Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Torture

2008-10-24T20:51:37Z

NateE: /* United States */

==BEFORE YOU REVERT, READ THIS:==
The source you site says one album, the slim shady album, but not as a "standard method." It is intellectually dishonest to report it otherwise. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:59, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:By far most commonly reported method of torture is physical beatings - other commonly reported methods include:" Explain how this mean Eminem, please. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 18:07, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::Let's stick to the facts. the ''ABC News'' source reads as follows:

:::...ABC News has been told by former and current intelligence officers and supervisors.

:::They say they are revealing specific details of the techniques, and their impact on confessions, because the public needs to know the direction their agency has chosen. '''All gave their accounts on the condition that their names and identities not be revealed. Portions of their accounts are corrobrated''' by public statements of former CIA officers and by reports recently published that cite a classified CIA Inspector General's report.

:::'''Other portions of their accounts echo the accounts of escaped prisoners from one CIA prison in Afghanistan'''.

:::...The detainees were also forced to listen to rap artist Eminem's "Slim Shady" album. The music was so foreign to them it made them frantic, sources said.

::Several interesting things to discuss, (1) use of anonymous sources; (2) what is the source of the statement, "Other portions of their accounts echo the accounts of escaped prisoners from one CIA prison in Afghanistan", i.e. where did this information come from? (3) what "portions" have been corroborated, and what corroborated "portions" are in this news item; (4) where is the Inspector General's report. (5) These "sources" specifically cited, "Eminem's "Slim Shady" album", and for some reason Brian Ross and Richard Espisito felt the necessity to cite this first. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:18, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::Pleae note, the source ''does not say'' '''loud''', it says '''foreign'''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:25, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::::"They would not let you rest, day or night. Stand up, sit down, stand up, sit down. Don't sleep. Don't lie on the floor," one prisoner said through a translator. The detainees were also forced to listen to rap artist Eminem's "Slim Shady" album. The music was so foreign to them it made them frantic, sources said."

::::You plainly think torture is a joke, and want to be sure that conservapedia reflects that. How contemptible.--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 21:07, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::See #2 above, "accounts of escaped prisoners from one CIA prison in Afghanistan"; let's assume this is the source of the statement, "one prisoner said through a translator", because it couldn't have come from anywhere else, as the US does not allow detainees to speak with reporters. This raises several very interesting issues about ''ABC News'' and this article.

:::::(1) This unnamed source is the only alleged victim of torture quoted. (2) How, and where did ''ABC News'' obtain direct access to this source. (3) Did ''ABC News'' infact have direct access to this source. (4) Assuming this statement can be ascribed to an escapee from a CIA interrogation center in Afghanistan, why should it be treated with any more validity than anything he told CIA under interrogation? We can presume he does not have anything nice to say about his captors, and as demonstrated in the article, why should we not presume the escapee told ''ABC News'' what ''ABC News'' wanted to hear, just as other alleged torture victims made up stories and told their torturers what they wanted to hear.

:::::So, other than this escapee -- and we can conclude this is the only direct testimony of an alleged torture victim cited in this article -- what credible source can testify they either underwent, or were a witness to, torture? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:25, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::So, now you're questioning your own source? Interesting. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:08, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::It was never my source; but you may wish to see [[Conservapedia talk:Attribution]] for the relevent issues at hand. Anonymous sources are problematic, and anonymous CIA sources are problematic in particular. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:28, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Rap is not torture ==

You might be a parody, or something, but I'll bite for now. The problem is that they made the people listen to foreign music, not just Slim Shady. I think what you are doing is pushing your POV that listening to rap is a kind of torture, which is patently false.

Consider, if the prisoners had been forced to listen to Johnny Cash, would you be pushing so hard to get this statement it? Here is another source to consider (though I'm sure no one here likes the BBC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3042907.stm. '''THAT''' article states:

''Uncooperative prisoners are being exposed for prolonged periods to tracks by rock group Metallica and music from children's TV programmes Sesame Street and Barney in the hope of making them talk. The '''US's Psychological Operations Company''' (Psy Ops) said the aim was to break a prisoner's resistance through sleep deprivation and playing music that was culturally offensive to them." Sergeant Mark Hadsell, of Psy Ops, told Newsweek magazine: "These people haven't heard heavy metal. They can't take it. If you play it for 24 hours, your brain and body functions start to slide, your train of thought slows down and your will is broken. That's when we come in and talk to them." Sgt Hadsell's favourites are said to be 'Bodies' from the XXX film soundtrack and '''Metallica''''s ''''Enter Sandman''''. The theme tune from the US children's programme '''Sesame Stree'''t and songs from the purple singing dinosaur '''Barney''' are also on their hit list. "In training, they forced me to listen to the Barney "I Love You" song for 45 minutes. I never want to go through that again," one US operative told the magazine.''

So, if you are so keen on including '''Eminem''', maybe we should start a whole category of [[''Artists work used as torture'']]. Frankly, I think pushing this POV of yours is boring and a waste of time, but I wanted to point out that as you keep reverting to get this one little thing in to make Conservapedia look silly, you disregard the greater issue. The point is to list various methods used as torture, not to pick on rap because you have an axe to grind. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:22, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:Ok, let's cut to the quick. This whole section,

::''The US has been criticized for using [[waterboarding]] as a [[coercive interrogation]] technique, on the grounds that it amounts to [[torture]].<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1933315,00.html</ref>, as an interrogation method at the [[Guantanamo Bay detention camp]] <ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,,1981955,00.html</ref><ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=377623&in_page_id=1766&ito=1490</ref><ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3706050.stm</ref> and also kidnapping people of Middle Eastern descent in a process known as [[extraordinary rendition]].

<references/>

:was excised [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Torture&diff=prev&oldid=124069] along with the refs, because none of it, NONE OF IT, was supported by the underlying cites. It had originally been inserted by a now indefinetely banned vandaled. It also had been reinserted by a Sysop during a previous edit war. The same fraudulent misinformation appears in ''other'' Conservapedia articles. The problems with the ''ABC News'' cite, which ''is not'' wholesale misinformation, but ''does'' contain questionable material, have been outlined here above, and elsewhere. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_talk:Is_Rap_music_torture%3F]

:We can conclude, the source of the quote, "They would not let you rest, day or night. Stand up, sit down, stand up, sit down. Don't sleep. Don't lie on the floor," came from a prisoner whom ''ABC News'' describes as one of several "escaped prisoners from one CIA prison in Afghanistan." [http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/print?id=1322866] This assertion by ''ABC News'' itself raises several extremely problematic concerns that need to be addressed which will be expanded upon if necessary. Most importantly, this quote '''is the only''' direct evidence coming from an alleged eyewitness to torture in that entire news article. Serious questions remain about all of ''ABC News's'' anonymous sources, the credibility of several of these sources, the methods and motivations of ''ABC News'' in publishing highly questionable material of this nature which appears intended to inflame passions, and ultimately ''ABC News's'' own credibility if they cannot answer some of these questions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 09:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Are you arguing that because this is a direct quote it deserves to be mentioned as "By far [a] most commonly reported method of torture...?" That is lame. There are many different methods used, yet you have chosen to cite this one example. I can't conclude (from that chunk of writing above) why Eminem '''''must''''' be in the list. That's all. Just say, Eminem should be in there because I don't like him, or whatever, and we'll move on. I see that this is a direct quote, but there are many on this topic. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:21, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== Unprotect ==

This page needs to be unprotected. This blatant attempt to push POV is embarrassing. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:26, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:Page is unprotected. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:33, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
::Let's see what you can do with ''ABC'' cite. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:34, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::If you haven't already, ''may'' I remove Eminem from the list, please? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:34, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You can try, but what are you gonna do with the ''ABC News'' cite? It either has to be removed completely, or cited to some information in the article properly. Honestly, I hate to see it go, but I just haven't figured out a way to keep it yet. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Thank you. I am glad that is settled for now and happy we could come to a reasonable conclusion without banning anybody. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 18:01, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Me too. (I only ban for trolling). I'm a firm beleiver in reasoned discourse & discussion, know that I don't know everything, and try hard to encourage collaboration. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:11, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::To further clarify or confuse things, CIA Inspector General John Helgerson is the only named source in the ''ABC News'' piece. [http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/print?id=1322866] Turns out Mary McCarthy, the CIA employee fired for breaches of classified information (who incidentally was hired by [[Sandy Berger]]) was Helgerson's assistant. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:56, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== Image ==

Is this image still family-friendly?
[[User:Maupiti|Maupiti]] 17:12, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:No. It also doesn't seem to have a source. I have removed it. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:10, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

==United States==
Amnesty Intl is not a reputable source, more in line with a liberalism agenda.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 16:28, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
:AI is not a reputable source? Then please tell me an organization that tracks matters such as this that would be a reputable org. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 16:32, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

::Correct, not a reputable source. Sorry, I am not mistaken. I don't know who is reputable but I know who is not. Don't use Human Rights Watch either, another liberalism agenda. If you want to make America look bad, try Wikipedia. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 16:42, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I didn't add the information in question, but if you're going to claim that any source is non a good example, you should at least be able to give some examples of who would be acceptable. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 16:51, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Torture

2008-10-24T20:32:36Z

NateE: /* United States */

User talk:HelpJazz

2008-10-24T15:54:18Z

NateE: /* Blocked */

{| style="width: 100%; border: black solid 1px; background-color: lightgrey;"
|-
|{{Useful links|float=right}}<center><big>'''Guidelines for my talk page'''</big></center>
*Please, no "ping-pong" conversations: if I leave a message on your talk page, please respond there; I'm watching it. If you start a conversation here, I'll reply here, so please watch this page
*Sign your posts with four tildes, like this: '''<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>'''
*At the beginning of each month I will archive all conversations which are at least 1 month and 1 day from the most recent reply.
*Please, only one picture of Putin at a time. He scares me in large doses.
*'''If you have been blocked by me''': please do not create a sock and complain on this page! Instead, [[Special:Emailuser/HelpJazz|email me]] and we can work it out. (You will need a valid, verified e-mail address for this to work).

The system is supposed to send me an email when my talk page is changed... but I don't think it's working. The regular email is working, though, so if for some reason I don't respond to a notice on my talk page, click [[Special:Emailuser/HelpJazz|here]]
|}

Archives: [[/Sept07|>> Sep '07]] [[/Oct07|>> Oct '07]] [[/Nov07|>> Nov '07]] [[/Dec07|>> Dec '07]] [[/Jan08|>> Jan '08]] [[/FebApr08| >> Feb-Apr '08]]

== Is this the end? ==

Is HelpJazz no more? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:44, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
:You man of little Faith. --[[User:TomB|TomB]] 17:40, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

== Welcome back! ==

You were sorely missed! --[[User:TomB|TomB]] 17:39, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Congratulations on your graduation. I hope you still have an itching to help the project. You have been missed. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:53, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

:Hey there, Mr. Jazz. (May I call you Help?) Word to the wise, which you definitely are - tread softly 'til you get the lay of the land. Believe it or not, it's even more treacherous than before. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 23:30, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

::HelpJazz has friends all over the site and is well respected. If he posts again that can only be positive. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:36, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Thanks for the illustration. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:18, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Are you actually back? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:33, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Congratulations on graduating! That's a challenging major also, chemical engineering.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:23, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Thanks all, for the congratulations and welcome (including the one I got in my email). To answer your questions: I'm not "back", inasmuch as I never really "left", I just didn't post for a while. In the immediate future I won't be editing much, because I've been having a lot of carpal tunnel problems, but we'll see what happens. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:42, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
:How can we be sure your account hasn't been hacked, and this isn't just some vandal/imposter posting here? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:50, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

::Well, the question comes to mind of why someone would want to hack my account. It's not like I have sysop powers or anything. Taking aside motive, let's get existential about this: what if someone hacked my account, and that was the HelpJazz that you knew and now this is the ''real'' HelpJazz? Then there'd be no way to prove I was hacked, because the hacker would know every way to prove he was "real", and the real me wouldn't have any way to prove that he wasn't the hacker! Trippy, eh?

::Or you could just trust I'm not an imposter and scrutinize the few edits I will be making (which is probably happening already). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:08, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
::::You do know that that was just a joke right? Not ''paranoia'' as some humourless fools would think. Its good to see you back. 494523500 43294 96-079 94482! [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:35, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::Yeah, I figured as much :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:41, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

:::From one recent graduate, to another - congratulations! (or as we say ''omedetou gozaimasu''!) --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Hajimemashi te!'']] 15:55, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Thanks [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:41, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
Do you have any interest in writing [[Denmark|Danish]] related content for this encyclopedia? If so, you might want to join the Danish Writers Group (DWG). Let me know if you're interested... [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:01, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
:Um... the only Danishes I know about are the kind with cream cheese filling. Mmmmmmm cream cheese. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:25, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
::I'll take that as a "yes". [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:00, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Woot! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:56, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

==Accusation==
You have accused me on my talk page of being an "obvious sock". I invite you to retract this, as it is completely false. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:16, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:Sorry, I didn't mean you, I meant [[User:Rp6]], who made [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Neo-Cains&diff=prev&oldid=512681 this] reference to something written by [[user:Roopilots6]] [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:55, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

== You called? ==

What is the matter? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 15:58, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
: Dearest <s>Bohdan</s> Hank, could you please a look at the block log over the last hour or two and let me know what you think? Thanks, [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:00, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::What is there to think? Looks like a normal block log to me. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:02, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, I was talking mostly about DrHubertJNugz and SamuelHTD. The orchestra were likely going to be trouble as well, though none of them were allowed to make an edit. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:09, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::::I'll take a look at those two users. Don't worry about being blocked. I won't allow it! [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:19, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::Thanks :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:20, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::DrHubertJNugz was probably a sockpuppet. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:27, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

==Vandals, trolls and socks==
Since you think I block the undeserving, perhaps you would like to consider what to to with the two most recent signings, the brothers Nick and Mark. Coincidence, ''non''? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:33, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:Very likely vandals. Of course, they could also turn out to be two of the best editors we've ever had, so there's a risk vs. reward to think about.
:I don't want to give away my whole strategy, lest a future vandal reads but I can tell you this: I like to let them make an edit or two before I block users. 98% of vandals reveal themselves within the first 10 edits (90% within the first 2 edits). Or if you want, you could ask them directly, but they will probably just tell you they are related or something. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:38, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Fair enough, but getting them quick (ie even before an edit) does, I think, help to discourage the others. It would seem you distrust your own nose almost as much as you do mine... [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:40, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Possibly your approach may be the more judicious one here, but time will tell. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:53, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Having been blocked without cause before, I know that you will discourage more innocents by being too vigilant than you scare away vandals. Plus, if you wait until they have actually done something banworthy, then you don't have to worry about the email crying "but I haven't done anything!" (Which I have gotten). I still feel bad about some guy who had Mudkipz in his name (or however you spell it), and I blocked him before he made any edits. He sent me an e-mail saying that his son came up with the name, but when I unblocked him and apologized, he never came back. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:46, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

==Sex Ed==

Does teaching children that boys have a penis and girls have a vagina really constitute sex education? If not then you may want to rethink your sourcing on the Liberal Myths article. I would have thought real sex ed involved teaching what to do with those organs, which is not taught in kindergartens (we - as in almost all recently schooled Australians - have been there). [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 16:41, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:Unfortunately, the determination of how early to teach kids different levels of sex education isn't a "yes" or "no" answer. If you can find something better, please be my guest to put it into the article. I don't particularly like the one I found, but it was good enough for the time. Also, something like this belongs on the talk page of the article in question, so that people can follow it easier. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:51, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

== Sock ==

Are you under the impression that User:Bugler is a sockpuppet? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:42, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:No sir. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:46, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::A parodist? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:53, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:::I find it extremely difficult to say with certainty if someone believes what they say or are pretending to believe what they say. I can say that Bugler is very forceful in his convictions. You've known him longer than I have though. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:00, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Oh, I think he is a parodist. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:02, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
Hi, I am sorry to interject if this is a private conversation (as private as can be on a wiki!) but I would like to state something as I have been following this discussion. I have watched this site for awhile before creating an account and I find Bugler quick to block, impossible to reason with and the sort of person to drive people away from this site. I don't know if he is a parodist but I think its irrelevant. I have seen him block for a month over very minor details that should only earn a warning. I have only had to deal with him once and I felt I was to be blocked for simply asking a question of him. He got quite aggresive with me for merely making a suggestion. I expect he will block me for this comment but I wanted to add my two cents as a concerned editor. Thanks guys. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 20:11, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

== Removal of worshipping environmentalists link ==

Hi - just curious as to why you removed my addition of the link to the photograph of "worshipping" environmentalists. That photo is even linked to from the main page right now, so why not put it in the article? --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 22:53, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
:Because it's not encyclopedic, and it's not a valid reference. It's on the main page as news. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:57, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
:: Ok, makes sense - you're right: news!=encyclopedia. Thanks, --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 23:02, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

==Jpatt's censorship line==
Moved to [[Talk:Censorship#Jpatt's censorship line]], so that Jpatt can see it

==Al Franken==
Thank you very much for your help on the Al Franken page.... However, I don't see myself getting stuck in that mess. I have looked through the history, and it seems anyone who doesn't toe the line gets banned pretty quickly. However, I would ask that you also check out the Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them page. Thank you again for all your help. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 14:41, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:Sure I'll take a look at it. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:46, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::Learntogether just readded the bit about rudeness, vulgarity and whatnot... I really don't think anything is going to change, it's just sad that we can't provide insight and information without partisan mud slinging. Anyway, thanks for trying. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 13:30, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Relax Nate. Anyone listening to Al Franken is aware of his style and it's not exactly Bill Cosby. He's had a history of being rude and vulgar and so, shockingly, we're actually going to call it rude and vulgar. Most of the changes desired were allowed to stick (which you don't acknowledge), so what are you complaining about? You didn't get every single word that you wanted? You're coming across as a whiner. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:45, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, he ''is'' pretty rude and vulgar. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:55, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::A, I don't see how this conversation is in anyway pertinent to you, and B, I don't have a problem with you saying that you find him rude and vulgar, that's a perfectly acceptable opinion to take. However, when you're writing something as a fact, you need to be aware of legal definitions and the possiblity of libel. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 13:33, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Nate, the name you mentioned above is mine. What you're really saying is, "How dare you comment while I'm talking behind your back." And it would really help if you would accept that we can call a spade a spade. You may feel that there's no such thing as rude behavior, but that won't fly here. And somehow I don't think Andy is worried about being sued by Al Franken because he's really not rude. It would be interesting to see him defend that in court and, as a master of drumming up free publicity for himself through controversies, Franken would hardly want to give that same standing to us -- although I'm sure Andy would welcome it. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:18, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::: It has nothing to do with talking "behind your back." HelpJazz was editing that page and I let him know what was going on. I also thanked him for his help. As for the rest, I'd be happy to continue this discussion, but I don't think HelpJazz's user page is the place for it. If you'd like to continue on my page, I'd be happy to keep this going. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 12:21, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

==[[Bipolar disorder]]==
Moved to [[talk:Bipolar disorder#Moved from User talk: HelpJazz]]

== I know I'm late, but... ==

"Now there's a blank space on the right side." Literally LOL, my co-workers were starting. AWESOME. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:57, 16 September 2008 (EDT)'' <-I wish I had your stamina for the fight...''
:Hee hee, thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:59, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

==Big Science==
Keep your Liberal tanks off my lawn. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:14, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
:I'm not sure I know what that means, but aren't you the one who's always complaining that I'm insinuating threats? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:23, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
::You threaten, you add deceit, you infect with your Liberal viruses, spreading disease, lies and deceit. If you were a man, you would leave this site and propagate your poison elsewhere. Since, in my opinion, you are a maggot, you attempt to spread it her. You are not wanted here, nor are your acolytes. Begone. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:51, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

What a clever little chap you are (not really) [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:12, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
:You should probably calm down a little bit. Seeing as how I never said anything personal against you, and you called ma a maggot, I think the wrong person was blocked. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:13, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
::Wait, or didn't you know that I could unblock myself? You weren't around when I was last active, so it makes sense that you wouldn't know. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:14, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, I knew, but I was giving you the cahnce to behave decently and return to your appropriate place beneath your cesspit rock, ''Jazzman''. Plot and plan CP's decline to your heart's content there, but don't expect to snigger and sneer in the cesspit and then feel you have free rein to cause subcversion and damage here, ''matey''. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:17, 18 September 2008 (EDT) [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:17, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
:::You should be careful. If your veins are bulging as much as they sound like they are, something's ready to burst. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:18, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Your card is marked. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:21, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

==HJ==
I see you're reverting ''more'' factual edits now. You really want to watch yourself. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:24, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
:My bad, you lucked out on that one. Apologies? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:25, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
::Ah, the ''argot'' of the cesspit. So smile-making. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:27, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== Bugler ==

I don't know how you've upset Bugler (or vice versa) but I suggest that you both take some time out and calm down. This is a wiki and it relies in collaboration, not antagonism. I've given you both a block and hope you both respect it. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:48, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

==Champagne Socialists==
You don't seem to have much of importance to do, so perhaps you could chip in with some more CSs. Pip-pip. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:31, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:I don't know what that means. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:33, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
::The definition was pretty clear, I thought. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:34, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, it isn't. You apparently can see through my computer screen and see the importance of what I'm doing, so why not use your powers to just tell me what CS means instead of making me guess? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:35, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
::::==Champagne Socialists== [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:37, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Oh man, I totally just saw the title of this section. Now it makes a little more sense. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:51, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::Ah yeah, well, listing them doesn't actually prove "common". Of course, if I didn't have more important things to do and I really wanted to make a list of rich liberals, I would at least use a reference or two. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:50, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::The 'more important things' being following me round and inserting Liberal values into my articles, presumably. It's flattering, in a way, but terribly, terribly sad at the same time. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:52, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Actually, you followed me around. I edited them first, and later you came back through. And I didn't see any liberal values? I don't find it flattering though. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::::Bugler: stop following HelpJazz around. Thanks! [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 17:11, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Actually, Henry, it's the other way round, despite Jazzman's denials. He has been looking up articles that I have written and making subtle, undermining changes. There are too many for it to be a coincidence. I have no wish to follow him around whatsoever. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:13, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::And now he's at it again! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:15, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::...says the guy who keeps harassing HelpJazz on his talk page, calling him such things as "cesspit". --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 18:23, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

==Politics==
As you stated on your user page, I'm asking you about your political views! Some have referred to me as a Libertarian, although I find myself to be a free-market independent. If you could, please give me your views on economics, foreign policy, abortion, gun control, and anything else that you view as valid! I haven't had a good political discussion in a long time, and you seem to be a very rational and intelligent person. Whenever you get a chance, Jazz; I have this page on my watch list. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 18:34, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
:Woo! I'll give you a short overview for now, and I can expand later if you see fit:
:*Economics: I think we should have as little government regulation as possible, which includes privatizing such agencies as the FDA. I used to be a cold hard liner on welfare (''a la'' Ayn Rand), but now I think that there should be a minimum safety net (''a la'' Milton Friedman). I like the idea of a [[negative income tax]], but I don't know enough economic theory to be able to accurately guage the effect.
:*Foreign policy: I would probably be what you call a [[realist]]. The idea of the EU scares me a little bit in a 1930's distopia novel sort of way. I think I'm an isolationist (I believe that a lot of our terrorist problems stem from, at least in part, our meddling in other people's business), but there are likely circumstances where isolationism doesn't make sense. Now when I say isolationism, I don't mean a complete cutoff from the outside world (which is what [[Ron Paul]] detractors seemed to think he meant), I mean keeping our military out of places it doesn't belong.
:*Abortion: unlike many people, abortion is not an issue that will make or break a political race for me. Constitutionally, I think it should be a state's decision, not the federal government's. I think pragmatically it should be legalized, but I won't be donating money to any pro-abortion causes any time soon, and if a friend came to me for advice, abortion would be last on the list.
:*Gun control: I believe that guns don't kill people, bullets kill people. Except sometimes pistol whipping. In all seriousness I think large-scale freedom to carry firearms lowers crime rates, but for me that's a pretty minor issue. What scares me more is the militarization of our police force. The founding fathers wrote the second amendment because they had just fought a war against their government. While I don't see it happening any time soon, if it ever comes down to a choice between an Orwellian future or an armed revolt, I'd be on the side of the revolt any day. (As you can probably tell by now, I read a little too much as a kid!)
:*Other: the War on Drugs is probably my pet issue right now. Prohibition has never worked, and the War on Drugs is being used as an excuse for a lot of things that people would otherwise find inexcusable. Last summer a Swat team (see "gun control" above) raided a house in which there were 4 or 5 children, one an infant, in search for a man wanted on drug crimes. The man's wife was killed, a dog was killed, and one of the children was injured; the man they were looking for wasn't even there. I saw another story of a mother of two who was arrested and convicted based on the word of a known junkie trying to reduce his sentence. Her daughters had to raise themselves. A man was pulled over by the police and found out that he had something like $29,000 cash in his car. They (legally) confiscated his money, the premise being that he was buying drugs (the man claimed he was going to buy cell phones to resell). He was never brought up on charges, but he never got his money back. Then there are the increase of crime rates: when drugs are illegal anyways it lowers the rational barrier towards using violence in relation to drugs. Especially when you rachet up the penalties and have mandatory sentencing. Then there's the fact that drug money goes to fund things like gangs and terrorist organizations. If Pfizer sold marijuana, the profits would be used to research a cure for cancer. And safety: if Pfizer sold <insert drug here>, and it had a "bad batch" it would be sued. It could be better regulated to keep it away from kids; it could be taxed so it would put money into government coffers instead of taking money away. It would lower the "stigma", and people would better be able to deal with addiction (now to deal with addiction the 0th step of the 12 step program is addmitting you regularly break the law). Oh yeah, and then there's the whole argument that if you want to slowly kill yourself, who the heck am I to stop you. Lastly, there may or may not be medical benefits to drugs; so long as they are illegal, we can never really know the truth. The FDA poo-poos any study on marijuana regardless of merit, and all studying has to be done with government-grown marijuana. Sorry if you've heard all these arguments before, I had to get it off my chest :)
:I guess that's about it. I think prostitution should be legalized, for many the same reasons as drugs. It should be noted that I've never been to so much as a strip club, and I don't do drugs, and never plan on doing either. Just in case someone decides to use the "you're just for legalization because you do it yourself" argument. :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:25, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

::Okay, I just have a few things for you. I agree with you on the majority of those issues, but here goes.

