid nonsense that's in the articles here on Joseph McCarthy and Alger Hiss (WP has far more accurate articles on both subjects, with the one on Hiss very clearly identifying areas of controversy), with conspiracy-theorist types quoting and sourcing one another. I propose this entire article for immediate deletion. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 10:56, 22 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Agreed. The "Homosexual agenda" is no more factual than the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Delete, or recreate as an article about the popular (?) but false belief in this "agenda." [[User:Pkoad|Pkoad]] 00:21, 29 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:It refers to the [[gay rights]] activism, which may be a [[grassroots]] movement but which has multiple goals which are easily identified. The Liberal POV that such goals are non-existent is a kind of denialism. <br />
<br />
:It will be good for the article to discuss this denial, in conjunction with [[gay rights]] critics who oppose the points which the denialists says no one advances. (Not worded right, but I think you get the gist.) See you all tomorrow. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 00:29, 29 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::There's no more gay agenda other than there was a "black agenda" before ''Brown'' came down. The gay agenda is equal treatment. Oh no, quick, ma, shut the doors! Equality's a-comin'!-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub><br />
<br />
:::I'd say "keep it" so the world can really see how these strange nutkins think. But in the interest of humanity, decency, and honesty, it is a pack of paranoid, politico-religious agenda lies. Really, really strange nutjob lies. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:51, 28 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:'''Keep:'''Let's assume for one moment that the homosexual agenda is complete hogwash and homosexual activists don't believe in it: Isn't the fact that Conservative Christians do believe in it enough to keep the article so that the "opinions" of Christians about homosexual activists be here. The fact that many talk about it is clear evidence that this is a valid article--[[User:Djcreativity|Djcreativity]] 15:47, 9 May 2009 (EDT)<br />
::Shouldn't we present information that is factual, and not misleading, though? If the intention of the article was to present Christian responses to gay rights activism, it should be presented as such. Given that ''After the Ball'' was published twenty years ago, presenting it as an active force in the gay rights movement (rather than as a foundation of the movement as a whole) is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? If we were talking about the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam we could reference Malcom X and Louis Farrakhan, but to act as though their works were part of current politics and national discourse would be misguided at best, and flatly wrong, at worst. --[[User:Jfavor|Jfavor]] 00:40, 20 May 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Opposing Christian Agenda ==<br />
<br />
I can't work out what the point of the "Opposing Christian Agenda" section is. The sentences don't make sense, and the referenced page does not mention homosexuality or gay. I propose the section be deleted by someone with the privilege to edit the article. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:33, 9 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I think it's not nearly explicit enough. More than anything else except perhaps abortion, the homosexual subversion of Christian values is illustrative of the influence of Satan upon liberals and other leftists, and his influence through them on our society. Should I rework the section to include such? --[[User:Nathan|Nathan]] 22:20, 11 February 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Improvements ==<br />
<br />
Shouldn't ''Gayness'' in part 1. of the agenda be ''Gaiety''?<br />
The term ''[[homosexual protectors]]'' in part three surely merits its own article. Is this the same as ''[[Homosexualist]]s''? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:11, 27 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Any attempt to trivialize or confuse the issue will be frowned upon here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
We should delete the cite at the bottom saying that homosexuality caused Nazism. That's a truly disturbing allegation.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 12:59, 27 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Especially considering that the Nazis actually murdered thousands of homosexuals during World War II.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 18:32, 7 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Yes they did, but it was because of Hitler. NOT homosexuality. And waaay more Jews were killed than homosexuals, giving Jews a larger spotlight. [[User:Clorox|Clorox]] <small>I'm liberal, but I don't edit pages-just [[User talk:Clorox|talk page]]s. don't worry.</small> 23:25, 3 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
'''<br />
I believe langauge needs to be corrected in the the first bullet of the list of homosexual goals. It currently states "Censoring sections of the bible condemning homosexuality." The source cited is an article about an offensive tee shirt being censored not the bible its self. There needs to be eaither a new source about Homosexuals attempting to change the bible or the wording must be changed to "preventing materials that denounce homosexuality from being displayed publicly."<br />
<br />
Reference number "8" rrefers back to the Conservapedia site. In order to maintain integrity it must refer to an ouside source if one is not provided the reference and quote should be deleted. Currently it is a logical fallacy and is not up to encyclopedic standards. Someone not dyslexic (i.e. somone who isn't me.) should get on that.<br />
<br />
== Very Informative ==<br />
'''<br />
<br />
Excellent portrayal of the truth. This is a nice breather from the left-wing saturated wikipedia.com. If you agree with the article, you should check out the highly accurate article on homophobia. Everyone knows that the creation of homophobia is a foundation of the gay agenda.<br />
<br />
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homophobia<br />
<br />
Wikipedia is subject to open edits that don't reqier an account. Are you suggesting that the monitors of wikipedia aka "everyone who can type" has a liberal bias?<br />
<br />
== Is this real? ==<br />
<br />
This article seems like a parody. I can't believe that... oh yeah, I'm at conservapedia. I can believe anything. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
As well as the mysterious reference to a "leading book in the homosexual movement", it refers to a book claiming that the Nazi Party supported homosexuality. Clearly this has to be satirical. Either that, or someone has a serious case of paranoia - all the sources, as well as being of dubious credabililty, point towards independent events but the whole point of the page is to talk about a shadowy conspiricy - a 'Secret Society' of homosexuals trying to gayify the world. I suggest deleting the whole page - and if it reappears in a similar form, delete and protect. - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]<br />
<br />
<br />
== Agendas ==<br />
So since there are so many references on this wiki to the "homosexual agenda" can we also cite the "Conservative Agenda" or "Republican Agenda" or "Christian Agenda"? {{unsigned|prof0705}}<br />
:I don't see why not, as long as they sourced and reasonably recognizable as phrases in common use. In fact, here, I would expect an article on [[conservative agenda]] to be very good. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:56, 13 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
This article violates the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] (number 2: cite sources and 5: personal opinion). <br />
#It claims to quote Focus on the Family for the definition of The Homosexual Agenda without giving a specific reference, and FotF is only claimed to be quoting "a leading book in the homosexual movement" without even bothering to name the book or its author.<br />
#The two bulleted points in "The Goals" (about 8-year-old boys and 12-to-14 year olds) are stating as fact the opinion of Craig Osten, a vice president at the Alliance Defense Fund.<br />
#Several of the other references to that section are either citing journalist's or lawyer's opinions, not facts or any quote from the people who are alleged to hold the agenda under discussion. <br />
<br />
I am prohibited from editing the page but I suggest that the Agenda is moved to the top, and the original source for it cited, rather than a vague second-hand reference. The judge's quote should then be indented as a block quote so it is more clearly identifiable as quoting the judge. The Goals and Opposing Christian Agenda should be cleaned up and cite proper sources not opinions, or be more clearly marked as only opinions of people who oppose the Homosexual Agenda. If Conservapedia could handle it, even a quote from someone who supports it would be good. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 06:06, 19 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:[[Conservapedia:Commandments]] (number 2: cite sources and 5: personal opinion) is superceded by [[Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks]]:<br />
::''Sysop's and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked.''<br />
:Note: ''Their <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Special:ListUsers/sysop sysops]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> instructions, as to Conservapedia policy [...] are to be followed'', which means if a sysop has decided it is so it is so. If you continue to argue you may get blocked.<br />
:[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
What about Hot man on man/woman on woman action? I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that homosexuals were pretty in favor of that.<br />
<br />
== Is this really as big as people make it out to be? ==<br />
While I personally do not like anyone being too open about their personal lives, especially concerning anything to do with sex, still when I hear about a "Homosexual Agenda" I can only think of another fear that other people once tried to infect people with: it was called "The Protocols of The Elders of Zion." I think some of you may understand my point... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:15, 27 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Yeah, I don't really understand why people even care if someone is homosexual or not. If you're not a homosexual yourself you're not gonna be involved with homosexuality so why even care? It doesn't affect you in that case. If someones is homosexual, then fine. Let them be. Has nothing to do with you. [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:33, 28 January 2009 (EST)<br />
:Do you not care about God, JohnKite? Do you not care about His society? Do you not acre about moral erosion, disease, and the future of humanity? Do you not care about what is right and what is wrong? [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 11:35, 28 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Please remove the reference to Scott Lively's propaganda book==<br />
This is propaganda. It seems you don't allow neutrality here. [[User:GayMan|GayMan]] 21:51, 28 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I agree. Numbers 1-5 on there are kinda <i>wrong</i>, and number 6 tops it off as crap. [[User:Clorox|Clorox]] 23:11, 3 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Hey, now... ==<br />
I'm LGBT and I'm certainly not aware of any sort of "agenda" being discussed. Perhaps this is just a typical case of right-wing paranoia? --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 18:07, 17 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
You're not aware because you're not hive-minded. The agenda is memetic, therefore you're not all going to know about it. --[[User:Pious|Pious]] 18:21, 24 June 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==What the hell?==<br />
<br />
The “homosexuality agenda" was created by Focus on the Family, which you say later in the article, ACTIVELY OPPOSES homosexuality. You wouldn’t let me post Jon Stewart quotes on the Bush page, so why is this kind of crap aloud here? [[User:Tesfan|Tesfan]] 11:43, 23 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
This is exactly the sort of thing that inspires violence against homosexuals. Be more neutral.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 12:34, 27 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Good luck pal, I've been saying that for months. And watch your language, they'll ban you for that here. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 12:46, 27 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Politics and science==<br />
<br />
Dr. Ronald Bayer, writing in Homosexuality And American Psychiatry: The Politics Of Diagnosis said the APA decision was a political one, not a scientific one: "The result [of the APA removal of homosexuality from the DSM] was not a conclusion based upon an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times." [http://traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/Homosexuality101.pdf]<br />
==Liberal Deceit==<br />
I suggest we change the category from Deceit to Liberal Deceit because liberals universally support the gay agenda. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 22:26, 26 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
*Good idea! --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 23:08, 26 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Bad idea. It's not deceit. [[User:Clorox|Clorox]] 23:16, 3 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
Again I find myself disturbed by the language of absolutes that have infested this site. There are liberal and homosexual philosophies mentioned in this site that some liberals and homosexuals don't have simply because they don't know about them- and it's certainly not a stretch of the imagination to say these people are generally ignorant. Are children in Africa who die young damned simply because a missionary doesn't exist where they live and they couldn't have possibly heard the good news about Christ? I think not. I believe they get another chance to. --[[User:Pious|Pious]] 18:26, 24 June 2011 (CDT)<br />
<br />
==Sources?==<br />
<br />
Are there any sources besides those accusing the gay agenda? There's no evidence of any organized "agenda", and all of the goals and such are provided by those opposing it. Best case, this is an article about a pundit talking point, and worst case it's a conspiracy theory masked as an encyclopedia article. Shouldn't it at least mention that there has never been any evidence of even a mildly organized or centralized gay agenda? The fact that it's permanently locked further undermines CP credibility. [[User:RWest|RWest]] 12:32, 13 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Specific suggestion:<br />
:Focus on the Family quotes below from a leading book in the homosexual movement which outlines the points of the homosexual agenda:<br />
There is no source cited here. The source is "The Overhauling of Straight America," an article which appeared in the November 1987 issue of a gay magazine called ''The Guide''. [[User:Shii|Shii]] 22:44, 23 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: Thanks, I just added an online link to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 23 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Mottos? ==<br />
<br />
The edit replacing "beliefs" with "mottos" was unjustified. There is a (baseless) belief system inherent in the homosexual agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:41, 12 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== References: "small looks better" ==<br />
<br />
Why? All the other articles I've seen have references at regular text size. What's particular about this article that it needs to have really tiny footnotes? [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 17:24, 28 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Homosexuality in Congress==<br />
<br />
In a recent discussion with a friend of mine, we discussed what is here called the "homosexual agenda". In addition to the notion of whether "everyone has an agenda" (something I would consider adding to the Debate pool if anyone would like clarification of my terms/beliefs here, I brought up the notion of whether or not there exists a disproportionate number of homosexuals or, unfortunately, scandals regarding previously latent homosexual desires among otherwise Conservative men (Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Bob Allen, the Glenn Murphy scandal), and whether this constitutes the corrupting nature of power, or, as my friend (a somewhat eccentric, Ron Paul-supporter type) suggests, whether these men are "moles" (his term, not mine) representing a quote, "homo infiltration". To put it bluntly, imagine the Manchurian Candidate, but with sodomy. <br />
<br />
I was wondering if anyone here (I imagine you have all put some effort into the research and sourcing for this article) had ever heard trustworthy sources, blogs, or essays dealing with such a belief. I obviously don't support the endorsement of wingnut theories, but if it is a more widespread belief among self-avowed Republicans and conservatives, then I think it bears mentioning. I wait to see if any such evidence exists. [[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 10:48, 9 September 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Iran?==<br />
This site considers Iran as an example for how to deal with homosexuals?? I hope this is a joke; otherwise, this is one of the sickest, most hateful websites I've ever seen. You claim to follow Jesus, and then condone executing homosexuals?? This must be an example of following the hard-ass God of the Old Testament.{{unsigned|User:Pete5383}}<br />
<br />
:This site does not condone the murder of homosexuals by the state. It is a true statement on Iran and most Muslim countries are no different. So yes, they oppose the homosexual agenda but that doesn't correspond to the section which talks of political/cultural opposition. Instead, a foreign section needs created and the FACTS put in the proper place.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:37, 17 August 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Merge from "pro-Gay"==<br />
<br />
Thanks for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexual_Agenda&curid=69968&diff=877518&oldid=877453&rcid=1187531 merging this point] from the "[[pro-gay]]" article. I sure wish I had '''bothered to look''' for the diff before undoing your careful work. *sigh* --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:44, 9 June 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Homophobes==<br />
<br />
Westboro is probably the only authentically "[[homophobic]]" group in the USA. They used to have a "God hates fags" website. No one takes them seriously, on either side of the ideological battle lines. They are the poster boys for [[hate speech]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:00, 2 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Charity==<br />
<br />
:Cut from lede:<br />
<br />
:* Liberals generally give much less than conservatives to charity, but charity work by gays in particular is virtually non-existent.<br />
<br />
:This needs references, if true. But I don't believe it - or maybe I just don't understand it. Isn't [[Gay Men's Health Crisis]] a [[charity]]? (Or is it merely a [[non-profit organization]] '''without''' a charitable purpose? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:44, 12 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Just happened to see this, and so here is some data:<br />
<br />
On average, weekly churchgoers donate 3.8% of their income to charity, compared to 0.8% for those who never go. Independent Sector (charitable clearing house): Atheists won't save Europe by Don Feder; http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27937<br />
<br />
Religious citizens who make $49,000 gave away about 3.5 times as much money as secular citizens with the same income. They also volunteered twice as often, are 57 percent more likely to help homeless persons, and two-thirds more likely to give blood at their workplace. Arthur C. Brooks' Who Really Cares. http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2008/001/8.11.html<br />
<br />
In 2006, Americans gave 1.66% of their aggregate income to charity, with donations totaling US$182 billion. This rate of giving is more than double that of Canadians, who gave 0.76% of aggregate income (CA$8.4 billion in total) to charity in 2006. http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/Generosity_Index_2008.pdf<br />
<br />
See [http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Statistical_Correlations.html here] for a table of many comparison btwn states, and [http://247wallst.com/2011/12/15/americas-most-and-least-charitable-states/2/ here] for recent stats on giving per state. <br />
<br />
$8.8 billion worth of goods and services that churches are giving overseas to developing (“Third World”) countries. This figures out to be nearly 40 percent of the foreign aid provided by the United States to the same region. U.S. foreign aid to those same countries is $23.5 billion. Carol Adelman of the Hudson Institute, from Notre Dame University study. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Church/Default.aspx?id=118566<br />
<br />
Giving as a percentage of income was higher at the depth of the Great Depression in the 1930s (3.3 percent of per capita income in 1933) than after a half-century of unprecedented prosperity (2.5 percent in 2004) John Ronsvalle and Sylvia Ronsvalle, The State of Church Giving through 2004: Will We Will? 16th ed. (Champaign, Ill.: Empty Tomb, 2006). ^<br />
<br />
The proportion of adults who tithe dropped by 62 percent in the past year. (2) Just 6 percent of born-again households tithed to their churches in 2002. (3) Tithing, when it occurs, is generally among Protestants: 5 percent of adults who attend Protestant churches tithed last year, compared to less than one-tenth of 1 percent among Catholics. (4) Among the groups most likely to tithe are people over 55, college graduates, Evangelicals, Republicans, conservatives, and residents of the South—but there was no segment among which at least 10 percent tithed. George Barna. News release by Barna Research Group, May 19, 2003. ^<br />
<br />
Including religious, American households overall gave 3.5% of their income to charity, with approx. 33% going to to religious institutions. Utah was the state with the highest average per-capita charitable contributions, followed by Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee and Arkansas. Professor Arthur Brooks, 2005. http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2005/February/200502181639511CJsamohT5.593508e-02.html<br />
<br />
A liberal researcher who was surprised at finding that showed conservatives being more giving, set out to do a more thorough analysis, only to confirm the findings: http://blog.geoiq.com/2009/01/07/dataset-of-the-day-who-is-more-generous-republicans-or-democrats/ <br />
<br />
Also, the top 10 most generous countries are:<br />
<br />
1. United States<br />
2. Ireland<br />
3. Australia<br />
4. New Zealand<br />
5. United Kingdom<br />
6. Netherlands<br />
7. Canada<br />
8. Sri Lanka<br />
9. Thailand<br />
10. Laos<br />
<br />
The United States’ first place in the rankings marks a significant improvement from 2010, when it ranked fifth. Other countries making significant gains include Liberia, which went from 39 to 14, and Morocco, which leapt from 33 to 12. http://www.worldvision.org/news/new-report-ranks-most-generous-countries. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 22:27, 27 February 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Kirk and Madsen== <br />
The WP page on Marshall Kirk [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Kirk#Health] has this but which i cannot find a source for:<br />
<br />
"Marshall suffered from severe migraine headaches that were preceded by a strong desire to talk in a rapid monologue. He found that if he gave into these "babbling fits", the headache would be alleviated. He had other medical problems and suffered from bouts of depression that required electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) on three occasions. Because of the negative effects on his memory, he considered ECT to be the last alternative to avoid death. In part due to this medical history, his knowledge of pharmacology was usually greater than that of anyone who treated him. When he died, he was found alone in his apartment by two friends."<br />
<br />
Also cannot find anything on Hunter Madsen (pen name "Erastes Pill")[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 23:54, 24 February 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
== The concept of a homosexual agenda ==<br />
<br />
A blocked user wrote (in part):<br />
<br />
:I made several edits to this page which either eliminated the presentation of personal opinion as fact or which placed notes that statements were not verifiable and were not accompanied by a citation. I find the article as a whole fairly interesting because whether or not an actual homosexual agenda exists, the concept of a homosexual agenda most definitely exists either as an actual agenda held by gay activists or as a perceived agenda by those who oppose acceptance or expansion of rights.<br />
<br />
:None of the changes I made changed the fundamental content of the article, but simply attempted to enhance the article by removing or noting items that lacked references to verifiable data or which were expressions of personal opinion (both of which are forbidden by the conservapedia commandments). This was met with immediate reversion of the edits (which is fine) and blocking of my account from making further changes and blocking of the IP address from which I logged in (which is unacceptable). As you can see on the history page, this was done by user Markman.<br />
<br />
:I understand that a site such as conservapedia is probably subjected to significant attempts at sabotage, but it is unfortunate that the sight has become inhospitable to legitamate attempts to improve the quality of the site by removing mere statements of personal opinion which are un-referenced, un-substantiated, and and un-verifiable.<br />
<br />
:Conservapedia could have been a great resource, but it has, unfortunately, allowed itself to become nothing more than a site that presents propaganda and opinion as fact in violation of its own commandments.<br />
<br />
Overlooking for the moment the apparent admission that you have logged in under a new username to evade a block, your unsigned comment gives no particulars such as a "diff" to support your complaints. Please use the proper channels if you want a more substantial response. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:57, 22 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
Please do not jump to conclusions. I did not create a new account to evade a block. I checked the previous username this morning and it was no longer blocked. The user that blocked me (Markman) gave as one of the reasons for the block, that I had used a user name which violated conservapedia policy (a policy which I searched for but could not find). Out of respect for Marman's complaint about my user name, I created a new acount in order to comply with the conservapedia policy on usernames (which, again, I could not find). I am sorry, but I am not familiar with this forum and I don't really know what "diff" means. Finally, I also do not know what would be the proper channel for this commentary. I read (in its entirety) the page linked as "conservapedia commandments" and all the pages linked to from that page. Im also not sure what you mean by "unsigned". I was logged in when I made the original comments and I didnt realize that a signature was needed in addition to being logged in. Also, I did not intend to use inflammatory language in the initial post. It was more a reaction to being blocked under false pretenses and I did not mean to offend anyone. Sorry about my ingorance of this forum, but I am new to the entire wiki process. Is there some sort of tutorial or guidelines available on the site? Thanks, Mikers.<br />
<br />
:Here's the [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexual_Agenda&action=historysubmit&diff=1035658&oldid=1035638 diff] of Markman reverting this user's edits. Mikers is right that at least some of the sentences he deleted are in clear violation of Conservapedia guidelines. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 13:07, 22 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
One last point, Ed. In the message you sent me you stated that I should not hesitate to point out editorial problems with conservapedia as long as I avoid inflammatory language. However when I pointed out editorial problems with this page and edited the page to resolve them, I was immediately blocked. There does not seem to be a way to appeal blocks and without an appeals process, conservapedia does not encourage the free exchange of ideas which it claims to be encouraging. There should be a mechanism for appealing and complaining about those members who arbitrarily block users who simply disagree with ideology or because they point out serious problems with articles (such as lack of evidence or citations to back up personal opinions presented as fact in violation of conservapedia commandments 1 and 5). It would seem to be impossible to point out members who inappropriately block users without creating a different acount which is a violation of conservapedia policy. It seems that the conservapedia system is constructed to prevent fair and thoughtful challenges to articles which present personal opinion as fact without evidence or challenges to facts presented in the articles. What would you suggest a user do if he or she is blocked simply for making a reasonable edit to a page? What would you suggest for a user who believes that he or she was inappropriately blocked by a user without sufficient basis? Thanks in advance for your imput.</div>Mikershttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Lawrence_v._Texas&diff=1035924Talk:Lawrence v. Texas2013-02-22T20:55:20Z<p>Mikers: /* Good Article. */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div>I am curious to hear thoughts on the political impact of this ruling. It occurs to me that, were sodomy still illegal, there could be very little gay rights movement - for thr practical reason that were anyone to publicly admit they supported gay rights, they could be investigated and their sickness uncovered so they could be either jailed or treated, and either way would no longer be able to campaign. No Lawrence v Texas, no gay rights movement - much like the campaign to legalise pedophilia today, they would be confined to scared perverts who couldn't campaign because they know they would be arrested. The gays would not be able to push their agenda of filth and attack the family from every angle as they are doing today, and the culture would be kept clean. Perhaps conservatives should look into any potential legal trick to overturn it - I know there wouldn't be enough popular support for a constitutional ammendment, but perhaps it would be possible to keep passing anti-sodomy laws in the states over and over until chance and political climate allowed one to stick? Once it does, we can begin getting the perverts cured and made safe for society. Thoughts, anyone? - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]<br />
<br />
== Criminalizing Sodomy ==<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, with the frequency that straight people engage in sodomy, if you made it illegal, everyone would be in jail. And the Supreme Court already said decades ago that you can't make sodomy illegal for gays and legal for straights without violating the principle of equal protection.<br />
Sorry! Deal with it!<br />
:What was the Supreme Court case decades ago where they said it? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:05, 26 June 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Good Article. ==<br />
<br />
I found this article to be a good and objective review of the supreme court case with little if any personal opinion.</div>Mikershttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal_censorship&diff=1035923Talk:Liberal censorship2013-02-22T20:47:55Z<p>Mikers: /* Conservapedia Commandment Violations */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div>I reverted the "censorship". Now make your case. ... Okay, I waited but no one is addressing the issue of whether liberals are using censorship to suppress opposing views. <br />
<br />
I'm going to move the counteraccusation to a debate page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:11, 25 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:Ed, I appreciate your reversion of my reversion. But my reading of that is that TK says we might block when opposing views are parotted and nauseam, ie the block is for disruptive editing and arguing just to delay and undermine CP, rather than being an ideological block. therefore the inference by the person who made the accusation was incorrect so I reverted it and I blocked her for untruth. if you disagree with me you may wish to unblock also. cheers, [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:16, 25 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::The question is, who are the real censors? I think we can make a case that it is liberals. The counteraccusation is a mere distraction. It's like liberals, socialists and communists who dismiss all criticism of [[Communist genocide]] and focus on their allegation that [[Pinochet]] murdered 3 thousand political opponents in Chile. It's a distraction, because even if all 3 thousand people who disappeared were "murdered" by the government, it's unrelated to the murder of over 30 '''million''' people by the Communist governments of China and USSR.<br />