::*'''Economics''': I agree with privatization of ''most'' businesses, though I think we see that in the current American economic system. I don't think it's a great example of the privatizing the FDA for the simple fact that I don't see a potential for profit. The only scenario I can think of off the top of my head is something like a certification, i.e. drug companies being required to pay for a certification of a certain drug in the hopes of maximizing profits, though I don't think that would be feasible. Capital tends to suck the morality out of a person, and I wouldn't want a new pharmaceutical fast-tracked into the market (Vioxx rings a bell) because some big-wig for the FDA got a few extra bucks. A few other examples of government agencies unable to be privatized would be the CDC and IRS. Same rationale as above.
:::As far as the negative income tax is concerned, I don't see a desire to raise one's financial situation. Sure, nobody wants to live at poverty level, but if you're guaranteed a stipend check to keep you at a certain income level, what's the motivation? I live in West Virginia, and currently our welfare system requires one to have a job while receiving assistance, plus you only receive it for a certain period of time except in special circumstances such as HUD and ...I can't think of the acronym, but it's for kids (you get milk, cheese, stuff like that ... WICC I think—that's why people here keep on popping out kids to keep their welfare).
::*'''Foreign policy''' :Nothing here. I agree with you on every point. However, our military actions in the middle east (against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, not so much in Iraq) are justified. They didn't attack us because we were "meddling," they attacked us because they despise our way of life in regards to capitalism and world trade.
::*'''Abortion''': I wouldn't say that this would "make or break" an election for me, though I think how a person feels regarding abortion shows a lot about his character. The only time I think abortion is justified is when a choice must be made between the life of the mother and the fetus, in which case the decision should be left to the affected parties (mother and father). This is actually the main reason I'm not voting for Obama: his views on the "borderline baby act" (I think that's the name of the legislation). If a baby, who is supposed to be aborted, is born alive, that doctor ''should'' be required to do everything possible to make sure that baby survives. Obama feels like this "undermines the decision of the mother," which is morally despicable. I would have no problem with a federal referendum against abortion.
::*'''Gun Control''': This is a real hot-button topic for me. I'm not too sure what you mean by militarization of our police force, though. In a country that allows for open ownership of firearms, our police officers have to make sure they are properly armed to deal with the most severe threats. I do not see a reason why an everyday American citizen needs to own a semi-automatic assault rifle. Handguns, hunting rifles, sporting guns ... all okay in my book. Assault rifles should be banned.
::*'''War on Drugs''': So what? Legalize all of them? Sure, you show me a few select instances where drug raids went bad, but this is plaguing our country. It's not just the illegality of the drugs that causes crime, it's the fact that these low-life junkies spend all of the their money on drugs and therefore don't have money for anything else. That causes them to steal money for basic human necessities. Even if drugs were legalized, regulated, and taxed, we would still have this problem unless some sort of "quota" was instituted. However, with privatized business, who would institute and enforce the quota? Then we have an entirely different can of worms, and all that capital that came from stopping the war on drugs now goes to medical assistance to junkies who have no job and no health insurance. I know one of the main arguments against drugs is all the "money it would save," but in my opinion it's really revenue-neutral.
::As far as Pfizer marketing drugs, I know where you're coming from, but chew on this. A guy synthesizing heroin makes a bad batch and a few dozen people die from it. If that same drug was regulated by Pfizer and they release a bad batch and was purchased ''legally'' in ''mass quantities'', how many people would die? This isn't lead-laced tylenol, this is the most addictive drug known to man being sold in mass quantities. So you sue Pfizer ... after 1,000 people have died. Doesn't seem to rectify the situation.
::I think that's about all I have for now. I'm anxiously awaiting your reply! Sorry I wasn't as articulate as I was at the beginning, but I'm getting really tired and this is ''really'' long.
::[[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 22:07, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
:::A little caveat I should have started with: I'm not very hard lined on most things and I'm willing to hear reasonable discussion. So just because I sound wishy-washy, it doesn't mean I'm changing up my story on ya' ;-)
:::*Economics: the idea of privatizing goes along the lines of UL (united laboratories, which certifies hundreds of products after rigorous testing), EnergyStar, and that insurance rating company that rates cars (yeah, I'm using technical terms here). There are currently, right now, organizations which exsist simply to make sure that other companies are making good products. These companies make money because they charge to perform the rating service; other companies use the rating service so that they can put the logo on their product, thus increasing their sales. Now I fully admit that these companies are open to payoffs, but to my knowledge the companies that are out there already are scandal-free. I don't know ''why'' they are scandal-free, so that would certainly be something to research and discover, but at least we know it can be done. I also don't think *everything* should be privatized; I used to teeter on anarchocapitalism until I realized that it was just plain looney! Obviously certain government functions, like the IRS can't be run by private business, because it just opens up the door for too much corruption, and there's no good check and balance to keep it from happening. Other agencies (such as the CDC) could have their functions privatized, but there's no way to make money off of it. I don't think I would be opposed to ''subcontracting'' the CDC; so the government pays, but the company has to keep costs down and performance up. For me it's mostly about incentives: what incentive does the CDC have to do it's job properly or efficiently? Arguably Congress should be keeping check, but then again if CDC offices are located in a Congressman's district, he might very well want them to work inefficiently to increase revenue to his home town. I think any solution, private or public, that does not address the issue of incetives will ultimately not be the ideal solution. The negative income was easily the least-sure idea on that whole list. Theoretically it incentivizes working better than welfare, because you always earn more money for each dollar more you earn. As far as I know there has only been one real study, and it was just of one town in New Jersey. Another problem with it is that it would have to be nationwide, otherwise people on welfare in Kentucky might travel to Ohio to get a better deal, thus draining the system. Perhaps instead of a strict negative tax, there should be a flat tax (of this I am a lot more certain) with a proper welfare system in tact. I think the problem with ''any'' welfare system is that you either ''have'' to take into account that some people will forever live on it, or you have to allow people to be kicked onto the streets. Clearly the latter isn't good government policy. Of course charity and labor laws and the minimum wage also factor in to this in various ways.
:::*Foreign policy: I didn't pay attention enough to the news at the begining of the Afghan or Iraq wars (don't shoot me; I wasn't old enough to vote :p) so I can't say whether or not we should have ever gone. I do feel, however, that now that we are there, we can't leave them worse off than when we started. As for "they hate us for our values", that really hasn't ever been shown to be true. Plus the terrorists themselves said that they attacked us so that we would leave their lands. We put al Queda in power to fight the Russians. I'm not saying that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if we never fought the Cold War (though I think you could make the argument that it's true), and I'm definitely NOT saying that we were "asking for it", since terrorism is ''never'' a way to get your point across.
:::*Abortion: The reason people get worked up about abortion is, except for a few debatable facts and logical inferences, it largely is based on what you ''think'' or ''feel'', not on what logically makes sense. This goes for pro-choicers just as much as it goes for pro-lifers, and the fact is, in many ways, both of them are right.
:::*Gun control: Sometimes when I see real life Swat teams on tv it scares me a bit. You are right that unlimited access to guns could cause an arms race between cops and criminals, but more and more police carrying automatic weapons as standard issue. I realize my argument against gun control is a little... esoteric (is that the word I want?). I don't think that there is any reason for a citizen to practically own an automatic weapon, but at the same time I don't think they should be banned, because there may be a time in the future when there ''is'' a practical reason for an ordinary citizen to own an assault rifle, and by that point it will be too late to relax the rules. Again, I read too much Orwell as a child.
:::*War on Drugs: I dunno, to be honest. Obviously I don't think it would be wise to legalize all of them immediately. At a minimum marijuana should be legalized; nobody has ever died from it and it's less addictive than nicotine. I can't answer about junkies -- for now. Let me sleep on it and see what comes to me in the morning :) The isolated examples weren't meant for their literal description, but for the rights they represent. There have been numerous infringments on basic human rights which would have never happened had not the justification of "we are fighting drugs" been made. I can list them more specifically, but I'd have to do some research. I think you missed the point of the Pfizer example; let me state it more clearly. For starters, companies have quality control departments, and companies can be sued if something goes wrong. Let's say a dealer is making drugs (and I'm going to sound ignorant here, so bare with me) and he decides to add fertilizer to the mix because it gives you a better high, even though he knows it's very dangerous. He's going to make a ton of money at first because it's better than the drug he's currently selling. People will start dying, but his customer base won't be affected that much because there are always new druggies to take the place of the old ones. After a while, people will figure out that it's a bad drug and eventually word of mouth will spread enough that it doesn't sell any more. The dealer has made loads of cash, but likely won't lose any customers, because he can just sell them a different drug instead. Even if he does lose customers, he can just move somewhere else where nobody's heard of him and start again. Now let's say that Pfizer intentionally puts fertilizer into their drugs: it won't get past initial testing. Let's say, for sake of argument, that it ''does'' get past initial testing, because someone has greased the wheels. Once people start dying the media will immediately grab hold. Since they intentionally put a dangerous product into their drug, they will get huge fines, lose most of their customers and respect, and likely will be completely shut down. Pfizer is too big a company to just take the money and run. There's also another angle: the drug dealer has a choice between risking arrest for dealing drugs, or risking an arrest for dealing lethal drugs. The law doesn't make much distinction, so he will do whichever one makes him the most money the fastest. Pfizer has a choice between selling drugs or risking punishment for selling lethal drugs. In this case the distiction is ''much'' greater, and they will be much more likely to avoid intentional harm to their customer. One last point about the safety of drugs: I'm not against heavily regulating them. Alcohol can be dangerous and addictive, but there are many rules and regulations concerning the distribution of alcohol. During prohibition if someone was poised by an illegal beer that had grown a bad yeast it was tough luck for them, they shouldn't have been breaking the law. If Coors poisons people because they are below legal standards, tough luck for them they are getting a big penalty. (I don't know if this actually happened during prohibition, but hopefully you can see my point that by legalizing, you can enforce quality standards that you wouldn't otherwise be able to control).
:::And with that whopper, I think I'm done for the night :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:41, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I think we waited until a bit too late to get this ball rolling. Just a few things, because I think we've both stated our positions relatively clearly.

:'''Economics''': I think we agree on the majority of these points. Welfare is just a slippery slope, and as long as there is a program implemented, you're going to have problems with it. There's no such thing as a perfect welfare system. The certification system is what I was talking about regarding paying a company to increase sales. It could work, but for some reason unbeknownst to me, I would trust government regulation more when it comes to my drugs and food.
:'''Foreign policy''': Of course we didn't ask for it, and you're right to an extent: it was actually the Taliban that we put into power after the Soviet Union left. Agreed that we have to finish what we started. Our mistake was just throwing the Taliban in there without staying and making sure that everything was hunky-dorey (yeah, we're both using technical terms). We're doing that in Iraq now; we're making sure the current government can fend for themselves.
:'''Abortion''': I think I'm done talking about this because you're exactly right. Both sides have excellent points, and there's no right and wrong in this discussion.
:'''Gun control''': Esoteric works fine here ;-). Automatic weapons are, for the most part, ''already'' banned. I'm not for banning anything, just for more checks before someone purchases a firearm. The Brady Bill was a good idea in theory: an automatic waiting period and background check for purchasing a firearm. I went to a lot of gun shows as a kid, and I know that it's all to easy to purchase a firearm. I just don't want every Tom, Dick, and Harry buying a gun like they're going out buying a power tool.
:'''War on Drugs''': Yeah, I've gone over this one a lot too. Heroin was probably a bad example, and I'm not sure how I feel about marijuana. I disagree with Bugler's statement below that it causes mental disorders; well, maybe not disagree with, but alcoholics suffer from late-stage psychosis after a few years. If anything, ''that's'' what should be outlawed. Marijuana is non-addictive and non-fatal, so I wouldn't see a problem with legalizing. I went through a really bad time in my early years at college, and seeing what pot did to me ... I don't know, man. I really don't. I feel so much better now that I don't do any drugs (I barely even drink). I don't like the idea of having any drugs legalized, I guess. You're for it because you've never done, I'm against it because I have. :-)
:My apologies on the Pfizer thing. Like I said, it was really late, and I was searching. I think the lack of regulation and the danger of drugs is also a good deterrent for kids who are thinking about trying them. Smoking a joint is one thing, but cocaine and heroin are a completely different story. Those things can take a budding young mind and turn it to mush.

This is all extremely sensitive material, and I think we agree on the basis of all of these issues, just specifics. I'm really glad we got this all out in the open, though! You definitely kept your word on your user page.
[[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 11:14, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

:Keeping my word is what I do :) And duh on my part about al Queda / Taliban. I totally knew that. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:48, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

I hope you don't mind if I join in? Reading this, I have a few things I'd like to add.
* '''Foreign policy''': One of the ways that slavery was abolished was by Britain acting as the "world's policeman". That is, they declared slave-trading ships to be considered pirate ships, and therefore made slave traders subject to their navy. Saying that a country should keep out of things that are not its business may be okay up to a point, but when its righting a wrong, it ''is'' their business. Looking the other way when injustice is being done is to be part of that injustice. It's probably not that simple, admittedly, but allowing injustice to continue ''just because it's not your business'' is wrong. Not interfering ''for other reasons'' may be valid, but that would depend on those reasons.
* '''Abortion''': Abortion is murder (killing of an innocent human), pure and simple. The unborn child is unquestionably human, unquestionably alive, and unquestionably not part of his mother's body. That's solid facts and logic, not just what I "think and feel".
* '''Drugs''': I disagree that prohibition has never worked. From my reading many years ago (the books were borrowed, so I don't have them now), prohibition in the United States was a roaring success, even to the extent that prisons were being closed for lack of prisoners, as (alcohol-fuelled) crime was down. ''Regulating'' drugs rather than ''banning'' them is little more than playing with words. If you regulate drugs, you are really doing things like ''banning'' them to people under 18 years old, ''banning'' stronger versions in favour of weaker "safer" versions, ''banning'' them above a certain quantity per month, ''banning'' their sale without sales tax, or whatever. Every such "regulation" (partial ban) is potential black market. Although smoking (tobacco) is strongly discouraged here in Oz these days (and use is way down), it is still legal, yet black market trade in cigarettes has still been known to happen. And remember that such drugs (marijuana, heroin, etc.) are banned ''for a reason'', that being that they are ''inherently'' dangerous (some more than others). So by legalising and regulating them, you're basically ''encouraging'' people to take stuff that's dangerous! How is that in any way the responsible thing to do?
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:11, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Jumping in...
* '''Abortion''': Is murder... I don't see how anyone can deny the fact that the baby is alive. As for exceptions for the health of the mother, They are also wrong. It is wrong to kill one person because it ''might'' help save another person's life. You say "''there's no right and wrong in this discussion''", I guess you believe that the baby is not a human life until it is born? Can you support that belief? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 07:13, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::Since the water is warm... I don't feel that the evidence is conclusive about when, exactly, life begins. Is the "morning after" pill murder? I don't know. And yes, I know that "life begins at conception" to some, but I have no reason to know that it's true. As for no exceptions for the life of the mother - we make plenty of decisions without absolute certainty. If the medical expert "on the scene" says that a pregnancy is jeopardizing the life of the mother, I think you have to respect that. How many other medical diagnoses do we overrule because there exists a possibility that the doctor is wrong?

::Note that I'm no fan of abortion, HelpJazz's position is very similar to mine (re: last option, not counseled, etc...).

::On drugs (Hi, Philip!), I'd suggest that you refresh yourself on the Prohibition material you read. Alcohol-fueled crime wasn't much reduced, it just became other kinds of crime (theft, murder, "white collar" crimes involving illegal trafficking) because of the burgeoning bootlegging. On the plus side (ahem), we got the Kennedys.

::And, I disagree that legalizing and regulating something is the same as encouraging it, except in the most arcane of definitions. If encouragement is only binary in an encouragement-discouragement model (you must either do one or the other), then I suppose it's true, but it leaves out so many gray areas. Does the government actively encourage everything that isn't illegal, then? I like you too much to use ridiculous illustrations, but I think we can both think of things that aren't smiled upon but are nevertheless not illegal.

::Lastly, somewhere else Bugler says something about mental illness and marijuana. It may be well-documented, but it's not well-documented as being any more significant than a host of other activities that are considered perfectly legal. If we're going to embrace conservative ideals here let's start with allowing people real freedom; if the argument against marijuana is self harm, as opposed to harm to others, that's their tough luck if they want to smoke it. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:58, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

First, responses to Philip:
*Foreign policy: I agree, in today's world you can't have strict isolationism. However, I think the utmost care must be taken when deciding to take action; far too often, it seems, actions are only taken if they have an immediate, personal benefit, and long term consequences are shoved under the rug. Though I would like to point out with your example that it was partially due to British expansionism that there was a slave trade anyway.
*Drugs: I can't say I've ever read anything about prisons being closed. I do know that prohibition helped cement organized crime organizations, though, and they did their fair share of filling up the prisons. The "banning" vs "regulating" argument is really semantics. Banning isn't the same thing as regulating and doesn't have the same effects. I'm not against banning for banning's sake, I'm against it for the many reasons I've stated before. Also I don't agree that (a) drugs were necessarily banned because they were dangerous and (b) that something being dangerous is reason enough to ban something. As Az said, if someone wants to harm themselves, more power to them.

Then Aziraphale: as usual, if I didn't know that you couldn't be me, I would accuse you of being me :)

And now to Philip and Tim: this is probably going to end badly, so I hope you can agree to disagree on this point here. By "no right or wrong answer" I mean that the lines in the sand are drawn by where you believe "human life" starts. If person A says that human life begins at conception, and person A says that human life begins at the time at which the fetus could support itself outside of the womb, how can you prove who is right? "What is human life" is a philosophical or religious question, not a scientific one.

Compare to free trade: you can argue "free trade works because of the invisible hand" and someone else can argue "free trade doesn't work because of the greed of comanies". Then you can go and look at examples of free trade and determine through study "did the invisible hand work?" It either did or didn't work.

I agree with both of you that sometime between conception and birth it is considered murder, but I don't know where to draw the line. As such, I don't have a strong conviction either way, certainly not strong enough to impose my desires on others through coercive force (in this case, the law). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:56, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

: If you are not sure when life begins, and we are talking about human life here, isn't the safest approach to keep alive what might be human life rather than kill what might be human life?

: I put "alcohol-fuelled" in brackets because I wasn't talking about just alcohol-fuelled crime. Crime overall was reduced; the reference to "alcohol-fuelled" was to explain that it would have been the alcohol-fuelled component that made the main difference. Bootlegging, although it existed, was not that widespread so as to wipe out all the gains. And by the way, this was despite prohibition being very poorly enforced. Prohibition laws were made under the taxation laws, so it was up to the taxation agents, not the police, to enforce!

: No, the government doesn't ''actively'' encourage everything that it doesn't ban, but something being legal gives it de-facto legitimacy, ''especially'' when it was banned then becomes legal.

: As for people being allowed to harm themselves if they want to, there are two problems with this. First, advocates of such usually will draw a line between harm of self and harm of others. That is, if it affects others, it's not okay, but if it only affects the person doing it, that's his business. However, self-harm (suicide or other serious self-harm) almost ''always'' affects others, who are at the very least saddened, and more likely distraught, perhaps suffer hardship, and may follow the example. Second, self-harm assumes that a person has the ''right'' to harm themselves. But if we belong to God (and as a Christian I believe that He made us, so we all belong to Him), and if He hasn't given us the right to harm ourselves (as I believe to be the case), then we ''have no right'' to self-harm. The "right" to self-harm presumes an atheistic viewpoint. Laws that therefore recognise the right to self-harm (e.g. euthanasia laws, allowing people to take dangerous drugs if they wish) are laws that impose the views of an atheistic religion on society.

: As far as banning not having the same affects as regulating is concerned, I pointed out why they are similar, but in response all I got was denial, not an argument.

: "What is a human life" may be partly a philosophical or religious question, but it ''is'' also a scientific question. New Scientist, which is pro-abortion, was forced to admit:
{{QuoteBox|The task force finds that the new recombinant DNA technologies indisputably prove that the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine.
[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4851]}}
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:29, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

===Hi, Philip===
(giving a sub-heading for navigation purposes if nothing else)

''"If you are not sure when life begins, and we are talking about human life here, isn't the safest approach to keep alive what might be human life rather than kill what might be human life?"''

Indeed, that might be the safest choice, and it's one that I'm inclined to make; see my (and HJ's) comments above about what we would personally counsel. Given that I believe that there's uncertainty, however, I think it's inappropriate for the State to intervene. I'm technically only speaking for myself now, although from this and other conversations I think HJ will broadly agree with me: this conversation is far less about what is right and wrong and far more about what I believe the State should be involved in. From intervention v. isolation, prohibition v. free-ish access to drugs, abortion, and on down the line, I believe there should be a '''much''' more stringent threshold to cross than is currently accepted before the State gets in the game. For example, I agree with you that British intervention helped stifle the slave trade; I also think that "stopping the slave trade" is far more important (and thus worthy, and thus appropriate) than, say, making sure a particular political leader is, or is not, in power. There may be an exception here and there (yes, yes, Mr. Hitler, sit down, we see you) but they are exactly that - exceptions.

A minor point about bootlegging, more as a fun aside than any serious debate: don't forget, when assessing the crime spike from Prohibition, to include alcohol production / consumption for personal use that never made it into the movies. There's a reason that there's a stereotype of rural folk with their stills out in the woods. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:13, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
:Yes, we are again in agreement. Philip, that quote sounds interesting, but unfortunately the original article from which it is pulled is unavailable without a subscription. I would really like to see the whole context before I change my whole worldview, you know? I'll try to see if I can find it through school, but I'm not sure what kind of alumni access I have. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:32, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
::Well that's the last time I take a few days off. I failed to see what broke loose when we started this, Jazz! Seriously though, I'm glad to see this sparked a great discussion. It's really interesting to see how different people view these issues just because there are so many different schools of thought. I think all 5 of the parties involved here agree that in personal counsel, abortion is wrong.
::On a side note, should we move this to a debate space, maybe? Perhaps some other editors would get involved! [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 16:40, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
:::It's your page, HelpJazz, so obviously you can do what you want with it, but if you're soliciting opinions can I vote "no?" I'm enjoying the relatively excellent signal-to-noise ratio you've got going at the moment. Put this on a debate page and the screeds will start pouring in. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:46, 24 September 2008 (EDT) ''<-My 2 cents... oh, and hi Bohdan! They're back. :)''
::::I dunno. If it's on a debate page I likely won't really pay attention to it. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:50, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

Regarding government involvement, I do tend to lean toward what you are saying Arizaphale. However, there are two different situations here. If something is not illegal (e.g. taking a particular drug, or an abortion), then perhaps the government ought to be slow to get involved by restricting or banning it. The government ''not'' restricting or banning does not really provide any sort of endorsement of it either. Although this may not always be true if they are ''implicitly'' supporting it already by, for example, taxing it. The other situation is where the government has already restricted or banned it. In ''this'' case, decriminalising/unbanning/unrestricting it is sending a strong message that the thing (drug, abortion, etc.) is acceptable; that there's nothing wrong with it. Now there may be some way that a government can remove itself from being involved without providing tacit endorsement, but it's difficult to think of a way. Just by way of example, one way would be to decriminalise it but not tell anyone that they'd done so! But of course, both because government actions like this are not done in secret, and because there are always interested parties watching, it won't take long until this decriminalisation done on the quiet becomes very public, so that idea doesn't really work.

But then there's the question of the harm that it does. I mean, if it's accepted that murder is something ''very'' wrong, then surely it's proper for a government to take the safe course. I recall reading (many years ago now) about a medicinal drug that the government banned simply because test on mice had shown that it could cause problems at times. The drug was already being used (by humans) and was proving beneficial. Yet the government banned this ''beneficial'' medicinal drug because of the ''small possibility'' of bad side effects. Was that a case of the government getting too involved? Perhaps. But if that's any sort of precedent, then all abortions should be banned just on the ''possibility'' (and I believe it's more than a possibility; I'm just being hypothetical) that the fetus is actually a living human being. (And just in case anyone reads too much into what I'm saying, I agree with Tim above that the ''one'' acceptable circumstance in which an abortion is okay is when it really gets down to a choice between the baby's life and the mother's life. That is, if one or the other is going to die anyway, there's nothing wrong with choosing that it will be the baby and not the mother that dies.)

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:02, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

:Hi Philip,

:First, allow me to break my arm patting myself on my back - I just *knew* that was going to be your response re: deregulating/banning things that were once regulated or banned. It is the one reasonable argument for keeping the things regulated/banned, I agree. Now we're getting into "real" politics vs. political theory, I think. The high-minded Aziraphale says "if you take that stance then government can never correct a mistaken over-regulation, which is negative and self-limiting," but the realist Aziraphale has to concede that you have a point. I do think the "we're legalizing it but still thinks its a bad idea" message isn't that hard to get out in the specific situation we're discussing, though; after all these years, and with all the talk it would generate, it's hard for me to fathom someone NOT realizing the government's position, should it legalize marijuana.

:Re: the mouse-drug point above, I think that ''was'' a bad precedent, and wouldn't want to see it applied to other situations, abortion-related or otherwise. But that's just me.

:One point of clarification, on Tim's behalf - I don't think he ''does'' accept the "health of the mother" stipulation to allowing abortions, as I read his comments. I still take your meaning, of course.