<br />
::Two wrongs do not make a right, and one small wrong on one side does not justify a large wrong on the opposite side. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:21, 25 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
(afterthought) I value TK's input, but he might not represent the founder precisely in this. The question remains, "What is an ideological block?" Let's take this thread to [[Conservapedia:Ideological blocking]], because we've gone far afield from [[liberal censorship]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:28, 25 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Why is there a "Liberal censorship" page and not a "Conservative censorship" page? This seems a bit harsh... --[[User:Humph|Humph]] 15:51, 29 May 2009 (EDT)Humph<br />
<br />
==Liberal totalitarianism==<br />
*''The result of pervasive and institutionalized liberal censorship is termed liberal totalitarianism.''<br />
Isn't this statement redundant? Wouldn't it imply that if there is such a thing as "liberal totalitarianism", there may exist a converse or alternative form of [[totalitarianism]] such as "conservative totalitarianism"? I was of the mind or impression that [[conservativism]] stands in direct opposition to all forms of totalitarianism. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:41, 14 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Jefferson quote==<br />
*''No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.'' <br />
I am actually not sure if this quote from Jefferson is true or not but in this article it is said this is true while in [[Gun control quotes]] article, it is said that it is a fake... --[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 23:32, 4 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Conservapedia Commandment Violations ==<br />
<br />
This entire entry would seem to violate commandments 1 and 5. It is almost entirely a presentation of personal opinoin as fact with no references or citations to any authoritative source.</div>Mikershttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Homosexual_Agenda&diff=1035897Talk:Homosexual Agenda2013-02-22T16:38:56Z<p>Mikers: /* The concept of a homosexual agenda */</p>
<hr />
<div>Scalia mentioned that in a dissenting opinion, which isn't binding law. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 00:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Vic Eliason passage should be removed ==<br />
<br />
I write this because I have met VE here in Wisconsin and believe he'd be uncomfortable with the logic of including this information in this particular article. The passage: "Vic Eliason of Crosstalk America rightly points out that if all Americans turned homosexual it would only take a few generations for the United States to lose most of the population of the country through lack of procreation. This would make the US more vulnerable to attack by our enemies." Nobody believes that homosexuality is contagious, like a virus, and the probability is 0% that "all Americans" would turn homosexual. I doubt that any homosexual, including activist leaders, would think it would be possible at all or even desirable. There is as little temptation for a heterosexual to want homosexual sex as there is for homosexuals to want heterosexual sex. Also, the comment about the US being more vulnerable to attack because the country doesn't procreate also makes no sense, given that the likelihood of that happening for this reason is 0%. Three other potential problems. 1) The passage is completely undocumented. 2) The link for biographical information for VE is to Wikipedia. Couldn't someone here write an article about him for CP? He has been, after all, a leading figure in Christian radio for 40+ years. 3) Besides being unrelated to the topic of the article and having 0% possibility of describing a real situation, the passage detracts from the credibility of the article and CP. This passage should be removed.<br />
<br />
== WOV's got a point ==<br />
<br />
Not only that, but this entire article is biased tripe. It presents the "homosexual agenda" from a one-sided perspective, and is filled with hate commentary. '''I recommend the entire thing for deletion.'''<br />
<br />
Scalia's remark is regretful and a blemish on the pages of the U.S. Reporter, up there with Scott v. Sanford. But let's not expand it still further.<br />
<br />
I have cleaned up biased and vitriolic language as best as I can, but this entry deserves deletion.<br />
<br />
Seconded. If this is a homosexual agenda, then what homosexual wrote it? This is nothing but political game-playing: Identify a group as ''The Enemy'' and then brand them haters and abusers of family, children, and country. It makes dehumanising them so much easier. - Suricou<br />
<br />
: I didn't see anything "hateful" in it. The Scalia reference was not intended to be about what is binding law, obviously. There was nothing binding about his phrase. I'll note that it was in dissent.<br />
<br />
: The edits to this article were completely inappropriate, turning it into a liberal puff piece. Wikipedia exists for that. Actually, your edits made this even more liberal than Wikipedia's article on the same topic!<br />
<br />
: The hour is very late and I need to lock this page to guard against vandalism or conversion to a liberal message. I can unlock tomorrow. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Presenting both points doesn't make it a liberal puff piece! It presented only one perspective (Focus on the Family), and referred to the Shepard incident as OVERBLOWN. That's awful!! I consider my entry a moderate tack, but if you can think of an acceptable compromise that preserves an unbiased perspective, be my guest. It shocks me to see you go against your own commandments, though, about not including bias, and not importing a political perspective. I have tried to, and continue to try to, do the same.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 02:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Instead of the http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm cite you may want to use this one [http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm] This cite goes straight (NPI) to a section of the book ''After the Ball''. -)[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:24, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Thanks. Will do tomorrow. Goodnight, Cracker!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
I would definitely change the "promote homosexuality in schools" to "promote acceptance of homosexuality in schools". Definitely sounds like they're trying to make me gay. --[[User:Splark|Splark]] 21:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree with the comments of [[User:AmesG|AmesG]] and [[User:Splark|Splark]]. The idea that one's ideological opponents have a specific "agenda" is an all-too common one, but such agendas are more often touted by those who oppose than by those who support a group. That a Supreme Court Justice referred to it, or that it's in some leaflet somewhere, isn't substantive evidence that it exists.. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Aren't those five points of the "homosexual agenda" linked to more of a strategy than an "agenda"? And, aren't they the standard strategy for all interest groups? 1. Talk about your issue. 2. Show your group is harmed unless you get what you want. 3. Provide facts so people can justify agreeing with you. 4. Portray yourself and your point of view as right and moral. 5. Portray your opponents and their point of view as wrong and immoral. 6. Get corporate or other financial support. Every group and lobbying organization does that, and I don't know that singling out gays and the gay rights movement as doing that is really informative.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 11:23, 15 March 2007 (ED<br />
<br />
I will go on the record and say that yes, there is a homosexual agenda. As a homosexual myself, I'm pretty much in the middle of it. All we want is to be treated the same as any other tax-paying American. If my partner is injured, I would like to be able to have the same visitation and decision-making power as a husband/wife would. I would like to be able to transfer property when I die without having to jump through a million legal hoops. Many people claim that we want "special" rights. We really don't. We just want to be treated the same as everyone else.--[[User:Patthew|Patthew]] 12:01, 12 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I think this page is extremely biased. It presents only one side of the issue and is locked to prevent the other side from responding. Proof of a bias of another kind here.<br />
-Gasmonkey<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Everything you post must be true and verifiable ==<br />
<br />
This entry violates the first (and perhaps most important) Conservapedia commandment. There is no homosexual "agenda" -- no "they" who "wrote a book", no 10-point plan. It's the same kind of paranoid nonsense that's in the articles here on Joseph McCarthy and Alger Hiss (WP has far more accurate articles on both subjects, with the one on Hiss very clearly identifying areas of controversy), with conspiracy-theorist types quoting and sourcing one another. I propose this entire article for immediate deletion. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 10:56, 22 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Agreed. The "Homosexual agenda" is no more factual than the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Delete, or recreate as an article about the popular (?) but false belief in this "agenda." [[User:Pkoad|Pkoad]] 00:21, 29 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:It refers to the [[gay rights]] activism, which may be a [[grassroots]] movement but which has multiple goals which are easily identified. The Liberal POV that such goals are non-existent is a kind of denialism. <br />
<br />
:It will be good for the article to discuss this denial, in conjunction with [[gay rights]] critics who oppose the points which the denialists says no one advances. (Not worded right, but I think you get the gist.) See you all tomorrow. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 00:29, 29 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::There's no more gay agenda other than there was a "black agenda" before ''Brown'' came down. The gay agenda is equal treatment. Oh no, quick, ma, shut the doors! Equality's a-comin'!-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub><br />
<br />
:::I'd say "keep it" so the world can really see how these strange nutkins think. But in the interest of humanity, decency, and honesty, it is a pack of paranoid, politico-religious agenda lies. Really, really strange nutjob lies. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:51, 28 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:'''Keep:'''Let's assume for one moment that the homosexual agenda is complete hogwash and homosexual activists don't believe in it: Isn't the fact that Conservative Christians do believe in it enough to keep the article so that the "opinions" of Christians about homosexual activists be here. The fact that many talk about it is clear evidence that this is a valid article--[[User:Djcreativity|Djcreativity]] 15:47, 9 May 2009 (EDT)<br />
::Shouldn't we present information that is factual, and not misleading, though? If the intention of the article was to present Christian responses to gay rights activism, it should be presented as such. Given that ''After the Ball'' was published twenty years ago, presenting it as an active force in the gay rights movement (rather than as a foundation of the movement as a whole) is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? If we were talking about the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam we could reference Malcom X and Louis Farrakhan, but to act as though their works were part of current politics and national discourse would be misguided at best, and flatly wrong, at worst. --[[User:Jfavor|Jfavor]] 00:40, 20 May 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Opposing Christian Agenda ==<br />
<br />
I can't work out what the point of the "Opposing Christian Agenda" section is. The sentences don't make sense, and the referenced page does not mention homosexuality or gay. I propose the section be deleted by someone with the privilege to edit the article. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:33, 9 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I think it's not nearly explicit enough. More than anything else except perhaps abortion, the homosexual subversion of Christian values is illustrative of the influence of Satan upon liberals and other leftists, and his influence through them on our society. Should I rework the section to include such? --[[User:Nathan|Nathan]] 22:20, 11 February 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Improvements ==<br />
<br />
Shouldn't ''Gayness'' in part 1. of the agenda be ''Gaiety''?<br />
The term ''[[homosexual protectors]]'' in part three surely merits its own article. Is this the same as ''[[Homosexualist]]s''? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:11, 27 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Any attempt to trivialize or confuse the issue will be frowned upon here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
We should delete the cite at the bottom saying that homosexuality caused Nazism. That's a truly disturbing allegation.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 12:59, 27 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Especially considering that the Nazis actually murdered thousands of homosexuals during World War II.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 18:32, 7 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Yes they did, but it was because of Hitler. NOT homosexuality. And waaay more Jews were killed than homosexuals, giving Jews a larger spotlight. [[User:Clorox|Clorox]] <small>I'm liberal, but I don't edit pages-just [[User talk:Clorox|talk page]]s. don't worry.</small> 23:25, 3 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
'''<br />
I believe langauge needs to be corrected in the the first bullet of the list of homosexual goals. It currently states "Censoring sections of the bible condemning homosexuality." The source cited is an article about an offensive tee shirt being censored not the bible its self. There needs to be eaither a new source about Homosexuals attempting to change the bible or the wording must be changed to "preventing materials that denounce homosexuality from being displayed publicly."<br />
<br />
Reference number "8" rrefers back to the Conservapedia site. In order to maintain integrity it must refer to an ouside source if one is not provided the reference and quote should be deleted. Currently it is a logical fallacy and is not up to encyclopedic standards. Someone not dyslexic (i.e. somone who isn't me.) should get on that.<br />
<br />
== Very Informative ==<br />
'''<br />
<br />
Excellent portrayal of the truth. This is a nice breather from the left-wing saturated wikipedia.com. If you agree with the article, you should check out the highly accurate article on homophobia. Everyone knows that the creation of homophobia is a foundation of the gay agenda.<br />
<br />
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homophobia<br />
<br />
Wikipedia is subject to open edits that don't reqier an account. Are you suggesting that the monitors of wikipedia aka "everyone who can type" has a liberal bias?<br />
<br />
== Is this real? ==<br />
<br />
This article seems like a parody. I can't believe that... oh yeah, I'm at conservapedia. I can believe anything. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
As well as the mysterious reference to a "leading book in the homosexual movement", it refers to a book claiming that the Nazi Party supported homosexuality. Clearly this has to be satirical. Either that, or someone has a serious case of paranoia - all the sources, as well as being of dubious credabililty, point towards independent events but the whole point of the page is to talk about a shadowy conspiricy - a 'Secret Society' of homosexuals trying to gayify the world. I suggest deleting the whole page - and if it reappears in a similar form, delete and protect. - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]<br />
<br />
<br />
== Agendas ==<br />
So since there are so many references on this wiki to the "homosexual agenda" can we also cite the "Conservative Agenda" or "Republican Agenda" or "Christian Agenda"? {{unsigned|prof0705}}<br />
:I don't see why not, as long as they sourced and reasonably recognizable as phrases in common use. In fact, here, I would expect an article on [[conservative agenda]] to be very good. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:56, 13 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
This article violates the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] (number 2: cite sources and 5: personal opinion). <br />
#It claims to quote Focus on the Family for the definition of The Homosexual Agenda without giving a specific reference, and FotF is only claimed to be quoting "a leading book in the homosexual movement" without even bothering to name the book or its author.<br />
#The two bulleted points in "The Goals" (about 8-year-old boys and 12-to-14 year olds) are stating as fact the opinion of Craig Osten, a vice president at the Alliance Defense Fund.<br />
#Several of the other references to that section are either citing journalist's or lawyer's opinions, not facts or any quote from the people who are alleged to hold the agenda under discussion. <br />
<br />
I am prohibited from editing the page but I suggest that the Agenda is moved to the top, and the original source for it cited, rather than a vague second-hand reference. The judge's quote should then be indented as a block quote so it is more clearly identifiable as quoting the judge. The Goals and Opposing Christian Agenda should be cleaned up and cite proper sources not opinions, or be more clearly marked as only opinions of people who oppose the Homosexual Agenda. If Conservapedia could handle it, even a quote from someone who supports it would be good. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 06:06, 19 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:[[Conservapedia:Commandments]] (number 2: cite sources and 5: personal opinion) is superceded by [[Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks]]:<br />
::''Sysop's and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked.''<br />
:Note: ''Their <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Special:ListUsers/sysop sysops]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> instructions, as to Conservapedia policy [...] are to be followed'', which means if a sysop has decided it is so it is so. If you continue to argue you may get blocked.<br />
:[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
What about Hot man on man/woman on woman action? I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that homosexuals were pretty in favor of that.<br />
<br />
== Is this really as big as people make it out to be? ==<br />
While I personally do not like anyone being too open about their personal lives, especially concerning anything to do with sex, still when I hear about a "Homosexual Agenda" I can only think of another fear that other people once tried to infect people with: it was called "The Protocols of The Elders of Zion." I think some of you may understand my point... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:15, 27 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Yeah, I don't really understand why people even care if someone is homosexual or not. If you're not a homosexual yourself you're not gonna be involved with homosexuality so why even care? It doesn't affect you in that case. If someones is homosexual, then fine. Let them be. Has nothing to do with you. [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:33, 28 January 2009 (EST)<br />
:Do you not care about God, JohnKite? Do you not care about His society? Do you not acre about moral erosion, disease, and the future of humanity? Do you not care about what is right and what is wrong? [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 11:35, 28 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Please remove the reference to Scott Lively's propaganda book==<br />
This is propaganda. It seems you don't allow neutrality here. [[User:GayMan|GayMan]] 21:51, 28 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I agree. Numbers 1-5 on there are kinda <i>wrong</i>, and number 6 tops it off as crap. [[User:Clorox|Clorox]] 23:11, 3 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Hey, now... ==<br />
I'm LGBT and I'm certainly not aware of any sort of "agenda" being discussed. Perhaps this is just a typical case of right-wing paranoia? --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 18:07, 17 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
You're not aware because you're not hive-minded. The agenda is memetic, therefore you're not all going to know about it. --[[User:Pious|Pious]] 18:21, 24 June 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==What the hell?==<br />
<br />
The “homosexuality agenda" was created by Focus on the Family, which you say later in the article, ACTIVELY OPPOSES homosexuality. You wouldn’t let me post Jon Stewart quotes on the Bush page, so why is this kind of crap aloud here? [[User:Tesfan|Tesfan]] 11:43, 23 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
This is exactly the sort of thing that inspires violence against homosexuals. Be more neutral.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 12:34, 27 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Good luck pal, I've been saying that for months. And watch your language, they'll ban you for that here. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 12:46, 27 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Politics and science==<br />
<br />
Dr. Ronald Bayer, writing in Homosexuality And American Psychiatry: The Politics Of Diagnosis said the APA decision was a political one, not a scientific one: "The result [of the APA removal of homosexuality from the DSM] was not a conclusion based upon an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times." [http://traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/Homosexuality101.pdf]<br />
==Liberal Deceit==<br />
I suggest we change the category from Deceit to Liberal Deceit because liberals universally support the gay agenda. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 22:26, 26 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
*Good idea! --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 23:08, 26 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Bad idea. It's not deceit. [[User:Clorox|Clorox]] 23:16, 3 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
Again I find myself disturbed by the language of absolutes that have infested this site. There are liberal and homosexual philosophies mentioned in this site that some liberals and homosexuals don't have simply because they don't know about them- and it's certainly not a stretch of the imagination to say these people are generally ignorant. Are children in Africa who die young damned simply because a missionary doesn't exist where they live and they couldn't have possibly heard the good news about Christ? I think not. I believe they get another chance to. --[[User:Pious|Pious]] 18:26, 24 June 2011 (CDT)<br />
<br />
==Sources?==<br />
<br />
Are there any sources besides those accusing the gay agenda? There's no evidence of any organized "agenda", and all of the goals and such are provided by those opposing it. Best case, this is an article about a pundit talking point, and worst case it's a conspiracy theory masked as an encyclopedia article. Shouldn't it at least mention that there has never been any evidence of even a mildly organized or centralized gay agenda? The fact that it's permanently locked further undermines CP credibility. [[User:RWest|RWest]] 12:32, 13 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Specific suggestion:<br />
:Focus on the Family quotes below from a leading book in the homosexual movement which outlines the points of the homosexual agenda:<br />
There is no source cited here. The source is "The Overhauling of Straight America," an article which appeared in the November 1987 issue of a gay magazine called ''The Guide''. [[User:Shii|Shii]] 22:44, 23 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: Thanks, I just added an online link to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 23 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Mottos? ==<br />
<br />
The edit replacing "beliefs" with "mottos" was unjustified. There is a (baseless) belief system inherent in the homosexual agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:41, 12 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== References: "small looks better" ==<br />
<br />
Why? All the other articles I've seen have references at regular text size. What's particular about this article that it needs to have really tiny footnotes? [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 17:24, 28 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Homosexuality in Congress==<br />
<br />
In a recent discussion with a friend of mine, we discussed what is here called the "homosexual agenda". In addition to the notion of whether "everyone has an agenda" (something I would consider adding to the Debate pool if anyone would like clarification of my terms/beliefs here, I brought up the notion of whether or not there exists a disproportionate number of homosexuals or, unfortunately, scandals regarding previously latent homosexual desires among otherwise Conservative men (Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Bob Allen, the Glenn Murphy scandal), and whether this constitutes the corrupting nature of power, or, as my friend (a somewhat eccentric, Ron Paul-supporter type) suggests, whether these men are "moles" (his term, not mine) representing a quote, "homo infiltration". To put it bluntly, imagine the Manchurian Candidate, but with sodomy. <br />
<br />
I was wondering if anyone here (I imagine you have all put some effort into the research and sourcing for this article) had ever heard trustworthy sources, blogs, or essays dealing with such a belief. I obviously don't support the endorsement of wingnut theories, but if it is a more widespread belief among self-avowed Republicans and conservatives, then I think it bears mentioning. I wait to see if any such evidence exists. [[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 10:48, 9 September 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Iran?==<br />
This site considers Iran as an example for how to deal with homosexuals?? I hope this is a joke; otherwise, this is one of the sickest, most hateful websites I've ever seen. You claim to follow Jesus, and then condone executing homosexuals?? This must be an example of following the hard-ass God of the Old Testament.{{unsigned|User:Pete5383}}<br />
<br />
:This site does not condone the murder of homosexuals by the state. It is a true statement on Iran and most Muslim countries are no different. So yes, they oppose the homosexual agenda but that doesn't correspond to the section which talks of political/cultural opposition. Instead, a foreign section needs created and the FACTS put in the proper place.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:37, 17 August 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Merge from "pro-Gay"==<br />
<br />
Thanks for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexual_Agenda&curid=69968&diff=877518&oldid=877453&rcid=1187531 merging this point] from the "[[pro-gay]]" article. I sure wish I had '''bothered to look''' for the diff before undoing your careful work. *sigh* --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:44, 9 June 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Homophobes==<br />
<br />
Westboro is probably the only authentically "[[homophobic]]" group in the USA. They used to have a "God hates fags" website. No one takes them seriously, on either side of the ideological battle lines. They are the poster boys for [[hate speech]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:00, 2 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Charity==<br />
<br />
:Cut from lede:<br />
<br />
:* Liberals generally give much less than conservatives to charity, but charity work by gays in particular is virtually non-existent.<br />
<br />
:This needs references, if true. But I don't believe it - or maybe I just don't understand it. Isn't [[Gay Men's Health Crisis]] a [[charity]]? (Or is it merely a [[non-profit organization]] '''without''' a charitable purpose? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:44, 12 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Just happened to see this, and so here is some data:<br />
<br />
On average, weekly churchgoers donate 3.8% of their income to charity, compared to 0.8% for those who never go. Independent Sector (charitable clearing house): Atheists won't save Europe by Don Feder; http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27937<br />
<br />
Religious citizens who make $49,000 gave away about 3.5 times as much money as secular citizens with the same income. They also volunteered twice as often, are 57 percent more likely to help homeless persons, and two-thirds more likely to give blood at their workplace. Arthur C. Brooks' Who Really Cares. http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2008/001/8.11.html<br />
<br />
In 2006, Americans gave 1.66% of their aggregate income to charity, with donations totaling US$182 billion. This rate of giving is more than double that of Canadians, who gave 0.76% of aggregate income (CA$8.4 billion in total) to charity in 2006. http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/Generosity_Index_2008.pdf<br />
<br />
See [http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Statistical_Correlations.html here] for a table of many comparison btwn states, and [http://247wallst.com/2011/12/15/americas-most-and-least-charitable-states/2/ here] for recent stats on giving per state. <br />
<br />
$8.8 billion worth of goods and services that churches are giving overseas to developing (“Third World”) countries. This figures out to be nearly 40 percent of the foreign aid provided by the United States to the same region. U.S. foreign aid to those same countries is $23.5 billion. Carol Adelman of the Hudson Institute, from Notre Dame University study. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Church/Default.aspx?id=118566<br />
<br />
Giving as a percentage of income was higher at the depth of the Great Depression in the 1930s (3.3 percent of per capita income in 1933) than after a half-century of unprecedented prosperity (2.5 percent in 2004) John Ronsvalle and Sylvia Ronsvalle, The State of Church Giving through 2004: Will We Will? 16th ed. (Champaign, Ill.: Empty Tomb, 2006). ^<br />
<br />
The proportion of adults who tithe dropped by 62 percent in the past year. (2) Just 6 percent of born-again households tithed to their churches in 2002. (3) Tithing, when it occurs, is generally among Protestants: 5 percent of adults who attend Protestant churches tithed last year, compared to less than one-tenth of 1 percent among Catholics. (4) Among the groups most likely to tithe are people over 55, college graduates, Evangelicals, Republicans, conservatives, and residents of the South—but there was no segment among which at least 10 percent tithed. George Barna. News release by Barna Research Group, May 19, 2003. ^<br />
<br />
Including religious, American households overall gave 3.5% of their income to charity, with approx. 33% going to to religious institutions. Utah was the state with the highest average per-capita charitable contributions, followed by Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee and Arkansas. Professor Arthur Brooks, 2005. http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2005/February/200502181639511CJsamohT5.593508e-02.html<br />
<br />
A liberal researcher who was surprised at finding that showed conservatives being more giving, set out to do a more thorough analysis, only to confirm the findings: http://blog.geoiq.com/2009/01/07/dataset-of-the-day-who-is-more-generous-republicans-or-democrats/ <br />
<br />
Also, the top 10 most generous countries are:<br />
<br />
1. United States<br />
2. Ireland<br />
3. Australia<br />
4. New Zealand<br />
5. United Kingdom<br />
6. Netherlands<br />
7. Canada<br />
8. Sri Lanka<br />
9. Thailand<br />
10. Laos<br />
<br />
The United States’ first place in the rankings marks a significant improvement from 2010, when it ranked fifth. Other countries making significant gains include Liberia, which went from 39 to 14, and Morocco, which leapt from 33 to 12. http://www.worldvision.org/news/new-report-ranks-most-generous-countries. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 22:27, 27 February 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Kirk and Madsen== <br />
The WP page on Marshall Kirk [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Kirk#Health] has this but which i cannot find a source for:<br />
<br />
"Marshall suffered from severe migraine headaches that were preceded by a strong desire to talk in a rapid monologue. He found that if he gave into these "babbling fits", the headache would be alleviated. He had other medical problems and suffered from bouts of depression that required electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) on three occasions. Because of the negative effects on his memory, he considered ECT to be the last alternative to avoid death. In part due to this medical history, his knowledge of pharmacology was usually greater than that of anyone who treated him. When he died, he was found alone in his apartment by two friends."<br />
<br />
Also cannot find anything on Hunter Madsen (pen name "Erastes Pill")[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 23:54, 24 February 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
== The concept of a homosexual agenda ==<br />
<br />
A blocked user wrote (in part):<br />
<br />
:I made several edits to this page which either eliminated the presentation of personal opinion as fact or which placed notes that statements were not verifiable and were not accompanied by a citation. I find the article as a whole fairly interesting because whether or not an actual homosexual agenda exists, the concept of a homosexual agenda most definitely exists either as an actual agenda held by gay activists or as a perceived agenda by those who oppose acceptance or expansion of rights.<br />
<br />
:None of the changes I made changed the fundamental content of the article, but simply attempted to enhance the article by removing or noting items that lacked references to verifiable data or which were expressions of personal opinion (both of which are forbidden by the conservapedia commandments). This was met with immediate reversion of the edits (which is fine) and blocking of my account from making further changes and blocking of the IP address from which I logged in (which is unacceptable). As you can see on the history page, this was done by user Markman.<br />
<br />
:I understand that a site such as conservapedia is probably subjected to significant attempts at sabotage, but it is unfortunate that the sight has become inhospitable to legitamate attempts to improve the quality of the site by removing mere statements of personal opinion which are un-referenced, un-substantiated, and and un-verifiable.<br />
<br />
:Conservapedia could have been a great resource, but it has, unfortunately, allowed itself to become nothing more than a site that presents propaganda and opinion as fact in violation of its own commandments.<br />
<br />
Overlooking for the moment the apparent admission that you have logged in under a new username to evade a block, your unsigned comment gives no particulars such as a "diff" to support your complaints. Please use the proper channels if you want a more substantial response. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:57, 22 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
Please do not jump to conclusions. I did not create a new account to evade a block. I checked the previous username this morning and it was no longer blocked. The user that blocked me (Markman) gave as one of the reasons for the block, that I had used a user name which violated conservapedia policy (a policy which I searched for but could not find). Out of respect for Marman's complaint about my user name, I created a new acount in order to comply with the conservapedia policy on usernames (which, again, I could not find). I am sorry, but I am not familiar with this forum and I don't really know what "diff" means. Finally, I also do not know what would be the proper channel for this commentary. I read (in its entirety) the page linked as "conservapedia commandments" and all the pages linked to from that page. Im also not sure what you mean by "unsigned". I was logged in when I made the original comments and I didnt realize that a signature was needed in addition to being logged in. Also, I did not intend to use inflammatory language in the initial post. It was more a reaction to being blocked under false pretenses and I did not mean to offend anyone. Sorry about my ingorance of this forum, but I am new to the entire wiki process. Is there some sort of tutorial or guidelines available on the site? Thanks, Mikers.</div>Mikershttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=1035896User talk:Ed Poor2013-02-22T16:22:35Z<p>Mikers: /* Not sure how to respond to messages. */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div>Archive: <br />
[[/1|1]] <br />
[[/2|2]] <br />
[[/3|3]]<br />
[[/4|4]]<br />
[[/5|5]]<br />
[[/6|6]]<br />
[[/7|7]]<br />
[[/8|8]]<br />
[[/9|9]]<br />
[[/10|10]]<br />
[[/11|11]]<br />
[[/12|12]]<br />
[[/13|13]]<br />
[[/14|14]]<br />
[[/15|15]]<br />
[[/16|16]]<br />
[[/17|17]]<br />
[[/18|18]]<br />
----<br />
<br />
[[Image:Ed poor grinning.jpg|right|thumb|114px|Ed Poor on campus]]<br />
<br />
<!-- New comments at the bottom, please. --><br />
<br />
<br />
== Writing Plan ==<br />
<br />
Hello Mr. Poor,<br />
I would like to submit a writing plan. While I haven't been asked for one, I feel this would best help keep me on task and contribute the most productively. You seem to know an awful lot about this wiki stuff, and I'm still new at it, so if you could help me that would be great.<br />
I think I'd first like to help contribute to the various book articles around the site by adding in examples of the influence of Christianity, as a lot of books have Christian overtones that aren't currently listed. I'm thinking I'd like to start by drawing parallels between the story of Jesus in the Gospels with One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Please let me know if this would be acceptable.--[[User:JeremiahJ|JeremiahJ]] 18:10, 6 January 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Probably not. Please email me a draft. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 20:02, 17 January 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Request ==<br />
<br />
Hello Mr. Poor, I have submitted a request [[Talk:Atheism#Addition_of_Information_on_Charity_and_External_Links_Request|here]] but it was never attended to. Could you please have a look at it? Thanks, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]]<sup>[[User talk:Anupam|Talk]]</sup> 23:19, 28 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Image Upload Request ==<br />
<br />
Hello Ed Poor, I hope this message finds you doing well. I was wondering if you could upload [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Young_Galaxy_Accreting_Material.jpg this image] for use in the article I recently created. I look forward to hearing your response. Thanks, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]]<sup>[[User talk:Anupam|Talk]]</sup> 03:32, 7 March 2011 (EST)<br />
:Hello Ed Poor, could you please add [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] to [[Template:Nb Atheism|this template]]? I really appreciate it! With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]]<sup>[[User talk:Anupam|Talk]]</sup> 11:14, 7 March 2011 (EST)<br />
::Hello Ed Poor, I need two more images for the article I created which are available [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Independent_assortment_%26_segregation.svg here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John_Lennox.jpg here]. Recently, [[User:JMR10]] uploaded my previous one, for which I am thankful. Could you ask him to do the same for these two or could you please do these for me? I highly appreciate it. Thanks, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]]<sup>[[User talk:Anupam|Talk]]</sup> 19:40, 7 March 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
== I seem to have messed up the Ada article ==<br />
<br />
My proxy keeps dropping stuff, so the picture at the top is busted. Also, I had to cut down the reference, because the captcha can't make it through. It should have a left bracket, and h,t,t,p, etc., and a right bracket after the "pdf". I wonder if you could please fix it for me. I will contact Andy about getting my IP range restored.<br />
<br />
What I was going to put in the talk page (and will do once things get straightened out) is that the two cited articles are very shallow, having only 7 and 3 sentences, respectively. They both refer to a "plan", but that's because the word "program" hadn't been coined in the computer context. She really was the first person to write "code".<br />
<br />
I'm sorry about this. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:08, 5 April 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I read her notes, and it doesn't look like a [[computer program]] to me. A charitable view might be that it's a [[specification|spec]], but there's no flowchart and no [[source code]]. Don't be sorry, just get it right. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 18:21, 5 April 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
What did you expect this "source code" to look like? The term "source code" implies both a programming language and "machine code" that the source code is assembled or compiled into. Assemblers, compilers, and programming languages wouldn't be invented for another hundred years (by Grace Murray Hopper, John Backus, and others.) The same goes for the other accoutrements of modern software development, like flow charts and specifications. In fact, even the terms "software" and "program" hadn't been invented.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, assuming that you accept that she had to write "machine code", what would you expect machine code to look like for a machine that reads its instructions with rods poking through holes in large punched cards running around on a track, and does its arithmetic by counting teeth on turning gears? It wouldn't look much like Intel 586 code.<br />
<br />
The fact is, the lines of Ada's written algorithm were intended to be punched into lines of holes in Babbage's cards, once the "analytical engine" was built, which it wasn't.<br />
<br />
By the way, what I was being "sorry" for was not the content of my edit, but the fact that an extremely buggy proxy messed up the article and wouldn't let me fix it, despite several tries. Andy has been working with me to fix the network problems, and DMorris fixed the broken picture and hyperlink while my access was broken. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 20:39, 6 April 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Then it would be more accurate to say that she described an algorithm. That's not the same as a computer program, even if she was hoping that Babbage's machine might be programmed to carry out the algorithm.<br />
<br />
:An encyclopedia should be precise and unbiased, not used to create "factoids" for use in publicity campaigns, such as promoting [[women in science]]. <br />
<br />
:I don't say she had to write machine code, but rather to be the "first programmer" she would have had to produce a [[computer program]]. If you have seen it, please show it to me. Otherwise, I'm going to make an editorial decision that she produced an algorithm rather than a program. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:18, 7 April 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:*Let's say that [[Ada Lovelace]] wrote one of the first comprehensive descriptions of an algorithm to generate [[Bernoulli numbers]]. But until I see the actual sequence of instructions, including [[if-then]] or [[loop control]] statements, I'd hesitate to call it an actual [[computer program]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:17, 17 May 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==The anti-Semitism of liberals==<br />
I love how libs reveal their true selves. No matter what we say or do in describing them, they come here just to confirm it all. So when they want to emphasize "Jew" in "karajou", I'll be more then happy to get a gold Magen David to wear around my neck, join my brothers and sisters in the synagogue every week, and show everyone else just how hate-filled and intolerant these liberals really are. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:20, 12 April 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Please help! ==<br />
<br />
Hi! I tried to add the information for Edo to the Tokyo article and for some reason,. it stripped a bunch of stuff out when I saved. Now when I try and revert the edit I made, I keep getting a internal server 500 error. Please can you revert for me? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:19, 14 April 2011 (EDT)<br />
:It's ok, I fixed it! [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:30, 14 April 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm glad it worked out for you. My Japanese name is "Edo". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:04, 14 April 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Nice speed on reverts ==<br />
<br />
You beat me to every one! Nicely done--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 20:05, 24 April 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Thanks. I'll pass that on to my secret bot. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 20:10, 24 April 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Thanks for noticing me ==<br />
<br />
I must be doing something right. Every time I mention alternate viewpoints, and no one sees fit to revert my edits, I get vandalism to my talk page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:48, 10 June 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Jeb Bush ==<br />
<br />
I'm trying to reorganize the information, not leave it out. If you notice, I'm working on the article quite a bit. May I please revert your revision? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:05, 14 June 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Sure. I'm frequently too bold and hasty. And that's the wonderful thing about a wiki. Nothing is ever really deleted; it's all in the article history. Go for it! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:09, 14 June 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Technical question ==<br />
<br />
I'm lobbying for a separate namespace for the Conservapedia Bible Project. The idea is that each verse gets its own ''article'', which can be used rather as a template. I see a couple of advantages:<br />
*verses can be quoted more easily: instead of copying the whole verse, only a short link (like <nowiki>{{:CBP:John 20:8}}</nowiki> ) is neccessary to get a neat result: <nowiki>{{:CBP:John 20:8}}</nowiki><br />
*thereby, the use of the CBP is encouraged over other translations.<br />
*if there is a change in the CBP, the afflicted verses don't have to be tracked down manually, but the change is applied automatically throughout the wiki.<br />
<br />
To accomplish this, a new namespace has to be created. That shouldn't be too difficult, as there are only a few exemplary pages prefixed with ''CBP:'' at this moment.<br />
<br />
But after this, the namespace has to be filled with the existing translated verses. My question: is your bot up to this task?<br />
<br />
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:53, 8 July 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== madonna ==<br />
<br />
Hi, please strongly reconsider your desire to create a "kinder article." In stating that madonna is a person who has changed to being more spiritual you are buying to the liberal media's lies. It sounds like a madonna fan attempting to weave their bias in, which of course you are not. I think you may want to do more research, and read my recent additions as she is still, if not more so, a wicked and hateful person who has sucked millions of children into raunchy culture, dated murderers and mocked our Lord Jesus Christ who gave his life for us. Madonna deserves only the truth.[[User:Legolas2186|Legolas2186]] <sup>[[User talk:Legolas2186|Talk]]</sup> 13:14, 14 July 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:And I just had a long conversation with some Wikipedians in Central Park last month, about whether CP is more neutral than WP. Now you want "conservative bias" to denounce [[Madonna Ciccone]]? Not even Wikipedia's BLP policy would allow that. <br />
<br />
:I wonder whether you are a liberal '''tempting me''' to add bias, just so you can accuse us of being biased. Well, if so, I choose not to cooperate, my dear elf. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:45, 14 July 2011 (EDT)<br />
::I think Legolas here might be a parodist. Would you mind looking into him? [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:12, 15 July 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Ed, your compassion sounds a little misplaced to me. Do you also visit the Fred Phelps, Bernie Madoff, Ted Bundy, and Charles Manson pages asking people for some "Christian charity" to tone those down too? Look into me all you want please. I dislike Madonna because she has mocked our lord Jesus Christ. Conservative people have respect for Christ end of story. The reason society has degraded is by giving raunchy people like madonna a free pass and pity. I'm the one who wants to print the ACTUAL history of madonna that the liberal media has left out such her dating the felon Chris Paciello. I only want the truth about her in the article. Why is that so bad? I thought this was the one place that might allow the truth.[[User:Legolas2186|Legolas2186]] <sup>[[User talk:Legolas2186|Talk]]</sup> 10:34, 17 July 2011 (EST)<br />
:Ed, can you please look into this guy? He is an obvious parodist. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 15:55, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br />
First of all - Ed is a senior sysop at this site - I don't know why a few of you have taken upon yourself to post on [[User talk:Aschlafly|Andy's talk page]] when Ed is more than capable of dealing with an alleged parodist on his own. Secondly, just because he is posting radical things on a talk page does not make him a parodist. Looking at his contributions, you ''could'' argue that he is edit warring, but since Ed is simultaneously the user in the revert war and an admin, it is up to his judgement as to whether or not a block is deserving. Your collective alarmism has now spread across three talk pages. That's enough.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 16:00, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br />
::@NickP, your very.... quick to call somebody else a parodist. Why not leave that to the pro.'s to decide?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:06, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::Several others have also pointed out the fact that he acts very suspicious. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:13, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br />
::::Saying he "acts suspicious" and saying he's a 100% no way im wrong about this Parodist is two completely different things.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:16, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I prefer what Wikipedia old-timers used to call "soft security". Just help me fix the articles in question. Everything will sort itself out. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 23:34, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==EdBot==<br />
Ed, I left three (actually six) problem Categories that need some sort of merging at [[User_talk:EdBot]]. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:56, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Sorry, EdBot did not survive the MediaWiki upgrades. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:21, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br />
::Does that mean it's all got to be done manually? Moving 200 entries into another Category?<br />
<br />
:::Only if they really have to be moved. (Meanwhile, if anyone has an idea how a bot can "log in" with the new MediaWiki software, let me know.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:33, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Creating_a_bot#Logging_in This] should help. Indeed, the whole [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Creating_a_bot page] is quite interesting. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:40, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== A request concerning recent events ==<br />
<br />
Hi Ed,<br />
<br />
I'm very sorry to come to you with this, but I honestly don't know where else to turn at this point. You have always struck me as the voice of reason and level-headedness here.<br />
<br />
Simply put: the current altercation on Andy's talk page is out of control. I recognize that I have no authority to tell sysops what they should or shouldn't do, but it seems to me that basic common courtesy calls for not filling up Andy's talk page with arguments and accusations. Moreover, the very public nature of the dispute is encouraging other users to join in. Some of them are doubtless sincere; others, I suspect, may in fact be parodists seeking to fan the flames (I notice a LOT of recently created accounts.) <br />
<br />
Regardless, the fact remains that Andy's talk page has been turned into a general forum for accusations and arguments. At this point, it's degenerated to the level where people are making absolutely vicious personal attacks against certain of the participants. (Kudos to JamesWilson for promptly reverting the most egregious of these.)<br />
<br />
You know the other sysops better than most of us; you talk to them; I would certainly hope they trust and respect your opinion. Is there anything you can do to persuade them to take a step back, cool down, and wait for Andy to respond at this point? Everyone involved has made their positions clear; further acrimony can serve no useful purpose.<br />
<br />
I'm sorry to trouble you with this, but I really feel that this is both inconsiderate to Andy and deleterious to the Conservapedia project as a whole.<br />
<br />
Respectfully,<br />
<br />
--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:05, 28 July 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Thanks for the vote of confidence, but shouldn't I check with Andy before barging in? It may be that he prefers to let everyone air their opinions. It is not just his courage but his wisdom and compassion that attracted me to this project. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:59, 5 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==[[User:MRellek]]==<br />
Ed, per the site owner, Administrators [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=892763 "instructions...are to be followed"] is no longer operable. I have emailed you a copy of Mr. Schlafly's approval. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:32, 6 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Oh, sorry. I was hasty. Feel free to unban MRellek, if you feel I was out of line. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:32, 6 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::Thank you, Ed. I'm trying to get the other sysops to do more warnings & shorter blocks; let's get a sense of community here. After all, we've known many of these editors (the RW neighbors) for several years now. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:37, 6 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel ==<br />
<br />
Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel. I invited someone to edit Conservapedia and they were blocked and they should not have been. I got the block overturned. So I think there is room for improvement in Conservapedia's blocking policy. You can sign up [[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. I invited active Syops/Admins plus people with blocking rights who might wish to be Sysops. If I left anyone out, please let them know about the panel. The people with blocking rights can sign up [[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. The panel will probably convene when Iduan is back from his summer vacation or fairly soon afterwards. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:47, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I think I got signed up somehow, after jumping into a discussion. <br />
<br />
:Can we have non-sysops on the panel? I'd like to invite a friend from Wikipedia to join it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 18:00, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== If I understand correctly, you are the local math expert. ==<br />
<br />
If so, maybe you can take a look at [[Relativistic mass|this]] and some of that editor's other contributions. They seem pretty obscure/specialized for the general reader, to me, at least. Thanks! [[User:MrMorganH|MrMorganH]] 10:15, 14 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Not an expert, but I know a lot about high school math. Andy's brother knows much more than I do. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:55, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Revert ==<br />
<br />
Good morning (afternoon?) Ed, why was my comment reverted? I can't see why it should be? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:54, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Gosh, you're quick on the trigger. See your talk page for my response. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:58, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::I am indeed quick on the trigger, I like Westerns you see..:-) I have responded to you on my talk-page and re asked the question in a more cordial manner. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:59, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun ==<br />
<br />
The panel proceeding have begun here: [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings]] You can start making your edits to the page should you wish to do so. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:59, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Farewell ==<br />
<br />
Ed, in all sincerity you are by far the most interesting person I have met at Conservapedia. I regret that we couldn't get along better, though we did manage to improve a number of things. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:12, 18 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:We'd have gotten along better if we more goals in common. Building a trustworthy encyclopedia apparently was not one of them.<br />
<br />
:In [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=893745 this drive by attack] you dodged my request for specific instances of the problem you complained of. (Note: saying "all of them" is a a typical liberal dodge. That's like global warming alarmists saying, "Just look at the temperature record; the evidence is all there."<br />
<br />
:For those listening in to this fascinating drama, the difference between real science and liberal junk science is that real scientists provide examples of what they're talking about, so that anyone can check it out and see for themselves. Liberals and other pseudoscientists '''pretend''' that they've already made the point.<br />
<br />
:It reminds me of Japan, which always (1) says that it "already apologized" for the [[comfort women]] episode while steadfastly (2) refusing ever to admit that it did anything wrong. They are hoping we'll all be too polite to mention that #1 contradicts #2. <br />
<br />
:Nice try on the parting shot, but your pretense of trying oh so hard fools no one. You're always welcome to come back if you '''ever''' choose to help this project instead of undermining it with trickery. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:41, 19 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Pontiac==<br />
Hi Ed, thanks for your help archiving my page. I know you are very experienced with Wikis, but I was wondering why you removed what I wrote about the government shut down of Pontiac destroying American history. A lot of people were really upset about Pontiac's closure and there are lots of websites and articles proving this, why can't it be in the article? I will differ to your judgement because you are so experienced, but just want to understand your reasoning. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 22:46, 19 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:It can't be in the article until you find a way to make it trustworthy. Use references. You can't just write stuff off the top of your head, because you are not an established author. You are in fact an anonymous person, and we don't even know whether Craig is your real name. <br />
<br />
:If there's a lot of proof for your assertion, be sure to provide references, like:<br />
:*The New York Times reported that after GM was taken over by the government, brands like Saturn and Pontiac were sold or eliminated (link and/or date)<br />
<br />
:If you need help formatting references, lots of people here can help. But '''you''' must supply them. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:43, 20 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
==Pictures==<br />
Hi Ed, how do I add pictures? --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 16:08, 20 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:You can't add pictures, until you've made enough useful contributions to earn upload rights. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:34, 20 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::In addition, Craig, you can use [[Conservapedia:Image upload requests]] until you earn uploading privileges. A Sysop will do it for you.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:59, 20 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::Ok, I'll work even harder to earn my rights! I also wanted to apologize for being so familiar, my mom pointed out that I should be calling you Mr. Poor. I always call adults by their last names in real life, but on the internet I usually forget. Also thanks Mr. Wilson for your advice about upload requests. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 13:24, 21 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::::No worries. I wouldn't mind if you called me James or Jim, but I'm glad your mother has taught you well. Also, you will need a lot more work to earn uploading privileges, just so you know. Happy editing in the meantime!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 14:21, 21 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Edit conflict ==<br />
<br />
Just got edit conflicted by you on the Morse code page - what are the odds we'd both be working on it! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:19, 24 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:One thought leads to another ... not such long odds. Sorry about stepping on your work. Feel free to revert, and I'll recover later. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:22, 24 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::Its all OK, I added my work to your version. Great minds think alike, more like an average mind in my case but you catch my drift...:-) [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:24, 24 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== signature ==<br />
<br />
I hope you don't mind, but I borrowed the format of your signature to use for my own. It's simple and to the point, but looks nice as well, so I thought I would use it as well. Thank you! [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] <sup>[[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]]</sup> 16:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I copied mine from someone else, so "[[Pay It Forward]]." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:27, 27 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
::Oh, ok. Thanks for letting me know! [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] <sup>[[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]]</sup> 09:23, 28 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== like wikipedia? ==<br />
<br />
i looked up [[milk]] and [[butter]] how is this conserivtive? is it like wikipedia at all what can i add? ty. --[[User:Rainbowboiz|Rainbowboiz]] 00:35, 28 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Not unless your spelling improves. And we are not so much "conservative" as [[trustworthy]]. Unlike Wikipedia, we really do try to avoid political bias. Add anything that is correct and useful. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:17, 28 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Meat Loaf ==<br />
<br />
I know his stage name is much better known (I'm writing the article on him, obviously), but wouldn't you think using the subject's real name is more appropriate for an encyclopedia? If you think the article should be titled under his stage name, you're the boss, but I thought I might want to point that out. Thanks!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 11:14, 1 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage ==<br />
<br />
Please help me as I am fairly new to this wiki. I have attempted to propose a discussion for deletion on this particular page. Before disccussing this, I have followed the instructions on templates via the help index [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Articles_for_deletion]] to add it to a discussion for deletion but this does not seem to work so I have not proceded further - with hindsight I should have guessed there was something wrong by the lack of entries on this page. <br />
My reason for wishing to commence this discussion is that I suspect the article (created by a user who does not appear to have an active talk page) seems to me to be parody and trolling to debase the credibility of this project. In my opinion, most of the logic followed in nearly every assertion is spurious and often uses blatant synthesis that a ten year old could question. It is to such an extent that I don't think an "improved" version would be posible. Of course, others may have different oppinions which is why I am trying to be fair and open it for rational discussion. What is the correct procedure? Thank you in advance - answer to my talk page [[User:DavidMilton|DavidMilton]] 19:54, 7 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I'm not sure what the correct procedure is. Maybe you could post on the talk page, showing a few examples of "spurious" assertions. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:46, 7 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Ok I can do this, but I'm surprised that hte Help feature supplies a redundant page on discoussing articles for deletion. I was also under the impression that you had Sysop/Admin powers and would be familiar with such policies as it is a feature on other wikis. [[User:DavidMilton|DavidMilton]] 13:31, 8 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Actually I know policy fairly well and do have Sysop/Admin powers. Either provide the requested examples, or drop the matter. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:47, 10 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Sid 3050 ==<br />