:I think this conversation over the last few days illustrates HelpJazz's abortion statement better than his simply saying it. After all, I'm pretty comfortable in saying that none of the people currently participating in this conversation are witless or unreasonable, or stupid for that matter, and yet - one or more of us simply has to be wrong on the abortion issue. Tim believes that it's a life from the absolute beginning, and any abortion, for any reason, is morally wrong. You believe mostly the same thing, although you allow for the "health of the mother" stipulation. HelpJazz and I are both against abortion in our own minds, but don't agree that a human life has been created from the first division of cells in the womb. I think that's the climate of the debate in microcosm. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:19, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

::If that's your (and Jazz's) stance, then shouldn't you clarify ''when'' life begins? It's been a while since my OB classes, but I'm pretty sure the fetus's heart begins beating between 5-6 weeks gestation. At 6 weeks, the brain starts to develop and so on and so forth. Is your stance that life begins at the end of the first trimester? Second? Third? Birth? Adolescence? I'm not trying to be snarky (well, with '''adolescence''' I was) or presumptuous, but I do think that clarification is necessary if you're taking that stance. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 12:15, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Ok, first - I'm absolutely *not* speaking for HelpJazz now because this is not something I can infer from any previous conversation with him. My own answer is: no, I absolutely shouldn't clarify when life begins. Why would I know the first thing about it? You say it's been awhile since your OB classes; well, I've ''never'' had any OB classes. So, I'm more than willing to be led by experts like yourself.

:::The problem, to me, quickly becomes: on many subjects I feel like I've found experts I can be led by. On abortion (and it's not only abortion, but that's what we're talking about) I've found MANY experts who seem reasonable and who present evidence that, to my untrained eye, seems acceptable, and yet they all want to lead me in different directions. This is similar to what I said above, about reasonable people holding different opinions; reasonable experts have come to different conclusions.

:::I'm going to back up, again, and point out that my only contention is a political one - the vagueness in the issue (which, yes of course I concede, not everyone believes exists) doesn't offer up a clear, unmitigated call for State intervention. I will continue to counsel against abortion; that's not empty rhetoric, I've shepherded a friend in the last decade through a very difficult pregnancy that led to an adoption. But, I don't think the State belongs in this discussion. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:47, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Very far from an expert. I wasn't asking about your opinion on state intervention; I'm asking your opinion on where life begins. Sure, we all follow experts to a certain extent, but I feel that in the long run, experts are merely there to give us all of the evidence they've worked so hard and for so long to obtain. They gather that evidence to make an argument for one side or the next, sure, but in the end we have to take that evidence and turn it into a well-thought out conclusion of our own and support it with rational arguments.

::::Everyone comes to different conclusions based on the evidence we obtain, and I'm thankful every day for that. Quite frankly, if we didn't have disagreements, I can't think of a many people that are really worth talking to! If you're not comfortable disclosing your opinion, I accept that as well. As I said, I have no intentions of offending you. We can keep the State out of the discussion for as long as you'd like. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 13:01, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::Hi Jeffrey,

:::::I'm sorry, we've apparently bumped into a mis-communication. You aren't bothering me by bringing up the State intervention issue; it is, in fact, the only part of this issue that I have strong feelings about. (This was a politics discussion, right?) I have not "take[n] that evidence and turn[ed] it into a well-thought out conclusion." I do not have, nor do I expect to have, a conclusion as to when life begins. I have absolutely no training on the issue, and I won't ever get it - there are only so many hours in the day and I have other things that matter more to me. Further, my own partner and I have settled our reproductive affairs to our own satisfaction, so I don't have any personal investment in the issue. The best I can do is intuit which answers I discard as being extreme or unreasonable. I think a fetus is actually a soggy baby well before birth, but I don't think it's a soggy baby when it's 2 cells that just split from 1 cell.

:::::I appreciate that you want to discuss the issue, not berate someone who disagrees with you. :) However, I've actually worked very hard in my life to get to a place where I'm comfortable with uncertainty. (By "comfortable," I partly mean "not paralyzed to inaction.") I accept the possibility of being wrong, but I think it's a good thing when a person says "I don't know" rather than stand on an under-formed opinion. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 13:57, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::On that note, I strongly recommend we create a page called ''Soggy Baby Syndrome'' and redirect it to fetus. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 14:01, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::To catch up a bit: Philip, you are probably right about the appearance of endorsement in the political reality of legalizing drugs -- which is another reason we should think hard before banning something. I admit that I care a whole lot more about political theory than in political reality; "radicals" who get caught up too much in political reality either get fed up or violent (or both), but I'm happy all day long in the land of theory. While I would like to think that there is a way for the government to decriminalize without endorsment (regulation or taxation, possibly), I can't say for sure whether they would be able to do it successfully. (Ha! That's assuming anything the government does is really a sucess.)
:::::::To latch on to Az (again), abortion is one of those issues in which I just don't know the right answer, and no clear answer presents itself. Tim and Philip (and maybe Jeffrey?) are guided by their religion, and I'm, well, I'm Methodist. I'm sure we have an official stance on abortion, but I'm also sure that there won't in a million years be a discussion about abortion in my church (and not just because the average member age is somewhere around 65). I (and likely Az) tend to look to science, but as he mentioned, science doesn't agree or have a definative answer. Science tells us when the heart starts beating, when the toenails grow, and so on, but I ''just don't know'' when humanity starts. I know it's after conception (becuase menstration isn't murder) and I know it's before birth, but for me, that's all I need to know. Even if I wake up tomorrow and decide that human life starts once there are at least 32 cells, I'm not going to go to pro-life rallies and I'm not going to bomb abortion clinics. (And the opposite is true if I wake up tomorrow and decide that life starts at 26 weeks -- I'm not going to give money to Planned Parenthood or call pro-lifers woman-haters). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:19, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)Just a little clarification from Jazz's edit. I'm an agnostic, though looking over my posts I can understand where you would infer that I'm religious. Pro-life /= religious. I stay away from the term "pro-life" for that very reason. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth when I see a young woman say, "Oh, man. I had one too many 2 weeks ago and now I'm pregnant! I know! I'll get an abortion!" My big argument is that it's ''NOT NOT NOT'' birth control—well in the literal sense it is, but my point remains. Sometimes it's medical necessity, and I accept and encourage a choice in that situation.<nowiki></clarification></nowiki> [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 14:32, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
:It was just a guess, I didn't think you had said anywhere that you were religious. I ''absolutely'' agree that abortion is not to be relied upon as birth control! Condoms and abortion are not interchangeable! I'm just not sure how to ''legislate'' that, which is why I err (for now, at least) on the side of not legislating. 14:40, 25 September 2008 (EDT)~

(unindent)By the by, I'm sorry if "soggy baby" crossed the line, seriously. If it's any consolation, it's kind of a complement because I felt comfortable enough in this conversation to use the idiomatic style I'm used to in my private life, rather than running everything through a filter. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:08, 25 September 2008 (EDT) ''<-Seems to have hi-jacked HelpJazz's talk page... :p''

:I thought it was hilarious, personally. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 16:18, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

I'd like to think that the "we're legalising it but still think it's a bad idea" message wasn't that hard to get out, but I suspect that it would not be easy. For example, if it was done in isolation (instead of as a large package or series of such changes), then critics would (probably quite rightly) point out that if the government is doing it just for this particular law (whatever that law was) and not for a whole host of other things, their credibility is suspect and despite their claims, they must ''really'' believe that ''this particular'' whatever is okay to legalise but so many other things aren't.

Rereading Tim's message, I see that I've either read a bit too much into it or I'm thinking of something he wrote elsewhere. I don't now know which. But I would also point out that I was talking not about the ''health'' of the mother, but the ''life'' of the mother. I also point out that Tim said that it's "wrong to kill one person because it ''might'' help save the another person's life" (his emphasis), the implication being that a legitimate exception is if it ''will'' save the mother's life. So I still believe that he and I probably agree on this, but concede that I can't claim that as a certainty based on his post above.

HelpJazz says that I am guided by my religion, and whilst that's correct in a sense, I'd say it's not correct in the sense he's thinking. First, let me point out that one of the definitions of "[[religion]]" is a "cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". In that sense ''everyone'' is guided by their "religion" (set of core beliefs). As for being guided by my religious affiliation (I currently attend a Baptist church), then no, you are incorrect, and I couldn't even tell you with any certainty what my denomination's stance on abortion is. I am guided primarily by my "religious" beliefs that murder is wrong, and by various bits of evidence that the baby is a living human from the moment of conception.

The bit about menstruation is a red herring, as menstruation occurs when there is ''no'' conception.

Getting back to government involvement and when the baby is human, would you (Arizaphale and HelpJazz) agree that governments ''should'' be involved to the extent of making murder (killing of an innocent human) a crime? And would you agree, given that you appear to agree that abortion is wrong ''sometime'' before birth, that abortion ''can'' be murder (depending on how advanced the baby is), or at least that government should ban it ''at some stage''? Because if you do, then you are left with the problem that even if ''you'' are not prepared to nominate how far advanced the fetus is before abortion is wrong, the government must decide that when they legislate against abortion. And once they make that decision, they are de-facto conveying the message that, prior to that time, it is okay. Thus giving early abortions tacit ''approval'', despite no clear evidence that early abortions are ''not'' murder. That is, they would not be staying out of the issue of whether early abortions are murder; they would be getting ''involved in'' that issue simply by setting a cut-off point for their legislation. And if, by some chance, you think it's okay for a government to make murder but not abortion a crime, why would it be okay to make it a crime to kill a human one day after being born but not one day before?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:05, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

:I'm going to answer your very long reply with a very short one, because I'm lazy. I read once from someone (a libertarian, though that's mostly irrelevant) that abortion should only be illegal after the point at which modern science can reliably sustain a baby outside of the womb. Currently that falls somewhere around 26 weeks (I think) so that's an appropriate cuttoff. ''For now'', at least. I think I would be satisfied with a law to such effect (with exceptions for the life of the mother and probably some others), because it gives you a (somewhat) measurable cuttoff point, without having to define what constitutes a human.
:Again, I really don't see a law as endorsement. In other words, I don't think, if you went from 0 abortion laws to one that said abortion is legal after X weeks, that you would see a substantial increase in the number of people having abortions. Yes, there might be people who change their mind based on the law, but these people are most likely to be on the fence anyway.
:One comment about the "one day before" analogy. For one, yes I'm against killing a baby one day before it would be born, but there *is* a fundamental difference between a baby that's within the womb and one that's without. You can't carry your "one day before" analogy back forever, so even there you have to draw a line somewhere. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:47, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
:: Using the point at which modern science can reliably sustain a baby outside the womb as the basis for making abortion illegal seems an odd sort of logic. If the basis for making abortion illegal is that it's wrong to kill innocent humans, then how can it be okay to kill babies of a certain age today, but not okay to kill babies of the same age in a few years' time when medical care has improved? As for it providing a "measurable cutoff point", there is no exact figure (the ability of science to keep a baby alive depends on many variables), and the most obvious "measurable cutoff point", and one that is not variable or subject to future change, is conception. And no, you can't carry the "one day before" analogy back forever. You can only carry it back to conception, the obvious place to "draw the line". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:19, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

===Hi, Philip II===
(more ease of navigation)

My own difficulty with the argument you're making at the moment is that the State draws distinctions between things all the time. ''This much'' is larceny, ''that much'' is theft. ''This much'' marijuana is trafficking and illegal, ''that much'' is personal use and ok. ''This'' is murder, ''that'' is vehicular manslaughter, and ''that other one'' is negligent homicide and barely a crime. So no, I don't think it's logically inevitable that since a fetus ''could'' be a baby, it ''must'' be treated like a baby, and therefore since the State prohibits murder it must prohibit abortion. The State doesn't treat all crimes equally, and in fact it can look at two events that, boiled down to their essences, are identical and still make a distinction between the two. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 14:00, 27 September 2008 (EDT) ''<-using up my italics quota for the month...''
: I don't believe that I've said that a government is not able to define a cut-off point. Rather, I've said (or implied) that there is no obvious cut-off point that stands up to scrutiny, and that any cut-off point the government decides on is de-facto approval of abortions before that cut-off point. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:54, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
::Well, no, you didn't explicitly say that... and now I feel like we're getting down to the inevitable hair-splitting phase of any abortion discussion... but what I did take your argument to mean was that you didn't feel there was any meaningful way to determine where the cutoff should be and, therefore, a cutoff cannot be reasonably established and, double therefore (although you don't strike me as a "double therefore" kinda guy), abortion should illegal from conception.

::My response to what I think you're saying is (unfortunately repetitively) that I don't intuitively accept that a fetus is a baby from conception, but I don't know when it *is* one, and one reason I'm not in politics or law is precisely because I don't think I should be called upon to rule on when a fetus is a baby. The fact that it's hard to imagine most politicians making that sort of judgment merely buttresses my despair of politics in this day and age.

::One specific point, regarding "standing up to scrutiny": that's one of the key reasons I think the abortion question will never be settled. Whose scrutiny? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 13:30, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

==Drugs==
''At a minimum marijuana should be legalized; nobody has ever died from it''

It is well documented that marijuana use can lead to mental disorder, and it is highly likely that it is a contributing factor to suicide. A useful point to add to [[Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?]], so thanks for that. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:08, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
:It's an interesting article, and I'd like to read the study for myself so I can properly digest it. However it doesn't change my stance. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:46, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
:Also I should point out, since you used this example in the essay, that many liberals don't support the legalization of drugs since they are dangerous and everyone should live in a bubble so that they don't die earlier. These same liberals want to ban [[trans fats]] and [[high fructose corn syrup]]. It's definitely more of an issue with libertarians and advocacy groups (such as LEAP: Law Enforcement Against Prohibition).
:Oh which reminded me of a whole bunch more reasons against the WoD Jeffrey, but I won't bore you with them :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:14, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

== Capitalisation of 'intelligent design' ==

I see that you've been changing "Intelligent Design" to "intelligent design". I'm not sure that this is necessarily the best thing to do, but then I don't know what ''is'' the best thing to do. Granted "intelligent design" is not a proper noun, but it is the name of a concept and movement, so leaving it as just two ordinary words doesn't seem right either. There is difference between saying that "a plant exhibits characteristics of intelligent design" and "Dembski is a proponent of intelligent design". The former is fine. The latter makes it sound like Dembski favours things being intelligently designed, rather than what it really means, that he favours the ''idea'' that living things ''have been intelligently designed''. As I see it, there's three possible ways to distinguish the different uses of the term. One is to capitalise it, as the "name" of a concept and movement. Two is to italicise it, as a special use of the words. Three is to put it in quotes, also as a special use of the words. The quotes option, to me, seems a bit too close to "scare quotes". Italicising it to me seems to be stressing or emphasising it, which is not the desire either. Also, its use is quite common in many places, which means that italicising it or putting it in quotes on the basis of it being a ''special'' use of the words hardly seems appropriate. Which leaves capitalisation, which is the one that I've tended to go for, although I'm not totally comfortable with that either, probably simply because it's ''not'' a proper noun. Perhaps there's some other approach that I've not thought of?

Comments?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:22, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
:Well, the reason that I did it is that I saw the page on the article renaming project page. I don't think we can capitalize it, because then it looks like we are trying to make it more superior to things like evolutionism and creationism, which are rarely capitalized. Italicising is probably ok (like one would do for a word in another language). In my opinion, if you wikilink the first instance of the word, then it lets the reader know that it is a special term, but without giving it any special meaning. Similar to how certain legal terms (I can't think of any off the top of my head) are wikilinked; you might not otherwise know that the seeminly simple phrase was actually a legal doctrine, but once you see the wikilink you realize it is special.
:I'm open to whatever you think is best. I will say that, maybe you were consistent in the way that you capitalized "intelligent design" depending on the usage, but the community as a whole just sort of capitalized it willy-nilly. Many times I would even see only the first word capitalized, as if it were starting a new sentence! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:42, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

:: It's about time I replied to this! I don't accept that capitalising it means that we consider it superior to evolutionism or creationism, but I see your point that it might ''appear'' that way. And I hadn't thought about your point that wikilinking the first use indicates that you are using it in a special way; that's a good point. Anyway, although I'm not totally convinced that having it lower case is the best way to go, at the moment no other way seems to be better, so I'll leave the matter there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:41, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Right, I didn't mean that we ''think'' it is superior, only that it ''appears'' that we think it is superior. I used that trick once to convince a professor to let me in to his class. I wanted to pursue a Political Science Minor, but my chemical engineering major didn't allow for many openings, so I had to take his class that semester. Subtle, nay? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:59, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

==DessipF==

I noticed your edit to [[Fish and chips]]. DessipF isn't just a "suspicious editor", but a banned editor. See the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:DessipF block log]. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:08, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
:Yeah I know. The repitition just made for a more poetic edit comment. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:21, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

==Defection==

Your edit comment to this entry suggests that [[User:Malakker]] may be a parodist, yet you did nothing about it. Why? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 18:44, 28 September 2008 (EDT) P.S. He did seem to have one thing right: many of the prominent defectors in the Cold War from the US to USSR seem to have been homosexual. It's a bit too common to be attributable to coincidence... I'll do some research.
:I looked at the block log and Joaquin had blocked him for three days. I haven't looked at many more of his contributions because I went to take a nap :) I'll chack the rest of them out and see if he needs to be blocked longer.
:It's possible that some of the defectors were homosexual (actually, it's definite), but I would also want to see how many defectors that went the other way were homosexual. Also, how many there were makes a difference; he just said "most" which is probably not true. I won't stop you from doing your own research though :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:56, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::First bit of research done, but now you've got the idea of a nap floating in my head and... zzzzzzzzzz -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 19:11, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:::He he he :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:25, 28 September 2008 (EDT) PS: I've looked at his contributions, and, though he contributed some real edits, they were pretty hard to distinguish from the silly or borderline parodist ones. I think I'll block him for longer.

== "Malakker" ==

of course, you do know that "malakka" is a Greek word for onanism...[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 19:25, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:Oh that settles it then. Thanks for the heads up. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:28, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

== Palin article ==

Thanks! I only saw the one edit, and then when I realized I only got the one, I couldn't figure out how to get the others. It's weird that no one else was reverting though. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 20:21, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:No problem. If there are a bunch of edits in a row that are vandalism you can look at the history and click on an older version of the article. Then when you click "edit" and then save the page it will clear out the rest of it. I think there's not a lot of people on right now, and with a lot at once it got a little confusing. I'm pretty methodical about it :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:23, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks! I knew how to do multiple "undo"s, but I didn't know how to undo previous edits after I'd already undone one. Haha, that was not the best way of explaining that, so I'll just say thanks again and leave it at that. :-) [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 20:28, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:::I think I get what you mean. I have to admit I don't entirely get the undo thing if there's more than one edit. That's why I do the brute force method I described. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:31, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
I just wanted to say, good job you two. That was quite vandalism spree. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:40, 28 September 2008 (EDT) P.S. Up from my nap now, but can't be on long.
:Ha ha ha! I guess it's partially my fault then, since I enticed you with the prospect of a nice nap! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:53, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

==For the good of the project==
and despite sore provocation I have reverted some pointed words and trust that you can be relied on to respond in an appropriately responsible manner. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:53, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
:For the good of the project, you shouldn't have written them at all.
:Don't get so worked up that I don't create new articles. There's no rule that says you have to create new articles, and it's certainly the idea of a wiki to edit other's articles, no? Plus, as I've already said, I have created numerous articles. I don't enjoy it, and I'm not good at it. I'm not here to please you, and I'm not going to try.
:It's pretty hypocritical of you to say that ''I'' have done no work on this site, when I have been doing work all morning long, and you have been simply reverting me on two pages. Now I have ''real'' work (i.e. the money-making kind) so I won't be bothering you with my non-work for the rest of the day. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:01, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

== Edit war ==

I'm addressing both you and Bugler. Stop your edit warring and try working together for the good of Conservapedia. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:02, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

== Template:lowercase ==

I seem to recall from the equivalent template on Wikipedia that the template would only display the correct case of the title in certain circumstances (such as Javascript enabled). Is this still the case, or does it ''always'' correct the display of the title?

And the reason that you were able to edit a locked page is that it wasn't locked! It had been locked, but was deleted by a sysop who didn't understand its purpose. Deleting a locked page and reinstating it causes (or used to cause?) the locking to be lost.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:31, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

:<s>I don't think you have to have javascript enabled, but I might be wrong. It uses the DISPLAYTITLE... uh thing. It's not a template, and it seems to be built into the wikicode much like <nowiki>{{CURRENTDAY}}</nowiki>. I don't know a lot about how wikis work behind the scenes, but the template is used on Wikipedia, so if it doesn't work all of the time it works most of the time.</s>

:This is from the page of the WP template that I, uh, "borrowed" from: ''This template wraps the magic word DISPLAYTITLE so that it works automatically in any namespace (main, talk, template, etc.) to decapitalise the first letter of the name of a page it is transcluded on. (Previously, this template achieved this using JavaScript, but the DISPLAYTITLE method makes the change for all users, even those with JavaScript disabled in their browser).'' So we should be fine. :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:06, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:: Ah, very good. Thanks for that. I've now changed the Manual of Style page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:00, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

==Brokeback==

You're breakin' my back on the Brokeback article! :-) I hope you can see that I'm very willing to defend my points, and I appreciate the civility with which you've been treating them (unlike some other posters on that page). I'm going to continue as much as I can today, but I'm leaving for a weeklong trip tonight so I won't be able to respond until I get back. Hopefully the page won't blow up to enormous proportions in the meantime :0 -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 13:49, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
:Ha ha ha! I was actually just about to tell you that I'm not trying to be harsh. I think you're a good editor, so my comments are (to the best of my ability) aimed at the article and not at you. I'll keep an eye on the page and keep it honest while you are gone. Have a good trip. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:17, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks! See you on the talk pages in a week. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:04, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I'm back and will get to the posts on Brokeback Mountain probably tomorrow. In the meantime, I've noticed that the categories now appear in double boxes. Do you know why that is? It seems redundant. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:21, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Nevermind, I've found the relevant thread on Andy's talk page (it explains the appearance of other things like the new CAPTCHA, which I don't like). -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:37, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::Me neither. Hopefully it will change, or I may very well never <nowiki>{{welcome}}</nowiki> a user again! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:39, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::I didn't even think of that detail! Speaking of which, why is there an external link that occurs when we're doing a <nowiki>{{welcome}}</nowiki> anyway? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 23:08, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::The link to Interiot's edit counter (which doesn't actually work right now) is an outside link. Don't forget that "internal" diff links (like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:HelpJazz&diff=next&oldid=519768 this], for example), counts as an outside link. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:21, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: Now ''those'' I can help you with. Administrators have the ability to add a web-site to a "white list" so that those addresses will not trigger the CAPTCHA. I've added Interiot's tool and Conservapedia itself. Give them a try and let me know if it works. It's not, of course, an ideal solution for all the other possible links. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:59, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::You mean this whole time there was a simple solution? Oh man. Let's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:HelpJazz&diff=next&oldid=519768 test]. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 09:38, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Hey it worked! You'd think the software would be smart enough to have the domain site on the whitelist by default... Thanks soooooooo much Philip! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 09:39, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

==Vote McCain==
Vote McCain!!! [[Fry2000]]

== Thank you! ==

Thanks for the block! [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 19:23, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:I do what I can :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:24, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

==Ohio==
Well, well. I always thought you were British, for some reason. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:33, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:Nope. Never even visited. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:36, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

== addition article ==

Is there a way to check the user John Peters ? His name is red link in the history. The text added to the article may be correct but makes the article very complex if aimed at a high school level. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 23:56, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:I don't know. "Checkuser" (which I don't have) only tells you what other users have used the same IP address as him, but that doesn't really help in this case. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:19, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

==Blocked==
When I attempted to log in today, I received a notice that my IP address was blocked. I think a schoolmate of mine got himself blocked by you. First and foremost, I apologize for my classmates inappropriate behavior. I will look into who it was and see if I can get them removed from the lab. I would like to ask, however, if something like this happens in the future, is there anyone I can contact about removing the IP block or is it best to just ride it out? Thank you [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 17:05, 23 October 2008 (EDT) PS, I had to edit another user's signature before it would let me post. I think their user name contained something that the spam filter blocked out
:I think the best thing to do is email the person who blocked IP address and include the IP address or block number (it's shown when you try to edit a page). In this case, since you are only blocked at school, you could ask someone with checkuser rights (basically any sysop) to unblock your IP address. I have no way of looking it up, but they can help. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:19, 23 October 2008 (EDT) PS: Out of curiosity, do you know the person I blocked?
::Ok, I will keep that in mind should it happen again. It's hard to do much else except post from school, I don't have a personal computer yet (although I'm working on it) and I don't know for sure who it was, but by cross referencing sign in logs to the time I think I can get a fairly good idea. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 11:54, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

User talk:HelpJazz

2008-10-23T21:05:19Z

NateE:

Talk:Pornography

2008-10-10T19:34:11Z

NateE: where is the evidence?

* There is a draft of a proposed new version [[/draft|here]].

==Should there be an article on pornography==
It would, I’ve no doubt, take a lot of patrolling to keep this article site appropriate – it may be a real target for vandalism—but that being said, pornography and how it should be dealt with is one of the major political issues of our times (less now than 20 years ago, admittedly) and if we are going to provide an alternative to Wikipedia this is a very important place to do so (especially as Wikipedia’s page on this subject prominently features an image that is clearly not appropriate for children.). I’d like to see this page unblocked so we can take a stab a writing a good article for it—I’d take a stab at one (I know enough about anti-pornography feminism to start and could look into 1st amendment law) if the sysops think that it is worth trying to write an article appropriate to Conservipedia on this subject.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Drop me a note at my talk page when you're ready to post your first draft. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Will do! --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==First Draft==
I never say your note, so I just went ahead and wrote my own diatribe. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:"the fact is that in the history of erotic literature it is virtually impossible to find any depiction of normal marital relations." That's just a flat out lie and misrepresentation. You seem to be forgetting books like the Kama Sutra, Joy of Sex and videos that are created for couples to use. And the 2nd paragraph is a POV. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:24, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Not much about marriage in either one - the assumption is that you can go ahead and snuggle whenever and with whomever. I read Alex Comfort's book, a pernicious piece of polymorphous perversion.