<br />
Sid 3050 was blocked for three month for ''trolling''. The only edit he made during the day before his block seems to be to answer to your question in a section above (''So, will it go away if you ignore it?'') - see his [[Special:Contributions/Sid 3050|list of contributions]]. You had personally addressed this comment (''But I'll take a look at Sid's material below now, just to be a good sport.''), so you should be able to judge whether such a comment is ''trolling''. Could you please review Sid's block? In a timely fashion? Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:17, 15 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Sid was trolling. Whether this justifies a three month block is up to the admin in question. <br />
<br />
:I'm always open to suggestions for making Conservapedia more trustworthy. If you have anything specific in mind, please speak up.<br />
<br />
:Of particular interest to me would be any material relating to the contrast between conservative and liberal viewpoints on American political issues, as well as philosophy, religion and science. To my regret, repeated invitations to include users who are ideological opponents of this project have not met with an enthusiastic response. It's almost as if they wish to conceal their ideological differences; ironically, this could be seen as self-censorship. <br />
<br />
:If anyone wants to describe liberal POV here they may, provided only that it is clearly labeled as such - not presented as gospel. This should not be an onerous requirement: it's the same as Wikipedia's NPOV policy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:42, 15 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Vandalism ==<br />
<br />
Help! A user called CortA is currently vandalising articles. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:15, 15 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:OK, Andy blocked him. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:17, 15 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Misled by RonLar ==<br />
<br />
I was quite astonished by your last actions. I slept over it and want to clarify my earlier remark.<br />
<br />
*I'd appreciate if you would be less generous with your slight innuendos (''"thanks for nothing!"'', ''"misled by RonLar"''): these make it difficult to assume ''good faith'' on your side. And they have the annoying tendency to backfire...<br />
<br />
*my statement ''"Where is the right place to propose an alternative viewpoint? Surely not in the article itself, but on its talk-page. This is a simple necessity for all protected articles, but a good idea for most of those articles some sysops feel strongly about."'' is hardly misleading - even though it is not written by a native speaker! In fact, it is echoing the sentiments of Conservapedia's [[Conservapedia:Editing etiquette|editing etiquettes]]:<br />
<br />
:::* '''You should discuss changes made by an Administrator before reverting their edits. Administrators are charged with seeing that article content is in line with Conservapedia guidelines. [[Edit war]]ring with an Administrator usually results in a temporary block.'''<br />
:::* '''You should not alter the editorial content of an article away from a [[conservative]], or [[Christian]], or [[family friendly]] "tone" without discussing proposed changes on the talk page.'''<br />
:::*'''Never make substantial edits to an article without discussing your changes first on the talk page. If you have a reasonable expectation that other editors will accept your change(s), the changes are just formatting / copy editing, you should proceed.'''<br />
<br />
*Inserting an alternative viewpoint is most certainly a ''substantial edit'' - and the etiquettes advise you to discuss such an edit at first on the talk-page.<br />
<br />
*So, I made a true statement, in accordance with Conservapedia's policy on editing, and you '''misread''' it. To reiterate: You weren't '''misled''', you simply '''misread''' it. And this misunderstanding (of your part) you took as a reason to erase the whole section and seemingly not to read the rest of my comment? Deleting a section on censorship is always a little bit ironic... <br />
<br />
*BTW: whether the article is protected or not is not of any interest for the discussion of censorship! A library does not only censor the books it throws from it shelves, but the books it doesn't allow into it shelves in the first place!<br />
<br />
*I put the whole section up [[User:RonLar|here]], so you can read it carefully again. Take your time, but nevertheless, react timely - you said that would be important....<br />
<br />
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 12:05, 16 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
:At this point, I think it's become abundantly clear that complaining about censorship will get you nowhere. I realize users will come up and be frustrated by certain site traditions, but that's just the way Conservapedia is run, RonLar.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 13:41, 16 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Sorry, I thought you were saying the article was protected. <br />
<br />
::Also, I'm astonished to think that you consider adding alternative viewpoints to be something that has to be '''cleared''' with a sysop first. My understanding of project policy is that all contributors are free to describe non-conservative, non-Christian views ... especially on an article describing a controversy between the two sides. <br />
<br />
::Has someone told you you can't describe the liberal or secular viewpoint on some topic? (Or did you try to sneak in such a viewpoint without proper attribution)? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <br />
<sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:38, 16 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::*Apology accepted. Perhaps you could revert your reaction to this misunderstanding by reintroducing the section which you erased from your talk-page?<br />
:::*Please read [[User:RonLar#Again, the previous example of ideological censorship, in detail]] - all of it, not only the first sentence. This should answer some of your questions.<br />
:::*Please address the incident which I mentioned there.<br />
:::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 16:56, 16 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Eh? I thought you wanted help. Please answer my question: Has someone told you you can't describe the liberal or secular viewpoint on some topic? (Or did you try to sneak in such a viewpoint without proper attribution)? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 20:39, 17 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::How is it a sensible use of my time to answer new questions when you seem to ignore my answers to your old ones? Please remember your statements:<br />
:::::{{Cquote|<br />
:::::''Unless you can show at least one diff, where a senior editor censored something ... merely because it disagreed with some conservative shibboleth ... than you ought to stop saying this. I address this not so much to you, as to those who follow you or travel alongside you.'' }}<br />
:::::and<br />
:::::{{Cquote|<br />
:::::''I asked for an instance of ideological censorship.''}}<br />
:::::Well, you find it here: [[User:RonLar#Again.2C_the_previous_example_of_ideological_censorship.2C_in_detail]] Of course I am willing to answer any question concerning this specific example of censorship, especially those which indicate that you read the whole comment.<br />
<br />
:::::Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 02:41, 18 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Nearly two weeks later: Did you take a look? Or even better, did you read the whole thing? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 18:17, 1 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Anti-Clancy cracks? ==<br />
<br />
In general I'm a Clancy fan but I think some of the criticism you removed was valid. For example by the time he wrote "The Bear and the Dragon" his standards of research had perceptibly dropped (The AH-64 has a 20mm gun? Really?) and "Red Rabbit" and "The Teeth of the Tiger" were frankly rubbish. Maybe some of the criticisms should stay? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:09, 17 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Anything can stay if properly sourced: X said Y about Z. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 23:10, 17 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::What would be an acceptable source? I have all Clancy's books; would they be acceptable sources for pointing out declining standards of technical accuracy? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:20, 17 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::LOL, '''your''' interpretation of Clancy's writings would be (what is called at Wikipedia) original research. If you don't know what I meant by 'properly sourced', then you're unqualified to contribute anything further to this project. If you do know, you're just toying with me. Godspeed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 23:23, 17 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough. What I'd do is reference both Clancy's books and technical sources that contradict them, such as the fact that the AH-64 does NOT have a 20mm gun. Like I said I'm generally a Clancy fan - "Without Remorse" may just be the best thriller ever written - but his last few books have been a bit disappointing and his research has definitely slipped. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:28, 17 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::What I would propose is to remove the comments about "The sum of all fears" - a nuclear weapon could be built with a table saw and a small lathe, never mind optical milling equipment - but keep and expand on the comment about the declining level of technical accuracy. The divergence of the Ryanverse from reality isn't important because it IS fiction, but the declining level of research and tendency towards unrealistic assessments of real-world capabilities IS important. For example "The Bear and the Dragon" is utterly unrealistic even in the Ryanverse. If China invaded Russia they'd get about ten feet over the border before being annihilated. The fortifitions on the Sino-Russian border make the Maginot line look like a sand castle on the beach, and they were actually designed by strategic thinkers. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:44, 17 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
On second thought, maybe I'm being too hard on you. I recently started tutoring schoolchildren, and I'm learning to be more patient with their quaint notions. After all, making wrong guesses and getting them corrected is often the best way to learn. Shall I not condescend to grant you the same grace? ;-)<br />
<br />
I've read all Tom Clancy's [[Jack Ryan]] and [[John Clark]] novels. I always assumed that any discrepancies were inserted on purpose; Clancy certainly would have no reason to put correct information on how to make a suitcase-sized nuclear bomb in his books: what conservative would want to inspire a copycat crime? <br />
<br />
If you want to include "criticism" by some published author who says an attack helicopter does or does not have a certain sized gun, go ahead. He's also not very accurate about the software used in the stock market, although it was a key plot element in ''[[Debt of Honor]]''. (Come to think of it, if a man knew everything and wanted to make money betting on horse races, he would know not to put all his winnings on the next race ("[[John Doe]]" TV series pilot). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:56, 24 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Language ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Big_Bang_theory Language like this] makes me extremely uncomfortable: "when grownups talk", "woman's logic is strange, don't you think", etc. (especially this in his earlier statements: "and being educated briefly by my grandpa in matters "of faith", mostly about "Catholic errors", and the absolute need to be trufhful, my concern was that the Catholics are wrong on one more point since the Big Bang was proven wrong in 1985")<br />
<br />
First, I am not a woman. My identity is very well known and I am quite easy to find. Ottava means eight, and Ottava Rima means Eight Rhyme, a type of rhyming pattern used in Italian epic poetry. Second, his language is condescending, misogynistic, religiously bigoted, etc. Third, his claims about the Big Bang Theory are rather strange, conspiratorial, and nothing I have ever heard by any legitimate scientist. I cannot honestly believe that he is a real conservative but I believe he is a plant just like many of the people who vandalize. His job is to produce some of the most absurd stuff to try and make conservatives look awful. If I am wrong, I am wrong, but his language does not seem like something that is appropriate. I talked to Geoff Plourde about this quite a bit tonight because it bothered me a lot. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 22:44, 18 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Um ==<br />
<br />
[[Atheism and obesity]] - is this a joke? It seems to be just a list of fat atheists. It even has random tidbits like "Chuck Norris endorses the Total Gym exercise system.[59]" I know many priests who are overweight, and many religious people who are. I know many atheists who are ultra thing and anorexic. <br />
<br />
"Christian and Library of Congress researcher's explanations of reports of UFOs " How would that even deal with atheism and obesity? Yet it is in there. <br />
<br />
The page looks like it was created to make Conservapedia and conservatism look really bad. Sigh. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 22:58, 18 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:User:Conservative is good at attracting readership to this website. The [[Atheism and obesity]] seems to me a bit of payback for the liberals who call Rush Limbaugh a big, fat idiot. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:57, 24 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::And in his payback, he demeans everyone who is overweight, including myself. I've dealt with mean-spirited behavior from people about weight the majority of my life - there is no acceptable reason for being hostile about the issue. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:53, 24 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== You were looking for ideological censorship? ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bestiality&curid=88619&diff=920267&oldid=920266 easy to find] --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 23:52, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Not as easy as you say. See [[Talk:Bestiality]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:44, 24 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Senior Admin assistance ==<br />
<br />
Hi Ed, I would like to bring something to your attention as a senior administrator. I have been in private communication with User:SamCoulter over the last few weeks. There is nothing in his attitude and comments to me in private and his behaviour here on Conservapedia to suggest this user is anything but sincere. He was recently blocked for the edit [http://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/SamCoulter here] (the last edit he made - I will not link directly to it because the topics are extremely offensive and not family friendly). For this effort he was blocked for three months. His edit was a) relevant b) correct according to the article linked and c) was a link which was on the front page already. It seems that some users wanted to quote the article without implying the articles conclusions as they were at loggerheads with a users personal opinion. I don't think the user should have been blocked but now he is I won't remove it but I do believe that 3 months is extremely heavy-handed. I don't want to create controversy so I will not chnage the block myself but I am bringing this up with you and User:Karajou also (I am unable to contact the blocking sysop). Thank you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:11, 25 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::Keep him blocked. He vandalized twice. In fact, I am going to increase the time blocked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 25 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
::::Do you have evidence of this vandalism? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:04, 25 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::::If you want to defend those recent contributions be my guest. If you want to wrangle with me about them, it is not going to happen. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:09, 25 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
::::::I tell you now '''there was no vandalism''' you are blocking a user for adding sourced and factual material. You are blocking him for no reason! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:09, 25 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Sorry, but it's actually very easy to avoid a block. I suggest you start coaching new users about courtesy, project goals, etc. <br />
<br />
I myself disagree with the project goals of RW, but they haven't given me any long blocks. Why? Because I follow their rules in their house.<br />
<br />
Adolescents often have trouble figuring out what the rules are, or trouble realizing the benefits of following them. (In the long run, civil disobedience campaigns against beneficial institutions such as Democracy and Free Markets simply backfire.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:52, 2 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I respectfully disagree with you. It's incredibly ''easy'' to get blocked on this site, because honestly, it appears to depend on the whim of the blocking editor (doesn't like what's being said because it's contrary to the blocking editor's opinion, got up on the wrong side of the bed, had a fight with someone in real life and are taking it out on editors here at CP.) You yourself just handed out an ''infinite'' block for ''defending'' someone.<br />
<br />
:Many editors, myself included, have protested User:Conservative's articles and his method of defending them. If anyone objects, he automatically deems them an atheist/evolutionist, etc., which at least in my case, is far from the truth. I object to several things. First, his use of "obese" as a ''ad hominem'' attack against people whose ideas he disagrees with. I've dealt with bullying behavior about weight most of my life, and have tried to point out to him how hurtful his taunts are, but he thinks it's amusing, and the other sysops here (yourself included) appear to agree. I'm all for a good discussion about ''ideas'', but when the attacks become personal, and all-inclusive, then yes, I'm going to protest.<br />
<br />
:Second, most of the articles are just ''badly, badly written''. They meander ''miles'' away from the original topic, they tend to be a bunch of quotes lumped together, and in many of them, the point that he's trying to make is missed completely. The actual subjects might be valid, and important enough to warrent an article on them, but creating 10 articles that say the same thing, and that can (and should) be consolidated into one, '''''well-researched and well-written document''''', is just poor scholarship. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 12:53, 2 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Well, thank you for not giving me an excuse to block you! ;-) Very well written . . .<br />
<br />
::As I've said elsewhere, [http://ameriwiki.wikkii.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=4073&oldid=4071] I disagree with the stance of "the admin" who is making ''[[ad hominem]]'' attacks on atheists; I think it's a misguided attempt to attract readership.<br />
<br />
::If anyone's had a '''good''' edit reverted for a bad reason, they can just let me know. Just remember: if anyone is criticizing to condemn, I'm not interested, but if they want me to change things, I'm the man who can do it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:03, 2 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== BrentH's block ==<br />
<br />
I see you blocked BrentH for trolling and reverted 2 of his edits. He linked [[Professor]] to an existing article here on CP, [[Professor values]]. Why was that trolling? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:55, 1 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
:Perhaps prior edits?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:01, 1 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
::User: Ed Poor did not appreciate the section right above this one--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 21:14, 1 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::BrentH made a perfectly reasonable and respectful suggestion. It would appear from the edit history that he was referring to an article about Winona Ryder, created by Ed Poor, which contained one piece of trivia but no basic information regarding the person whatsoever. What BrentH said is simply common sense, and I too cannot see how this can justify a block. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 22:45, 1 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
::::Indeed, certain longstanding members of this community seem to have rather thin skin. I did not see BrentH's post as offensive or out of line--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:54, 1 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== This is an encyclopedia. ==<br />
<br />
You wrote that on my talkpage. ''This is an encyclopedia.''. Well, if it is articles like [[bestiality and Britain]] ahould be deleted because, as I have pointed out numerous times, it has nothing to do with bestiality and Britain. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:27, 2 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Article deleted. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Ed+Poor&page=&year=&month=-1&hide_patrol_log=1]<br />
::Hey thanks Ed. Just for the record though I wasn't "bothered" by the content so much as bothered by the ''lack'' of content. As the commandments say - everything must be true and verifiable which that article clearly wasn't. Many thanks. I must admit - I have a lot of respect for you and karajou. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:54, 2 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::Ed, evolution was birthed in Britain and secularism has grown rampant in their country. Now their society is a mess and there is rioting in the streets. In addition, the'' Guardian'' just published a puff piece on bestiality. I say enough is enough and it's time their moral rot is exposed. I realize that pointing out that folly and consequences of atheism/evolutionism annoys liberals, but so what. Not only are they grossly and obviously in error, but atheists/evolutionists have shown themselves [[Atheism and cowardice|to be timid little bunnies]]. I restored the article because I feel confident that Conservapedia can stand up to foolish and timid little bunnies. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:21, 2 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
::::Enough with the insults conservative. I am neither a liberal nor an atheist and am sick to death of you accusing me of such. The article has nothing, I repeat '''nothing''' about the practice in Britain. I say again '''nothing'''. You poor scholarship is on show and we can ''all'' see it. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:02, 2 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
::::::Ed, a Brit was trying to bring over his deviant farming practices to the United States as can be seen [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7600523/British-man-51-arrested-at-bestiality-farm.html HERE]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:28, 2 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::::::::You misread the article, Conservative. The Oregon farm is owned by an American. The British man was visiting it. Read [http://www.examiner.com/headlines-in-seattle/seattle-convicted-cocaine-smuggler-arrested-likely-into-bestiality-liking-sex-with-animals here] for a version of the story that makes who owned the farm clearer. <br />
[[File:Keldaby goats.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|An exclusive British art gallery was criticised for displaying a highly offensive bestiality oriented painting which featured a [[goat]] just yards from The Ritz hotel and where it could be seen by children.- The Daily Mail online (MailOnline), August 5, 2011 ''The explicit art that shows bestiality with a goat just yards from The Ritz'']]<br />
::::::::There is no way I'd let children any where this site with Conservatives despicable articles all over the place. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:54, 2 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::::::::::Max, I heard Oregon was pretty liberal. It figures the farm was in Oregon. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:30, 2 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
::::::::::::I heard that most states are pretty liberal... But that doesn't make the rumors true. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 22:34, 2 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
Oregon voted for Obama plus fairly recently they had the most atheists per capita in the United States. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:57, 2 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
:Omaha, Nebraska also voted for obama but calling it liberal is very silly--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:58, 2 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/25/new-poll-identifies-most-liberal-and-conservative-states/ Oregon is liberal] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:07, 2 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
:I'm slightly confused as to why it's relevant or not that Oregon is liberal. After all the state DOES have a law against bestiality, so that argues against liberals being tolerant of it. --[[User:ColSharp|ColSharp]] 08:33, 3 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
::Since when do liberals obey the laws on the books in the first place? This photo [http://www.conservapedia.com/File:1915b7ec753fa9d0352885dc23da4469.jpg] is proof that liberals have no intention of obeying laws regarding littering. They trashed Washington D.C. ''when they got their way'', January 20, 2009. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:10, 3 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::There's a law in New Jersey about recycling, yet I know several conservatives who refuse to recycle. Why is this? [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 13:26, 3 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Request for Admin assistance ==<br />
<br />
To all senior admins and sysops. I am being repeatedly abused by user:conservative who, among other things, accuses me continuously of being an atheist simply because I point out some of the holes in his articles. See [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=113357&diff=924642&oldid=924636 here for the latest accusation]. I have asked him numerous times to desist with his sneering name calling as I find it offensive to have my faith questioned and nothing is ever done. He state’s I am atheist because I don’t agree with some of his ridiculous contentions. In actual fact it isn’t even that I disagree with him it is that I point out his shoddy research, poor scholarship and his berating, insulting and sarcastic behaviour towards others. I am of the opinion now that he is purposely calling me names because he knows I don’t like it which is unchristian, impolite and, above all, insulting. Is anyone going to teach this man some manners? Has Conservapedia become a place where Conservative is allowed to behave this way without any warning or comeuppance but all other editors and warned and blocked for minor infractions. He is in continual violation of the commandments yet NOTHING is done whereas people like myself are always watching out to avoid being banned. Well, fine, ban me if you like. I probably will be after this posting and no doubt Conservative will cackle with glee at “winning” again. But laugh Conservative, you win nothing. I post this is full knowledge that I might be blocked banned and insulted by you in my absence and I have always remained polite and civil plus I can hold my head up high. Hopefully one of you will take a stand and insist on standards of civility. But I don’t hold out much hope. Thanks, many of you were kind, decent people whom I enjoyed working with and I pray for you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:21, 5 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
:I am disappointed in you most of all Ed. Coming from wikipedia and being the first to jump on others for incivility you ignore when it comes to the ruling chaste of Conservapedia. You should be ashamed. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:48, 12 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::Max, I think you assume entirely too much about my dispositions. You really don't know what extent I "cackle" or if I "cackle" at all. You also don't know what value I place on "winning". In fact, you don't even know if I am one person or a team. I/we remain inscrutable. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:24, 12 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
::::User:Conservative, this is getting silly. You wrote for instance:<br />
::::::''Actually KhalidM, I have a very outgoing personality and a university professor friend of mine told me that I would make a great administrator because I can be very diplomatic. While I realize that I will never cultivate a large atheist or liberal fan club, I can live with that. Conservative 20:34, 5 October 2011 (EDT) ''<br />
::::So, while your grammatical gender may be undetermined, your number isn't. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:44, 13 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== King George I ==<br />
<br />
The article of [[King George I]] was deleted as a ''creation of vandals''. On the talk page I read the comment of User:RJJense: ''I added much new text, all of which I wrote, and previously posted on Citizendium.'' I looked up the article at Citizendium and it seemed to be quite informative - certainly not vandalistic! Could it be restored? I'd like to insert a valid link into [[elector]]s.<br />
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:57, 13 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::I restored the last version by RJJense. I feel confident that his last version was a good article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:34, 13 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
:Thanks - it really seems so! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:57, 13 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
=="New Ordeal"==<br />
Hello, I noticed that you placed the quotation marks around the term "New Ordeal." As you have probably noticed I have been attempting to fix that article. Quite frankly, the article is pretty bad to start with and several of the references that prior authors cited have nothing to do with the topic. Do you know if there is procedure in which this article may be recommended for deletion? --[[User:Padams|Padams]] 15:33, 15 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Better to mark it as an essay. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:31, 19 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Block of AugustO ==<br />
<br />
I looked at [[Conservapedia:Editor's_guide#If_you_get_blocked]]:<br />
<br />
''If you get blocked, it's probably because you (1) broke the rules and (2) ignored hints, requests and/or warnings. So the first thing you should do is review your communications with others here, particularly those who are admins. Have you been trying to get along by following our practices and supporting our goals, or have you been trying to change our ways? If you are new here, it's best to go along to get along. After you have contributed a lot, we'll be more likely to listen to your suggestions, but breaking the rules will just end up with eliminating you from the project. ''<br />
<br />
::*I can't think of any rule which I broke<br />
::*I was requested to ''to do some charitable work somewhere instead''. I'm already engaged in such work, so this doesn't apply...<br />
::*I don't try to ''change our ways''. I try to correct factual errors (e.g., ιδού can be translated as ''at this moment'' or that it is right to call ''Carolus Martellus'' the grandson of ''Carolus Magnus''.)<br />
<br />
''Perhaps upon reflection you may realize that you'd rather be part of the project than insist on your own way. You might want to apologize and get unblocked. ''<br />
<br />
::*I don't insist on my own way and I apologize if anyone feels insulted by my criticism.<br />
<br />
''If you want to discuss your block, '''do not create a new account'''. Rather, use one of the following methods to appeal the decision (listed in order of preference). ''<br />
<br />
::*Here, I obviously failed. <br />
<br />
1. ''Contact the person who blocked you (see below).<br />
::*tried<br />
2. ''If you get no reply after a reasonable amount of time, you may contact any Administrator.<br />
::*tried<br />
3. ''Email cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com giving the name of the Administrator or editor who blocked you, and the date, and it will be forwarded on to them. <br />
::*tried<br />
<br />
''If you contact more than one person about this, please do them the courtesy of letting them know who else you have tried contacting. ''<br />
::*This should be obvious from the header of my emails.<br />
<br />
''Contacting an Administrator or editor can usually be done by one of the following methods: ''<br />
*''Use the "Email this user" link in the toolbox. This, however, will only work if both you and the Administrator or editor have enabled this on your/their respective accounts.<br />
*''The Administrator or editor may have provided an email address or other contact information (e.g. AIM) on their user page. <br />
<br />
::*This section seems to be obsolete: ''email this user'' doesn't work for any of the administrators I tried to reach. And I couldn't get Ed Poor's email address via his user page. So we are in a [[Catch 22]] kind of situation...<br />
::*I emailed to <code>aschlafy@aol.com</code>, <code>conservapedia@zoho.com</code> and <code>cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com</code>. I didn't get any reply (is 1-2 days a ''reasonable amount of time'' to wait? I thinks so...) to my short email which stated: ''I understand that my criticisms of CBP and the World History Lectures are quite unwelcome, but they are hardly trolling! I'd appreciate if you lift my block.''<br />
::*So I decided to create a new account to appeal the block, hoping that the advice against this action is as obsolete as other sections of the ''editor's guide''.<br />
[[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 07:56, 26 October 2011 (EDT) (AugustO)<br />
:::August, I think you should start a career in sales. You certainly have the persistence to be a good salesman. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:47, 26 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Ed Poor, the block of AugustO is now more than a week old. I tried to reach you via various channels - could you please lift the block as the stated reason ("trolling") doesn't apply? [[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 11:09, 31 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Please get a [[writing plan]] from him and get it to me, and I'll consider it. Meanwhile, any sysop is free to unblock him. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:01, 31 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
::Is that any official Sysop, or anyone with Block rights? I'd be happy to unblock Mr O so that he can post his writing plan.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:25, 1 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::On second thoughts, perhaps I'll just go ahead. Please reverse my action if I'm overstepping the mark.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:33, 1 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*Thanks for the unblock!<br />
*I read the article on the [[writing plan]], and I'll try to provide you with one. This would be easier if a ''sample plan'' were provided. But nonetheless, here it is:<br />
<br />
Mainly I'm interested in the CBP. Mind you, I'm not ''Junker Jörg'', I'm not capable to create a translation on my own which stands for hundreds of years. But I think that translating the Bible in a group, and extensively discussing your work is a marvelous way to get a greater insight into the ''Book of books''. While doing so, I try to dig into what Conservative calls the ''ANE culture'', as you can see [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#Issue_with_translation_of_John_4:53|here]], where I try to shed light on timekeeping during the Roman empire.<br />
<br />
When I came here, I thought that there would be a group of likewise interested individuals, but at the moment there seems to be only one other editor with similar interests.<br />
<br />
As my approach to the CBP generates quite a few edits on talk-pages, I balance these with edits to articles. These tend to by connected somehow with my namesakes (August of Saxony, Ernest August of Hanover), the history - or just happen on pages where I read something which puzzled me :-)<br />
<br />
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Abortion issue ==<br />
<br />
It would be a great idea to merge the articles. In fact, if you were interested in expanding the article, I might be interested in helping.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 14:28, 29 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Yes, please help me organize this. We should give prominence to conservative views, but let's steer away from censoring liberal views. It would be nice if liberals could see '''why''' conservatives believe differently. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:43, 29 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
::OK!--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 14:48, 29 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
::I merged the articles and added a bit on abortion and political ideology. How is it?--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 21:53, 31 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Thanks for the change but==<br />
perhaps it should be bed bugs (plural), and now when i make an edit and it goes thru, if i try to make another one i get "Someone else has changed this page since you started editing it" but no one has. Going back to page and trying anew results in the same. 3.1: longetivity should be longevity. <br />
<br />
Jesus is Lord, thanks[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 07:58, 5 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Blocking policy improvement panel member - please give your feedback here ==<br />
<br />
Blocking policy improvement panel member - please give your feedback [http://conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Panel_members.2C_please_give_your_feedback_below HERE]<br />
<br />
Your assistance would be much appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:05, 16 November 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I have explained my ideas in private email to you and Andy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:50, 11 December 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
== a few messages to you ==<br />
<br />
There are a few messages to you here: http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Air_superiority [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:14, 26 May 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Thanks ==<br />
<br />
Thanks for picking up some of my "wiki litter" that I left behind (redirects to non-existent pages). I will try to be more diligent as far as not littering in the future. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:22, 11 June 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:You're welcome. And don't bother yourself: it's better for you to focus your time on building the wiki, while less talented contributors like myself do the routine housekeeping. <br />
<br />
:If I had your writing skill, I'd be making whole article like you do. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:34, 12 June 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== A message to you from Cipe ==<br />
<br />
Fixing a MediaWiki message: <br />
<br />
Hello,<br />
<br />
Could you perform the edit I described [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&oldid=992864#Edit_request here, on very bottom of the page]? I asked Aschlafly but he's probably busy now.<br />
<br />
Best [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 15:33, 13 July 2012 (EDT)<br />
::I know the basics of Wiki coding and not the advanced level coding. I would ask someone else. Try Ed Poor. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:32, 13 July 2012 (EDT)<br />
:::Unfortunately, I cannot edit Ed's talk page. Could you suggest someone different? Or message him?<br />
<br />
:::The change is rather small and requires only copy-and-paste. More directly: you can copy contents of this: [[User:Cipe/MW_fix]] to: [[MediaWiki:Revision-info]]. Even if my suggestion is wrong, it can be reverted, so there is no danger. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 16:41, 13 July 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Okay, I did it. But where can I see the results? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:53, 13 July 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Thank you very much. You'll see it when checking older revision. Here is an example: [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&oldid=991546].<br />
<br />
I noticed that MediaWiki has a different message when you're checking current revision. I'll prepare fix in a moment. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 17:55, 13 July 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:The message seems to have logged me out. I think it needs fixing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:56, 13 July 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I also got logged out, but only once. I can consistently see the new message now. Perhaps the software logs out when a edit to MediaWiki is made. Could you please copy [[User:Cipe/MW fix 2]] to [[MediaWiki:Revision-info-current]]? I promise it's the last change :) It is shown for a permalink to current revision. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 18:08, 13 July 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I don't think that's it. I think you need to put the '''www.''' in front of '''www.conservapedia.com''' --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 18:09, 13 July 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::It seems to work. I can see the messages: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&oldid=991546 for past revisions] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&oldid=992065 for current revision]. Thanks for changing. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 18:19, 13 July 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Thank you for unlocking your talk page ==<br />
<br />
I really appreciate being able to get in contact with you directly when the circumstances arise. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 18:39, 13 July 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Thank you ==<br />
Now he can try to justify what he said about the article. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 14:29, 14 July 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== File:GoreFireBreathing.jpg ==<br />
<br />
Do you think it would be appropriate to use this image in the [[Current TV]] article? It's already in Gore's main article, so why not include it in the article about his obscure TV network on channel 9800 on my TV? --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 20:35, 15 July 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== apology. ==<br />
<br />
Hey, I just wanted to apologise for the comments I made related to you, they were impolite and unnecessary. I don't have anything against you or anything, I just posted something that I thought was relevent without thinking how it would be taken by anyone other than myself, as it happened they were rude and quite personal. I acknowledge that I behaved quite badly, and in future I will try to avoid giving you, or others, offense. So..... virtual handshake?[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 06:18, 18 July 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Oh, don't be so dramatic. Just comment on the articles and issues of the day, and forget about personalities. That's how this project's supposed to run. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:33, 18 July 2012 (EDT)<br />
::lol. Nah it's difficult to tell over the internet how people are reacting, so for all I knew you could have been quite insulted or something, and I had to make sure that I was being very clear. Anyway, cool[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 01:03, 19 July 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I'm not sure you get it: We don't want personal remarks on this wiki, clear or not. You need to be clear only about one thing: what you intend to write about an article topic. You must not comment on other users in any way. Is '''that''' clear? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:01, 20 July 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== On Personal Attacks ==<br />
<br />
Dear Mr. Poor,<br />
<br />
As someone who has been the subject of personal comments (see [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=987753&oldid=987715], [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=987827&oldid=987777], [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=987956&oldid=987955], [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=990739&oldid=990566]), I would like to share my opinion on Conservapedia's policy on personal attacks.<br />
<br />
I think it is very appropriate to make '''relevant''' comments on editing and other wiki behavior to determine what the best practices are with regards to editing and other actions and, if necessary, to instruct users who may not know better about such practices. For example, I have informed two administrators about redacting the automatically-generated deletion log entry to remove sensitive material. I have also asked one administrator to include source information in that user's uploaded images, requests with which this user has complied. Likewise, if someone has a habit of posting comments on talk pages without signing them, it is appropriate to inform them of how to sign posts. Further, if someone is about to violate 90/10, a warning is definitely appropriate. None of these have to do with the real-life '''personality''' that these editors, many of whom are brothers and sisters in Christ, have; these comments focus on on-wiki '''behavior'''.<br />
<br />
Further, I think that if someone is going to make a statement regarding real-life facts or Conservapedia's commandments, policies, and best practices, it is appropriate to debate this statement '''without going into personality details'''. Such debate may very well include Socratic or rhetorical questioning as a argumentative device.<br />
<br />
Of course, Mr. Schlafly is the owner of the site, so he has the final say in this, but I'm sure he would agree with what I have written. Although attacks on another editor's real-life personality should generally be removed, I do not see the need to remove good-faith debate and discussion over user '''behavior''' at Conservapedia.<br />
<br />
Thank you for reading this. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:36, 21 July 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Yeah, thanks, Greg. If I err on the side of "absolutely nothing about the person" to an absurd point, please continue to help me out. I'm mainly opposed to comments like, "You're a jerk" or "I don't have to follow the rules." <br />
<br />
:Nothing wrong with '''friendly''' personal comments, like, "Thanks for pointing out that a rigid, absolutist enforcement of the rules may not be wise." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:01, 22 July 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Hey Ed ==<br />
<br />
I saw your Arbcom case over at Wikipedia just today looking through for cases of bias there. :) Wikipedia's - nuts, huh? Lol. I ran into the Obama bias team over there in Scjessey, Wikidemon, and company, back in late 2009. It's become so hopelessly biased by now you've just got to laugh. They know they're keeping all controversy out of the Obama page and how biased they are, and don't care. Well, all my facts are at Conservapedia's services now. :) Anyway, just saying it's nice to see another ex-Wikipedian here I guess - hope we get some more! :) --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 01:15, 22 July 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Tehpwn3r==<br />
'User names based on your real name or initials are '''preferred'''' does not state that you will be blocked. [[User:Conservative|Also]].--[[User:Wishnaka|Wishnaka]] 19:51, 25 August 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*Inappropriate user name. It has been a general principle that one's user name be "based on one's real first name and last initial", though there are a number of reasons why that is not always practical. The point is that we don't like the kind of foolish "handles" that are often used in various blogs and social web sites. If you run afoul of this by accident, you will be asked to create a new account, and doing so will not be considered sockpuppetry. Of course, some user names are essentially just vandalism, and are treated that way.<br />
<br />
== Randall7 ==<br />
<br />
If you don't object, I suggest shortening his block to maybe 3 days. His remark, while rude and impertinent, did have some substance, and a hard block doesn't serve to do anything but cause more unhappiness. Thanks for considering,<br />
[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 20:48, 25 August 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:If you unblock him, you're responsible. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 20:54, 25 August 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I recommend keeping the week. And don't > dont. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 21:01, 25 August 2012 (EDT)<br />
:::Thanks for pointing out the typo.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 23:35, 25 August 2012 (EDT)<br />
==Michael Baumgartner==<br />
Dear Mr. Poor,<br />
Please do a careful side-by-side comparison of [[Michael Baumgartner]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Baumgartner&oldid=509330054 the Wikipedia article]. I did a google search on "Michael Baumgartner" and came up with a number of sources including the Wikipedia article. I took notes from all of the sources, and wrote a new article based on my notes. I honestly believe that the article uses a different set of sources, covers ideas in a different order, and covers the topic differently than Wikipedia. Please take another look, and if you agree, please restore [[Michael Baumgartner]]. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 14:05, 27 August 2012 (EDT)<br />
*I understand the workload you face. Could you please look at the article and reconsider? [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 14:51, 27 August 2012 (EDT)<br />
*:Already restored in good faith; I trust you, and I'm not going to compare it closely. I'll leave that to others. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:54, 27 August 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== My condolences ==<br />
<br />
On the death of the Rev Dr Moon. [[User:JuanMotame|JuanMotame]] 18:54, 2 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
==Thanks==<br />
Thanks for the welcome. I wonder if you could help me. I tried [[Special:MovePage/William. J. Fulbright]] but apparently I don't have permission. The page should be at [[J. William Fulbright]], the name of the founder of the Fulbright scholarship program.<br />
:Done. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:26, 4 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Sun Myung Moon ==<br />
<br />
You changed the first sentence of the protected article on [[Sun Myung Moon]] from the present to the past tense. Could you take care of the rest of the article, too? Thanks. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 05:35, 5 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
*Feel free to take care of that yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:01, 5 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
::I took care of it. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 13:21, 5 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
:::Thanks to both of you! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:32, 5 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Requesting Assistance ==<br />
<br />
Mr. Poor, I'm relatively new here and don't completely know my way around. Would you please look at my comment concerning [[Talk:American Atheists and their challenges in terms of overweight leadership personnel|American Atheists and their challenges in terms of overweight leadership personnel]]. If my view is in line with the site, I'm quite certain that a template or procedure is needed at this point. If my views are not in line with the site, please feel free to remove that comment as you see fit. You seem experienced here, so your guidance is requested. --[[User:Nouniquenames|Nouniquenames]] 00:03, 21 October 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== [[Psychological manipulation]] ==<br />
<br />
I've noticed that you moved/redirected the above article to [[Essay: Psychological manipulation in the Bible]] on grounds "not a general article; case study uses a Bible story". I've got somewhat confused about this step, because IMHO the article is general and only the case study section itself contains a "Bible story". In fact the rest is a combination of various sources, some of them far from having anything to do w/ Bible at all. I was by far not completely done with that article and now I actually do not know how to continue working on it. It says now "This Is An Original Work. Contributors should add their signatures to the end section. If published, a notice will be posted and, if desired, contributors will be recognized." but that was not my idea at all, I would be more than happy if anyone could help to extend that, in my opinion, general article. If I could suggest anything then I would like to suggest to move only the 'case study' section to the essay realms and keep the rest as general article with hyperlink to that essay in appropriate, perhaps 'See Also' section. I also deem as deficiency that article does not appear in the Psychology category now, I believe it belongs there.--[[User:AK|AK]] 10:35, 31 October 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==[[Objections to evolution]]==<br />
As for your rationale for redirect on 'Objections to evolution', namely "I thought we already had plenty of articles opposing the Theory of evolution", I agree with you that "we have", but still would dare to oppose the redirect on grounds that 'Objections to evolution' is an article that brainwashes people at WP and enjoys special defence by witch-hunters who heavily suppress any different points of view there thus I believe it is of significant importance to have available alternative view on the same topic under the very same title.--[[User:AK|AK]] 10:50, 31 October 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Quote Templates ==<br />
<br />
I was doing some ''random page'' editing and found that there was a whole load of quote templates you created a while ago that link to nowhere and nothing seems to link to them. It seems the template for linking these quotes never got off the ground. I'm proposing that these either be deleted or put into some sort of quote page as I don't think there much use at the moment (except for possibly taking up server space). Kind Regards [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 02:00, 2 November 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==[[Unificationism]]==<br />
I am not surprised to see you make changes to the Unificationism page in defense of your church, but why did you remove the part in which Moon told an interviewer, "God is living in me and I am the incarnation of himself." "The whole world is in my hand and I will conquer and subjugate the world." [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19459920?print=true]<br />
<br />
Are you saying the BBC made that up? [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 08:23, 14 November 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
:You can put that back in. Sorry for the delayed answer; my day job keeps me pretty busy. <br />
<br />
:Be advised, though, that Rev. Moon himself disputed the ''conquer and subjugate'' quote, telling Newsweek interviewers that he had been quoted out of context. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:35, 20 November 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Way to stop the spammers ==<br />
<br />
From Aschlafly's talk page <br />
Yesterday after I prayed an idea came to me (most likely from god) to stop the spammers from registering the spam accounts. If we can move away from user captcha and instead use a question that requires some knowledge (for example what team does tim tebow sit on the bench for or which team did he turned around) as the spambots will be completely flummoxed by this. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 09:16, 19 November 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
:The questycaptcha is excellent for this purpose. It stops ocr bots, and most paid spammers. The code would be:<br />
<br />
require_once( "$IP/extensions/ConfirmEdit/ConfirmEdit.php" );<br />
$wgCaptchaClass = 'QuestyCaptcha';<br />
$arr = array (<br />
"A question?" => "An answer!",<br />
"What is this wiki's name?" => "Conservapedia",<br />
'Who is Tim Tebow' => 'An athlete',<br />
foreach ( $arr as $key => $value ) {<br />
$wgCaptchaQuestions[] = array( 'question' => $key, 'answer' => $value );<br />
}<br />
Which you would place in /rootfiledirectory/localsettings.php[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 15:54, 19 November 2012 (EST)''<br />
<br />
: Given your considerable experience in operating and maintaining wiki's like Wikipedia and convservapedia, do you think you would be able to implement this ? Regards [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 05:12, 23 November 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
==A serious Biblical matter==<br />
<br />
Aschlafly wrote the essay [[Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?]]. This wouldn't have been to problematic, but now he puts his outlandish idea into an article in the main space ([[Epistle to the Hebrews]]). First he wrote:<br />
{{cquote|"The [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] is the nineteenth book of the [[New Testament]], and one of the greatest mysteries in all of intellectual history: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and '''the most plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it.'''"}}<br />
[[User:Iduan]] toned this down somewhat, so that we read at the moment:<br />
{{cquote|"The [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] is the nineteenth book of the [[New Testament]], and one of the greatest mysteries in all of intellectual history: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and '''one plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it'''."}}<br />
<br />
I couldn't find any Biblical scholar who shares this idea, I couldn't find any authorative figure who promotes this - and this isn't much of a surprise if you read the epistle for yourself! The only "scholar" who has proposed this "theory" in the last 2000 years is Andrew Schlafly. <br />
<br />
I tried to delete this sentence, and then I tried to make it clear that this idea is a personal insight by Andrew Schlafly. My edits were reverted: any reader of this encyclopedia gets the impression that this theory is something commonly known or well discussed. That's utterly untrue. <br />
<br />
I tend to be quite strict on Biblical matters - I'm often accused of being nitpicky. As one of the sysops of Conservapedia who was active in 2012 I ask you to weigh in on this problem: maybe it is just me and most of the of you and your fellow sysops think that it is acceptable to present an insight of a single person '''in a Biblical matter''' (an insight shared by virtually no one) as a plausible theory. But - as the title of this section indicates - for me this is a very serious matter.<br />
<br />
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:26, 25 November 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
:If your purpose for marking it as Mr. Schlafly's idea is to discredit it, then you're barking up the wrong tree. Anyway, the page is just an essay, and the entire page is therefore pure Schlafly. What's wrong with that? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 23:37, 5 December 2012 (EST)<br />
:*''"Anyway, the page is just an essay, and the entire page is therefore pure Schlafly. What's wrong with that? "'' As I tried to convey with the phrase "this wouldn't have been to problematic", there is nothing wrong with the essay [[Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?]]. But I think it ''is'' problematic that the ''insight'' of the essay spills over into a page in the main space, i.e., [[Epistle to the Hebrews]], and becomes a ''fact'' during this process.<br />
:*''"If your purpose for marking it as Mr. Schlafly's idea is to discredit it, then you're barking up the wrong tree."'' It's the other way round: stating the ''insight'' in an article in the main space without making it clear that the only source for this idea is Andrew Schlafly is lending it an improper credibility. If you read an unsourced, unmarked statement in an encyclopedia, the reader generally takes it as a kind of common knowledge, even more so if he is e.g., a high-school pupil.<br />
:--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:28, 6 December 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
Conservapedia is a mix of opinion and fact. Each is clearly marked. Talk pages are filled with unsourced claims, and we make very few efforts to police such talk.<br />
<br />
If there is currently an unsourced, unmarked statement in an article that needs attention, please point it out to me. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:09, 12 December 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thank you - if unsourced, unmarked statements are reintroduced into the article, I'll point them out to you! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:02, 12 December 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Hello ==<br />
<br />
Im new here and need some help. I figured I would go to you since you seem very involved in the community. I recently tried to instate an article about R*tional Wiki and suddenly it was deleted. I thought since we had an article about Wikipedia that we could write about wikis. I also noticed that it had been deleted several times by the same people. Why? The words are spam filtered to. I feel that we need to write about the faults and propaganda of this completely biased website. Not to mention they completely badmouth you in the most rude ways. Please help...--[[User:Colesmithsayshi|Colesmithsayshi]] 14:18, 31 December 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Mass Wedding ==<br />
<br />
I was wanting to know what is the significance of mass weddings in the unification church ? I see your church has recently conducted it's first mass wedding since the very untimely death of the great Sun Myung Moo. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 10:05, 17 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Not sure how to respond to messages. ==<br />
<br />
I am not sure how to answer the message you sent me. There does not seem to be a way to respond attached to the message you sent. Do I just respond in this open forum? Thanks.</div>Mikershttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Homosexual_Agenda&diff=1035878Talk:Homosexual Agenda2013-02-22T14:52:29Z<p>Mikers: /* Conservapedia violates its own commandments. */</p>
<hr />
<div>Scalia mentioned that in a dissenting opinion, which isn't binding law. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 00:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Vic Eliason passage should be removed ==<br />
<br />
I write this because I have met VE here in Wisconsin and believe he'd be uncomfortable with the logic of including this information in this particular article. The passage: "Vic Eliason of Crosstalk America rightly points out that if all Americans turned homosexual it would only take a few generations for the United States to lose most of the population of the country through lack of procreation. This would make the US more vulnerable to attack by our enemies." Nobody believes that homosexuality is contagious, like a virus, and the probability is 0% that "all Americans" would turn homosexual. I doubt that any homosexual, including activist leaders, would think it would be possible at all or even desirable. There is as little temptation for a heterosexual to want homosexual sex as there is for homosexuals to want heterosexual sex. Also, the comment about the US being more vulnerable to attack because the country doesn't procreate also makes no sense, given that the likelihood of that happening for this reason is 0%. Three other potential problems. 1) The passage is completely undocumented. 2) The link for biographical information for VE is to Wikipedia. Couldn't someone here write an article about him for CP? He has been, after all, a leading figure in Christian radio for 40+ years. 3) Besides being unrelated to the topic of the article and having 0% possibility of describing a real situation, the passage detracts from the credibility of the article and CP. This passage should be removed.<br />
<br />
== WOV's got a point ==<br />
<br />
Not only that, but this entire article is biased tripe. It presents the "homosexual agenda" from a one-sided perspective, and is filled with hate commentary. '''I recommend the entire thing for deletion.'''<br />
<br />
Scalia's remark is regretful and a blemish on the pages of the U.S. Reporter, up there with Scott v. Sanford. But let's not expand it still further.<br />