::Let's look at Reginod's draft: [[/draft]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:36, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I like Reginod's draft save one bit. I think the intro should read "what is widely regarded as an intimate act" and not just "an intimate act." [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 14:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Jrssr5--you forgot the Book of Solomon. And seeing how he had 50 wives, one assumed he knew a bit about marriage. --[[User:PassingThru|PassingThru]] 14:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:I don't think there is a "Book of Solomon", and the Bible tells us he had seven hundred wives. Perhaps there is something faulty in your research methodology you should examine before making such obviously flawed assertions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:12, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Might that comment be intended to refer to the Song of Solomon? - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]

Now that I am back, I would like to implement the draft I proposed along with the changes that Ed Poor has made (thanks for those, by the way).
The only objection I’ve seen to the draft is that we don’t need an article on pornography at all on this site. I’ve explained above that pornography and how society ought to treat it is one of the more contentious social issues we face today (and it gets tangled up with a number of other ones). I’m open to hearing other concerns before I implement it, but I’m not going to wait to terribly long as anything that needs changing can be fixed once it is in the article as easily as it can be fixed in the draft.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:23, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Please add something about the word derivation, like: '''Pornography,''' from the Greek ''porne'' meaning "prostitute,'' ... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:32, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:I had no idea. Thank you for making that addition.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:41, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Reginod - you're welcome to use any of the following that's of any use to you. Shouldn’t an article on pornography at least have its definition correct?

The word "pornography" is about two hundred years old. It originated after the discovery of erotic drawings and sculptures uncovered in the archaeological excavation of the ruins of Pompeii. They included a sculpture of the god Pan having sex with a goat, and drawings of p.enises that were found painted on the walls of houses. The Victorians collected everything they found offensive and put it in a museum in Naples, which was called The Secret Museum. Only men were allowed in, and they were not allowed to laugh or make jokes. From 1849 to 1860 the Secret Museum was bricked up altogether.[http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2003/2003-07-38.html] Even today you need a permit and a guide to see the collection.

The word pornography derives from the Greek word ''porn'', meaning prostitution, and ''graphier'', meaning to write, and so it means to write of prostitution. The word was at first used to refer specifically to the Secret Museum, but began to take on a more general meaning by the middle of the 19th century.

Drawings and writings that were erotic were commonplace in earlier times, although they were not called pornography. In Samuel Pepys’ diary he writes about buying a French book called ''Escholle de Filles''. The book is a conversation between Francine and Susanne about sex, the older one telling the younger one all about it. Pepys saw the book in a shop, thought it was lewd and disgusting and did not buy it. However, he went back three weeks later and bought "the idle roguish book, L'escholle de filles; which I have bought in plain binding… because I resolve, as soon as I have read it, to burn it." He drank lots of wine, locked himself away, read it then burnt it. He said it was an idle and lewd book but it a good read for a sober man such as himself to read so as to learn about the villainy of the world.

Before the fall of the Berlin Wall, Bibles and pornography were the two items most likely to be confiscated by the Soviet Customs on entering the USSR. The common question from border guards/customs officers was always: "Are you carrying Bibles or pornography?"

Women respond to pornography in a way that is more similar to the way men respond than was previously thought. Erotic imagery elicits a faster and stronger electrical response in a woman’s brain than any other kind of image, recent research reported in the journal ''Brain Research'' reveals. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199474,00.html] The researchers expected lower levels of response, since previous research had indicated men that are more aroused by erotic images than women, but found that women’s responses were as strong.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:51, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:I’m not sure where exactly in the draft you want to place all that information, but go ahead and add it on in. (I’ve added a few more sections to help place the information—I’d put the Museum part in the Modern History section, and the female response information in the effects on individuals section) think the draft is (at the moment) in good enough shape to replace the current article, and since the article is (I just noticed) locked (and for good reason I’ve no doubt) I encourage you to just add to the draft, just like it was a real article, until a sysop can be found to implement it. But, as I’ve said, it is a rough draft—I wouldn’t turn it in to a professor in the state it is currently in, but the wiki process is a collaborative one so I’m more than willing to put my work out there as a base for others to build on.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 22:10, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::I would gladly do that, but I don't know where the draft is!--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Try here [[Talk:Pornography/draft]] --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:37, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

==Pornography and erotica==
Thanks, Reginod & Britinme. Good draft, coming along nicely. I'll just make one quibble:

*Erotica uses sexually charged imagery for artistic purposes,

This isn't actually true. Not unless you think that "art" is entirely separate from politics, etc. Or unless you're trying to say that [[art]] is a category of [[free speech]], which gets into the "P*** Christ" and "D*** Mary" controversies.

In everyday use, [[erotica]] is [[pornography]]. If I'm wrong, please correct me. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:08, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:Pornography is something that has degradation as its intent; it does not necessarily even have to contain sexual content. Erotica is material connected with love rather than sex, (though the love depicted is often of a sexual nature). So that although there is a large overlap between erotica and pronography, something can be one and not the other. For example the biblical book [[Song of Solomon]] might be readily categorised as erotica on the basis of its content, but few would call it pornography. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 11:16, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::As a literary genre, pornography is writing that has sexual arousal as its primary objective. Erotica is such material with artistic pretensions. Thus, the descriptive term pornography implies a statement about intentionality and instrumentality without reference to merit, whereas the term erotica is evaluative and laudatory. In Flesh and the Word, John Preston more baldly says, "The only difference is that erotica is the stuff bought by rich people." [http://www.glbtq.com/literature/erotica_pornography.html ]

:::Certainly some pornography with artistic pretensions ''calls itself'' erotica, often to avoid legal prohibitions on the distribution of obscene material, for example. But this is in no way the same thing as ''being'' erotica. (That's a rather dodgy source you're using there, btw.) --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 11:34, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:I’m inclined to agree with you that erotica is pornography. I’d say that it makes up a subset of pornography – I’d be hard pressed to find a clear distinction. I think, in common usage, erotica=socially acceptable pornography, and pornography=socially unacceptable pornography.
:Both erotica and pornography are intended to arouse sexual interest. Erotica, perhaps, more subtly than other pornography, but in the end it is about eros – love mingled with sexual desire. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:09, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::Erotica is pornography for those who have some inteligence. It requires a high level of literacy, and artistic appreciation. It takes skill to make, while plain pornography needs nothing more than a camera. But underneath, it is still pornography. It strives to be respectable, and to some extent suceeeds. But porn is porn, and thats all it will ever be. Just because its a well-written story, or a painting that takes incredible skill to paint, does not turn it magically acceptable. Erotica is a subset of porn, not something completly different. - BornAgainBrit

: I'm not convinced by this. I wonder if we can make the distinction that pornography is solely concerned with sexual arousal and gratification through the graphic depiction of sexual acts, and that works of literary and artistic merit can contain passages of explicit sexuality that function as an integral part of the total work but are not intended purely for purposes of sexual gratification. The famous example of this in English law was, of course, the 1963 trial involving Penguin books and the [[D.H.Lawrence]] novel ''Lady Chatterley's Lover''. I have read that, and it's true to say that the passages objected to in 1963 are fairly graphic (though perhaps less so by today's standards). However, they are not the central point of the book, and their purpose is not arousal but a deepening of understanding of the themes of the nove. IMHO they add a great deal to the overall merit of the work. Personally, I found a book like ''American Psycho'' a great deal more distressing in that it explicitly ties sexuality to graphic violence. It seems invidious to me to single out the depiction of erotica as pornography while ignoring the graphic depictions of violence that seem to pass unnoticed. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 14:18, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Needed fixes==
Since the article is locked can someone make the following changes, marked in '''bold'''?

"Due to a series of liberal decisions beginning with the Warren Court, pornography is aggressive'''ly''' sold and distributed in the United States without meaningful law enforcement'''{{fact}}'''. It is a $12 billion industry that affects and harms 40 million Americans'''(POV)'''. Pornography destroys relationships and exploits young people.[2]'''maybe include the article that claims this POV'''

Is there really such a large public concern about an alledged connection between pornography and porn? Check the link I provided in the debate about this subject for some statistics on the percentage of people who've ever seen porn or watch it on a regular basis, it might shock you to find that that multi-billion dollar industry only survives because it has many millions of consumers, not just the random perv, but lawyers, doctors, fathers and husbands.

I would also like to see a paragraph about erotica in ancient Rome, Greece, India, Egypt and the stone age, how it's related to human nature and that it does in some cases provide an outlet for potential rapists.
Just to make the article more balanced (and more serious).

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1343839.html

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=913013

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]] I think if you look at [[Talk:Pornography/draft]] you’ll find a draft of an article that addresses some (but not all) of your concerns. Please add any relevant information to the draft. We are trying to get it into good enough shape that it can replace the current article.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

It still lacks a paragraph about the psychology/sociology behind pornography, but, it's definitely a lot better than the current version.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:I have no idea where to start on that paragraph as it stands the draft is touching the far edges of what I feel comfortable writing on (any more and I worry a bad source could steer me wrong). But if you point me to a good source I’ll work on it, or you could add it yourself – feel free to treat the draft like the article, improve it as you can.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:41, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

shuld be in the Sexual sins catagory--[[User:Bloodsliver|duo]] 23:06, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

== Needs Citations ==

to be in line with commandment 5. This page states much opinion and needs to be fixed by one of the people with the power to do it. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:27, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

But speaking of citations... why are we linking to an ''islamic'' site? I'm sure the intention was good, but this is a ''christian'' encyclopedia... we shouldn't link to a site that promotes a false religion like that without a very good reason. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 18:52, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

== Needs deletion ==

Simply put: terrible. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 18:10, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:A draft (which I think is much better) is being worked on. See somewhere above for a link to said draft. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 18:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I came to this page to try to add a UK context but see that it uneditable. This is the sort of thing I was going to add.

"In the UK pornography continues to be used by the mass circulation tabloids to bolster sales. Since the 1970's the UK 'red-top' tabloids, in particular the News International Corp owned 'Sun' and the 'Daily Star' have used images of naked or semi-naked women to attract a readership of B2,C,D males. They then fill other pages in the paper with biased articles pushing their political viewpoint in an attempt to control clearly influencible minds. The Sun in particular influenced the result of the 1992 General election with their pornography-ridden viewpoint that they claimed to have won the election.

Other tabloids such as the 'Daily Sport' and the 'Daily Express' are owned by David Sullivan and Richard Desmond, both of whom made their fortunes in pornography before moving into newspapers."

Can this be added please. --[[User:Commandment9|Commandment9]] 17:47, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:Please add it to the draft at [[Talk:Pornography/draft]] . The draft is editable and the better it is the more likely we are to get it to replace the current article.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:51, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the advice. I've done that now. --[[User:Commandment9|Commandment9]] 18:10, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
: What does "B2,C,D" mean? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 18:25, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

It a form a categorization of people by social position and available income. A's are higher earner or those with wealth, B's not quite so much, B2,C & D are the classifications for either unskilled manual labour, the unemployed or the underclass. In the US this equates to blue collar etc. These were the groups considered most easily influenced by pornography and propaganda. Without their media-led political bias in the 1980's the political landscape of Britain would have been very different. That's why I added my bit in the Social Effects of Pornography section in the new draft. --[[User:Commandment9|Commandment9]] 18:41, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Addiction ==

Pornography can be addictive, according to some source, especially ones involving violence. This fact should be added onto the article. [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]] 22:32, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal wants to help! ==

Okay, I am liberal. I admit it. I accept that conservatives and/or Christians do not like pornography, etc. and I respect your decisions. My ex-boyfriend is a Christian and didn't view porn and was waiting until marriage, etc. so I understand how people like you guys think (we're still friends). As much as I'd love to edit articles like this one, the abortion one, and the cannabis one for content, I understand that this is a conservative website and I would gladly respect that and maintain your right-winged perspectives. I am mainly on this site because I want to broaden my horizons and see what the other side of the arguments are. I'm curious about the right-winged perspective, and even though I don't agree, I respect it and want to understand it.

Now, here's my problem with conservapedia. It's not that this is conservative. You guys have every right to post this conservatively biased stuff because you're up front about it and say you're conservative and don't try to hide it. You display it proudly. More power to you. My problem is that a lot of these entries use vague words like "very bad" or, in the case of this porn article, you say that porn "has an effect." That is quite vague. How is it bad? What are the effects? What is "very" bad? Furthermore, many sentences in this site are just poorly written, grammatically speaking, and it is difficult to read. If you want respect from the liberal world, at least take the time to sound intelligent, back up everything with lots and lots of sources, use good grammar and strong vocabulary. "Very bad" is not a strong choice of words. "Harmful" might be. Then again, once you say "harmful," you'll have to say WHY it's harmful. In the sentence "everything is a perversion of one sort of another" ... well, "of" should be "or." I recognize this is a common typo, but I would love to edit it and make this site better! There's hundreds of entries where it is just poorly written and I'd love to edit it JUST FOR FLUIDITY. In other words, so it's more readable, free from typos and other errors, etc. Also, there are some things which are obviously biased, but I don't think has anything to do with being conservative or liberal, such as the use of "he" in this article. Anyone, male or female, can be desensitized to sex via porn, and as a female who happens to enjoy porn, I think that this article should recognize that people of both genders view porn, and that sex is not as stereotypically male as many people would like you to believe. After all, it takes two...

I've worked with a number of newspapers and I study linguistics. I've won numerous awards for my writing and read countless books on how to persuade people with words and make the most use out of every word. I regularly edit my peer's essays and I do not change their opinions, but make their opinions come across as stronger through a better method of writing. I would love to do this for this website, but unfortunately I am blocked from editing most articles because they are controversial and have been locked. I could probably find other examples of unclear sentences, but I can't remember which articles I have looked at.

Keep up your beliefs. It takes all kinds to make up this world, and we need both conservative and liberal viewpoints. I'd love to help you guys, but you consistently block me. Oh well. Your loss.

Peace.

-Neko1337

:I don't think the number of locked articles are as bad as you seem to think. Surely there are ''some'' that you'd be interested in editing that are not locked. And once the administrators see that you are doing a good job, they might even be willing to unlock articles for you to tidy up.
:I suspect that the original author(s) use male pronouns in a generic way, not specifically indicating males.
:I improved the article a little bit in line with your comments (but I agree it could do with more).
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Pornography consumers are overwhelmingly male (by a nearly 3:1 margin), so the only substantive point made by "Neko" above is not persuasive.[http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/internet-pornography-statistics.html]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:15, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

::: I didn't know the actual figures, but yes, I had meant to mention something along those lines also. Nevertheless, I gather (it's just an impression) that pornography use by females is on the increase. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:26, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

I read somewhere (I actually think it was a claim by Pat Robertson, so take it with a grain of salt) that women tend more to read erotic literature.

In any event, I think it's very interesting to present this from both a Christian and an Islamic perspective, as Ed has done here. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 11:58, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

== Why porn is actually bad ==
Should we sight more sources for why pornography is bad...maybe we should offer counterpoints to why pornography is bad, then shown arguements against those to make our case stronger. {{unsigned|Kaji132007}}

==Him Vs Her and Person==
Why are all the references to males?
"Porn says that happiness is found by having the same experience over and over again with lots of different '''women'''''(my girl isn't interested in women)''; true eros says that happiness is found by having different experiences over and over again with the same person"

"Viewing or reading pornography day in and day out has an effect. It desensitizes a person, makes '''him''' more withdrawn, and makes '''him''' view '''others''' ''(and other males?)'' like objects rather than the people they are."

I wanted my girlfriend to look at this page because she does use porn quite regularly much to my disappointment. Its something we are trying to deal with and work through, but the inherit bias toward males in the article has turned her attention to topics of feminism and such and the original point of asking her to read this as been lost on her. --[[User:DjWizard|DjWizard]] 20:51, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

:I don't get your point - or if I do, I disagree with it. We assume a porn user is a man, the same way we assume a nurse is a woman. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:02, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
::And both assumptions would be invalid some of the time. My general answer is that "male" terms are actually generic terms (as "man" is a reference to a member of "mankind"), although some specific instances might bear being reworded. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:42, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

I don't see oyur problem with you Girlfriend looking at porn, I mean, is it causing any actual relationship problems? {{unsigned|Kaji132007}}
:You don't see a problem with portraying someone in a degrading manner? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:42, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

==Religious perspectives==

Perhaps it's time to re-visit this issue. Much as it is a touchy subject, it does need to be addressed. A well-balanced and scholarly article would explain why it's bad, and not (as "Neko" suggested) merely make general assertions. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:09, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

== Pornography actually lowers rape rate ==

I was looking at statistics for rape rate in Japan, and It would seem that pornography and rape are inversely related. As porn sales go up, rape rates go down. Should we include this in the article? {{unsigned|Bias}}

: "It would seem"—seems rather uncertain to me. Is the source on-line? If so, post it here (on this talk page) and we can look into it further.

No, sorry, it's not online. If you would like, look in to it. [[User:Bias|Bias]] 22:19, 31 January 2008 (EST)

I do remember seeing an article that pointed out that pornography has become much more widely available in recent years, because of the Internet, and in that same time, the rate for rapes in the U.S. has gone down, although the article pointed out that law enforcement procedures had improved over that time too. Unfortunately, I don't remember the name of the article or where I saw it, but it's an aspect of the issue that's worth investigating.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 15:50, 3 March 2008 (EST)

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html [[User:Walkie|Walkie]] 16:26, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

==Useful external link==

Despite its misleading introduction, the following is not a porn site:
[http://www.xxxchurch.com The #1 Christian Porn site] - includes accountability software, forums for couples, men, women, and teens... and useful articles. Anti-porn merchandise too! xD [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 12:40, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

:Would these be the xxxchurch forums where debate reigns and the notorious Suricou patrols? They can get quite hostile at times. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 18:52, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

== Unlock? ==

Can this be unlocked? I realize it's a touchy subject, but it needs some work. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:31, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

==Cite #1==

How can a reference back up an opinion with another opinion? Is there any proof of either of these claims? [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 15:34, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mortal Kombat

2008-10-01T21:28:02Z

NateE:

==Merging with Mortal Kombat I==

We don't need two pages for the same game, is there a way to fix that?--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 17:18, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
:Satanism? I've been playing Mortal Kombat for years, but someone will have to eplain that one to me. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 17:28, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Gender-neutral

2008-10-01T19:24:33Z

NateE: grammarfix

'''Gender-neutral''' terminology is used by [[politically correct]] [[liberals]] in a ploy to to efface the natural differences between [[men]] and [[women]]{{fact}}, sometimes with absurd effect. Thus, although in legal texts the word "he" and "his" have been used for centuries to apply to both sexes, political correctness advocates insist on the cumbersome "he or she', "his or her". Sometimes people mistakenly use of "they" (or "their") despite the fact that this usage is grammatically incorrect. They also try to abolish terms as [[police]]man, [[fireman]], [[postman]], [[chairman]], [[actress]] and [[waitress,]] claiming they are sexist terms.

[[Category:Dictionary]]

Prayer

2008-09-30T19:12:14Z

NateE: Undo revision 526855 by EDouglasW78 (Talk) vandalsim

[[Image:Prayer.jpg|right|300px|Praying Hands]]
In [[Christianity]] and many other religions, '''prayer''' is the process of directly connecting to [[God]], usually for the purpose of deliberate communication.

Through prayer our thoughts and hopes are heard and understood. Oftentimes, prayer will result in feeling God's presence or feeling like one is touched by God. This feeling of a connection is cited by many theists as proof of God's existence. It is through prayer that man can understand God's will in his life and ask God for the courage and strength to carry his message to the world. Prayer is common throughout the [[Bible]] in both the [[Old Testament]] and the [[New Testament|New]].

== How not to Pray ==

In the [[Sermon on the Mount]] [[Jesus]] warned against hypocrisy in prayer:<blockquote>"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full."<ref>Matt 6:5</ref></blockquote>

At the time the religious authorities believed it was necessary to pray at specific times of the day, and would often make sure they were in large crowds of people when those times arose so that they could be seen and heard by all. Jesus did not approve of this.

Jesus also gave instructions on how not to pray:<blockquote>"And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."<ref>Matt 6:7-8</ref></blockquote>

Pagan prayers at the time believed that there was power in words and continous repetition and if you said a word often enough, then you could eventually own that object or claim that power for yourself. Jesus condemned this.

== A guideline of how one should Pray ==

In Christianity, Jesus gives a guideline of how one should pray to God with The Lord's Prayer:<blockquote>"Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed by thy name, thy kingdom come, they will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread, forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, for thing is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, forever, [[Amen]]."<ref>Matt 6:9-13 </ref><ref>[http://www.lifeofchrist.com/teachings/sermons/mount/lordsprayer.asp Instructions for praying] </ref></blockquote>

==Private and Public Prayer==

There are many examples in the Bible for praying in private and also for praying within a group, and sometimes even for praying in public.

<blockquote>''"But Jesus often withdrew to lonely places and prayed."'' <ref>{{Bible ref|Luke|5|16}}</ref></blockquote>

[[Image:Jesus praying.jpg|thumb|Jesus praying at Gethsemane]]

Jesus also instructed:<blockquote>"But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."<ref>Matt 6:6</ref></blockquote>

Even though he was with his [[Twelve Disciples|disciples]], Jesus also went off alone to pray on the [[Mount of Olives]] before he was about to be seized and [[crucified]].<ref>Luke 22:39-41</ref>

There are also many examples in the Bible of group prayer or praying in front of others:
* [[Solomon]] prayed publicly in dedicating the [[temple]] ({{Bible ref|1_Kings|8|22-61}}).
* [[Daniel (prophet)|Daniel]] prayed alone in his room, but by an open window where he could be seen ({{Bible ref|Daniel|6|10-11}}).
* Jesus sometimes prayed with his disciples ({{Bible ref|Luke|9|18}}).
* The Church prayed for Peter's miraculous release from prison ({{Bible ref|Acts|12|5}}).
* Jesus prayed in public, such as in {{Bible ref|Matthew|19|13-15}} when Jesus prayed for the children brought to him.

Other religions, and even different traditions within Christianity have developed their own practices related to prayer.<ref>"The Modes of Prayer," from the Nazerine Way of Essenic Study [http://www.thenazareneway.com/modes_of_prayer.htm]</ref>

Modern societies often oppose and discourage public prayer. For example, in the United States [[classroom prayer]] is forbidden in government [[school]]s.

==Prayer in other religions==

In Hinduism, Prayer is an integral part of the daily living. Chanting of [[mantras]] is the most important form of prayer in Hinduism. Some devotees meditate chanting different names of the Gods.

== References==
<references/>

== See also ==

*[[The Lord's Prayer]]
*[[Rosary]]
*[[Hail Mary]]
*[[Sinner's prayer]]

== External links ==

* [http://www.catholic.org/prayers/ Prayers] Catholic Online.
* Mates, Nathan, [http://www.visi.com/~nathan/xtian/publicprayer.html Praying in Public] 9th April 2000.
*[http://www.scborromeo.org/prayers/rosary.htm#mary Prayers]

[[Category: Religion]]
[[Category: Christianity]]

Liberal Christianity

2008-09-30T19:11:52Z

NateE: Undo revision 526849 by EDouglasW78 (Talk) vandalsim

'''Liberal Christianity''' refers to [[Protestantism|Protestant]] denominations, or churches within denominations, that view the [[Bible]] as the ''witness'' of [[God]] rather than the ''word'' of God. Strangely the view is supported by a rather ''literal'' interpretation of the words of Paul in his second letter to Timothy:

<blockquote>
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," 2 Timothy 3:16
</blockquote>

Here Paul supports the view that scripture is a direct result of the authors contact with God ("witness") whilst stopping short of claiming actual divine authorship ("word").

As a result Liberal Theologians view the Bible as a text to be [[hermeneutics|interpreted]] in its [[history|historical]] context through critical analysis.<ref>http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/liberalism.htm</ref> Examples include some churches within [[Anglicanism|Anglican]]/[[Episcopalian]], [[Lutheran]], [[Methodism|Methodist]], [[Presbyterian]], and [[United Church of Christ]] churches.<ref>[http://www.beliefnet.com/story/80/story_8028_1.html ''What Liberal Protestants Believe''] Beliefnet. Accessed 15 March 2008</ref> The word "liberal" in liberal Christianity does not refer to any political agenda or set of beliefs.

As a further result, liberal Christians tend to take a [[Cafeteria Christianity|pick-and-choose]] approach to the Bible, declaring that those passages that they like were intended by God to be followed today, while other parts are outdated or need to be interpreted correctly. In extreme cases, some liberal Christians even engage in [[politically correct]] [[censorship]] against those who quote Bible verses that tend to disprove a liberal Christian position.

==External Links==
*[http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/liberalism.htm Modern Theological Liberalism]

==References==
{{reflist|small}}
[[Category:Christian Movements]]

User talk:NathanG/You know what really grinds my gears

2008-09-30T18:48:21Z

NateE:

I think your parent's choice in naming you Nathan and the first initial of your last name rhyming with mine is a deliberate attack on my person. I demand that you desist :) :) [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 14:36, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
:My parents didn't name me "Nathan". "Nathan" is a root name from my birth name... "Mu-na'than Jhark Gyar" o.O [[User:NathanG|Nate]] [[User_talk:NathanG|my opinion matters?]] 14:45, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
::Well then I dislike you because you have a nonconformist name [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 14:48, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

User talk:NathanG/You know what really grinds my gears

2008-09-30T18:36:54Z

NateE: New page: I think your parent's choice in naming you Nathan and the first initial of your last name rhyming with mine is a deliberate attack on my person. I demand that you desist :) :) ~~~~

Talk:Obama syndrome

2008-09-30T17:36:16Z

NateE:

I wonder, if they like Obama regardless of his stance, then why ''do'' they like him? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:12, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
:Because he is a well spoken fellow with nice teeth. And that is what interests the voting public. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 13:32, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
::Can anyone provide any actual proof of this or is this just another "just for fun" posts? [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 13:36, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Torture

2008-09-24T18:01:03Z

NateE: /* Controversy */

The term '''torture''' refers to acts which inflict severe pain or mutilation on prisoners. Governments, armies and tyrants have inflicted torture on opponents throughout recorded history, chiefly against [[slave]]s and [[rebel]]s, but also against political or religious dissidents.