<br />
I have cleaned up biased and vitriolic language as best as I can, but this entry deserves deletion.<br />
<br />
Seconded. If this is a homosexual agenda, then what homosexual wrote it? This is nothing but political game-playing: Identify a group as ''The Enemy'' and then brand them haters and abusers of family, children, and country. It makes dehumanising them so much easier. - Suricou<br />
<br />
: I didn't see anything "hateful" in it. The Scalia reference was not intended to be about what is binding law, obviously. There was nothing binding about his phrase. I'll note that it was in dissent.<br />
<br />
: The edits to this article were completely inappropriate, turning it into a liberal puff piece. Wikipedia exists for that. Actually, your edits made this even more liberal than Wikipedia's article on the same topic!<br />
<br />
: The hour is very late and I need to lock this page to guard against vandalism or conversion to a liberal message. I can unlock tomorrow. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Presenting both points doesn't make it a liberal puff piece! It presented only one perspective (Focus on the Family), and referred to the Shepard incident as OVERBLOWN. That's awful!! I consider my entry a moderate tack, but if you can think of an acceptable compromise that preserves an unbiased perspective, be my guest. It shocks me to see you go against your own commandments, though, about not including bias, and not importing a political perspective. I have tried to, and continue to try to, do the same.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 02:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Instead of the http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm cite you may want to use this one [http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm] This cite goes straight (NPI) to a section of the book ''After the Ball''. -)[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:24, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Thanks. Will do tomorrow. Goodnight, Cracker!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
I would definitely change the "promote homosexuality in schools" to "promote acceptance of homosexuality in schools". Definitely sounds like they're trying to make me gay. --[[User:Splark|Splark]] 21:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree with the comments of [[User:AmesG|AmesG]] and [[User:Splark|Splark]]. The idea that one's ideological opponents have a specific "agenda" is an all-too common one, but such agendas are more often touted by those who oppose than by those who support a group. That a Supreme Court Justice referred to it, or that it's in some leaflet somewhere, isn't substantive evidence that it exists.. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Aren't those five points of the "homosexual agenda" linked to more of a strategy than an "agenda"? And, aren't they the standard strategy for all interest groups? 1. Talk about your issue. 2. Show your group is harmed unless you get what you want. 3. Provide facts so people can justify agreeing with you. 4. Portray yourself and your point of view as right and moral. 5. Portray your opponents and their point of view as wrong and immoral. 6. Get corporate or other financial support. Every group and lobbying organization does that, and I don't know that singling out gays and the gay rights movement as doing that is really informative.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 11:23, 15 March 2007 (ED<br />
<br />
I will go on the record and say that yes, there is a homosexual agenda. As a homosexual myself, I'm pretty much in the middle of it. All we want is to be treated the same as any other tax-paying American. If my partner is injured, I would like to be able to have the same visitation and decision-making power as a husband/wife would. I would like to be able to transfer property when I die without having to jump through a million legal hoops. Many people claim that we want "special" rights. We really don't. We just want to be treated the same as everyone else.--[[User:Patthew|Patthew]] 12:01, 12 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I think this page is extremely biased. It presents only one side of the issue and is locked to prevent the other side from responding. Proof of a bias of another kind here.<br />
-Gasmonkey<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Everything you post must be true and verifiable ==<br />
<br />
This entry violates the first (and perhaps most important) Conservapedia commandment. There is no homosexual "agenda" -- no "they" who "wrote a book", no 10-point plan. It's the same kind of paranoid nonsense that's in the articles here on Joseph McCarthy and Alger Hiss (WP has far more accurate articles on both subjects, with the one on Hiss very clearly identifying areas of controversy), with conspiracy-theorist types quoting and sourcing one another. I propose this entire article for immediate deletion. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 10:56, 22 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Agreed. The "Homosexual agenda" is no more factual than the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Delete, or recreate as an article about the popular (?) but false belief in this "agenda." [[User:Pkoad|Pkoad]] 00:21, 29 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:It refers to the [[gay rights]] activism, which may be a [[grassroots]] movement but which has multiple goals which are easily identified. The Liberal POV that such goals are non-existent is a kind of denialism. <br />
<br />
:It will be good for the article to discuss this denial, in conjunction with [[gay rights]] critics who oppose the points which the denialists says no one advances. (Not worded right, but I think you get the gist.) See you all tomorrow. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 00:29, 29 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::There's no more gay agenda other than there was a "black agenda" before ''Brown'' came down. The gay agenda is equal treatment. Oh no, quick, ma, shut the doors! Equality's a-comin'!-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub><br />
<br />
:::I'd say "keep it" so the world can really see how these strange nutkins think. But in the interest of humanity, decency, and honesty, it is a pack of paranoid, politico-religious agenda lies. Really, really strange nutjob lies. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:51, 28 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:'''Keep:'''Let's assume for one moment that the homosexual agenda is complete hogwash and homosexual activists don't believe in it: Isn't the fact that Conservative Christians do believe in it enough to keep the article so that the "opinions" of Christians about homosexual activists be here. The fact that many talk about it is clear evidence that this is a valid article--[[User:Djcreativity|Djcreativity]] 15:47, 9 May 2009 (EDT)<br />
::Shouldn't we present information that is factual, and not misleading, though? If the intention of the article was to present Christian responses to gay rights activism, it should be presented as such. Given that ''After the Ball'' was published twenty years ago, presenting it as an active force in the gay rights movement (rather than as a foundation of the movement as a whole) is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? If we were talking about the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam we could reference Malcom X and Louis Farrakhan, but to act as though their works were part of current politics and national discourse would be misguided at best, and flatly wrong, at worst. --[[User:Jfavor|Jfavor]] 00:40, 20 May 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Opposing Christian Agenda ==<br />
<br />
I can't work out what the point of the "Opposing Christian Agenda" section is. The sentences don't make sense, and the referenced page does not mention homosexuality or gay. I propose the section be deleted by someone with the privilege to edit the article. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:33, 9 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I think it's not nearly explicit enough. More than anything else except perhaps abortion, the homosexual subversion of Christian values is illustrative of the influence of Satan upon liberals and other leftists, and his influence through them on our society. Should I rework the section to include such? --[[User:Nathan|Nathan]] 22:20, 11 February 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Improvements ==<br />
<br />
Shouldn't ''Gayness'' in part 1. of the agenda be ''Gaiety''?<br />
The term ''[[homosexual protectors]]'' in part three surely merits its own article. Is this the same as ''[[Homosexualist]]s''? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:11, 27 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Any attempt to trivialize or confuse the issue will be frowned upon here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
We should delete the cite at the bottom saying that homosexuality caused Nazism. That's a truly disturbing allegation.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 12:59, 27 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Especially considering that the Nazis actually murdered thousands of homosexuals during World War II.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 18:32, 7 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Yes they did, but it was because of Hitler. NOT homosexuality. And waaay more Jews were killed than homosexuals, giving Jews a larger spotlight. [[User:Clorox|Clorox]] <small>I'm liberal, but I don't edit pages-just [[User talk:Clorox|talk page]]s. don't worry.</small> 23:25, 3 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
'''<br />
I believe langauge needs to be corrected in the the first bullet of the list of homosexual goals. It currently states "Censoring sections of the bible condemning homosexuality." The source cited is an article about an offensive tee shirt being censored not the bible its self. There needs to be eaither a new source about Homosexuals attempting to change the bible or the wording must be changed to "preventing materials that denounce homosexuality from being displayed publicly."<br />
<br />
Reference number "8" rrefers back to the Conservapedia site. In order to maintain integrity it must refer to an ouside source if one is not provided the reference and quote should be deleted. Currently it is a logical fallacy and is not up to encyclopedic standards. Someone not dyslexic (i.e. somone who isn't me.) should get on that.<br />
<br />
== Very Informative ==<br />
'''<br />
<br />
Excellent portrayal of the truth. This is a nice breather from the left-wing saturated wikipedia.com. If you agree with the article, you should check out the highly accurate article on homophobia. Everyone knows that the creation of homophobia is a foundation of the gay agenda.<br />
<br />
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homophobia<br />
<br />
Wikipedia is subject to open edits that don't reqier an account. Are you suggesting that the monitors of wikipedia aka "everyone who can type" has a liberal bias?<br />
<br />
== Is this real? ==<br />
<br />
This article seems like a parody. I can't believe that... oh yeah, I'm at conservapedia. I can believe anything. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
As well as the mysterious reference to a "leading book in the homosexual movement", it refers to a book claiming that the Nazi Party supported homosexuality. Clearly this has to be satirical. Either that, or someone has a serious case of paranoia - all the sources, as well as being of dubious credabililty, point towards independent events but the whole point of the page is to talk about a shadowy conspiricy - a 'Secret Society' of homosexuals trying to gayify the world. I suggest deleting the whole page - and if it reappears in a similar form, delete and protect. - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]<br />
<br />
<br />
== Agendas ==<br />
So since there are so many references on this wiki to the "homosexual agenda" can we also cite the "Conservative Agenda" or "Republican Agenda" or "Christian Agenda"? {{unsigned|prof0705}}<br />
:I don't see why not, as long as they sourced and reasonably recognizable as phrases in common use. In fact, here, I would expect an article on [[conservative agenda]] to be very good. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:56, 13 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
This article violates the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] (number 2: cite sources and 5: personal opinion). <br />
#It claims to quote Focus on the Family for the definition of The Homosexual Agenda without giving a specific reference, and FotF is only claimed to be quoting "a leading book in the homosexual movement" without even bothering to name the book or its author.<br />
#The two bulleted points in "The Goals" (about 8-year-old boys and 12-to-14 year olds) are stating as fact the opinion of Craig Osten, a vice president at the Alliance Defense Fund.<br />
#Several of the other references to that section are either citing journalist's or lawyer's opinions, not facts or any quote from the people who are alleged to hold the agenda under discussion. <br />
<br />
I am prohibited from editing the page but I suggest that the Agenda is moved to the top, and the original source for it cited, rather than a vague second-hand reference. The judge's quote should then be indented as a block quote so it is more clearly identifiable as quoting the judge. The Goals and Opposing Christian Agenda should be cleaned up and cite proper sources not opinions, or be more clearly marked as only opinions of people who oppose the Homosexual Agenda. If Conservapedia could handle it, even a quote from someone who supports it would be good. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 06:06, 19 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:[[Conservapedia:Commandments]] (number 2: cite sources and 5: personal opinion) is superceded by [[Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks]]:<br />
::''Sysop's and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked.''<br />
:Note: ''Their <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Special:ListUsers/sysop sysops]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> instructions, as to Conservapedia policy [...] are to be followed'', which means if a sysop has decided it is so it is so. If you continue to argue you may get blocked.<br />
:[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
What about Hot man on man/woman on woman action? I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that homosexuals were pretty in favor of that.<br />
<br />
== Is this really as big as people make it out to be? ==<br />
While I personally do not like anyone being too open about their personal lives, especially concerning anything to do with sex, still when I hear about a "Homosexual Agenda" I can only think of another fear that other people once tried to infect people with: it was called "The Protocols of The Elders of Zion." I think some of you may understand my point... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:15, 27 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Yeah, I don't really understand why people even care if someone is homosexual or not. If you're not a homosexual yourself you're not gonna be involved with homosexuality so why even care? It doesn't affect you in that case. If someones is homosexual, then fine. Let them be. Has nothing to do with you. [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:33, 28 January 2009 (EST)<br />
:Do you not care about God, JohnKite? Do you not care about His society? Do you not acre about moral erosion, disease, and the future of humanity? Do you not care about what is right and what is wrong? [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 11:35, 28 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Please remove the reference to Scott Lively's propaganda book==<br />
This is propaganda. It seems you don't allow neutrality here. [[User:GayMan|GayMan]] 21:51, 28 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I agree. Numbers 1-5 on there are kinda <i>wrong</i>, and number 6 tops it off as crap. [[User:Clorox|Clorox]] 23:11, 3 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Hey, now... ==<br />
I'm LGBT and I'm certainly not aware of any sort of "agenda" being discussed. Perhaps this is just a typical case of right-wing paranoia? --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 18:07, 17 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
You're not aware because you're not hive-minded. The agenda is memetic, therefore you're not all going to know about it. --[[User:Pious|Pious]] 18:21, 24 June 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==What the hell?==<br />
<br />
The “homosexuality agenda" was created by Focus on the Family, which you say later in the article, ACTIVELY OPPOSES homosexuality. You wouldn’t let me post Jon Stewart quotes on the Bush page, so why is this kind of crap aloud here? [[User:Tesfan|Tesfan]] 11:43, 23 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
This is exactly the sort of thing that inspires violence against homosexuals. Be more neutral.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 12:34, 27 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Good luck pal, I've been saying that for months. And watch your language, they'll ban you for that here. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 12:46, 27 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Politics and science==<br />
<br />
Dr. Ronald Bayer, writing in Homosexuality And American Psychiatry: The Politics Of Diagnosis said the APA decision was a political one, not a scientific one: "The result [of the APA removal of homosexuality from the DSM] was not a conclusion based upon an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times." [http://traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/Homosexuality101.pdf]<br />
==Liberal Deceit==<br />
I suggest we change the category from Deceit to Liberal Deceit because liberals universally support the gay agenda. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 22:26, 26 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
*Good idea! --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 23:08, 26 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Bad idea. It's not deceit. [[User:Clorox|Clorox]] 23:16, 3 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
Again I find myself disturbed by the language of absolutes that have infested this site. There are liberal and homosexual philosophies mentioned in this site that some liberals and homosexuals don't have simply because they don't know about them- and it's certainly not a stretch of the imagination to say these people are generally ignorant. Are children in Africa who die young damned simply because a missionary doesn't exist where they live and they couldn't have possibly heard the good news about Christ? I think not. I believe they get another chance to. --[[User:Pious|Pious]] 18:26, 24 June 2011 (CDT)<br />
<br />
==Sources?==<br />
<br />
Are there any sources besides those accusing the gay agenda? There's no evidence of any organized "agenda", and all of the goals and such are provided by those opposing it. Best case, this is an article about a pundit talking point, and worst case it's a conspiracy theory masked as an encyclopedia article. Shouldn't it at least mention that there has never been any evidence of even a mildly organized or centralized gay agenda? The fact that it's permanently locked further undermines CP credibility. [[User:RWest|RWest]] 12:32, 13 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Specific suggestion:<br />
:Focus on the Family quotes below from a leading book in the homosexual movement which outlines the points of the homosexual agenda:<br />
There is no source cited here. The source is "The Overhauling of Straight America," an article which appeared in the November 1987 issue of a gay magazine called ''The Guide''. [[User:Shii|Shii]] 22:44, 23 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: Thanks, I just added an online link to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 23 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Mottos? ==<br />
<br />
The edit replacing "beliefs" with "mottos" was unjustified. There is a (baseless) belief system inherent in the homosexual agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:41, 12 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== References: "small looks better" ==<br />
<br />
Why? All the other articles I've seen have references at regular text size. What's particular about this article that it needs to have really tiny footnotes? [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 17:24, 28 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Homosexuality in Congress==<br />
<br />
In a recent discussion with a friend of mine, we discussed what is here called the "homosexual agenda". In addition to the notion of whether "everyone has an agenda" (something I would consider adding to the Debate pool if anyone would like clarification of my terms/beliefs here, I brought up the notion of whether or not there exists a disproportionate number of homosexuals or, unfortunately, scandals regarding previously latent homosexual desires among otherwise Conservative men (Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Bob Allen, the Glenn Murphy scandal), and whether this constitutes the corrupting nature of power, or, as my friend (a somewhat eccentric, Ron Paul-supporter type) suggests, whether these men are "moles" (his term, not mine) representing a quote, "homo infiltration". To put it bluntly, imagine the Manchurian Candidate, but with sodomy. <br />
<br />
I was wondering if anyone here (I imagine you have all put some effort into the research and sourcing for this article) had ever heard trustworthy sources, blogs, or essays dealing with such a belief. I obviously don't support the endorsement of wingnut theories, but if it is a more widespread belief among self-avowed Republicans and conservatives, then I think it bears mentioning. I wait to see if any such evidence exists. [[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 10:48, 9 September 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Iran?==<br />
This site considers Iran as an example for how to deal with homosexuals?? I hope this is a joke; otherwise, this is one of the sickest, most hateful websites I've ever seen. You claim to follow Jesus, and then condone executing homosexuals?? This must be an example of following the hard-ass God of the Old Testament.{{unsigned|User:Pete5383}}<br />
<br />
:This site does not condone the murder of homosexuals by the state. It is a true statement on Iran and most Muslim countries are no different. So yes, they oppose the homosexual agenda but that doesn't correspond to the section which talks of political/cultural opposition. Instead, a foreign section needs created and the FACTS put in the proper place.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:37, 17 August 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Merge from "pro-Gay"==<br />
<br />
Thanks for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexual_Agenda&curid=69968&diff=877518&oldid=877453&rcid=1187531 merging this point] from the "[[pro-gay]]" article. I sure wish I had '''bothered to look''' for the diff before undoing your careful work. *sigh* --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:44, 9 June 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Homophobes==<br />
<br />
Westboro is probably the only authentically "[[homophobic]]" group in the USA. They used to have a "God hates fags" website. No one takes them seriously, on either side of the ideological battle lines. They are the poster boys for [[hate speech]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:00, 2 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Charity==<br />
<br />
:Cut from lede:<br />
<br />
:* Liberals generally give much less than conservatives to charity, but charity work by gays in particular is virtually non-existent.<br />
<br />
:This needs references, if true. But I don't believe it - or maybe I just don't understand it. Isn't [[Gay Men's Health Crisis]] a [[charity]]? (Or is it merely a [[non-profit organization]] '''without''' a charitable purpose? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:44, 12 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Just happened to see this, and so here is some data:<br />
<br />
On average, weekly churchgoers donate 3.8% of their income to charity, compared to 0.8% for those who never go. Independent Sector (charitable clearing house): Atheists won't save Europe by Don Feder; http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27937<br />
<br />
Religious citizens who make $49,000 gave away about 3.5 times as much money as secular citizens with the same income. They also volunteered twice as often, are 57 percent more likely to help homeless persons, and two-thirds more likely to give blood at their workplace. Arthur C. Brooks' Who Really Cares. http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2008/001/8.11.html<br />
<br />
In 2006, Americans gave 1.66% of their aggregate income to charity, with donations totaling US$182 billion. This rate of giving is more than double that of Canadians, who gave 0.76% of aggregate income (CA$8.4 billion in total) to charity in 2006. http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/Generosity_Index_2008.pdf<br />
<br />
See [http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Statistical_Correlations.html here] for a table of many comparison btwn states, and [http://247wallst.com/2011/12/15/americas-most-and-least-charitable-states/2/ here] for recent stats on giving per state. <br />
<br />
$8.8 billion worth of goods and services that churches are giving overseas to developing (“Third World”) countries. This figures out to be nearly 40 percent of the foreign aid provided by the United States to the same region. U.S. foreign aid to those same countries is $23.5 billion. Carol Adelman of the Hudson Institute, from Notre Dame University study. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Church/Default.aspx?id=118566<br />
<br />
Giving as a percentage of income was higher at the depth of the Great Depression in the 1930s (3.3 percent of per capita income in 1933) than after a half-century of unprecedented prosperity (2.5 percent in 2004) John Ronsvalle and Sylvia Ronsvalle, The State of Church Giving through 2004: Will We Will? 16th ed. (Champaign, Ill.: Empty Tomb, 2006). ^<br />
<br />
The proportion of adults who tithe dropped by 62 percent in the past year. (2) Just 6 percent of born-again households tithed to their churches in 2002. (3) Tithing, when it occurs, is generally among Protestants: 5 percent of adults who attend Protestant churches tithed last year, compared to less than one-tenth of 1 percent among Catholics. (4) Among the groups most likely to tithe are people over 55, college graduates, Evangelicals, Republicans, conservatives, and residents of the South—but there was no segment among which at least 10 percent tithed. George Barna. News release by Barna Research Group, May 19, 2003. ^<br />
<br />
Including religious, American households overall gave 3.5% of their income to charity, with approx. 33% going to to religious institutions. Utah was the state with the highest average per-capita charitable contributions, followed by Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee and Arkansas. Professor Arthur Brooks, 2005. http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2005/February/200502181639511CJsamohT5.593508e-02.html<br />
<br />
A liberal researcher who was surprised at finding that showed conservatives being more giving, set out to do a more thorough analysis, only to confirm the findings: http://blog.geoiq.com/2009/01/07/dataset-of-the-day-who-is-more-generous-republicans-or-democrats/ <br />
<br />
Also, the top 10 most generous countries are:<br />
<br />
1. United States<br />
2. Ireland<br />
3. Australia<br />
4. New Zealand<br />
5. United Kingdom<br />
6. Netherlands<br />
7. Canada<br />
8. Sri Lanka<br />
9. Thailand<br />
10. Laos<br />
<br />
The United States’ first place in the rankings marks a significant improvement from 2010, when it ranked fifth. Other countries making significant gains include Liberia, which went from 39 to 14, and Morocco, which leapt from 33 to 12. http://www.worldvision.org/news/new-report-ranks-most-generous-countries. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 22:27, 27 February 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Kirk and Madsen== <br />
The WP page on Marshall Kirk [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Kirk#Health] has this but which i cannot find a source for:<br />
<br />
"Marshall suffered from severe migraine headaches that were preceded by a strong desire to talk in a rapid monologue. He found that if he gave into these "babbling fits", the headache would be alleviated. He had other medical problems and suffered from bouts of depression that required electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) on three occasions. Because of the negative effects on his memory, he considered ECT to be the last alternative to avoid death. In part due to this medical history, his knowledge of pharmacology was usually greater than that of anyone who treated him. When he died, he was found alone in his apartment by two friends."<br />
<br />
Also cannot find anything on Hunter Madsen (pen name "Erastes Pill")[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 23:54, 24 February 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Conservapedia violates its own commandments. ==<br />
<br />
Substantial portions of the article on "homosexual agenda" violate the conservapedia commandments, but it seems that the administrators are not interested in enforcing the commandments.<br />
<br />
I made several edits to this page which either eliminated the presentation of personal opinion as fact or which placed notes that statements were not verifiable and were not accompanied by a citation. I find the article as a whole fairly interesting because whether or not an actual homosexual agenda exists, the concept of a homosexual agenda most definitely exists either as an actual agenda held by gay activists or as a perceived agenda by those who oppose acceptance or expansion of rights.<br />
<br />
None of the changes I made changed the fundamental content of the article, but simply attempted to enhance the article by removing or noting items that lacked references to verifiable data or which were expressions of personal opinion (both of which are forbidden by the conservapedia commandments). This was met with immediate reversion of the edits (which is fine) and blocking of my account from making further changes and blocking of the IP address from which I logged in (which is unacceptable). As you can see on the history page, this was done by user Markman.<br />
<br />
I understand that a site such as conservapedia is probably subjected to significant attempts at sabotage, but it is unfortunate that the sight has become inhospitable to legitamate attempts to improve the quality of the site by removing mere statements of personal opinion which are un-referenced, un-substantiated, and and un-verifiable.<br />
<br />
Conservapedia could have been a great resource, but it has, unfortunately, allowed itself to become nothing more than a site that presents propaganda and opinion as fact in violation of its own commandments.</div>Mikershttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Homosexual_Agenda&diff=1035876Talk:Homosexual Agenda2013-02-22T14:51:35Z<p>Mikers: /* Conservapedia violates its own commandments. */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div>Scalia mentioned that in a dissenting opinion, which isn't binding law. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 00:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Vic Eliason passage should be removed ==<br />
<br />
I write this because I have met VE here in Wisconsin and believe he'd be uncomfortable with the logic of including this information in this particular article. The passage: "Vic Eliason of Crosstalk America rightly points out that if all Americans turned homosexual it would only take a few generations for the United States to lose most of the population of the country through lack of procreation. This would make the US more vulnerable to attack by our enemies." Nobody believes that homosexuality is contagious, like a virus, and the probability is 0% that "all Americans" would turn homosexual. I doubt that any homosexual, including activist leaders, would think it would be possible at all or even desirable. There is as little temptation for a heterosexual to want homosexual sex as there is for homosexuals to want heterosexual sex. Also, the comment about the US being more vulnerable to attack because the country doesn't procreate also makes no sense, given that the likelihood of that happening for this reason is 0%. Three other potential problems. 1) The passage is completely undocumented. 2) The link for biographical information for VE is to Wikipedia. Couldn't someone here write an article about him for CP? He has been, after all, a leading figure in Christian radio for 40+ years. 3) Besides being unrelated to the topic of the article and having 0% possibility of describing a real situation, the passage detracts from the credibility of the article and CP. This passage should be removed.<br />
<br />
== WOV's got a point ==<br />
<br />
Not only that, but this entire article is biased tripe. It presents the "homosexual agenda" from a one-sided perspective, and is filled with hate commentary. '''I recommend the entire thing for deletion.'''<br />
<br />
Scalia's remark is regretful and a blemish on the pages of the U.S. Reporter, up there with Scott v. Sanford. But let's not expand it still further.<br />
<br />
I have cleaned up biased and vitriolic language as best as I can, but this entry deserves deletion.<br />
<br />
Seconded. If this is a homosexual agenda, then what homosexual wrote it? This is nothing but political game-playing: Identify a group as ''The Enemy'' and then brand them haters and abusers of family, children, and country. It makes dehumanising them so much easier. - Suricou<br />
<br />
: I didn't see anything "hateful" in it. The Scalia reference was not intended to be about what is binding law, obviously. There was nothing binding about his phrase. I'll note that it was in dissent.<br />
<br />
: The edits to this article were completely inappropriate, turning it into a liberal puff piece. Wikipedia exists for that. Actually, your edits made this even more liberal than Wikipedia's article on the same topic!<br />
<br />
: The hour is very late and I need to lock this page to guard against vandalism or conversion to a liberal message. I can unlock tomorrow. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Presenting both points doesn't make it a liberal puff piece! It presented only one perspective (Focus on the Family), and referred to the Shepard incident as OVERBLOWN. That's awful!! I consider my entry a moderate tack, but if you can think of an acceptable compromise that preserves an unbiased perspective, be my guest. It shocks me to see you go against your own commandments, though, about not including bias, and not importing a political perspective. I have tried to, and continue to try to, do the same.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 02:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Instead of the http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm cite you may want to use this one [http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm] This cite goes straight (NPI) to a section of the book ''After the Ball''. -)[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:24, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Thanks. Will do tomorrow. Goodnight, Cracker!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
I would definitely change the "promote homosexuality in schools" to "promote acceptance of homosexuality in schools". Definitely sounds like they're trying to make me gay. --[[User:Splark|Splark]] 21:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree with the comments of [[User:AmesG|AmesG]] and [[User:Splark|Splark]]. The idea that one's ideological opponents have a specific "agenda" is an all-too common one, but such agendas are more often touted by those who oppose than by those who support a group. That a Supreme Court Justice referred to it, or that it's in some leaflet somewhere, isn't substantive evidence that it exists.. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Aren't those five points of the "homosexual agenda" linked to more of a strategy than an "agenda"? And, aren't they the standard strategy for all interest groups? 1. Talk about your issue. 2. Show your group is harmed unless you get what you want. 3. Provide facts so people can justify agreeing with you. 4. Portray yourself and your point of view as right and moral. 5. Portray your opponents and their point of view as wrong and immoral. 6. Get corporate or other financial support. Every group and lobbying organization does that, and I don't know that singling out gays and the gay rights movement as doing that is really informative.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 11:23, 15 March 2007 (ED<br />
<br />
I will go on the record and say that yes, there is a homosexual agenda. As a homosexual myself, I'm pretty much in the middle of it. All we want is to be treated the same as any other tax-paying American. If my partner is injured, I would like to be able to have the same visitation and decision-making power as a husband/wife would. I would like to be able to transfer property when I die without having to jump through a million legal hoops. Many people claim that we want "special" rights. We really don't. We just want to be treated the same as everyone else.--[[User:Patthew|Patthew]] 12:01, 12 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I think this page is extremely biased. It presents only one side of the issue and is locked to prevent the other side from responding. Proof of a bias of another kind here.<br />
-Gasmonkey<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Everything you post must be true and verifiable ==<br />
<br />
This entry violates the first (and perhaps most important) Conservapedia commandment. There is no homosexual "agenda" -- no "they" who "wrote a book", no 10-point plan. It's the same kind of paranoid nonsense that's in the articles here on Joseph McCarthy and Alger Hiss (WP has far more accurate articles on both subjects, with the one on Hiss very clearly identifying areas of controversy), with conspiracy-theorist types quoting and sourcing one another. I propose this entire article for immediate deletion. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 10:56, 22 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Agreed. The "Homosexual agenda" is no more factual than the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Delete, or recreate as an article about the popular (?) but false belief in this "agenda." [[User:Pkoad|Pkoad]] 00:21, 29 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:It refers to the [[gay rights]] activism, which may be a [[grassroots]] movement but which has multiple goals which are easily identified. The Liberal POV that such goals are non-existent is a kind of denialism. <br />
<br />
:It will be good for the article to discuss this denial, in conjunction with [[gay rights]] critics who oppose the points which the denialists says no one advances. (Not worded right, but I think you get the gist.) See you all tomorrow. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 00:29, 29 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::There's no more gay agenda other than there was a "black agenda" before ''Brown'' came down. The gay agenda is equal treatment. Oh no, quick, ma, shut the doors! Equality's a-comin'!-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub><br />
<br />
:::I'd say "keep it" so the world can really see how these strange nutkins think. But in the interest of humanity, decency, and honesty, it is a pack of paranoid, politico-religious agenda lies. Really, really strange nutjob lies. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:51, 28 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:'''Keep:'''Let's assume for one moment that the homosexual agenda is complete hogwash and homosexual activists don't believe in it: Isn't the fact that Conservative Christians do believe in it enough to keep the article so that the "opinions" of Christians about homosexual activists be here. The fact that many talk about it is clear evidence that this is a valid article--[[User:Djcreativity|Djcreativity]] 15:47, 9 May 2009 (EDT)<br />
::Shouldn't we present information that is factual, and not misleading, though? If the intention of the article was to present Christian responses to gay rights activism, it should be presented as such. Given that ''After the Ball'' was published twenty years ago, presenting it as an active force in the gay rights movement (rather than as a foundation of the movement as a whole) is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? If we were talking about the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam we could reference Malcom X and Louis Farrakhan, but to act as though their works were part of current politics and national discourse would be misguided at best, and flatly wrong, at worst. --[[User:Jfavor|Jfavor]] 00:40, 20 May 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Opposing Christian Agenda ==<br />
<br />
I can't work out what the point of the "Opposing Christian Agenda" section is. The sentences don't make sense, and the referenced page does not mention homosexuality or gay. I propose the section be deleted by someone with the privilege to edit the article. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:33, 9 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I think it's not nearly explicit enough. More than anything else except perhaps abortion, the homosexual subversion of Christian values is illustrative of the influence of Satan upon liberals and other leftists, and his influence through them on our society. Should I rework the section to include such? --[[User:Nathan|Nathan]] 22:20, 11 February 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Improvements ==<br />
<br />
Shouldn't ''Gayness'' in part 1. of the agenda be ''Gaiety''?<br />
The term ''[[homosexual protectors]]'' in part three surely merits its own article. Is this the same as ''[[Homosexualist]]s''? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:11, 27 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Any attempt to trivialize or confuse the issue will be frowned upon here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
We should delete the cite at the bottom saying that homosexuality caused Nazism. That's a truly disturbing allegation.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 12:59, 27 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Especially considering that the Nazis actually murdered thousands of homosexuals during World War II.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 18:32, 7 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Yes they did, but it was because of Hitler. NOT homosexuality. And waaay more Jews were killed than homosexuals, giving Jews a larger spotlight. [[User:Clorox|Clorox]] <small>I'm liberal, but I don't edit pages-just [[User talk:Clorox|talk page]]s. don't worry.</small> 23:25, 3 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
'''<br />
I believe langauge needs to be corrected in the the first bullet of the list of homosexual goals. It currently states "Censoring sections of the bible condemning homosexuality." The source cited is an article about an offensive tee shirt being censored not the bible its self. There needs to be eaither a new source about Homosexuals attempting to change the bible or the wording must be changed to "preventing materials that denounce homosexuality from being displayed publicly."<br />
<br />
Reference number "8" rrefers back to the Conservapedia site. In order to maintain integrity it must refer to an ouside source if one is not provided the reference and quote should be deleted. Currently it is a logical fallacy and is not up to encyclopedic standards. Someone not dyslexic (i.e. somone who isn't me.) should get on that.<br />
<br />
== Very Informative ==<br />
'''<br />
<br />
Excellent portrayal of the truth. This is a nice breather from the left-wing saturated wikipedia.com. If you agree with the article, you should check out the highly accurate article on homophobia. Everyone knows that the creation of homophobia is a foundation of the gay agenda.<br />
<br />
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homophobia<br />
<br />
Wikipedia is subject to open edits that don't reqier an account. Are you suggesting that the monitors of wikipedia aka "everyone who can type" has a liberal bias?<br />
<br />
== Is this real? ==<br />
<br />
This article seems like a parody. I can't believe that... oh yeah, I'm at conservapedia. I can believe anything. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
As well as the mysterious reference to a "leading book in the homosexual movement", it refers to a book claiming that the Nazi Party supported homosexuality. Clearly this has to be satirical. Either that, or someone has a serious case of paranoia - all the sources, as well as being of dubious credabililty, point towards independent events but the whole point of the page is to talk about a shadowy conspiricy - a 'Secret Society' of homosexuals trying to gayify the world. I suggest deleting the whole page - and if it reappears in a similar form, delete and protect. - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]<br />
<br />
<br />
== Agendas ==<br />
So since there are so many references on this wiki to the "homosexual agenda" can we also cite the "Conservative Agenda" or "Republican Agenda" or "Christian Agenda"? {{unsigned|prof0705}}<br />
:I don't see why not, as long as they sourced and reasonably recognizable as phrases in common use. In fact, here, I would expect an article on [[conservative agenda]] to be very good. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:56, 13 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
This article violates the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] (number 2: cite sources and 5: personal opinion). <br />
#It claims to quote Focus on the Family for the definition of The Homosexual Agenda without giving a specific reference, and FotF is only claimed to be quoting "a leading book in the homosexual movement" without even bothering to name the book or its author.<br />
#The two bulleted points in "The Goals" (about 8-year-old boys and 12-to-14 year olds) are stating as fact the opinion of Craig Osten, a vice president at the Alliance Defense Fund.<br />
#Several of the other references to that section are either citing journalist's or lawyer's opinions, not facts or any quote from the people who are alleged to hold the agenda under discussion. <br />
<br />
I am prohibited from editing the page but I suggest that the Agenda is moved to the top, and the original source for it cited, rather than a vague second-hand reference. The judge's quote should then be indented as a block quote so it is more clearly identifiable as quoting the judge. The Goals and Opposing Christian Agenda should be cleaned up and cite proper sources not opinions, or be more clearly marked as only opinions of people who oppose the Homosexual Agenda. If Conservapedia could handle it, even a quote from someone who supports it would be good. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 06:06, 19 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:[[Conservapedia:Commandments]] (number 2: cite sources and 5: personal opinion) is superceded by [[Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks]]:<br />
::''Sysop's and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked.''<br />
:Note: ''Their <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Special:ListUsers/sysop sysops]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> instructions, as to Conservapedia policy [...] are to be followed'', which means if a sysop has decided it is so it is so. If you continue to argue you may get blocked.<br />
:[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
What about Hot man on man/woman on woman action? I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that homosexuals were pretty in favor of that.<br />
<br />
== Is this really as big as people make it out to be? ==<br />
While I personally do not like anyone being too open about their personal lives, especially concerning anything to do with sex, still when I hear about a "Homosexual Agenda" I can only think of another fear that other people once tried to infect people with: it was called "The Protocols of The Elders of Zion." I think some of you may understand my point... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:15, 27 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Yeah, I don't really understand why people even care if someone is homosexual or not. If you're not a homosexual yourself you're not gonna be involved with homosexuality so why even care? It doesn't affect you in that case. If someones is homosexual, then fine. Let them be. Has nothing to do with you. [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:33, 28 January 2009 (EST)<br />
:Do you not care about God, JohnKite? Do you not care about His society? Do you not acre about moral erosion, disease, and the future of humanity? Do you not care about what is right and what is wrong? [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 11:35, 28 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Please remove the reference to Scott Lively's propaganda book==<br />
This is propaganda. It seems you don't allow neutrality here. [[User:GayMan|GayMan]] 21:51, 28 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I agree. Numbers 1-5 on there are kinda <i>wrong</i>, and number 6 tops it off as crap. [[User:Clorox|Clorox]] 23:11, 3 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Hey, now... ==<br />
I'm LGBT and I'm certainly not aware of any sort of "agenda" being discussed. Perhaps this is just a typical case of right-wing paranoia? --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 18:07, 17 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
You're not aware because you're not hive-minded. The agenda is memetic, therefore you're not all going to know about it. --[[User:Pious|Pious]] 18:21, 24 June 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==What the hell?==<br />
<br />
The “homosexuality agenda" was created by Focus on the Family, which you say later in the article, ACTIVELY OPPOSES homosexuality. You wouldn’t let me post Jon Stewart quotes on the Bush page, so why is this kind of crap aloud here? [[User:Tesfan|Tesfan]] 11:43, 23 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
This is exactly the sort of thing that inspires violence against homosexuals. Be more neutral.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 12:34, 27 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Good luck pal, I've been saying that for months. And watch your language, they'll ban you for that here. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 12:46, 27 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Politics and science==<br />
<br />
Dr. Ronald Bayer, writing in Homosexuality And American Psychiatry: The Politics Of Diagnosis said the APA decision was a political one, not a scientific one: "The result [of the APA removal of homosexuality from the DSM] was not a conclusion based upon an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times." [http://traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/Homosexuality101.pdf]<br />
==Liberal Deceit==<br />
I suggest we change the category from Deceit to Liberal Deceit because liberals universally support the gay agenda. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 22:26, 26 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
*Good idea! --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 23:08, 26 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Bad idea. It's not deceit. [[User:Clorox|Clorox]] 23:16, 3 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
Again I find myself disturbed by the language of absolutes that have infested this site. There are liberal and homosexual philosophies mentioned in this site that some liberals and homosexuals don't have simply because they don't know about them- and it's certainly not a stretch of the imagination to say these people are generally ignorant. Are children in Africa who die young damned simply because a missionary doesn't exist where they live and they couldn't have possibly heard the good news about Christ? I think not. I believe they get another chance to. --[[User:Pious|Pious]] 18:26, 24 June 2011 (CDT)<br />
<br />
==Sources?==<br />
<br />
Are there any sources besides those accusing the gay agenda? There's no evidence of any organized "agenda", and all of the goals and such are provided by those opposing it. Best case, this is an article about a pundit talking point, and worst case it's a conspiracy theory masked as an encyclopedia article. Shouldn't it at least mention that there has never been any evidence of even a mildly organized or centralized gay agenda? The fact that it's permanently locked further undermines CP credibility. [[User:RWest|RWest]] 12:32, 13 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Specific suggestion:<br />
:Focus on the Family quotes below from a leading book in the homosexual movement which outlines the points of the homosexual agenda:<br />
There is no source cited here. The source is "The Overhauling of Straight America," an article which appeared in the November 1987 issue of a gay magazine called ''The Guide''. [[User:Shii|Shii]] 22:44, 23 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: Thanks, I just added an online link to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 23 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Mottos? ==<br />
<br />
The edit replacing "beliefs" with "mottos" was unjustified. There is a (baseless) belief system inherent in the homosexual agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:41, 12 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== References: "small looks better" ==<br />
<br />
Why? All the other articles I've seen have references at regular text size. What's particular about this article that it needs to have really tiny footnotes? [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 17:24, 28 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Homosexuality in Congress==<br />
<br />
In a recent discussion with a friend of mine, we discussed what is here called the "homosexual agenda". In addition to the notion of whether "everyone has an agenda" (something I would consider adding to the Debate pool if anyone would like clarification of my terms/beliefs here, I brought up the notion of whether or not there exists a disproportionate number of homosexuals or, unfortunately, scandals regarding previously latent homosexual desires among otherwise Conservative men (Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Bob Allen, the Glenn Murphy scandal), and whether this constitutes the corrupting nature of power, or, as my friend (a somewhat eccentric, Ron Paul-supporter type) suggests, whether these men are "moles" (his term, not mine) representing a quote, "homo infiltration". To put it bluntly, imagine the Manchurian Candidate, but with sodomy. <br />
<br />
I was wondering if anyone here (I imagine you have all put some effort into the research and sourcing for this article) had ever heard trustworthy sources, blogs, or essays dealing with such a belief. I obviously don't support the endorsement of wingnut theories, but if it is a more widespread belief among self-avowed Republicans and conservatives, then I think it bears mentioning. I wait to see if any such evidence exists. [[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 10:48, 9 September 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Iran?==<br />
This site considers Iran as an example for how to deal with homosexuals?? I hope this is a joke; otherwise, this is one of the sickest, most hateful websites I've ever seen. You claim to follow Jesus, and then condone executing homosexuals?? This must be an example of following the hard-ass God of the Old Testament.{{unsigned|User:Pete5383}}<br />
<br />
:This site does not condone the murder of homosexuals by the state. It is a true statement on Iran and most Muslim countries are no different. So yes, they oppose the homosexual agenda but that doesn't correspond to the section which talks of political/cultural opposition. Instead, a foreign section needs created and the FACTS put in the proper place.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:37, 17 August 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Merge from "pro-Gay"==<br />
<br />
Thanks for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexual_Agenda&curid=69968&diff=877518&oldid=877453&rcid=1187531 merging this point] from the "[[pro-gay]]" article. I sure wish I had '''bothered to look''' for the diff before undoing your careful work. *sigh* --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:44, 9 June 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Homophobes==<br />
<br />
Westboro is probably the only authentically "[[homophobic]]" group in the USA. They used to have a "God hates fags" website. No one takes them seriously, on either side of the ideological battle lines. They are the poster boys for [[hate speech]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:00, 2 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Charity==<br />
<br />
:Cut from lede:<br />
<br />
:* Liberals generally give much less than conservatives to charity, but charity work by gays in particular is virtually non-existent.<br />
<br />
:This needs references, if true. But I don't believe it - or maybe I just don't understand it. Isn't [[Gay Men's Health Crisis]] a [[charity]]? (Or is it merely a [[non-profit organization]] '''without''' a charitable purpose? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:44, 12 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Just happened to see this, and so here is some data:<br />
<br />
On average, weekly churchgoers donate 3.8% of their income to charity, compared to 0.8% for those who never go. Independent Sector (charitable clearing house): Atheists won't save Europe by Don Feder; http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27937<br />
<br />
Religious citizens who make $49,000 gave away about 3.5 times as much money as secular citizens with the same income. They also volunteered twice as often, are 57 percent more likely to help homeless persons, and two-thirds more likely to give blood at their workplace. Arthur C. Brooks' Who Really Cares. http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2008/001/8.11.html<br />
<br />
In 2006, Americans gave 1.66% of their aggregate income to charity, with donations totaling US$182 billion. This rate of giving is more than double that of Canadians, who gave 0.76% of aggregate income (CA$8.4 billion in total) to charity in 2006. http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/Generosity_Index_2008.pdf<br />
<br />
See [http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Statistical_Correlations.html here] for a table of many comparison btwn states, and [http://247wallst.com/2011/12/15/americas-most-and-least-charitable-states/2/ here] for recent stats on giving per state. <br />
<br />
$8.8 billion worth of goods and services that churches are giving overseas to developing (“Third World”) countries. This figures out to be nearly 40 percent of the foreign aid provided by the United States to the same region. U.S. foreign aid to those same countries is $23.5 billion. Carol Adelman of the Hudson Institute, from Notre Dame University study. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Church/Default.aspx?id=118566<br />
<br />
Giving as a percentage of income was higher at the depth of the Great Depression in the 1930s (3.3 percent of per capita income in 1933) than after a half-century of unprecedented prosperity (2.5 percent in 2004) John Ronsvalle and Sylvia Ronsvalle, The State of Church Giving through 2004: Will We Will? 16th ed. (Champaign, Ill.: Empty Tomb, 2006). ^<br />
<br />
The proportion of adults who tithe dropped by 62 percent in the past year. (2) Just 6 percent of born-again households tithed to their churches in 2002. (3) Tithing, when it occurs, is generally among Protestants: 5 percent of adults who attend Protestant churches tithed last year, compared to less than one-tenth of 1 percent among Catholics. (4) Among the groups most likely to tithe are people over 55, college graduates, Evangelicals, Republicans, conservatives, and residents of the South—but there was no segment among which at least 10 percent tithed. George Barna. News release by Barna Research Group, May 19, 2003. ^<br />
<br />
Including religious, American households overall gave 3.5% of their income to charity, with approx. 33% going to to religious institutions. Utah was the state with the highest average per-capita charitable contributions, followed by Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee and Arkansas. Professor Arthur Brooks, 2005. http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2005/February/200502181639511CJsamohT5.593508e-02.html<br />
<br />
A liberal researcher who was surprised at finding that showed conservatives being more giving, set out to do a more thorough analysis, only to confirm the findings: http://blog.geoiq.com/2009/01/07/dataset-of-the-day-who-is-more-generous-republicans-or-democrats/ <br />
<br />
Also, the top 10 most generous countries are:<br />
<br />
1. United States<br />
2. Ireland<br />
3. Australia<br />
4. New Zealand<br />
5. United Kingdom<br />
6. Netherlands<br />
7. Canada<br />
8. Sri Lanka<br />
9. Thailand<br />
10. Laos<br />
<br />
The United States’ first place in the rankings marks a significant improvement from 2010, when it ranked fifth. Other countries making significant gains include Liberia, which went from 39 to 14, and Morocco, which leapt from 33 to 12. http://www.worldvision.org/news/new-report-ranks-most-generous-countries. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 22:27, 27 February 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Kirk and Madsen== <br />
The WP page on Marshall Kirk [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Kirk#Health] has this but which i cannot find a source for:<br />
<br />
"Marshall suffered from severe migraine headaches that were preceded by a strong desire to talk in a rapid monologue. He found that if he gave into these "babbling fits", the headache would be alleviated. He had other medical problems and suffered from bouts of depression that required electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) on three occasions. Because of the negative effects on his memory, he considered ECT to be the last alternative to avoid death. In part due to this medical history, his knowledge of pharmacology was usually greater than that of anyone who treated him. When he died, he was found alone in his apartment by two friends."<br />
<br />
Also cannot find anything on Hunter Madsen (pen name "Erastes Pill")[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 23:54, 24 February 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Conservapedia violates its own commandments. ==<br />
<br />
Substantial portions of the article on "homosexual agenda" violate the conservapedia commandments, but it seems that the administrators are not interested in enforcing the commandments.<br />
<br />
I made several edits to this page which either eliminated the presentation of personal opinion as fact or which placed notes that statements were not verifiable and were not accompanied by a citation. I find the article as a whole fairly interesting because whether or not an actual homosexual agenda exists, the concept of a homosexual agenda most definitely exists either as an actual agenda held by gay activists or as a perceived agenda by those who oppose acceptance or expansion of rights.<br />
<br />
None of the changes I made changed the fundamental content of the article, but simply attempted to enhance the article by removing or noting items that lacked references to verifiable data or which were expressions of personal opinion (both of which are forbidden by the conservapedia commandments). This was met with immediate reversion of the edits (which is fine) and blocking of my account from making further changes and blocking of the IP address from which I logged in (which is unacceptable). As you can see on the history page, this was done by user Markman.<br />
<br />
I understand that a site such as conservapedia is probably subjected to significant attempts at sabotage, but it is unfortunate that the sight has become inhospitable to legitamate attempts to improve the quality of the site by removing mere statements of personal opinion which are un-referenced, un-substantiated, and and un-verifiable.<br />
<br />
Conservapedia could have been a great resource, but it has, unfortunately, allowed itself to become nothing more than a site that presents propaganda and opinion as fact in violation of its own commandments.<br />
<br />
== Conservapedia violates its own commandments. ==<br />
<br />
Substantial portions of the article on "homosexual agenda" violate the conservapedia commandments, but it seems that the administrators are not interested in enforcing the commandments.<br />
<br />
I made several edits to this page which either eliminated the presentation of personal opinion as fact or which placed notes that statements were not verifiable and were not accompanied by a citation. I find the article as a whole fairly interesting because whether or not an actual homosexual agenda exists, the concept of a homosexual agenda most definitely exists either as an actual agenda held by gay activists or as a perceived agenda by those who oppose acceptance or expansion of rights.<br />
<br />
None of the changes I made changed the fundamental content of the article, but simply attempted to enhance the article by removing or noting items that lacked references to verifiable data or which were expressions of personal opinion (both of which are forbidden by the conservapedia commandments). This was met with immediate reversion of the edits (which is fine) and blocking of my account from making further changes and blocking of the IP address from which I logged in (which is unacceptable). As you can see on the history page, this was done by user Markman.<br />
<br />
I understand that a site such as conservapedia is probably subjected to significant attempts at sabotage, but it is unfortunate that the sight has become inhospitable to legitamate attempts to improve the quality of the site by removing mere statements of personal opinion which are un-referenced, un-substantiated, and and un-verifiable.<br />
<br />
Conservapedia could have been a great resource, but it has, unfortunately, allowed itself to become nothing more than a site that presents propaganda and opinion as fact in violation of its own commandments.</div>Mikershttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Homosexual_Agenda&diff=1035875Talk:Homosexual Agenda2013-02-22T14:51:25Z<p>Mikers: /* Conservapedia violates its own commandments. */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div>Scalia mentioned that in a dissenting opinion, which isn't binding law. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 00:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Vic Eliason passage should be removed ==<br />