In the West, the best known cases of torture were inflicted by ecclesiastical and political authorities during the Middle Ages. A well-known example from historical fiction occurs in ''[[Ivanhoe]]'', and well-known examples from real history can be found in the [[Malleus Maleficarum]]<ref>[http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/ The Malleus Maleficarum]</ref>, a manual for [[Witch Hunt|witch hunters]]. Opposition to torture on [[human rights]] grounds began in the 20th century, yet torture persists in countries as diverse as [[China]] and [[Sudan]]. 

==Iraq war==
In a raid on an [[al-Qaeda]] safe house in Iraq, U.S. military officials recovered an assortment of crude drawings depicting torture methods like "blowtorch to the skin" and "eye removal." Along with the images soldiers seized various torture implements, such as meat cleavers, whips, and wire cutters. The images, declassified by the Department of Defense, also include a picture of a ramshackle Baghdad safe house described as an "al-Qaeda torture chamber." It was there, during an April 24, 2007 raid, that soldiers found a man suspended from the ceiling by a chain. According to the military, he had been abducted from his job and was being beaten daily by his captors. Earlier Coalition Forces freed five Iraqis who were found in a padlocked room in Karmah. The group, which included a boy, were reportedly beaten with chains, cables, and hoses.<ref>[http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture9.html Torture, Al-Qaeda Style]
Drawings, tools seized from Iraq safe house in U.S. military raid, May 24, 2007. </ref>

== UN definition ==
The UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment defines torture as:

"...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions." <ref>http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/apro/aproweb.nsf/pages/knowTortureDefinition</ref>

== Common methods ==
Torture is widely practiced in many countries throughout the world as a means of intimidating the ruling regime's opponents. Amnesty International in Asia & the Pacific states that incidences of torture or ill treatment by the police have been reported in over 140 different countries since 1997. <ref>http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/apro/aproweb.nsf/pages/knowTortureContext</ref> By far most commonly reported method of torture is physical beatings - other commonly reported methods include:

* [[Rape]] and [[sexual abuse]] in custody

* [[Mock execution]] or threat of death

* Prolonged [[solitary confinement]]

* [[Electric shock]]s

* [[Suffocation]]<ref>http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/apro/aproweb.nsf/pages/knowTortureMethods</ref>

* [[Waterboarding]]<ref>http://people.howstuffworks.com/water-boarding.htm</ref>, also known as 'water torture' or 'water cure'

== Controversy ==
It is a matter of dispute whether it serves any valid purpose to distinguish between degrees or levels of torture. To some opponents, "torture is torture" and should always be prohibited. The US maintains that its [[coercive interrogation]] techniques are not "[[torture]]". While this position has met with considerable resistance from legal experts nationwide<ref>http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/04/06/usdom13130.htm</ref>, President [[George W. Bush]] vetoed the [[McCain Amendment]], which was intended to tighten the definition of torture. Ironically, under the current administration's definition of "torture", the abuse [[Senator McCain]] received while a POW in Vietnam would '''not''' be considered torture.

In addition to disagreement over the nature of what is or is not considered torture, controversy exists as to whether torture generally elicits useful information. A large amount of prisoners tortured will eventually break and give up information or confession just to end the torture. John McCain, who is considered both a patriot and a conservative, had his will broken after weeks of torture and the pain of improperly treated injuries, and subsequently signed a written confession stating "I am a black criminal and I have performed the deeds of an air pirate. I almost died and the Vietnamese people saved my life, thanks to the doctors."<ref>http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/mccain/articles/0301mccainbio-chapter3.html</ref> Examples like this illustrate that rather than evoking truthful statements or valuable intelligence, torture has the equal potential to elicit misinformation, and is therefore of questionable value.

The signatories to the [[Geneva Convention]] <ref>http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm</ref> in 1949 defined relative classes of persons who may be considered "prisoners". The Bush administration has classified [[terrorist]]s as [[unlawful combatant]]s not associated with any signatory power and maintain that previous international conventions have not addressed this classification.

== References ==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/14/2devos.pdf?rd=1 Mind the Gap: Purpose, Pain, and the Difference between Torture and Inhuman Treatment] by Christian M. De Vos

[[Category: Instruments and methods of torture]]
[[Category:Barbaric practices]]

Talk:Cognitive dissonance

2008-09-24T17:53:31Z

NateE:

Only 1 1/2 of those examples are really cognitive dissonance. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:42, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
: Can you explain which ones? --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 13:50, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
::I would also like to point out that many of those can be reversed with the same logical effect (ie, opposing abortion, as it destroys life, but being in favor of capital punishment) [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 13:53, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Woody Allen

2008-09-24T17:04:28Z

NateE: /* Why whisper? */

Fabulous article.[[User:Panini|Panini]] 19:49, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

The "reference" to a statement by Ed Koch is not a "reference" at all. It is a dig. To say that Woody Allens career reached its pinnacle in the seventies is ridiculous. Just look at his productivity and awards since then! To put him in the category of "Child Molester" is slander.
[[User:Wismike:Wismike]]

:Awards (and there are many different forms of awards) are not the same thing as boxoffice. When a man used to have people watch his movies and now they don't, then his career is coming down from a pinnacle. CP reserves the right to point out behavior that is considered to go outside the bounds of family values, and that includes his subsequent marriage. I agree with you with the category removal. I hope that helps. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:15, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

::However, the current revision doesn't even suggest he has continued to produce mainstream movies, which is certainly notable. Also the speculation about his popularity doesn't fit well. I'm sure it's possible to have an article that neither attempts to downcast his reputation, nor promote his films. [[User:Overture|Overture]] 18:20, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, at least the article is growing... While Allen's films did become darker, he did not just add satire at that time. All of his works featured satire. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:10, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

Gee, thanks for adding more dirt and watering down his achievements!! That'll teach that liberal-Jew-hasbeen-child molester! Wouldn't want nice christian kids to ever think of watching one of his movies. [[User:Wismike|Wismike]]

I'm not entirely comfortable with this article myself. It's too gossipy. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:28, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Director&id=woodallen.htm
By the way, Woody Allen has never been a big box office draw. The exceptions would be "Annie Hall" and "Manhattan" but even these movies wouldn't be considered blockbusters. If you compare his box office success before and after the "scandal" it isn't that different.
Also, the relationship that he had with this much younger woman is not my cup of tea but last time I looked consensual sex between adults is legal. Geez, look at Larry King! In an article of that size, one sentence would be enough. [[User:Wismike|Wismike]]

::Trying to do baiting around here is not something we approve of. No one is to blame for Woody Allen's shortcomings except for Woody Allen. Trying to attach him as a member of XYZ group and to dare mention anyone from XYZ group doing something bad is against the rules isn't going to fly. We don't label people. Each person's actions speak for themselves. You may want to come to terms that this is a site that is allowed to mention values. As stated above CP reserves the right to point out behavior that is considered to go outside the bounds of family values. Now whether or not specific references could be reworded is fine to discuss. But the concept of glossing over inappropriate behavior is not.

::As far as Allen's box office, I'll just say one thing that should make the point. If I'm earning the same hourly wage today that I did 30 years ago, how am I doing? Allen had, by his numbers, a hit just a few years before the scandal broke with Hannah and her sisters. In the 15 years since the scandal, the best he's done was in 2005 when his movie sold 1/3rd as many tickets. Now I didn't use that wording in the article because it's not important to do so. But don't try to recreate reality either by wishing to remove any mention of the changing nature of his box office. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:23, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

:::The very article that you have created is "baiting". You are right, no one is to blame but Woody Allen. But that is basically all you see. If you had your way, the whole section on his achievements would be removed or modified to suggest that he is a failing movie director/writer. You should be embarrassed, not proud. Now go ahead and give me a time out. That will shut me up. [[User:Wismike|Wismike]]

::::In fact, you use only 115 words to describe his career at all, good or bad. You use 140 to describe the "scandal". Give me a break! [[User:Wismike|Wismike]]

:::::You don't label people!! Give me a break!! Every article about a person in conservapedia labels someone something. The biggest knock on anyone her is that they are a liberal-athiest-scientist. Geez, look at the writings of your fearless leader!! You labeled poor Woody a child molester by including him in that category!! [[User:Wismike|Wismike]]

*He is a child molester, for the love of mike! Oh! That was a pun too! Hahahah --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:13, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::We discuss people based upon their actions, but you have gone beyond that in your categorizations. You also appear to be taking out your frustration based on your perceptions of other articles and applying them to the Woody Allen article. Let me see if I can make this clear. In the article and talk section on Allen the word liberal is used twice, the word Jew is used once, and the word atheist is used once -- all by you. There is not a single mention in the article or the talk page of any of those things by any other person. You'll also find, that, for the most part, applications of atheist or liberal are to people who draw that to themselves. While Allen is an agnostic, it's not a point he hammers at in his movies and so that's left alone. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:19, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

He's not a child molester unless he 'touched' his wife's foster daughter during her [[childhood]]. If he married his ex-wife's foster daughter as an adult, it does look strange (see [[incest]]). But let's not overstate the case.

There are many things in the liberal world to criticize. Why stretch this point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:59, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

I don't think it is included in the article Ed, but around where I live, a man your or my age, taking naked pictures of a 15-16 year old girl is a perv. :p --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:27, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

::Listen TK, I can't find any references about the Soon-Yi's age when the photos were taken. Woody was accused of child molestation by Mia Farrow and the charges were dropped. That means that he was not a child molester (except I guess that doesn't apply in Conservapedia court). [[User:Wismike|Wismike]]

:::I would suggest you drop the child molestation thing. It's not in the article and hasn't been since the second comment put on this page. If you wish to personally discuss the issue further with TK his email is always open, but pushing his buttons here or trying to play people against each other is not our way. Thank you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:30, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

::Learn Together, it is clear without spelling it out why Mr. Allen is being targeted like this. It is because you consider him to be a liberal, child molester, athiest. How about if I change the "Strom Thurmond" article to clarify that he fathered his illegitimate child when the mother was 16 at the time and I point out that he married his second wife when he was 66 and she was 23. A 22 year old having sex with a 16 year old is definitely a child molester (at least according to the law) and a sixty year old marrying a 23 year old is no different than Allen's situation with Soon-Yi. But if I edited that article and put him in the "Child Molester" category, I would be banned from this site. But when you make Mr. Allen's situation the centerpiece of his life, you are just promoting good Christian values. If that is what you want to do, then be fair and even handed. [[User:Wismike|Wismike]]

:::Again, we discuss people based on their actions, not categories that you have applied. I have no view as far as adding factual information to the Strom Thurmond article. I believe Strom Thurmond went through many changes in his life did he not? If you are concerned about being fair and evenhanded, then perhaps you should spend time at the talk section for Ted Haggard. Haggard's scandal section if 5 times as long as his non-scandal section. I am sure that given this information, that you will wish to protest this immediately. Happy Hunting [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:01, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

:: If similar requirements for disproving an incorrect statement were required at Wikipedia, would the John Seigenthaler false biography have ever been corrected? If one wishes to claim that John Seigenthaler is an example of the flaws in Wikipedia then it is necessary to be even more careful than Wikipedia about having proof positive of allegations of wrongdoing rather than placing the burden on someone else to prove such a statement incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:09, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

I think we have multiple intertwined issues here:
#How certain must information be, to include it in a biography article?
#Are we being fair across the liberal-cultural divide? (That is, one standard for both sides, not "let my side get away with stuff while judging the other side strictly".)
#When is stuff like this just gossip?

My take on these: (1) If convicted, indicted, charged, or arrested, then that's what the article says: Not that "he did it" unless it's a relatively uncontroversial case. (2) I personally believe that there should be '''only one standard''' of behavior, ethically, morally, legally, whatever you want to judge people on. So if sex with minors bother you, I would expect it to bother you whether the perpetrator is "on your side" or "on the other side". (3) Digging for dirt on celebrities or politicians is a standard way of conducting a [[discrediting attack]]. I would avoid airing dirty laundry unless it has a direct bearing on a public issue the person is involved in. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:15, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

:1) I would agree, but then the only example in this article that didn't meet that standard was removed by the second paragraph of the talk section and never reinserted.
:2) Agreed, and I think we do a pretty good job in this regard. The scandal section made no mention of sex with a minor.
:3) There is digging for dirt and then there is dirt that is thrown at you. To ignore that Allen had a major scandal would be a disservice to truth. Even the other wiki has allowed information on his scandal. The day that they become a stronger supporter for openness and allowing conservative viewpoints than we do, is a sad day indeed.
:[[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:35, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

*[[Mia Farrow]] accused Woody Allen of taken pornographic photos of her adopted daughter [[Soon-Yi Previn]] and having an affair with her when she was 17 years old. She also accused him of sexually molesting her 7-year-old daughter Dylan -- a charge Allen strongly denied. He was never charged. [http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/9702/05/farrow.book/index.html (CNN)] {{unsigned|Ed Poor}}

::This is, I believe, common knowledge. He wasn't convicted, exonerated, or had the charges dismissed -- the DA simply never brought charges. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:35, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

This may be common knowledge, but I'm uncomfortable with us setting a precedent for allowing gossip here when this is one of what sets us apart from WP. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:43, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

== What is proper to include? ==

Woody Allen is not a convicted or admitted child molester. He is an ''accused child molester'', who just happened to take sexually provocative nude photos of his common-law wife’s adopted daughter at the age of 15. Then at some point left them out, in some bizarre passive-aggressive, sadistic impulse, for his "wife" to find. That much is known and/or an admitted fact. After some years of legal wrangling, there was a private settlement. Indications are it didn't involve motivations of money, because Allen had signed a pre-nup with Farrow (who was worth far more than Allen), and was never accused of disregarding his legal or implied financial responsibilities. He then married this young woman, ''who was neither his adopted or birth daughter''.

The point is, while neither adopted or legally his issue, Allen did live in a highly alternative life-style arrangement with Mia Farrow. And while doing so, publicly referred to all of the minors in his common-law household as his "kids" or "children". He legally accepted financial responsibility for them, contributed to their support, and drew up trusts for their future benefit. Therefore, in the minds of most people, I think it safe to say, he was fulfilling all the legal requirements of a Father.

In most countries, and by most people, his actions and judgements are regarded as highly immoral and suspect, at the very least.

I do not want to make a scandal sheet of the article, (''as I found it originally''). But I do not believe what is currently there is fair or balanced either, with all mention of his politics and morality erased. Accordingly, I am restoring information that is indeed germain to any balanced article about Allen. That information will also include a more detailed accounting of his professional life and honors. For while he is indeed a highly immoral (amoral?) man, his talents as a writer/director/actor are superlative. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:41, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

::This is a much better article overall. Thank you. Sincerely. [[User:Wismike|Wismike]] 10:09, 16 August 2007 (EDT)Wismike

*You're welcome! That is why around here I am known as "Mr.Love" :p --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:10, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

== 'Common law' wife/husband ==

There is no such thing as a 'common law wife'; irregular relationships are not recognised in law. If you mean that Farrow was his concubine, then you should just say so.

While we're at it, decades should be rendered 80s, 90s etc, without an apostrophe.{{unsigned|Pachyderm}}

*Are you speaking me me, Pachyderm? If you were being snide to me, it was a mistake. because you have once again proved the nature of the ''beast''. Your informaion most likely came from Wikipedia, a nortoriously inaccurate and biased site. The following States recognize and give legal rights to Common Law marriages:

Alabama 
Colorado 
District of Columbia 
Georgia (if created before 1/1/97) 
Idaho (if created before 1/1/96) 
Iowa 
Kansas 
Montana 
New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only) 
Ohio (if created before 10/10/91) 
Oklahoma 
Pennsylvania 
Rhode Island 
South Carolina 
Texas 
Utah [http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/pg/2/objectId/709FAEE4-ABEA-4E17-BA34836388313A3C/catId/697DBAFE-20FF-467A-9E9395985EE7E825/118/304/192/FAQ/]

So while it might be legally inaccurate to refer to them as Common Law in New York, for purposes of communicating their status to readers, it was an accurate term to use. As for rendering decades, please state your authority.

--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:18, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

:While I am not a lawyer, I do believe that "common law" is the basis for those "states" that are actually "commonwealths", MA, PA, VA(?) as well as for the [[United States Constitution| Constitution]] itself.[[User:Samwell|Samwell]] 23:30, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

:*No, but a good guess! ;-) Sorry, we had an edit conflict. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:33, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

:::You forgot KY in the list of commonwealths! [[User:GregLarson | Greg]] 14:00, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

What's inaccurate about this statement is that Woody and Mia never cohabited. They never lived together. [[User:HSanchez|HSanchez]] 09:05, 29 November 2007 (EST)

== Why whisper? ==

Hold your horses I haven't gotten that far down in the article yet. For one starters, she wasn't adolescent and she wasn't his step daughter. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:07, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
: ''<reins in>'' well, she was adolescent at any rate. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:09, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
::The pedophilia controversy was over another of their adopted children, Malone, who was 7, but Allen was not convicted. Previn was 21 or 22 (she was born in '70), and not an [[adolescent]]. There was definitely something hinky going on, but he was first and formost and actor and director. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:22, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:: <reins further in> well, OK, she wasn't adolescent (I had been misinformed). But even so, I think that moral depravity is still the pertinent term. This is Conservapedia, not some mealy-mouthed Liberal moral equivalence shop, and we should tell the truth. I won't edit war with you over this, as I think we both realise that isn't a fruitful way forward, but I do think that you might be a bit more ... Calvinistic ... about it all. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:26, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:::''There was definitely something hinky going on, but he was first and formost and actor and director.'' Would you say the same about Gary Glitter - f and f a musician? (And is hinky a typo or means of bypassing the old spam filter?) [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
::::You are correct, this is Conservapedia. However there are two parts to the name: conservative (which you correctly pointed out) and encyclopedia. If you think that a relationship with a 21 year old who is 30 years your junior is moral depravaty, then source it or essay it. I'm afraid I don't know much religious theory, so if I'm being Calvinistic it's not by training :)
::::I also can't say I know who Gary Glitter is. We don't have an article about him but WP does. They talk first about his music then about his controversy. I think the question to ask is: Is Woody Allen known as a producer/writer/director/actor who happened to marry his partner's daughter, or a man who married his partner's daughter who happened to be a producer/writer/director/actor? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT) PS: Hinky was neither a typo or a spam avoidance. I think it's a real word, but I also have a tendency to make words up.
:::::The moral depravity doesn't come from him being 51 and her being 21. The depravity comes from the fact that Priven was his longtime lover's ''daughter'' and he left the mother (Farrow) for the daughter (Priven). That's not legally incest, but morally it's abhorrent, and no number of "witty comedies" are going to erase that fact. I am siding with Bugler that the "sanitizing" of his actions is inappropriate and makes us sound more like WP than an encyclopedia responsible for upholding family values. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 14:43, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::All I'm saying is that's a lot of fuzziness, and we aren't a gossip rag. I'm not trying to censor or sanitize, I'm trying to make a credible article. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) Looking again over your edits, I agree with most of them. Previn wasn't an adolescent; the "creative ebb and flow" comment is too speculative; and your clarification of the ages of Previn and Allen and the marital status of Allen and Farrow are all good edits. The edit that is bothering me is the removal of "moral depravity" from the section title and the first line of section and replacing it with "controversy" and "embroiled in controversy", respectively. This wording shifts the blame off Allen and puts it on the media or the general public, saying we placed him in this controversy, rather than him performing a depraved act that became revealed through his own carelessness. He did seduce Farrow's daughter, he left nude photos around, Farrow found them and he admitted to the whole thing, even saying a few years later that it was a good thing it happened that way. There's no fuzziness in that part of his life story, only grotesqueness. I would also suggest reinserting some sort of caption on the photo that mentions his morally depraved actions, because that's the reason we have an article on him. We are not the celebrity-obsessed WP, so the articles on celebrities that we do have are there for some other reason than that person's current popularity. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 15:30, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:If you feel that it places too much blame on the media, then sure, change the titles. However, I don't think it's fair (or encyclopedic!) to simply say "he was a morally depraved man", since there's really no evidence of that; only assumption. You are assuming that he had evil intentions, you are assuming that he seduced her, you are assuming that their holy act of marriage was somehow wrong. I'll grant you that he wasn't without sin (since he was living with and presumably sleeping with Mia Farrow but wasn't married; same with Priven) someone he wasn't married to, but it's not a sin to break up with someone to marry someone else, unless you can actually proved that he used his "father figure status" (which, despite his full admitions to the whole affair, he denies that he really was that much of a father figure to her), it's just gossip to say that that is indeed what he did.
:As for the photo caption, that's not what photo captions are supposed to be for; they describe the picture. Also, I would take a look at our Actors, Musicians, and Sports categories before you say that we ''only'' have articles on celebrities who are famous for some ill reason. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:47, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
::I changed the caption back from Woody Allen seduced his partner's daughter. This is not a blog and a photo caption is not a wanted poster. By all means, put in the article, but don't cheapen the site by putting stuff like that in the captions. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 13:04, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

Woody Allen

2008-09-24T17:02:54Z

NateE: see talk

[[Image:Woody_Allen.jpg|thumb|200px|Woody Allen]]
'''Woody Allen''' (1935 - ) was born in [[Brooklyn]], [[New York]]. He is a former stand-up [[comedian]], and currently an acclaimed [[writer]], [[director]] and [[actor]]. He now lives in [[Manhattan]]. Best known for his offbeat and often self-deprecating comedies, Allen produced his most popular films in the 1970s, most notably ''Annie Hall'', which set a mold for romantic comedies that others would try to emulate. His work in the 80s and 90s changed to darker comedies. Allen has not had a hit in many years. Allen has continued to write and direct movies, however, but his view of the quality of his work does not match the general box office. He considers his 2005 movie ''Match Point'' to be one of his best.

==Career overview==
*Allen directed 14 different actors in performances that went on to be Academy Award nominated: Diane Keaton, Geraldine Page, Maureen Stapleton, Mariel Hemingway, Michael Caine, Dianne Wiest, Martin Landau, Judy Davis, Chazz Palminteri, Jennifer Tilly, Mira Sorvino, Sean Penn, Samantha Morton and himself. Keaton, Caine, Wiest and Sorvino won Oscars for their performances in his movies.
*He made 13 movies in which he cast [[Mia Farrow]]: ''Broadway Danny Rose'' (1984), ''Crimes and Misdemeanors'' (1989), ''Hannah and Her Sisters'' (1986), ''Alice'' (1990), ''Another Woman'' (1988), ''The Purple Rose of Cairo'' (1985), ''September'' (1987), ''Husbands and Wives'' (1992), ''A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy'' (1982), ''New York Stories'' (1989), ''Radio Days'' (1987), ''Shadows and Fog'' (1992) and ''Zelig'' (1983).

==Personal/Family Life==
*Allen married his first wife Harlene Rosen in 1956; they were divorced six years later.
*His second marriage was to the noted [[Louise Lasser]] in 1966, and they divorced after five years.
*He had a long-term relationship with actress [[Mia Farrow]], from 1980 to 1992; the couple had one child.
*He married Soon-Yi Previn in 1997, and the couple have two children.