<br />
I write this because I have met VE here in Wisconsin and believe he'd be uncomfortable with the logic of including this information in this particular article. The passage: "Vic Eliason of Crosstalk America rightly points out that if all Americans turned homosexual it would only take a few generations for the United States to lose most of the population of the country through lack of procreation. This would make the US more vulnerable to attack by our enemies." Nobody believes that homosexuality is contagious, like a virus, and the probability is 0% that "all Americans" would turn homosexual. I doubt that any homosexual, including activist leaders, would think it would be possible at all or even desirable. There is as little temptation for a heterosexual to want homosexual sex as there is for homosexuals to want heterosexual sex. Also, the comment about the US being more vulnerable to attack because the country doesn't procreate also makes no sense, given that the likelihood of that happening for this reason is 0%. Three other potential problems. 1) The passage is completely undocumented. 2) The link for biographical information for VE is to Wikipedia. Couldn't someone here write an article about him for CP? He has been, after all, a leading figure in Christian radio for 40+ years. 3) Besides being unrelated to the topic of the article and having 0% possibility of describing a real situation, the passage detracts from the credibility of the article and CP. This passage should be removed.<br />
<br />
== WOV's got a point ==<br />
<br />
Not only that, but this entire article is biased tripe. It presents the "homosexual agenda" from a one-sided perspective, and is filled with hate commentary. '''I recommend the entire thing for deletion.'''<br />
<br />
Scalia's remark is regretful and a blemish on the pages of the U.S. Reporter, up there with Scott v. Sanford. But let's not expand it still further.<br />
<br />
I have cleaned up biased and vitriolic language as best as I can, but this entry deserves deletion.<br />
<br />
Seconded. If this is a homosexual agenda, then what homosexual wrote it? This is nothing but political game-playing: Identify a group as ''The Enemy'' and then brand them haters and abusers of family, children, and country. It makes dehumanising them so much easier. - Suricou<br />
<br />
: I didn't see anything "hateful" in it. The Scalia reference was not intended to be about what is binding law, obviously. There was nothing binding about his phrase. I'll note that it was in dissent.<br />
<br />
: The edits to this article were completely inappropriate, turning it into a liberal puff piece. Wikipedia exists for that. Actually, your edits made this even more liberal than Wikipedia's article on the same topic!<br />
<br />
: The hour is very late and I need to lock this page to guard against vandalism or conversion to a liberal message. I can unlock tomorrow. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Presenting both points doesn't make it a liberal puff piece! It presented only one perspective (Focus on the Family), and referred to the Shepard incident as OVERBLOWN. That's awful!! I consider my entry a moderate tack, but if you can think of an acceptable compromise that preserves an unbiased perspective, be my guest. It shocks me to see you go against your own commandments, though, about not including bias, and not importing a political perspective. I have tried to, and continue to try to, do the same.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 02:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Instead of the http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm cite you may want to use this one [http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm] This cite goes straight (NPI) to a section of the book ''After the Ball''. -)[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:24, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Thanks. Will do tomorrow. Goodnight, Cracker!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
I would definitely change the "promote homosexuality in schools" to "promote acceptance of homosexuality in schools". Definitely sounds like they're trying to make me gay. --[[User:Splark|Splark]] 21:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree with the comments of [[User:AmesG|AmesG]] and [[User:Splark|Splark]]. The idea that one's ideological opponents have a specific "agenda" is an all-too common one, but such agendas are more often touted by those who oppose than by those who support a group. That a Supreme Court Justice referred to it, or that it's in some leaflet somewhere, isn't substantive evidence that it exists.. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Aren't those five points of the "homosexual agenda" linked to more of a strategy than an "agenda"? And, aren't they the standard strategy for all interest groups? 1. Talk about your issue. 2. Show your group is harmed unless you get what you want. 3. Provide facts so people can justify agreeing with you. 4. Portray yourself and your point of view as right and moral. 5. Portray your opponents and their point of view as wrong and immoral. 6. Get corporate or other financial support. Every group and lobbying organization does that, and I don't know that singling out gays and the gay rights movement as doing that is really informative.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 11:23, 15 March 2007 (ED<br />
<br />
I will go on the record and say that yes, there is a homosexual agenda. As a homosexual myself, I'm pretty much in the middle of it. All we want is to be treated the same as any other tax-paying American. If my partner is injured, I would like to be able to have the same visitation and decision-making power as a husband/wife would. I would like to be able to transfer property when I die without having to jump through a million legal hoops. Many people claim that we want "special" rights. We really don't. We just want to be treated the same as everyone else.--[[User:Patthew|Patthew]] 12:01, 12 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I think this page is extremely biased. It presents only one side of the issue and is locked to prevent the other side from responding. Proof of a bias of another kind here.<br />
-Gasmonkey<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Everything you post must be true and verifiable ==<br />
<br />
This entry violates the first (and perhaps most important) Conservapedia commandment. There is no homosexual "agenda" -- no "they" who "wrote a book", no 10-point plan. It's the same kind of paranoid nonsense that's in the articles here on Joseph McCarthy and Alger Hiss (WP has far more accurate articles on both subjects, with the one on Hiss very clearly identifying areas of controversy), with conspiracy-theorist types quoting and sourcing one another. I propose this entire article for immediate deletion. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 10:56, 22 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Agreed. The "Homosexual agenda" is no more factual than the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Delete, or recreate as an article about the popular (?) but false belief in this "agenda." [[User:Pkoad|Pkoad]] 00:21, 29 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:It refers to the [[gay rights]] activism, which may be a [[grassroots]] movement but which has multiple goals which are easily identified. The Liberal POV that such goals are non-existent is a kind of denialism. <br />
<br />
:It will be good for the article to discuss this denial, in conjunction with [[gay rights]] critics who oppose the points which the denialists says no one advances. (Not worded right, but I think you get the gist.) See you all tomorrow. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 00:29, 29 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::There's no more gay agenda other than there was a "black agenda" before ''Brown'' came down. The gay agenda is equal treatment. Oh no, quick, ma, shut the doors! Equality's a-comin'!-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub><br />
<br />
:::I'd say "keep it" so the world can really see how these strange nutkins think. But in the interest of humanity, decency, and honesty, it is a pack of paranoid, politico-religious agenda lies. Really, really strange nutjob lies. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:51, 28 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:'''Keep:'''Let's assume for one moment that the homosexual agenda is complete hogwash and homosexual activists don't believe in it: Isn't the fact that Conservative Christians do believe in it enough to keep the article so that the "opinions" of Christians about homosexual activists be here. The fact that many talk about it is clear evidence that this is a valid article--[[User:Djcreativity|Djcreativity]] 15:47, 9 May 2009 (EDT)<br />
::Shouldn't we present information that is factual, and not misleading, though? If the intention of the article was to present Christian responses to gay rights activism, it should be presented as such. Given that ''After the Ball'' was published twenty years ago, presenting it as an active force in the gay rights movement (rather than as a foundation of the movement as a whole) is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? If we were talking about the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam we could reference Malcom X and Louis Farrakhan, but to act as though their works were part of current politics and national discourse would be misguided at best, and flatly wrong, at worst. --[[User:Jfavor|Jfavor]] 00:40, 20 May 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Opposing Christian Agenda ==<br />
<br />
I can't work out what the point of the "Opposing Christian Agenda" section is. The sentences don't make sense, and the referenced page does not mention homosexuality or gay. I propose the section be deleted by someone with the privilege to edit the article. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:33, 9 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I think it's not nearly explicit enough. More than anything else except perhaps abortion, the homosexual subversion of Christian values is illustrative of the influence of Satan upon liberals and other leftists, and his influence through them on our society. Should I rework the section to include such? --[[User:Nathan|Nathan]] 22:20, 11 February 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Improvements ==<br />
<br />
Shouldn't ''Gayness'' in part 1. of the agenda be ''Gaiety''?<br />
The term ''[[homosexual protectors]]'' in part three surely merits its own article. Is this the same as ''[[Homosexualist]]s''? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:11, 27 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Any attempt to trivialize or confuse the issue will be frowned upon here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
We should delete the cite at the bottom saying that homosexuality caused Nazism. That's a truly disturbing allegation.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 12:59, 27 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Especially considering that the Nazis actually murdered thousands of homosexuals during World War II.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 18:32, 7 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Yes they did, but it was because of Hitler. NOT homosexuality. And waaay more Jews were killed than homosexuals, giving Jews a larger spotlight. [[User:Clorox|Clorox]] <small>I'm liberal, but I don't edit pages-just [[User talk:Clorox|talk page]]s. don't worry.</small> 23:25, 3 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
'''<br />
I believe langauge needs to be corrected in the the first bullet of the list of homosexual goals. It currently states "Censoring sections of the bible condemning homosexuality." The source cited is an article about an offensive tee shirt being censored not the bible its self. There needs to be eaither a new source about Homosexuals attempting to change the bible or the wording must be changed to "preventing materials that denounce homosexuality from being displayed publicly."<br />
<br />
Reference number "8" rrefers back to the Conservapedia site. In order to maintain integrity it must refer to an ouside source if one is not provided the reference and quote should be deleted. Currently it is a logical fallacy and is not up to encyclopedic standards. Someone not dyslexic (i.e. somone who isn't me.) should get on that.<br />
<br />
== Very Informative ==<br />
'''<br />
<br />
Excellent portrayal of the truth. This is a nice breather from the left-wing saturated wikipedia.com. If you agree with the article, you should check out the highly accurate article on homophobia. Everyone knows that the creation of homophobia is a foundation of the gay agenda.<br />
<br />
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homophobia<br />
<br />
Wikipedia is subject to open edits that don't reqier an account. Are you suggesting that the monitors of wikipedia aka "everyone who can type" has a liberal bias?<br />
<br />
== Is this real? ==<br />
<br />
This article seems like a parody. I can't believe that... oh yeah, I'm at conservapedia. I can believe anything. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
As well as the mysterious reference to a "leading book in the homosexual movement", it refers to a book claiming that the Nazi Party supported homosexuality. Clearly this has to be satirical. Either that, or someone has a serious case of paranoia - all the sources, as well as being of dubious credabililty, point towards independent events but the whole point of the page is to talk about a shadowy conspiricy - a 'Secret Society' of homosexuals trying to gayify the world. I suggest deleting the whole page - and if it reappears in a similar form, delete and protect. - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]<br />
<br />
<br />
== Agendas ==<br />
So since there are so many references on this wiki to the "homosexual agenda" can we also cite the "Conservative Agenda" or "Republican Agenda" or "Christian Agenda"? {{unsigned|prof0705}}<br />
:I don't see why not, as long as they sourced and reasonably recognizable as phrases in common use. In fact, here, I would expect an article on [[conservative agenda]] to be very good. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:56, 13 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
This article violates the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] (number 2: cite sources and 5: personal opinion). <br />
#It claims to quote Focus on the Family for the definition of The Homosexual Agenda without giving a specific reference, and FotF is only claimed to be quoting "a leading book in the homosexual movement" without even bothering to name the book or its author.<br />
#The two bulleted points in "The Goals" (about 8-year-old boys and 12-to-14 year olds) are stating as fact the opinion of Craig Osten, a vice president at the Alliance Defense Fund.<br />
#Several of the other references to that section are either citing journalist's or lawyer's opinions, not facts or any quote from the people who are alleged to hold the agenda under discussion. <br />
<br />
I am prohibited from editing the page but I suggest that the Agenda is moved to the top, and the original source for it cited, rather than a vague second-hand reference. The judge's quote should then be indented as a block quote so it is more clearly identifiable as quoting the judge. The Goals and Opposing Christian Agenda should be cleaned up and cite proper sources not opinions, or be more clearly marked as only opinions of people who oppose the Homosexual Agenda. If Conservapedia could handle it, even a quote from someone who supports it would be good. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 06:06, 19 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:[[Conservapedia:Commandments]] (number 2: cite sources and 5: personal opinion) is superceded by [[Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks]]:<br />
::''Sysop's and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked.''<br />
:Note: ''Their <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Special:ListUsers/sysop sysops]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> instructions, as to Conservapedia policy [...] are to be followed'', which means if a sysop has decided it is so it is so. If you continue to argue you may get blocked.<br />
:[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
What about Hot man on man/woman on woman action? I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that homosexuals were pretty in favor of that.<br />
<br />
== Is this really as big as people make it out to be? ==<br />
While I personally do not like anyone being too open about their personal lives, especially concerning anything to do with sex, still when I hear about a "Homosexual Agenda" I can only think of another fear that other people once tried to infect people with: it was called "The Protocols of The Elders of Zion." I think some of you may understand my point... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:15, 27 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Yeah, I don't really understand why people even care if someone is homosexual or not. If you're not a homosexual yourself you're not gonna be involved with homosexuality so why even care? It doesn't affect you in that case. If someones is homosexual, then fine. Let them be. Has nothing to do with you. [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:33, 28 January 2009 (EST)<br />
:Do you not care about God, JohnKite? Do you not care about His society? Do you not acre about moral erosion, disease, and the future of humanity? Do you not care about what is right and what is wrong? [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 11:35, 28 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Please remove the reference to Scott Lively's propaganda book==<br />
This is propaganda. It seems you don't allow neutrality here. [[User:GayMan|GayMan]] 21:51, 28 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I agree. Numbers 1-5 on there are kinda <i>wrong</i>, and number 6 tops it off as crap. [[User:Clorox|Clorox]] 23:11, 3 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Hey, now... ==<br />
I'm LGBT and I'm certainly not aware of any sort of "agenda" being discussed. Perhaps this is just a typical case of right-wing paranoia? --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 18:07, 17 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
You're not aware because you're not hive-minded. The agenda is memetic, therefore you're not all going to know about it. --[[User:Pious|Pious]] 18:21, 24 June 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==What the hell?==<br />
<br />
The “homosexuality agenda" was created by Focus on the Family, which you say later in the article, ACTIVELY OPPOSES homosexuality. You wouldn’t let me post Jon Stewart quotes on the Bush page, so why is this kind of crap aloud here? [[User:Tesfan|Tesfan]] 11:43, 23 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
This is exactly the sort of thing that inspires violence against homosexuals. Be more neutral.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 12:34, 27 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Good luck pal, I've been saying that for months. And watch your language, they'll ban you for that here. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 12:46, 27 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Politics and science==<br />
<br />
Dr. Ronald Bayer, writing in Homosexuality And American Psychiatry: The Politics Of Diagnosis said the APA decision was a political one, not a scientific one: "The result [of the APA removal of homosexuality from the DSM] was not a conclusion based upon an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times." [http://traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/Homosexuality101.pdf]<br />
==Liberal Deceit==<br />
I suggest we change the category from Deceit to Liberal Deceit because liberals universally support the gay agenda. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 22:26, 26 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
*Good idea! --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 23:08, 26 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Bad idea. It's not deceit. [[User:Clorox|Clorox]] 23:16, 3 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
Again I find myself disturbed by the language of absolutes that have infested this site. There are liberal and homosexual philosophies mentioned in this site that some liberals and homosexuals don't have simply because they don't know about them- and it's certainly not a stretch of the imagination to say these people are generally ignorant. Are children in Africa who die young damned simply because a missionary doesn't exist where they live and they couldn't have possibly heard the good news about Christ? I think not. I believe they get another chance to. --[[User:Pious|Pious]] 18:26, 24 June 2011 (CDT)<br />
<br />
==Sources?==<br />
<br />
Are there any sources besides those accusing the gay agenda? There's no evidence of any organized "agenda", and all of the goals and such are provided by those opposing it. Best case, this is an article about a pundit talking point, and worst case it's a conspiracy theory masked as an encyclopedia article. Shouldn't it at least mention that there has never been any evidence of even a mildly organized or centralized gay agenda? The fact that it's permanently locked further undermines CP credibility. [[User:RWest|RWest]] 12:32, 13 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Specific suggestion:<br />
:Focus on the Family quotes below from a leading book in the homosexual movement which outlines the points of the homosexual agenda:<br />
There is no source cited here. The source is "The Overhauling of Straight America," an article which appeared in the November 1987 issue of a gay magazine called ''The Guide''. [[User:Shii|Shii]] 22:44, 23 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: Thanks, I just added an online link to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 23 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Mottos? ==<br />
<br />
The edit replacing "beliefs" with "mottos" was unjustified. There is a (baseless) belief system inherent in the homosexual agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:41, 12 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== References: "small looks better" ==<br />
<br />
Why? All the other articles I've seen have references at regular text size. What's particular about this article that it needs to have really tiny footnotes? [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 17:24, 28 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Homosexuality in Congress==<br />
<br />
In a recent discussion with a friend of mine, we discussed what is here called the "homosexual agenda". In addition to the notion of whether "everyone has an agenda" (something I would consider adding to the Debate pool if anyone would like clarification of my terms/beliefs here, I brought up the notion of whether or not there exists a disproportionate number of homosexuals or, unfortunately, scandals regarding previously latent homosexual desires among otherwise Conservative men (Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Bob Allen, the Glenn Murphy scandal), and whether this constitutes the corrupting nature of power, or, as my friend (a somewhat eccentric, Ron Paul-supporter type) suggests, whether these men are "moles" (his term, not mine) representing a quote, "homo infiltration". To put it bluntly, imagine the Manchurian Candidate, but with sodomy. <br />
<br />
I was wondering if anyone here (I imagine you have all put some effort into the research and sourcing for this article) had ever heard trustworthy sources, blogs, or essays dealing with such a belief. I obviously don't support the endorsement of wingnut theories, but if it is a more widespread belief among self-avowed Republicans and conservatives, then I think it bears mentioning. I wait to see if any such evidence exists. [[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 10:48, 9 September 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Iran?==<br />
This site considers Iran as an example for how to deal with homosexuals?? I hope this is a joke; otherwise, this is one of the sickest, most hateful websites I've ever seen. You claim to follow Jesus, and then condone executing homosexuals?? This must be an example of following the hard-ass God of the Old Testament.{{unsigned|User:Pete5383}}<br />
<br />
:This site does not condone the murder of homosexuals by the state. It is a true statement on Iran and most Muslim countries are no different. So yes, they oppose the homosexual agenda but that doesn't correspond to the section which talks of political/cultural opposition. Instead, a foreign section needs created and the FACTS put in the proper place.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:37, 17 August 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Merge from "pro-Gay"==<br />
<br />
Thanks for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexual_Agenda&curid=69968&diff=877518&oldid=877453&rcid=1187531 merging this point] from the "[[pro-gay]]" article. I sure wish I had '''bothered to look''' for the diff before undoing your careful work. *sigh* --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:44, 9 June 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Homophobes==<br />
<br />
Westboro is probably the only authentically "[[homophobic]]" group in the USA. They used to have a "God hates fags" website. No one takes them seriously, on either side of the ideological battle lines. They are the poster boys for [[hate speech]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:00, 2 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Charity==<br />
<br />
:Cut from lede:<br />
<br />
:* Liberals generally give much less than conservatives to charity, but charity work by gays in particular is virtually non-existent.<br />
<br />
:This needs references, if true. But I don't believe it - or maybe I just don't understand it. Isn't [[Gay Men's Health Crisis]] a [[charity]]? (Or is it merely a [[non-profit organization]] '''without''' a charitable purpose? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:44, 12 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Just happened to see this, and so here is some data:<br />
<br />
On average, weekly churchgoers donate 3.8% of their income to charity, compared to 0.8% for those who never go. Independent Sector (charitable clearing house): Atheists won't save Europe by Don Feder; http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27937<br />
<br />
Religious citizens who make $49,000 gave away about 3.5 times as much money as secular citizens with the same income. They also volunteered twice as often, are 57 percent more likely to help homeless persons, and two-thirds more likely to give blood at their workplace. Arthur C. Brooks' Who Really Cares. http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2008/001/8.11.html<br />
<br />
In 2006, Americans gave 1.66% of their aggregate income to charity, with donations totaling US$182 billion. This rate of giving is more than double that of Canadians, who gave 0.76% of aggregate income (CA$8.4 billion in total) to charity in 2006. http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/Generosity_Index_2008.pdf<br />
<br />
See [http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Statistical_Correlations.html here] for a table of many comparison btwn states, and [http://247wallst.com/2011/12/15/americas-most-and-least-charitable-states/2/ here] for recent stats on giving per state. <br />
<br />
$8.8 billion worth of goods and services that churches are giving overseas to developing (“Third World”) countries. This figures out to be nearly 40 percent of the foreign aid provided by the United States to the same region. U.S. foreign aid to those same countries is $23.5 billion. Carol Adelman of the Hudson Institute, from Notre Dame University study. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Church/Default.aspx?id=118566<br />
<br />
Giving as a percentage of income was higher at the depth of the Great Depression in the 1930s (3.3 percent of per capita income in 1933) than after a half-century of unprecedented prosperity (2.5 percent in 2004) John Ronsvalle and Sylvia Ronsvalle, The State of Church Giving through 2004: Will We Will? 16th ed. (Champaign, Ill.: Empty Tomb, 2006). ^<br />
<br />
The proportion of adults who tithe dropped by 62 percent in the past year. (2) Just 6 percent of born-again households tithed to their churches in 2002. (3) Tithing, when it occurs, is generally among Protestants: 5 percent of adults who attend Protestant churches tithed last year, compared to less than one-tenth of 1 percent among Catholics. (4) Among the groups most likely to tithe are people over 55, college graduates, Evangelicals, Republicans, conservatives, and residents of the South—but there was no segment among which at least 10 percent tithed. George Barna. News release by Barna Research Group, May 19, 2003. ^<br />
<br />
Including religious, American households overall gave 3.5% of their income to charity, with approx. 33% going to to religious institutions. Utah was the state with the highest average per-capita charitable contributions, followed by Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee and Arkansas. Professor Arthur Brooks, 2005. http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2005/February/200502181639511CJsamohT5.593508e-02.html<br />
<br />
A liberal researcher who was surprised at finding that showed conservatives being more giving, set out to do a more thorough analysis, only to confirm the findings: http://blog.geoiq.com/2009/01/07/dataset-of-the-day-who-is-more-generous-republicans-or-democrats/ <br />
<br />
Also, the top 10 most generous countries are:<br />
<br />
1. United States<br />
2. Ireland<br />
3. Australia<br />
4. New Zealand<br />
5. United Kingdom<br />
6. Netherlands<br />
7. Canada<br />
8. Sri Lanka<br />
9. Thailand<br />
10. Laos<br />
<br />
The United States’ first place in the rankings marks a significant improvement from 2010, when it ranked fifth. Other countries making significant gains include Liberia, which went from 39 to 14, and Morocco, which leapt from 33 to 12. http://www.worldvision.org/news/new-report-ranks-most-generous-countries. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 22:27, 27 February 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Kirk and Madsen== <br />
The WP page on Marshall Kirk [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Kirk#Health] has this but which i cannot find a source for:<br />
<br />
"Marshall suffered from severe migraine headaches that were preceded by a strong desire to talk in a rapid monologue. He found that if he gave into these "babbling fits", the headache would be alleviated. He had other medical problems and suffered from bouts of depression that required electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) on three occasions. Because of the negative effects on his memory, he considered ECT to be the last alternative to avoid death. In part due to this medical history, his knowledge of pharmacology was usually greater than that of anyone who treated him. When he died, he was found alone in his apartment by two friends."<br />
<br />
Also cannot find anything on Hunter Madsen (pen name "Erastes Pill")[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 23:54, 24 February 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Conservapedia violates its own commandments. ==<br />
<br />
Substantial portions of the article on "homosexual agenda" violate the conservapedia commandments, but it seems that the administrators are not interested in enforcing the commandments.<br />
<br />
I made several edits to this page which either eliminated the presentation of personal opinion as fact or which placed notes that statements were not verifiable and were not accompanied by a citation. I find the article as a whole fairly interesting because whether or not an actual homosexual agenda exists, the concept of a homosexual agenda most definitely exists either as an actual agenda held by gay activists or as a perceived agenda by those who oppose acceptance or expansion of rights.<br />
<br />
None of the changes I made changed the fundamental content of the article, but simply attempted to enhance the article by removing or noting items that lacked references to verifiable data or which were expressions of personal opinion (both of which are forbidden by the conservapedia commandments). This was met with immediate reversion of the edits (which is fine) and blocking of my account from making further changes and blocking of the IP address from which I logged in (which is unacceptable). As you can see on the history page, this was done by user Markman.<br />
<br />
I understand that a site such as conservapedia is probably subjected to significant attempts at sabotage, but it is unfortunate that the sight has become inhospitable to legitamate attempts to improve the quality of the site by removing mere statements of personal opinion which are un-referenced, un-substantiated, and and un-verifiable.<br />
<br />
Conservapedia could have been a great resource, but it has, unfortunately, allowed itself to become nothing more than a site that presents propaganda and opinion as fact in violation of its own commandments.</div>Mikers