===Moral depravity of Woody Allen===
In 1992 Allen's moral depravity was revealed when Mia Farrow, with whom he had a long time relationship but did not marry, discovered nude photographs taken by Allen of Farrow's 21-year-old adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn. Farrow had been unaware that Allen had seduced her daughter, and after the discovery Farrow ended her relationship with Allen. However Previn remained with Allen and she and Farrow became [[estrange]]d. In 1997, Previn, then 27, and Allen, 62, were married.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/9712/24/woody.weds/ Woody Allen marries Soon-Yi in Venice], [[CNN]]</ref> Allen said, regarding Farrow seeing the nude pictures of Soon-Yi that he had left out in the open, "It was just one of those fortuitous events, one of the great pieces of luck in my life."<ref>[http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2005/12/woodyallen200512?currentPage=3 Vanity Fair Online, Dec 2005]</ref> According to Farrow's biography, ''What Falls Away'', [[Frank Sinatra]] (her former husband) offered to have Allen's legs broken when the affair with Previn was discovered.<ref>Internet Movie Database [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000095/bio]</ref>

== Filmography ==

===Director===
*"What's Up, Tiger Lily?" (1966)
*"Take the Money and Run" (1969)
*"Bananas" (1971)
*"Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex" (1972)
*"Sleeper" (1973)
*"Love and Death" (1975)
*"Annie Hall" (1977) (Oscar, best director)
*"Interiors" (1978) (Oscar nomination, best director)
*"Manhattan" (1979)
*"Stardust Memories" (1980)
*"A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy" (1982)
*"Zelig" (1983)
*"Broadway Danny Rose" (1984) (Oscar nomination, best director)
*"The Purple Rose of Cairo" (1985)
*"Hannah and Her Sisters" (1986) (Oscar nomination, best director)
*"September" (1987)
*"Radio Days" (1987)
*"Another Woman" (1988)
*"New York Stories" (1989)
*"Crimes and Misdemeanors" (1989) (Oscar nomination, best director)
*"Alice" (1990)
*"Shadow and Fog" (1992)
*"Husbands and Wives" (1992)
*"Manhattan Murder Mystery" (1992)
*"Bullets Over Broadway" (1994) (Oscar nomination, best director)
*"Mighty Aphrodite" (1995)
*"Everyone Says I Love You" (1997)
*"Deconstructing Harry" (1997)
*"Sweet and Lowdown" (1999)
*"Small Time Crooks" (2000)
*"The Curse of the Jade Scorpion" (2001)
*"Hollywood Ending" (2002)
*"Anything Else" (2003)

===Actor===
*"That Was the Week That Was" (1964)
*"What's New, Pussycat" (1965)
*"What's Up, Tiger Lily?" (1966)
*"Casino Royale" (1967)
*"Take the Money and Run" (1969)
*"Bananas" (1971)
*"Play It Again, Sam" (1972)
*"Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex" (1972)
*"Sleeper" (1973)
*"Love and Death" (1975)
*"The Front" (1976)
*"Annie Hall" (1977) (Oscar nomination, best actor)
*"Manhattan" (1979)
*"Stardust Memories" (1980)
*"A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy" (1982)
*"Zelig" (1983)
*"Broadway Danny Rose" (1984)
*"Hannah and Her Sisters" (1986)
*"King Lear" (1987)
*"Radio Days" (1987)
*"Crimes and Misdemeanors" (1989)
*"New York Stories" (1989)
*"Scenes From a Mall" (1991)
*"Husbands and Wives" (1992)
*"Shadows and Fog" (1992)
*"Manhattan Murder Mystery" (1993)
*"Don't Drink the Water" (1994)
*"Mighty Aphrodite" (1995)
*"Everyone Says I Love You" (1997)
*"Deconstructing Harry" (1997)
*"Wild Man Blues" (1998)
*"Antz" (1998) (voice)
*"Sweet and Lowdown" (1999)
*"Picking Up the Pieces" (2000)
*"Small Time Crooks" (2000)
*"Company Man" (2000)
*"The Curse of the Jade Scorpion" (2001)
*"Hollywood Ending" (2002)
*"Anything Else" (2003)

===Writer===
*"The Laugmaker" (1962)
*"What's New, Pussycat" (1965)
*"What's Up, Tiger Lily?" (1966)
*"Take the Money and Run" (1969)
*"Don't Drink the Water" (1969)
*"Bananas" (1971)
*"Play It Again, Sam" (1972)
*"Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex" (1972)
*"Sleeper" (1973)
*"Love and Death" (1975)
*"Annie Hall" (1977) (Oscar, best original screenplay)
*"Interiors" (1978) (Oscar nomination, best original screenplay)
*"Manhattan" (1979) (Oscar nomination, best original screenplay)
*"Stardust Memories" (1980)
*"A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy" (1982)
*"Zelig" (1983)
*"Broadway Danny Rose" (1984) (Oscar nomination, best original screenplay)
*"The Purple Rose of Cairo" (1985) (Oscar nomination, best original screenplay)
*"Hannah and Her Sisters" (1986) (Oscar, best original screenplay)
*"September" (1987)
*"Radio Days" (1987) (Oscar nomination, best original screenplay)
*"Another Woman" (1988)
*"New York Stories" (1989)
*"Crimes and Misdemeanors" (1989) (Oscar nomination, best original screenplay)
*"Alice" (1990) (Oscar nomination, best original screenplay)
*"Shadows and Fog" (1992)
*"Husbands and Wives" (1992) (Oscar nomination, best original screenplay)
*"Manhattan Murder Mystery" (1993)
*"Bullets Over Broadway" (1994) (Oscar nomination, best original screenplay)
*"Mighty Aphrodite" (1995) (Oscar nomination, best original screenplay)
*"Everyone Says I Love You" (1997)
*"Deconstructing Harry" (1997) (Oscar nomination, best original screenplay) "Celebrity" (1998)
*"Sweet and Lowdown" (1999)
*"Small Time Crooks" (2000)
*"The Curse of the Jade Scorpion" (2001)
*"Hollywood Ending" (2002)
*"Anything Else" (2003)

== See also ==
*[[Shia LaBeouf]]
*[[Salma Hayek]]
*[[Dean Martin]]
*[[Petula Clark]]
*[[Hollywood Values]]

==External Links==
*http://www.rkpuma.com/woody.htm
*http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/9702/05/farrow.book/index.html

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Allen, Woody}}

[[Category:Actors]]
[[Category:Directors]]

Soccer

2008-09-22T16:03:58Z

NateE:

[[Image:800px-Soccer goalkeeper.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Goalkeeper leaping to make a save]]
'''Soccer''' is a sport played with a round ball propelled mainly by a player's foot. It is more commonly known as "'''football'''" outside the [[United States]]. In soccer, players are not allowed to intentionally touch the ball with their hands or arms while it is in play, with the exception of goalkeepers in a restricted area.

The game is played between two teams of 11 players (10 out-field players and one goalkeeper each). In official play, there are two 45 [[minute]] halves separated by a 15 minute break known as half-time. Unlike most sports, the clock does not always stop when the ball is not in play. When the ball is knocked out of bounds or a penalty is committed, the clock runs continuously. The referee makes up the lost time by adding minutes onto the end of the half. This is known as stoppage or injury time. If both scores are even at the end of regulation time, the game is usually declared a draw. However, in [[knockout cup]] games, there is often an additional period of play consisting of two 15-minute halves. If the scores are still level, the result is decided with a penalty shootout. The set of rules used in soccer are called the [[Laws of the Game]].

The game is played on a grass (or artificial grass) pitch with dimensions 90-120 m (100-130 yards) in length and 45-90 m (50-100 yards) in width.
<ref>[http://www.fifa.com/documents/fifa/laws/LOTG2006_e.pdf FIFA Laws of the Game 2006] ''Official FIFA website''</ref>
A goal is scored when the ([[sphere|spherical]]) ball is propelled into the opposition net. Each goal is worth one point.

[[Image:Soccer pitch.gif|thumb|300px|Dimensions of a soccer pitch]]The word ''soccer'' derived in England as slang for "Association Football", <ref>[http://london.usembassy.gov/rss/transcripts/worldcup2006a.html] ''US Embassy, London'' </ref>, much like "rugger" is slang for [[rugby|rugby]].

It is the most popular [[team sport]] in the world, described by the legendary Brazilian player, [[Pele]], as "The Beautiful Game". Its governing body is [[FIFA]] (Fédération Internationale de Football Association).

==Note==
<references/>

[[Category:Sports]]
[[Category:Football soccer]]
[[Category:Soccer]]

Talk:Al Franken

2008-09-22T16:02:03Z

NateE: /* The Jewish seat. */

==Layout==
Right now everything is in one long paragraph, if anyone wants to make it look more appealing, I have no problem with that, I'll probably do it my self when I have more time [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:39, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

==Quote==

I don't want to insert a fact tag, because those are ugly and usually not needed. But we really need a citation on that quote about being glad the homosexual was killed.... If this is posted with no backup and it's not true, it crosses the line. This would be pure libel [http://internet-law.lawyers.com/Libel-Online.html] and could get this site in serious trouble. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 17:48, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
:Sources added, libel avoided. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:25, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
::Sorry to seem a stickler... but I wouldn't slam the door on that yet... I mean, the first two are simply opinions columns (with the first linking to the second) as for the third. It's obviously genuine, but after reading through the article, it seems very poorly written. on top of that. This is a quote from 1976 (if it was even said.) I don't see why a 40 year old quote is relevant today. Many people change attitudes through experience. In 1976, Homosexuality was still conseridered a mental disorder in some circles. This seems much like drug charges that are often leveled at people... who cares? people change [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 18:34, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Not really a stickler; you just wanted accuracy. The first source may be an opinion column, but having that source come directly from a gay blog carries some weight in it; the other two lead to the actual source of the quote, which is Harvard University's newspaper...and Harvard has always been a bastion of liberal toleration and love, hasn't it? Whether or not it's relevent today is immaterial; the point is that Franken had actually said such a despicable remark. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:39, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
::::(rolls eyes)Please...reading the original source article, Franken is ''clearly'' being sarcastic, expressing mock-anger that the Hasty Pudding people rejected the skit he wrote.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 18:57, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::I acutally agree with Ross. As for your earlier points. I don't think having it come from a gay blog gives it any more weight than not.... But that's another point. As for the other point, I disagree.. If we're going to trolling through everybody's past to find any type of bad thing they said and then assume with no context that this makes them a bad person.... well then by all means, go ahead... Besides, in terms of homsexuality, this site has said a lot worse than whatever Franken did or didn't say... I think the term "despicable remark" is a little out of place. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 19:02, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::In short, he gets a pass because he's a liberal, right? Not on this site. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 07:12, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Not suggesting he get a pass. Suggesting that it be made clearer that his statement was a (poor) attempt at humor.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:16, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
(unindent) It has nothing to with liberal or conservative.... But this site is demanding when it comes to quoting [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:TomMoore#Alleged_quotations certain people] I find it strange that we're so open when it comes to others.... I would argue that the liberal bias (in this case negative) is in my opponent. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 18:14, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

==Books and credibility==

Is this the guy who wrote "Lies and the lying liars" or whatever it's called? I heard he tried to discredit someone with a charge of plagiarism, which '''he plagiarized''' from another source! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]

== Citations ==
There should be a citation for radical. If There's a reason to put it in the article, then, there should be a citation. [[User:LiberalSmack|LiberalSmack]] 11:12, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You can't cite being a radical. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:24, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Changes==

I made a serveral major changes to the article, and I decided it would be easier to lay them out here point by point.
*Whatever your personal opinion about Franken, there is a fine line between character assassination and opinion reporting. Accusing someone of "masquerading as a 'satirist' who deliberately [[smears]] and [[defames]] people he disagrees with ... " with your ref being a site that exists only to attack Franken if hardly acceptable.
*The line "Franken's rudeness, vulgarity, and his tendency to make outrageously offensive comments." is completely out of place in an encyclopedia. Is this article meant to be an opinion piece? if so, by all means lets keep it in.
*"even in a state such as Minnesota known for electing wrestling stars as governors" Really? An Ad Hominem attack against an entire state? How about we add that California is a state that likes to elect has been B Movie actors? Not to mention, past governors have nothing to do with article.
*Regardless of whether or not you agree with the subtitle of the book, it's still part of the title. Personal feelings are immaterial. If his book was subtitled "Why all Conservatives should be shot." it's still part of the title and needs to be listed as such.
*We have no idea of seeign into a person's mind and decided what they believe or what they simply charge. In the book, Franken makes it clear that he feels everything he's writing is true, and we cannot extrapolate the facts to make decisions.
On a final note, the second proof of his hatred should be removed or better sourced. As it is now, the ref simply tells a story with no page numbers or proof whatsoever. I would just take it out now, but I'm sure my changes would be reverted. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 12:26, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:Franken's own work has shown a history of smearing and defaming; he doesn't try hard to cover it up as he has convinced himself he needs to be a counter-balance to the right. The title of his book on Rush Limbaugh would certainly qualify as rude, for instance - as well as being horribly insulting and politically incorrect to about 50 million Americans.
:Arnold had a history of positive political contributions, especially in the area of fitness. And Arnold never left office to make a large check being a guest referee for Wrestlemania while he was employed as a governor. The people of Minnesota took Ventura's victory with all of the respect it was due such as doing brisk sales with the 'My governor can beat up your governor' T-shirts. It is what it is. Politics in Minnesota stand out on their own merits.
:Franken has gone out of his way to push the envelope. Using the language from the Fox network in the title of his book. Calling his show O'Franken. And that's hardly all. We go by the fruits. How many people will tell you they have hatred? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:35, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::Well, considering the fan magazine article that is [[Ann Coulter]] on this site... I was under the mistaken impression that we gave a damn about honest reporting.... So you know what? screw it.... this site is doomed to fail if good hard work from editors is simply reverted, with a go screw message left on the talk pages.... Have fun with your blog. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 13:12, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:::I have not been actively involved in the Ann Coulter article, but if you're saying we need to shield the truth about Franken or water it down to sound nice because you don't like the way Ann Coulter is written, then no, that's not the way it works. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:59, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I said nothing or the sort. I simply bring up the Ann Coulter article because it sounds like it's written by a 13 year old with a crush. I have no problem with including ciritisms against Al Franken... but this is beyond the line... It goes right along with the "He a liberal so we don't like him" party-line of this site. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 16:04, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
==No Response==
It's been several days, and I've received no response to my postings. Can I please have the common curtesy of a reply. None of my original points has been addressed, and the current version of the article still remains. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 23:43, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Al_Franken&diff=435324&oldid=434391] [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:38, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
::Your repsonse is a simple link to a week old response? Wow, just wow. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 13:17, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
:::You appeared to have missed it. So are you ever going to provide constructive information to this site, oh 'conservative doctor'? How about detailing medical procedures, various maladies, and details on medical instruments? I look forward to seeing your results. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:27, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Excuse me sir.... I have given you no reason to cast such doubt on my personal history, nor have I ever patronized you in such a matter. If you cannot conduct yourself in a civilized, decent mannor, I would ask that you not address me at all. As for my contributions to this site, and this page in particular, I find it quite obvious that you know this is pure garbage and simply choose to let it stand for ideaological reasons (aka, Franken is Liberal, so we defame and slander his name) and I will simply let it be. May I also ask you sir, what your chosen field of study is and what profession you work within? [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 12:34, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Of course you have given reason. If I claimed I was a devout Orthodox Jew, but I didn't show that I even understood any of the terminology and I was upset because the Hamas article didn't portray a kind picture of Hamas, then I would be lying as well. You had ample opportunity to show you could do more than talk. You failed. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:47, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::Learning, as I ''am'' a devout Orthodox Jew, let me assure you the [[Hamas]] paints '''too kind''' an image of them. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 06:56, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

== wrestling stars ==

I meant a source for the state ''being known'' for electing Ventura. I think the line is irrelevant OR. Seems like "Minnesotaphobia"... [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 02:10, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

:It was big news for an extended period of time when it occurred my friend, and it was a position that the people of Minnesota themselves promoted with brisk sales of 'My governor can beat up your governor' T-shirts. When it comes to politics, Minnesota can do some odd things. Nevertheless, if you really want to remove you can do so, but realize there is validity to the statement. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:43, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

==The edits stay==
What I included was factually accurate; removing them because they were later considered to be just another Franken "joke" is not going to be allowed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:40, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:Karajou, your attitude is not making this page any better... you simply revert anything you want to and then protect the page to prevent further editing. As for the Helen Thomas thing, I'm holding a copy of the book in my hands right now... he mentions this, saying in a footnote "The Helen Thomas think is a joke. In a number of right-wing blogs, this was cited as exhibit A in proving that my book was full of lies." Whether or not you like Franken or don't (and you obviously don't) It was intended as a joke. If you want to mention that his style of mixing fact with humor makes it difficult to tell the two apart, that's fine. But to continue repeating the blatant untruth that he lied about it just makes the entire sight look silly. '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 14:21, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::My attitude? And your's doesn't count? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:31, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::The Helen Thomas thing was corrected by Franken in the paperback edition, after the hardcover edition was mentioned and found out to be a lie by Skorski. You are the one who cannot handle the truth of the matter, and so far your attitude proves it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:33, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Occam's razor. The story from Franken is that the item was intended as a joke, but was misunderstood and corrected as such. Your explanation requires a vast Franken and publisher conspiracy, in which he lied about something that could easily be checked by even the most novice of investigators and even publicly disputed by the subject. Then, when he was outed, he invented the coverup of a joke.... Which situation seems more plausible? '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 16:45, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::You are aware of Hillary Clinton dodging sniper fire are you not? Perhaps that was also a joke? Occam's razor is a very poor instrument when it comes against human behavior. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:15, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for clearing up the issue by locking out any changes to the article! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:This is the talk page, why not propose and justify changes you want to see? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:21, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::It seems JDavidson tried to propose and justify changes. He was blocked. Also, Karajou makes it fairly clear about changes, "removing them because they were later considered to be just another Franken "joke" is not going to be allowed." Not much room for discussion there, it seems. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:25, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Karajou's edits were sourced. What changes do you want to make? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:28, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::::That in the paperback copy, Al Franken footnotes the Helen Thomas story stating, "The Helen Thomas think is a joke. In a number of right-wing blogs, this was cited as exhibit A in proving that my book was full of lies."--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:30, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::So... you want the article to say that after his deceit was exposed he claimed it was a joke? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:32, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::No, I disagree that it was a deceit. When I read the book, I saw it as a joke---knowing that Al Franken is a satirist and a comedian.
:::::And here's another change, according to Karajou's source on the unemployment numbers (the Department of Labor statistics), 5.0% was not the lowest in decades (according to the 2005 interview). As Franken would point out, looking [http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm here] shows lower unemployment (sub 5%) every year from 1997 to 2001. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:34, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I suggest you wait for Karajou to deal with this. He will no doubt see your arguments and take them into consideration. Though you seem to be arguing against sourced material. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:41, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
(Unindent) I seem to be arguing against sourced material? Interesting perspective. Karajou posts a page from a book that says Franken is lying about unemployment numbers. Provides link to the actual numbers. The numbers show that Franken was correct. I guess Karajou may have a "source" but doesn't necessarily mean it's correct...especially when the "source's" source says otherwise. But I guess if it's in a book it must be true.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:17, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:Do we do OR here? I can't remember. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:18, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I can't remember either...mostly because I don't know what you're talking about. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:20, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

As I've said, the edits stay. You can add the cavet about Franken admitting the joke about Thomas, etc, but the fact remains that Franken is a proven liar; his lies and mistatements have been well-sourced, and they will be posted here. And no, JDavidson, it's not because I dislike Franken...it's because nobody in their right mind should ever put such a man like Franken in the United States Senate, and I'm going to do my little duty to ensure Minnesota's voting public is informed about it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:35, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

==This page==

this page currently reads like an Anti-Franken essay. I see numerous problems with it, but after looking through the history, I'm reluctant to step in and change anything, as it's rather obvious what happens to those that do. Is there anyway one of the sysops can at least tone down the blatant hatred. [[User:NateE|NateE]] 14:10, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:You certainly want to put down your concerns in the talk page first and what wording you would wish to use to address them, including any sources that you may wish to use. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:36, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
::Seeing as what just happened [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Lies_and_the_Lying_Liars_Who_Tell_Them&diff=517498&oldid=517356 here,] I have no intention of wading any deeper into this issue. Neutral, well sourced information is simply reverted without explanation and your interaction with the now banned DrCB [[Talk:Al Franken#Changes|here]] shows that you're pretty resolute in your postition. Therefore, in the interest of saving energy, I withdraw myself from this and all other Franken related pages. [[User:NateE|NateE]] 11:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Wow, more insinuations from a concern troll. [[User:QuickFixer|QuickFixer]] 11:54, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::::QuickFixer, don't call people trolls. NateE, I'll take a look at the article and see what I can do. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:22, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::For starters, the "Franken's problems with the truth" section should be entirely deleted, or better examples should be picked. The guy is a comedian who's known for being offensive; it's entirely expected that he exaggerates or makes stuff up for comedic effect. The next two sections ("tax issues" and "Playboy article") are petty, but other than that, I guess there's nothing too wrong with them.
:::::As for the stuff I changed, here are my reasons the only important thing that I change was the first reference, which was not actually a reference, which I deleted. The rest was, I though, minor changes to make it more encyclopedic. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:23, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::Personally, I don't like your changes. It is more watered down 'coarse style', if that is what you claim more encyclopedic --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:05, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Ok so "rude and vulgar" have been added back in; not really that big of a deal. The real problem is the "Franken's problems with the truth" section, which is just petty. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:37, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::I've renamed the section. Franken has had more than his fair share of statements that probably should not have been said. He's tried to be controversial, and really, only a small percentage of those statements are actually mentioned. I'm not sure what changes I would make, but with 3 other sysops having edited this article and showing the way they wish it to read, I am reluctant to go any further beyond what has been done. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:58, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::No offence, but I don't really see what sysops editing it has to do with it; sysops can be wrong just like everyone else. The entire section is examples in the form of "Franken says X is bad, and here Franken does X". Who cares? A good 50% of the entire article is devoted to how Franken, like every other human being on the planet, is a hypocrite (and this is assuming he's being serious about everything he says, which is dubious at best). I'm all for finding controversies (like the Playboy thing) but using shaky examples of how he may or may not be lying -- sysop "approved" or not -- doesn't do the article justice and makes Conservapedia look petty and biased [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:34, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

== The Jewish seat. ==

I just came across this on the internet.

Should it be pointed out in the article that Al Franken is running for the Senate seat that is dedicated to those who are Jewish since about 1984, in a state where less than 1% of the population is Jewish?

 2008: Al Frankin (D) v. Norm Coleman (R)
 2002: Norm Coleman (R) v. Paul Wellstone (D)
 1996: Rudy Boschwitz (R) v. Paul Wellstone (D)
 1990: Paul Wellstone (D) v. Rudy Boschwitz (R)

Maybe not, since it's not officially dedicated as far as I can tell. [[User:QuickFixer|QuickFixer]] 11:59, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:No, because we are not an anti-semitic website. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:22, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::It is interesting. I remember Wellstone and Boschwitz fighting over whether the other one was Jewish enough, so it is an issue that Minnesotaians acknowledge in their own state. I'd imagine due to political correctness, they have a tendency to reach out to non-majority candidates or positions, hence the argument between Wellstone and Boschwitz, the election of Jesse Ventura, and, possibly, the fascination with Al Franken. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:09, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Why is it political correctness? Could it not be that the best candidates are Jewish? For example, in Colorado, when Ben "Nighthorse" Cambel ran and won seat. He was voted in because people thought he was the best, it wasn't some farcical political correctness drive to get an indian into office. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 14:22, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::::See above the argument between Wellstone and Boschwitz about who was more Jewish. Now explain that based upon the removal of political correctness. You completely ignored that in your 'reply' above and went off on a tangent. And do you really believe Jesse Ventura was the best candidate? At the end of his term his approval rating was in the teens. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:28, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::There was no tangent involved, I simply disagreed with your point and used another example as an anecdote. As for the two fighting over who was Jewish enough, I fail to see how that has connection to political correctness. I find it amusing that religion is so important in American politics, but that's neither here nor there. On a side note, before I address your last question, MN is not exactly known as a liberal haven, so I doubt political correctness would be strong enough to propell a candidate to office there. No, I don't think Ventura was the best candidate, but it doesn't matter. I'm not a resident of Minnesota. However, approval ratings (especially at the end of a term) are not good indicators of anything other than their popularity. At one point, I believe Ventura's approval rating was very high, somewhere in the upper 70's or low 80's (I'm not sure, I'll try and look that up). [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 14:42, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Politicians fight over those things that they feel give them an advantage. Approval ratings do show how a candidate's performance was viewed by his constituents, and it is very rare to get one under 20%. Minnesota has a great deal of political correctness even if they aren't a liberal haven (although they are more liberal than the country as a whole). Ventura was known for being a WWF commentator who was good with one-liners (wrestling is huge in Minnesota) and wasn't necessarily the candidate with the best credentials. Indeed, there was a brisk business of selling T-shirts with the line 'My governor can beat up your governor' shortly after his election. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:25, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::::I'll be answering these in the order that flows the easiest so they may not be the order they were raised. First the T-shirts, you've brought this up before, but I fail to see how this is in any related to anything. After Arnold was elected, there were several shirts marketed that read "California's governor saved the world, what has your governor done?" They were not a reflection on the performance or popularity of Arnold, they were simply a humorous T-shirt that referenced modern political events. I don't know your residency, but may I ask if you live in Minnesota? If so, then I will accept your view that he was not the best candidate, but obviously the general electorate didn't agree. If not, then I don't know how you can say that he was not the best candidate, as it was not your state and you can't really understand the differences in mentality, just as I can't understand voting mentality in New York or Alaska. Ventura was indeed a wrester known for witty one liners, but in modern politics, that's what sells voters. No longer do we want long campaign speeches, the candidates are reduced to one or two second sound bites, taken with no context and played over and over by a media with too much air time to fill. As for the approval ratings, you keep changing the point. you brought up approval ratings as an indicator of his poor performance as governor, I replied that they simply measure his popularity, not an objective view of his performance and you replied by saying that they measure what his constituents think of his performance (which is his popularity) I apologise if I didn't make that clear enough to begin with. As a final note, I don't agree that a state where the "liberal" candidate for president wins by 3% is more liberal than the rest of the country. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 16:48, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:"''MN is not exactly known as a liberal haven''"--What planet are you from? Minnesota was the only state in the nation not to vote for Ronald Reagan in 1984. Most Minnesota Republicans would be socialists in other states. "''I remember Wellstone and Boschwitz fighting over whether the other one was Jewish enough''" I don't remember this. I don't remember Coleman even acknowledge that he was Jewish for a long time. (I don't really think he's a religious Jewish person, and his wife is Christian). Norm Coleman's dad is pretty cool, though; he got caught with a street hooker in a pizza joint parking lot in St. Paul, causing Norm to release the following statement:

{{cquote|“I love my father dearly. I do not condone his actions or behavior, and I am deeply disturbed by what I have learned. He clearly has some issues that need to be dealt with, and I will encourage him to seek the necessary help.”--Norm Coleman Jr. on his father}}
::Voting or not voting for a presidential candidate does not make one liberal or conservative. California and most (if not all) of New England voted for Reagan, does that make them Convservative states now? [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 12:02, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Soccer

2008-09-19T16:32:00Z

NateE:

[[Image:800px-Soccer goalkeeper.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Goalkeeper leaping to make a save]]
'''Soccer''' is a sport played with a round ball propelled by a player's foot. It is more commonly known as "'''football'''" outside the [[United States]]. In soccer, players are not allowed to intentionally touch the ball with their hands or arms while it is in play.

The game is played between two teams of 11 players (10 out-field players and one goalkeeper each). In official play, there are two 45 [[minute]] halves separated by a 15 minute break known as half-time. Unlike most sports, the clock does always stop when the ball is not in play. When the ball is knocked out of bounds or a penalty is committed, the clock runs countinuously. The referee makes up the lost time by added minutes onto the end of the half known as stoppage or injury time. If both scores are even at the end of regulation time, the game is usually declared a draw. However, in [[knockout cup]] games, there is often an additional period of play consisting of two 15-minute halves. If the scores are still level, the result is decided with a penalty shootout. The set of rules used in soccer are called the [[Laws of the Game]].

The game is played on a grass (or artificial grass) pitch with dimensions 90-120 m (100-130 yards) in length and 45-90 m (50-100 yards) in width.
<ref>[http://www.fifa.com/documents/fifa/laws/LOTG2006_e.pdf FIFA Laws of the Game 2006] ''Official FIFA website''</ref>
A goal is scored when the ([[sphere|spherical]]) ball is propelled into the opposition net. Each goal is worth one point.

The word ''soccer'' derived in England as slang for "Association Football", <ref>[http://london.usembassy.gov/rss/transcripts/worldcup2006a.html] ''US Embassy, London'' </ref>, much like "rugger" is slang for [[rugby|rugby]].

It is the most popular [[team sport]] in the world{{fact}}, described by the legendary Brazilian player, [[Pele]], as "The Beautiful Game". Its governing body is [[FIFA]] (Fédération Internationale de Football Association).

==Note==
<references/>

[[Category:Sports]]
[[Category:Football soccer]]
[[Category:Soccer]]

User talk:HelpJazz

2008-09-19T16:21:46Z

NateE: /* Al Franken */

Vegetarianism

2008-09-18T17:43:10Z

NateE: Undo revision 519701 by TellM (Talk) have you nothing better to do?

[[Image:Fruits.jpg|right]]
'''Vegetarianism''' is the practice of abstaining from [[meat]] consumption. Somebody who practices vegetarianism is referred to as a ''vegetarian''.

==Reasons for Vegetarianism==

Vegetarianism is a common theme among the [[Dharmic religion]]s, such as [[Hinduism]], [[Buddhism]], [[Sikhism]] and [[Jainism]]. This stems from the belief that all higher animal life is sacred (in Jainism, ''all'' life is considered sacred), one of the core concepts of all of these religions. For more than 130 years Seventh-day Adventists (SDAs) have practiced a vegetarian dietary lifestyle because of their belief in the wholistic nature of people.<ref>[http://www.andrews.edu/NUFS/veggiediet.html Andrews University Nutrition Department]</ref> [[Pythagoras|Pythagoreanism]] also required its followers to abstain from meat, fish, and beans. It was also a central tenet of the [[Essene]] branch of Judaism.

Many people outside of these religions also choose to be vegetarians because of various other beliefs, such as abstinence from contributing to inhumane farming methods practiced by the meat production industry, or to lessen their environmental impact.

Health can be given as another reason. Medical experts know vegetarians generally have lower risks of cancer, heart disease<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2526891.stm</ref>, osteoporosis, and obesity<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4801570.stm</ref>. Also, in Daniel 1:4-15, Daniel and his companions declined to eat Babylonian royal food and instead requested fresh water and vegetables. At the end of ten days, they were healthier than those who ate the rich food.

==Forms of Vegetarianism==
*'''[[Vegan]]''' - A vegan diet excludes all food and ingredients that comes from animals. This excludes animal meat, animal products such as milk, cheese, eggs or honey, and byproducts such as gelatin. Effort is needed to make a vegan diet healthy.<ref>http://www.vegan.org/going_vegan/eating_vegan/index.html Vegan regimen</ref> "Vegan" can refer both to the diet and the dieter.
*'''Lactovegetarian''' - Someone who eats a plant-based diet but also eats animal produced foods (that do not result in the death of the animal) such as milk and cheese. Lacto vegetarians can relatively easily remain healthy.
*Ovo-lactovegetarian (or '''lacto-ovo-vegetarian''') - Similar to the Lactovegetarian but also consumes eggs.
*'''Pescatarian''' - This is considered a form of vegetarianism, which consists of eating [[fish]], but no other varieties of meat. [[Egg]]s and dairy may be part of this diet. Since fish are still living animals, stricter vegetarians (especially those who are vegetarians for moral reasons) are likely to feel that pescatarians are not true vegetarians.

==Nutritional Issues==

Some nutritionists have argued that vegetarianism is an unsustainable diet. It can be difficult to regularly get all of your daily required [[nutrient]]s without eating animal products every day. [[Soy]], [[nut]]s and [[bean]]s are often used as a substitute for meat and protein, but nonetheless many vegetarians have to take vitamin supplements or eat enriched foods.<ref>According to Olivant, the most useful supplements for the vegetarians contain nutrients that may be limited in their diet, such as omega-3. [http://www.nutraingredients.com/news/ng.asp?n=65255-vegetarian-supplements]</ref> Nutrionist Dr. Ray Sahelian warns "Those who eat very little meat, fish and foul and ... may be missing, or getting very little, crucial nutrients for optimal health such as [[vitamin B12]], [[iron]], [[creatine]], [[carnitine]], and several other [[nutrient]]s"<ref>[http://www.raysahelian.com/vegetarian.html Dr. Ray Sahelian]</ref> Vegetarians suffer from higher rates of certain diseases, such as [[osteoporosis]], [[anemia]], [[bulimia]], and [[thyroid]] problems due to the lack of [[calcium]] and other nutrients in their diets. Recently, scientists discovered that a vegetable-heavy diet can actually cause [[brain]] shrinkage.<ref>[http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/HealthSci/Eating_veggies_shrinks_the_brain/articleshow/3480629.cms Times of India] Eating Veggie Shrinks the Brain</ref>

In contrast, the American Dietetic Association and the Dietitians of Canada have taken the position that properly planned vegetarian diets can be nutritious, healthy, and provide benefits in helping prevent and treat some diseases, possibly with the help of nutritional supplements.<ref>[http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/advocacy_933_ENU_HTML.htm Vegetarian Diets]</ref>

==Famous Vegetarians==
[[Image:H G Wells 2.jpg|right|H G Wells]]
*[[Albert Einstein]] - Scientist, famous for [[Theory of Relativity]]. He became a vegetarian a year before his death.
*[[Adolf Hitler]]
*[[Shania Twain]]
*[[Mohandas K. Gandhi]]
*[[Siddhartha Gautama]]
*[[Mahavira]]
*[[Thomas Edison]]
*[[Ralph Waldo Emerson]]
*[[Bob Barker]] - Game Show Host, most notably [[The Price is Right]]
*[[H. G. Wells]] - Famous Science Fiction author, works include [[The War of Worlds]]
*[[Paul McCartney]] - singer/bassist for [[The Beatles]]
*[[Henry Heimlich]] - Inventor of the [[Heimlich Maneuver]]<ref>www.famousveggie.com[http://www.famousveggie.com/peoplenew.cfm]</ref>
*[[Henry A. Wallace]] - Vice President of the U.S. 1941-1945; Presidential candidate 1948
*[[Adam and Eve]], at least while in Eden (Genesis 1:29)

== See also ==
*[[Naturopathy]]
*[[Adrian Vander]]
*[[Meatarianism]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/document/html/appendixC.htm USDA Dietary Guidelines]
* [http://www.vegsoc.org/ The Vegetarian Society ]
* [http://www.britishmeat.com/49.htm 49 good reasons to be a vegetarian]
* [http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtvegetarianism.html The Myths of Vegetarianism by Stephen Byrnes]

==Notes==
<references/>

[[Category:Health]]

[[category:biology]]
[[Category:Vegetarianism]]

User talk:HelpJazz

2008-09-18T17:33:02Z

NateE: /* Al Franken */

Talk:Soccer

2008-09-17T20:49:01Z

NateE: /* Changes */

Soccer is the term used in [[North America]] to refer to what is more commonly known as "football". The name derived in [[England]] as slang for "Association Football" (a similar construction can be seen in referring to [[rugby]] as "rugger"), it is the most popular sport in the world although it has failed to gain popularity in the [[United States]] and [[Canada]].

----
*most popular sport in the world
*not as popular in US & Canada as which other sports?
*derivation of name: ''soc'' in "Association"?
::Done and referenced. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

*called "football" everywhere but North America?
:: Futebal, fussball, le foot, futbol, de voetbal, calcio. Is that enough evidence? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Evidence of what? That it's called "football" everywhere? Because I think that's pretty conclusive. All of those mean "football", except for "calcio", which means "kicking." In Chinese, it is "foot+ball", zuqiu, 足球. Basically, football is football, and soccer is an ugly name that doesn't express what the game is. And "football" is by far the most common name - about 400,000,000 Europeans use terms that are identical in meaning or even sound, 1,300,000,000 Chinese use a term that means "football", and the inventors of the sport use the term "football". If the site as a whole prefers the use of "soccer", then fine, but it's not an accurate article in a sense. [[User:Blackjuice|Blackjuice]] 10:59, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

It's called soccer in Australia, though the name football is gaining popularity (they are trying to compare Australian soccer to World Football). It is still commonly refered to as soccer by the public at large. [[User:Hannibal ad portas|Hannibal ad portas]] 21:42, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't it be categorised under Sports? I saw that categorisation was just removed. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 16:01, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:Hello, soccer is a sub-category of sports. Generally speaking, we try to move materials to sub-categories when they exist. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:04, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

==Name==
Why is this sport being called soccer, when in pretty much all of the world it is called football? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:38, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Because this is an American website. It ''is'' noted in the article that it's called "football" outside the U.S. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:49, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Ah, I didn't realise that. So everything here is written from the point of view of the United States? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:42, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::Do you see the Conservapedia logo on the upper left? That should sufficiently answer your question. Of course, this is little different from Wikipedia, which typically uses American spelling, terms and phrases. (When they try to be world-minded over there, it just ends up being silly or confusing. The WP article about soccer is titled "Association football." People are going to look at that rarely used phrase and think, "What the heck is that?") [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:44, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Etymology ==

The suggestion that the game is called "football" not because the ball is kicked with the foot but because it is played "on foot" rather than on horseback is a myth. It is a myth which has gained popularity in reason years, especially on the internet, but citing a website which puts this theory forward does not stop it being a myth. See for example [http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19960509 this] etymology website which states that the reason it was named football was because of kicking the ball.

The argument in the previously cited [http://www.icons.org.uk/theicons/collection/fa-cup/biography/history-of-football source] is that football developed in the middle ages as "a game played by ordinary people, as distinct from the team games of the nobility which were played on horseback". This would make some sense, ''if'' there were any examples of team ball games played on horseback during this period. There were not. The only notable equine ball game is polo, which was played in the middle east since ancient times, but not in the English speaking world until the 19th century, several centuries after the first use of the word "football". Medieval and early modern equine sports in Europe were largely variants on jousting or combat, which did not involve balls. There were numerous ball games, all played on foot, such as tennis, croquet, bowls and stoolball (the origin of cricket). Since football was the only game which involved kicking the ball, this is the most probable reason for the origin of the name.

However, since there is disagreement on this issue, and this is likely to continue, it is probably better to keep any mention of the origin of the word "football" out of the article. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 14:49, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

==Changes==

I rewrote a large portion of the article to remove the redundant facts. In a short article, the information about soccer and football being the same game was repeated three times. As was the rule about not using hands. I hope this helps. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 15:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

: Sorry, but there are several more cases with the ball in play. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:01, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::Can you please give me any example of when a player is allowed to use his hands while the ball is in play? And also, if you want to remove or rework that phrase, fine. But why do you revert the entire change to add back in the redundant passages? [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 12:52, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::: Those "redundant passages" make more clear the problem of hands. With the clock runing any player can touch the ball with hands in several cases like: corners, penalties, side throws (saque de banda), goal kick, etc. (Sorry, I am not familiar with the correct name in English.) It has to be clair that non intentional touch is also permitted. That Does not appear in your edits. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:01, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::::The clock running and the ball in play are two different things altogether. During a corner, or a throw or any of the other examples you've noted, the ball is not in play. If you and I were on opposite teams, and I got a throw in, you can't make a play on the ball until it leaves my hands. That's what I mean by in play. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 14:15, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: I see your point and agree with it. Now you have to say the same thing in the article; It was you who start talking about "ball in play"; before it was more general; please make clear both cases. OK? Also: ''It has to be clear that non intentional touch is also permitted.'' --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 16:06, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Agreed, I'll start on that as soon as I have the time. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 16:49, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Al Franken

2008-09-17T20:48:10Z

NateE: /* The Jewish seat. */

Talk:Soccer

2008-09-17T18:55:56Z

NateE: /* Changes */ fixing my grammar

Soccer is the term used in [[North America]] to refer to what is more commonly known as "football". The name derived in [[England]] as slang for "Association Football" (a similar construction can be seen in referring to [[rugby]] as "rugger"), it is the most popular sport in the world although it has failed to gain popularity in the [[United States]] and [[Canada]].

----
*most popular sport in the world
*not as popular in US & Canada as which other sports?
*derivation of name: ''soc'' in "Association"?
::Done and referenced. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

*called "football" everywhere but North America?
:: Futebal, fussball, le foot, futbol, de voetbal, calcio. Is that enough evidence? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Evidence of what? That it's called "football" everywhere? Because I think that's pretty conclusive. All of those mean "football", except for "calcio", which means "kicking." In Chinese, it is "foot+ball", zuqiu, 足球. Basically, football is football, and soccer is an ugly name that doesn't express what the game is. And "football" is by far the most common name - about 400,000,000 Europeans use terms that are identical in meaning or even sound, 1,300,000,000 Chinese use a term that means "football", and the inventors of the sport use the term "football". If the site as a whole prefers the use of "soccer", then fine, but it's not an accurate article in a sense. [[User:Blackjuice|Blackjuice]] 10:59, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

It's called soccer in Australia, though the name football is gaining popularity (they are trying to compare Australian soccer to World Football). It is still commonly refered to as soccer by the public at large. [[User:Hannibal ad portas|Hannibal ad portas]] 21:42, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't it be categorised under Sports? I saw that categorisation was just removed. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 16:01, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:Hello, soccer is a sub-category of sports. Generally speaking, we try to move materials to sub-categories when they exist. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:04, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

==Name==
Why is this sport being called soccer, when in pretty much all of the world it is called football? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:38, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Because this is an American website. It ''is'' noted in the article that it's called "football" outside the U.S. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:49, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Ah, I didn't realise that. So everything here is written from the point of view of the United States? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:42, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::Do you see the Conservapedia logo on the upper left? That should sufficiently answer your question. Of course, this is little different from Wikipedia, which typically uses American spelling, terms and phrases. (When they try to be world-minded over there, it just ends up being silly or confusing. The WP article about soccer is titled "Association football." People are going to look at that rarely used phrase and think, "What the heck is that?") [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:44, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Etymology ==

The suggestion that the game is called "football" not because the ball is kicked with the foot but because it is played "on foot" rather than on horseback is a myth. It is a myth which has gained popularity in reason years, especially on the internet, but citing a website which puts this theory forward does not stop it being a myth. See for example [http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19960509 this] etymology website which states that the reason it was named football was because of kicking the ball.

The argument in the previously cited [http://www.icons.org.uk/theicons/collection/fa-cup/biography/history-of-football source] is that football developed in the middle ages as "a game played by ordinary people, as distinct from the team games of the nobility which were played on horseback". This would make some sense, ''if'' there were any examples of team ball games played on horseback during this period. There were not. The only notable equine ball game is polo, which was played in the middle east since ancient times, but not in the English speaking world until the 19th century, several centuries after the first use of the word "football". Medieval and early modern equine sports in Europe were largely variants on jousting or combat, which did not involve balls. There were numerous ball games, all played on foot, such as tennis, croquet, bowls and stoolball (the origin of cricket). Since football was the only game which involved kicking the ball, this is the most probable reason for the origin of the name.

However, since there is disagreement on this issue, and this is likely to continue, it is probably better to keep any mention of the origin of the word "football" out of the article. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 14:49, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

==Changes==

I rewrote a large portion of the article to remove the redundant facts. In a short article, the information about soccer and football being the same game was repeated three times. As was the rule about not using hands. I hope this helps. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 15:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

: Sorry, but there are several more cases with the ball in play. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:01, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::Can you please give me any example of when a player is allowed to use his hands while the ball is in play? And also, if you want to remove or rework that phrase, fine. But why do you revert the entire change to add back in the redundant passages? [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 12:52, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::: Those "redundant passages" make more clear the problem of hands. With the clock runing any player can touch the ball with hands in several cases like: corners, penalties, side throws (saque de banda), goal kick, etc. (Sorry, I am not familiar with the correct name in English.) It has to be clair that non intentional touch is also permited. That Does not appear in your edits. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:01, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::::The clock running and the ball in play are two different things altogether. During a corner, or a throw or any of the other examples you've noted, the ball is not in play. If you and I were on opposite teams, and I got a throw in, you can't make a play on the ball until it leaves my hands. That's what I mean by in play. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 14:15, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Al Franken

2008-09-17T18:42:16Z

NateE: /* The Jewish seat. */

Talk:Al Franken

2008-09-17T18:22:32Z

NateE: /* The Jewish seat. */

==Layout==
Right now everything is in one long paragraph, if anyone wants to make it look more appealing, I have no problem with that, I'll probably do it my self when I have more time [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:39, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

==Quote==

I don't want to insert a fact tag, because those are ugly and usually not needed. But we really need a citation on that quote about being glad the homosexual was killed.... If this is posted with no backup and it's not true, it crosses the line. This would be pure libel [http://internet-law.lawyers.com/Libel-Online.html] and could get this site in serious trouble. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 17:48, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
:Sources added, libel avoided. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:25, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
::Sorry to seem a stickler... but I wouldn't slam the door on that yet... I mean, the first two are simply opinions columns (with the first linking to the second) as for the third. It's obviously genuine, but after reading through the article, it seems very poorly written. on top of that. This is a quote from 1976 (if it was even said.) I don't see why a 40 year old quote is relevant today. Many people change attitudes through experience. In 1976, Homosexuality was still conseridered a mental disorder in some circles. This seems much like drug charges that are often leveled at people... who cares? people change [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 18:34, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Not really a stickler; you just wanted accuracy. The first source may be an opinion column, but having that source come directly from a gay blog carries some weight in it; the other two lead to the actual source of the quote, which is Harvard University's newspaper...and Harvard has always been a bastion of liberal toleration and love, hasn't it? Whether or not it's relevent today is immaterial; the point is that Franken had actually said such a despicable remark. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:39, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
::::(rolls eyes)Please...reading the original source article, Franken is ''clearly'' being sarcastic, expressing mock-anger that the Hasty Pudding people rejected the skit he wrote.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 18:57, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::I acutally agree with Ross. As for your earlier points. I don't think having it come from a gay blog gives it any more weight than not.... But that's another point. As for the other point, I disagree.. If we're going to trolling through everybody's past to find any type of bad thing they said and then assume with no context that this makes them a bad person.... well then by all means, go ahead... Besides, in terms of homsexuality, this site has said a lot worse than whatever Franken did or didn't say... I think the term "despicable remark" is a little out of place. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 19:02, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::In short, he gets a pass because he's a liberal, right? Not on this site. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 07:12, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Not suggesting he get a pass. Suggesting that it be made clearer that his statement was a (poor) attempt at humor.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:16, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
(unindent) It has nothing to with liberal or conservative.... But this site is demanding when it comes to quoting [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:TomMoore#Alleged_quotations certain people] I find it strange that we're so open when it comes to others.... I would argue that the liberal bias (in this case negative) is in my opponent. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 18:14, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

==Books and credibility==

Is this the guy who wrote "Lies and the lying liars" or whatever it's called? I heard he tried to discredit someone with a charge of plagiarism, which '''he plagiarized''' from another source! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]

== Citations ==
There should be a citation for radical. If There's a reason to put it in the article, then, there should be a citation. [[User:LiberalSmack|LiberalSmack]] 11:12, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You can't cite being a radical. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:24, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Changes==

I made a serveral major changes to the article, and I decided it would be easier to lay them out here point by point.
*Whatever your personal opinion about Franken, there is a fine line between character assassination and opinion reporting. Accusing someone of "masquerading as a 'satirist' who deliberately [[smears]] and [[defames]] people he disagrees with ... " with your ref being a site that exists only to attack Franken if hardly acceptable.
*The line "Franken's rudeness, vulgarity, and his tendency to make outrageously offensive comments." is completely out of place in an encyclopedia. Is this article meant to be an opinion piece? if so, by all means lets keep it in.
*"even in a state such as Minnesota known for electing wrestling stars as governors" Really? An Ad Hominem attack against an entire state? How about we add that California is a state that likes to elect has been B Movie actors? Not to mention, past governors have nothing to do with article.
*Regardless of whether or not you agree with the subtitle of the book, it's still part of the title. Personal feelings are immaterial. If his book was subtitled "Why all Conservatives should be shot." it's still part of the title and needs to be listed as such.
*We have no idea of seeign into a person's mind and decided what they believe or what they simply charge. In the book, Franken makes it clear that he feels everything he's writing is true, and we cannot extrapolate the facts to make decisions.
On a final note, the second proof of his hatred should be removed or better sourced. As it is now, the ref simply tells a story with no page numbers or proof whatsoever. I would just take it out now, but I'm sure my changes would be reverted. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 12:26, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:Franken's own work has shown a history of smearing and defaming; he doesn't try hard to cover it up as he has convinced himself he needs to be a counter-balance to the right. The title of his book on Rush Limbaugh would certainly qualify as rude, for instance - as well as being horribly insulting and politically incorrect to about 50 million Americans.
:Arnold had a history of positive political contributions, especially in the area of fitness. And Arnold never left office to make a large check being a guest referee for Wrestlemania while he was employed as a governor. The people of Minnesota took Ventura's victory with all of the respect it was due such as doing brisk sales with the 'My governor can beat up your governor' T-shirts. It is what it is. Politics in Minnesota stand out on their own merits.
:Franken has gone out of his way to push the envelope. Using the language from the Fox network in the title of his book. Calling his show O'Franken. And that's hardly all. We go by the fruits. How many people will tell you they have hatred? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:35, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::Well, considering the fan magazine article that is [[Ann Coulter]] on this site... I was under the mistaken impression that we gave a damn about honest reporting.... So you know what? screw it.... this site is doomed to fail if good hard work from editors is simply reverted, with a go screw message left on the talk pages.... Have fun with your blog. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 13:12, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:::I have not been actively involved in the Ann Coulter article, but if you're saying we need to shield the truth about Franken or water it down to sound nice because you don't like the way Ann Coulter is written, then no, that's not the way it works. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:59, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I said nothing or the sort. I simply bring up the Ann Coulter article because it sounds like it's written by a 13 year old with a crush. I have no problem with including ciritisms against Al Franken... but this is beyond the line... It goes right along with the "He a liberal so we don't like him" party-line of this site. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 16:04, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
==No Response==
It's been several days, and I've received no response to my postings. Can I please have the common curtesy of a reply. None of my original points has been addressed, and the current version of the article still remains. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 23:43, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Al_Franken&diff=435324&oldid=434391] [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:38, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
::Your repsonse is a simple link to a week old response? Wow, just wow. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 13:17, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
:::You appeared to have missed it. So are you ever going to provide constructive information to this site, oh 'conservative doctor'? How about detailing medical procedures, various maladies, and details on medical instruments? I look forward to seeing your results. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:27, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Excuse me sir.... I have given you no reason to cast such doubt on my personal history, nor have I ever patronized you in such a matter. If you cannot conduct yourself in a civilized, decent mannor, I would ask that you not address me at all. As for my contributions to this site, and this page in particular, I find it quite obvious that you know this is pure garbage and simply choose to let it stand for ideaological reasons (aka, Franken is Liberal, so we defame and slander his name) and I will simply let it be. May I also ask you sir, what your chosen field of study is and what profession you work within? [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 12:34, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Of course you have given reason. If I claimed I was a devout Orthodox Jew, but I didn't show that I even understood any of the terminology and I was upset because the Hamas article didn't portray a kind picture of Hamas, then I would be lying as well. You had ample opportunity to show you could do more than talk. You failed. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:47, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::Learning, as I ''am'' a devout Orthodox Jew, let me assure you the [[Hamas]] paints '''too kind''' an image of them. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 06:56, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

== wrestling stars ==

I meant a source for the state ''being known'' for electing Ventura. I think the line is irrelevant OR. Seems like "Minnesotaphobia"... [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 02:10, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

:It was big news for an extended period of time when it occurred my friend, and it was a position that the people of Minnesota themselves promoted with brisk sales of 'My governor can beat up your governor' T-shirts. When it comes to politics, Minnesota can do some odd things. Nevertheless, if you really want to remove you can do so, but realize there is validity to the statement. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:43, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

==The edits stay==
What I included was factually accurate; removing them because they were later considered to be just another Franken "joke" is not going to be allowed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:40, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:Karajou, your attitude is not making this page any better... you simply revert anything you want to and then protect the page to prevent further editing. As for the Helen Thomas thing, I'm holding a copy of the book in my hands right now... he mentions this, saying in a footnote "The Helen Thomas think is a joke. In a number of right-wing blogs, this was cited as exhibit A in proving that my book was full of lies." Whether or not you like Franken or don't (and you obviously don't) It was intended as a joke. If you want to mention that his style of mixing fact with humor makes it difficult to tell the two apart, that's fine. But to continue repeating the blatant untruth that he lied about it just makes the entire sight look silly. '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 14:21, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::My attitude? And your's doesn't count? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:31, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::The Helen Thomas thing was corrected by Franken in the paperback edition, after the hardcover edition was mentioned and found out to be a lie by Skorski. You are the one who cannot handle the truth of the matter, and so far your attitude proves it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:33, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Occam's razor. The story from Franken is that the item was intended as a joke, but was misunderstood and corrected as such. Your explanation requires a vast Franken and publisher conspiracy, in which he lied about something that could easily be checked by even the most novice of investigators and even publicly disputed by the subject. Then, when he was outed, he invented the coverup of a joke.... Which situation seems more plausible? '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 16:45, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::You are aware of Hillary Clinton dodging sniper fire are you not? Perhaps that was also a joke? Occam's razor is a very poor instrument when it comes against human behavior. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:15, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for clearing up the issue by locking out any changes to the article! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:This is the talk page, why not propose and justify changes you want to see? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:21, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::It seems JDavidson tried to propose and justify changes. He was blocked. Also, Karajou makes it fairly clear about changes, "removing them because they were later considered to be just another Franken "joke" is not going to be allowed." Not much room for discussion there, it seems. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:25, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Karajou's edits were sourced. What changes do you want to make? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:28, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::::That in the paperback copy, Al Franken footnotes the Helen Thomas story stating, "The Helen Thomas think is a joke. In a number of right-wing blogs, this was cited as exhibit A in proving that my book was full of lies."--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:30, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::So... you want the article to say that after his deceit was exposed he claimed it was a joke? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:32, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::No, I disagree that it was a deceit. When I read the book, I saw it as a joke---knowing that Al Franken is a satirist and a comedian.
:::::And here's another change, according to Karajou's source on the unemployment numbers (the Department of Labor statistics), 5.0% was not the lowest in decades (according to the 2005 interview). As Franken would point out, looking [http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm here] shows lower unemployment (sub 5%) every year from 1997 to 2001. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:34, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I suggest you wait for Karajou to deal with this. He will no doubt see your arguments and take them into consideration. Though you seem to be arguing against sourced material. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:41, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
(Unindent) I seem to be arguing against sourced material? Interesting perspective. Karajou posts a page from a book that says Franken is lying about unemployment numbers. Provides link to the actual numbers. The numbers show that Franken was correct. I guess Karajou may have a "source" but doesn't necessarily mean it's correct...especially when the "source's" source says otherwise. But I guess if it's in a book it must be true.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:17, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:Do we do OR here? I can't remember. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:18, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I can't remember either...mostly because I don't know what you're talking about. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:20, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

As I've said, the edits stay. You can add the cavet about Franken admitting the joke about Thomas, etc, but the fact remains that Franken is a proven liar; his lies and mistatements have been well-sourced, and they will be posted here. And no, JDavidson, it's not because I dislike Franken...it's because nobody in their right mind should ever put such a man like Franken in the United States Senate, and I'm going to do my little duty to ensure Minnesota's voting public is informed about it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:35, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

==This page==

this page currently reads like an Anti-Franken essay. I see numerous problems with it, but after looking through the history, I'm reluctant to step in and change anything, as it's rather obvious what happens to those that do. Is there anyway one of the sysops can at least tone down the blatant hatred. [[User:NateE|NateE]] 14:10, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:You certainly want to put down your concerns in the talk page first and what wording you would wish to use to address them, including any sources that you may wish to use. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:36, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
::Seeing as what just happened [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Lies_and_the_Lying_Liars_Who_Tell_Them&diff=517498&oldid=517356 here,] I have no intention of wading any deeper into this issue. Neutral, well sourced information is simply reverted without explanation and your interaction with the now banned DrCB [[Talk:Al Franken#Changes|here]] shows that you're pretty resolute in your postition. Therefore, in the interest of saving energy, I withdraw myself from this and all other Franken related pages. [[User:NateE|NateE]] 11:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Wow, more insinuations from a concern troll. [[User:QuickFixer|QuickFixer]] 11:54, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::::QuickFixer, don't call people trolls. NateE, I'll take a look at the article and see what I can do. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:22, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::For starters, the "Franken's problems with the truth" section should be entirely deleted, or better examples should be picked. The guy is a comedian who's known for being offensive; it's entirely expected that he exaggerates or makes stuff up for comedic effect. The next two sections ("tax issues" and "Playboy article") are petty, but other than that, I guess there's nothing too wrong with them.
:::::As for the stuff I changed, here are my reasons the only important thing that I change was the first reference, which was not actually a reference, which I deleted. The rest was, I though, minor changes to make it more encyclopedic. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:23, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::Personally, I don't like your changes. It is more watered down 'coarse style', if that is what you claim more encyclopedic --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:05, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Ok so "rude and vulgar" have been added back in; not really that big of a deal. The real problem is the "Franken's problems with the truth" section, which is just petty. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:37, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::I've renamed the section. Franken has had more than his fair share of statements that probably should not have been said. He's tried to be controversial, and really, only a small percentage of those statements are actually mentioned. I'm not sure what changes I would make, but with 3 other sysops having edited this article and showing the way they wish it to read, I am reluctant to go any further beyond what has been done. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:58, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

== The Jewish seat. ==

I just came across this on the internet.

Should it be pointed out in the article that Al Franken is running for the Senate seat that is dedicated to those who are Jewish since about 1984, in a state where less than 1% of the population is Jewish?

 2008: Al Frankin (D) v. Norm Coleman (R)
 2002: Norm Coleman (R) v. Paul Wellstone (D)
 1996: Rudy Boschwitz (R) v. Paul Wellstone (D)
 1990: Paul Wellstone (D) v. Rudy Boschwitz (R)

Maybe not, since it's not officially dedicated as far as I can tell. [[User:QuickFixer|QuickFixer]] 11:59, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:No, because we are not an anti-semitic website. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:22, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::It is interesting. I remember Wellstone and Boschwitz fighting over whether the other one was Jewish enough, so it is an issue that Minnesotaians acknowledge in their own state. I'd imagine due to political correctness, they have a tendency to reach out to non-majority candidates or positions, hence the argument between Wellstone and Boschwitz, the election of Jesse Ventura, and, possibly, the fascination with Al Franken. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:09, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Why is it political correctness? Could it not be that the best candidates are Jewish? For example, in Colorado, when Ben "Nighthorse" Cambel ran and won seat. He was voted in because people thought he was the best, it wasn't some farcical political correctness drive to get an indian into office. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 14:22, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Soccer

2008-09-17T18:15:56Z

NateE:

Soccer is the term used in [[North America]] to refer to what is more commonly known as "football". The name derived in [[England]] as slang for "Association Football" (a similar construction can be seen in referring to [[rugby]] as "rugger"), it is the most popular sport in the world although it has failed to gain popularity in the [[United States]] and [[Canada]].

----
*most popular sport in the world
*not as popular in US & Canada as which other sports?
*derivation of name: ''soc'' in "Association"?
::Done and referenced. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

*called "football" everywhere but North America?
:: Futebal, fussball, le foot, futbol, de voetbal, calcio. Is that enough evidence? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Evidence of what? That it's called "football" everywhere? Because I think that's pretty conclusive. All of those mean "football", except for "calcio", which means "kicking." In Chinese, it is "foot+ball", zuqiu, 足球. Basically, football is football, and soccer is an ugly name that doesn't express what the game is. And "football" is by far the most common name - about 400,000,000 Europeans use terms that are identical in meaning or even sound, 1,300,000,000 Chinese use a term that means "football", and the inventors of the sport use the term "football". If the site as a whole prefers the use of "soccer", then fine, but it's not an accurate article in a sense. [[User:Blackjuice|Blackjuice]] 10:59, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

It's called soccer in Australia, though the name football is gaining popularity (they are trying to compare Australian soccer to World Football). It is still commonly refered to as soccer by the public at large. [[User:Hannibal ad portas|Hannibal ad portas]] 21:42, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't it be categorised under Sports? I saw that categorisation was just removed. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 16:01, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:Hello, soccer is a sub-category of sports. Generally speaking, we try to move materials to sub-categories when they exist. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:04, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

==Name==
Why is this sport being called soccer, when in pretty much all of the world it is called football? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:38, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Because this is an American website. It ''is'' noted in the article that it's called "football" outside the U.S. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:49, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Ah, I didn't realise that. So everything here is written from the point of view of the United States? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:42, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::Do you see the Conservapedia logo on the upper left? That should sufficiently answer your question. Of course, this is little different from Wikipedia, which typically uses American spelling, terms and phrases. (When they try to be world-minded over there, it just ends up being silly or confusing. The WP article about soccer is titled "Association football." People are going to look at that rarely used phrase and think, "What the heck is that?") [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:44, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Etymology ==

The suggestion that the game is called "football" not because the ball is kicked with the foot but because it is played "on foot" rather than on horseback is a myth. It is a myth which has gained popularity in reason years, especially on the internet, but citing a website which puts this theory forward does not stop it being a myth. See for example [http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19960509 this] etymology website which states that the reason it was named football was because of kicking the ball.

The argument in the previously cited [http://www.icons.org.uk/theicons/collection/fa-cup/biography/history-of-football source] is that football developed in the middle ages as "a game played by ordinary people, as distinct from the team games of the nobility which were played on horseback". This would make some sense, ''if'' there were any examples of team ball games played on horseback during this period. There were not. The only notable equine ball game is polo, which was played in the middle east since ancient times, but not in the English speaking world until the 19th century, several centuries after the first use of the word "football". Medieval and early modern equine sports in Europe were largely variants on jousting or combat, which did not involve balls. There were numerous ball games, all played on foot, such as tennis, croquet, bowls and stoolball (the origin of cricket). Since football was the only game which involved kicking the ball, this is the most probable reason for the origin of the name.

However, since there is disagreement on this issue, and this is likely to continue, it is probably better to keep any mention of the origin of the word "football" out of the article. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 14:49, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

==Changes==

I rewrote a large portion of the article to remove the redundant facts. In a short article, the information about soccer and football being the same game was repeated three times. As was the rule about not using hands. I hope this helps. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 15:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

: Sorry, but there are several more cases with the ball in play. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:01, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::Can you please give me any example of when a player is allowed to use his hands while the ball is in play? And also, if you want to remove or rework that phrase, fine. But why do you revert the entire change to add back in the redundant passages? [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 12:52, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::: Those "redundant passages" make more clear the problem of hands. With the clock runing any player can touch the ball with hands in several cases like: corners, penalties, side throws (saque de banda), goal kick, etc. (Sorry, I am not familiar with the correct name in English.) It has to be clair that non intentional touch is also permited. That Does not appear in your edits. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:01, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::::The clock running and the ball in play are two different things altogether. During a corner, or a throw or any of the other examples you've noted, the ball is not in play. If you and I were on opposite teams, and I got a throw in, you can't make a play on the ball until it leaves my hands. that what I mean by in play. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 14:15, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

User talk:HelpJazz

2008-09-17T17:30:03Z

NateE: /* Al Franken */

Soccer

2008-09-17T16:54:51Z

NateE:

[[Image:800px-Soccer goalkeeper.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Goalkeeper leaping to make a save]]
'''Soccer''' is a sport played with a round ball propelled by a player's foot. It is more commonly known as "'''football'''" outside the [[United States]]. In soccer, No player may not touch the ball with their hands or arms, with the exception of the goalkeeper, who can use his hands to deflect scoring attempts.

The game is played between two teams of 11 players (10 out-field players and one goalkeeper each). In official play, there are two 45 [[minute]] halves separated by a 15 minute break known as half-time. In [[knockout cup]] games, if a game is tied after 90 minutes, there is often an additional period of play consisting of two 15-minute halves. If the scores are still level, the result is decided with a penalty shootout. The set of rules used in soccer are called the [[Laws of the Game]].

The game is played on a grass (or artificial grass) pitch with dimensions 90-120 m (100-130 yards) in length and 45-90 m (50-100 yards) in width.
<ref>[http://www.fifa.com/documents/fifa/laws/LOTG2006_e.pdf FIFA Laws of the Game 2006] ''Official FIFA website''</ref>
A goal is scored when the ([[sphere|spherical]]) ball is propelled into the opposition net. Each goal is worth one point.

The word ''soccer'' derived in England as slang for "Association Football", <ref>[http://london.usembassy.gov/rss/transcripts/worldcup2006a.html] ''US Embassy, London'' </ref>, much like "rugger" is slang for [[rugby|rugby]].

It is the most popular [[team sport]] in the world{{fact}}, described by the legendary Brazilian player, [[Pele]], as "The Beautiful Game". Its governing body is [[FIFA]] (Fédération Internationale de Football Association).

==Note==
<references/>

[[Category:Sports]]
[[Category:Football soccer]]
[[Category:Soccer]]

Talk:Soccer

2008-09-17T16:52:56Z

NateE:

Talk:Soccer

2008-09-16T19:02:34Z

NateE:

Soccer

2008-09-16T19:01:23Z

NateE: a few changes. see talk page

[[Image:800px-Soccer goalkeeper.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Goalkeeper leaping to make a save]]
'''Soccer''' is a sport played with a round ball propelled by a player's foot. It is more commonly known as "'''football'''" outside the [[United States]]. While the ball is in play, no player may not touch the ball with their hands or arms, with the exception of the goalkeeper, who can use his hands to deflect scoring attempts.

The game is played between two teams of 11 players (10 out-field players and one goalkeeper each). In official play, there are two 45 [[minute]] halves separated by a 15 minute break known as half-time. In [[knockout cup]] games, if a game is tied after 90 minutes, there is often an additional period of play consisting of two 15-minute halves. If the scores are still level, the result is decided with a penalty shootout. The set of rules used in soccer are called the [[Laws of the Game]].

The game is played on a grass (or artificial grass) pitch with dimensions 90-120 m (100-130 yards) in length and 45-90 m (50-100 yards) in width.
<ref>[http://www.fifa.com/documents/fifa/laws/LOTG2006_e.pdf FIFA Laws of the Game 2006] ''Official FIFA website''</ref>
A goal is scored when the ([[sphere|spherical]]) ball is propelled into the opposition net. Each goal is worth one point.

The word ''soccer'' derived in England as slang for "Association Football", <ref>[http://london.usembassy.gov/rss/transcripts/worldcup2006a.html] ''US Embassy, London'' </ref>, much like "rugger" is slang for [[rugby|rugby]].

It is the most popular [[team sport]] in the world{{fact}}, described by the legendary Brazilian player, [[Pele]], as "The Beautiful Game". Its governing body is [[FIFA]] (Fédération Internationale de Football Association).

==Note==
<references/>

[[Category:Sports]]
[[Category:Football soccer]]
[[Category:Soccer]]

User talk:HelpJazz

2008-09-16T18:41:53Z

NateE:

Talk:Alien (1979 film)

2008-09-16T16:49:29Z

NateE:

==Trivia policy==

What is Conservapedia's policy regarding trivia lists? I may not have looked in the right spot, but I couldn;t find anything in the guideline pages I looked at. On a side note, Jinxmchue, Are you an Alien fan? [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 12:38, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:There isn't one, but in general entertainment related entries shouldn't get as much attention as educational entries. Use your best judgement. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:40, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::Thank you. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 12:42, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::I have included trivia in several film articles, such as [[Stalag 17 (film, 1953)]]. There's no policy against it, and it just makes the article more interesting. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:45, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Thank you as well. I really fought against the Wikipedia trivia sweep. It was usually the most interesting part of the article to read. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 12:49, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Alien (1979 film)

2008-09-16T16:45:30Z

NateE:

Alien is an R rated science fiction horror movie. It was directed by [[Ridley Scott]] and starred [[Sigourney Weaver]]. It was made in 1979, and won an Academy Award for best visual effects.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078748/awards</ref>

== Plot ==
A cargo ship (Nostromo) is ordered by their company to investigate a strange crash landed ship. After their shuttle lands a three man away team onto the ship, they discover a face-hugger alien who attaches itself to the second officer's (Kane) face. Back on the ship, the doctor (Ash) cannot get the alien off. Shortly after, it is found that the alien has detached itself and died. Kane seems fine, but during a meal his chest explodes and releases a baby alien who was growing inside of him. The remaining crew make different plans to kill the Alien. Every time a member of the crew is killed including the captain. Third officer Ripley (played by Sigorney Weaver) takes command of the ship. She finds out on the ship's computer that the company wants Ash to deliver the alien to earth where it can be researched. Ash confronts and attacks Ripley. When the other crew members arrive they manage to cut off Bishop's head and discover him to be an android who is loyal only to the company. Ripley and the two surviving crew members make preparations to escape on board the escape ship, then blow up the Nostromo to kill the alien. The other members of the crew are killed by the alien and Ripley escapes with the ship cat (Jones). The Nostromo self-destructs but Ripley finds the alien sleeping on board the escape ship. She opens an airlock and the alien is sucked into space, but it manages to grab onto the sides of the airlock. Ripley shoots the alien with a grappling gun, knocking it free of the ship. She then activates the craft's engines and kills the alien. The movie ends with her sending out a call for help to any nearby ship before placing herself and Jones into hyper-sleep.

== Technology ==
Space travel is extremely slow so crew members must spend time in hyper sleep for years possibly.

The Nostromo is a massive ship but it only requires the a crew of seven. The ships computer, named "Mother," runs most of the function.

== Sequels ==

[[Aliens (Movie)|Aliens]]

[[Alien III]]

[[Alien: Resurection]]

==Trivia==
*Only the actor involved and Director Ridley Scott were in on the filming of the "chest bursting scene." The director had called cut and the other actors had no idea their dialouge and reactions were being filmed. Scott did this to heighten the reality of the scene.

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Science fiction]]
[[Category:Thrillers]]
[[Category:Horror (Film)]]

Talk:Alien (1979 film)

2008-09-16T16:42:46Z

NateE:

Talk:Alien (1979 film)

2008-09-16T16:38:40Z

NateE: New page: ==Trivia policy== What is Conservapedia's policy regarding trivia lists? I may not have looked in the right spot, but I couldn;t find anything in the guideline pages I looked at. On a s...

Tyrannosaurus

2008-09-16T16:15:19Z

NateE: is this correct gramatically?

[[Image:Tyrannosaurus rex.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Joe Tucciarone's illustration of a Tyrannosaurus rex. (Rights reserved, reproduced here with consent.)]]
The '''Tyrannosaurus rex'''(meaning "Tyrant Lizard"), or T-rex, was a large carnivorous [[dinosaur]] with very small forelimbs, large hind legs and a long tail. It is one of the largest land carnivores to have ever walked the earth, measuring about 13 meters long and 5 meters high.<ref>Brochu, C.R. 2003. Osteology of Tyrannosaurus rex: insights from a nearly complete skeleton and high-resolution computed tomographic analysis of the skull. Memoirs of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 7: 1-138.</ref>

[[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] believe that they became extinct sometime since the [[Great Flood]], dated to approximately 4,500 years ago.

[[Theory of evolution|Evolutionary]] scientists believe that the T-rex lived at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period, dated to approximately 65 million years ago, and that modern birds are the descendants of dinosaurs such as T-rex. <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/04/12/dinosaur.reut/index.html Bird Family Ties]</ref><ref>[http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/ap_trex_tissues.html T Rex Tissue]</ref>

== Fossils ==
The earliest find of a Tyrannosaurus rex occurred in 1892. In 1905, after additional discoveries of fossils, the president of the American Museum for Natural History named the dinosaur. Since then, more than 30 specimens have been found.

In 1990, amateur paleontologist Susan Hendrickson discovered the most complete Tyrannosaurus fossil yet. The fossil, named Sue, is also one of the largest Tyrannosaurus specimens discovered.<ref>Guinness World Records Ltd. (2003). 2003 Guinness World Records. pg 90.</ref>

Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer has discovered unfossilized soft tissue in T-rex skeletons. This was unexpected as tissue was not known to stay unfossilized for 65 million years. Evolutionists saw this as evidence that tissue can last that long, whilst creationists saw it as evidence that the fossils were not that old.<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042 Still soft and stretchy], by Carl Wieland.</ref><ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html National Geographic - T. Rex Soft Tissue Found Preserved]</ref>

==Diet==

T-rex had forward-facing eyes, which gave it [[Binocular vision|binocular vision]]. Binocular vision is usually present in carnivores, as it gives them better depth perception and helps them catch their prey<ref>[http://www.nhm.org/mammals/page010.html Natural History Museum - Mammals - Eat or be Eaten]</ref>, therefore it is very likely that Tyrannosaurus was a carnivore. Young earth creationists believe that the Tyrannosaurus, along with all other carnivores, was herbivorous in the [[Garden of Eden]] before the Fall, but afterwards it adapted to be [[carnivore|carnivorous]].

Some have suggested that T-rex was exclusively a scavenger. This may be partially true, since most carnivores today will happily scavenge available meat. However, it probably was not an ''exclusive'' scavenger, as most meat-eaters must also hunt in order to survive. T-rex's jaws were also quite adaptive to grabbing live prey, and probably used them in the same way most carnivores do: bit the throat to either crush the larynx and thus kill by suffocation or through blood loss. Also, the T-rex's large body probably required a great amount of food and therefore scavenging probably wouldn't be sufficient to support its high metabolism.<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3790/is_200103/ai_n8932547|</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

Talk:Al Franken

2008-09-16T15:10:24Z

NateE: /* This page */ I won't start a fight over it

Colorado

2008-09-15T21:47:44Z

NateE:

{{USState
|name=Colorado
|flag=Colorado_State_Flag.gif
|motto="Nil Sine Numine" (Nothing Without the Deity)
|nick=The Centennial State
|capital=Denver
|language=English
|governor=Bill Ritter
|gparty=Democrat
|senator1=Wayne Allard
|s1party=Republican
|senator2=Ken Salazar
|s2party=Democrat
|population=
|date=August 1, 1876 (38th)
}}
[[Image:colorado.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Colorado]]
'''Colorado''' is a state in the [[United States]]. It is known for its [[skiing]] and snowboarding resorts, such as Vail and Aspen in the Rocky Mountains, which run north-south through the state. The winters are usually very cold and produce many snowstorms.

The United States Air Force Academy and NORAD are located in [[Colorado Springs]], Colorado.

==Elevation==

A number of Colorado cities are located near the Front Range of the Rockies, at elevations of around 5,000 feet. [[Denver]], its capital and largest city, is sometimes called "The Mile-High City, because the official elevation of Denver City Hall is exactly 5,280 feet.

[[Mount Elbert]] is the highest point in Colorado, at an elevation of 14,440 feet. It is one of over 500 mountains in the state that exceed 13,000 feet. The entire state lies at an elevation over 3,000 feet.

At elevations of 5,000 feet, the air is thinner and air pressure is lower than at sea level. It is not unusual for visitors to feel lightheaded for a day or two until they adjust (but actual altitude sickness is very rare). At this altitude, skies are a clearer, brighter blue than at sea level.

== History ==

The [[Native American]] (Indian) groups indigenous to Colorado were the [[Anasazi]] and Utes who lived in the mountainous regions, and several tribes who lived in the flatlands and near the rivers at various times including the [[Cheyenne]], Arapaho, Kiowa, Comanche, Pawnee and [[Sioux]]. <ref> http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/doit/archives/history/histfaqs.htm </ref>

It is believed that in 1541 the Spanish explorer Francisco Vázquez de Coronado was the first European on record to have entered the land that is now Colorado. <ref> http://www.colorado.gov/ </ref> The Spanish called the area Colorado because of its red colored earth. The name is also sometimes credited to a Jesuit, Francisco Garcia, who in 1776 named the land after the Colorado River. <ref>Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names (Oxford 2005) p 116</ref>

The United States acquired land including part of what is now Colorado in 1803 through the [[Louisiana Purchase]]. In 1848 through the Treaty of Hidalgo, [[Mexico]] ceded to the United States more land that is now part of Colorado, and the Federal Government purchased the remainder of it in 1850. Before gaining statehood, Colorado was part of the [[Nebraska]], [[Utah]], [[Kansas]], and [[New Mexico]] Territories, and in 1861 [[Congress]] created the Territory of Colorado. The state now encompasses 104,247 square miles.

The state is bordered by [[Wyoming]], [[Nebraska]], [[Kansas]], [[Oklahoma]], [[New Mexico]], and [[Utah]]. Denver is the State capital and the largest city. The population of Colorado is approximately 4,750,000.

Colorado was the 38th state to join the Union on August 1, 1876, when President Ulysses S. Grant issued a [[proclamation]] of statehood. <ref> http://www.colorado.gov/ </ref>

==Official Symbols==

Colorado has many official state symbols including:
*State Bird: Lark Bunting<ref>[http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/doit/archives/history/symbemb.htm Colorado Department of Personnel and Adminstration Website]</ref>
*State Flower: Rocky Mountain Columbine
*State Animal: Big Horn Sheep
*State Fish: Greenback Cutthroat Trout
*State Tree: Colorado Blue Spruce
*State Folk Dance: Square Dance
*State Fossil: Stegosaurus
*State Gemstone: Aquamarine
*State Insect: Colorado Hairstreak Butterfly
*State Song: "Where the Columbines Grow" and "Rocky Mountain High"

==Notable Coloradoans==

*James Dobson, Christian psychologist and writer. Current head of the group Focus on the Family.

*John Elway, former [[quarterback]] for the [[Denver Broncos]].

*Horace Greeley, newspaper editor and major player in US expansion during the 19th century.

*[[John Kerry,]] US senator and [[Democratic]] nominee for President in 2004.

*Tom Tancredo, US Representative.

==Statewide officials==
*Governor [[Bill Ritter]] (D)
*Senator [[Wayne Allard]] (R)
*Senator [[Ken Salazar]] (D)
==References==

<references/>

{{USstates}}

Colorado

2008-09-15T21:47:24Z

NateE:

{{USState
|name=Colorado
|flag=Colorado_State_Flag.gif
|motto="Nil Sine Numine" (Nothing Without the Deity)
|nick=The Centennial State
|capital=Denver
|language=English
|governor=Bill Ritter
|gparty=Democrat
|senator1=Wayne Allard
|s1party=Republican
|senator2=Ken Salazar
|s2party=Democrat
|population=
|date=August 1, 1876 (38th)
}}
[[Image:colorado.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Colorado]]
'''Colorado''' is a state in the [[United States]]. It is known for its [[skiing]] and snowboarding resorts, such as Vail and Aspen in the Rocky Mountains, which run north-south through the state. The winters are usually very cold and produce many snowstorms.

The United States Air Force Academy and NORAD are located in [[Colorado Springs]], Colorado.

==Elevation==

A number of Colorado cities are located near the Front Range of the Rockies, at elevations of around 5,000 feet. [[Denver]], its capital and largest city, is sometimes called "The Mile-High City, because the official elevation of Denver City Hall is exactly 5,280 feet.

[[Mount Elbert]] is the highest point in Colorado, at an elevation of 14,440 feet. It is one of over 500 mountains in the state that exceed 13,000 feet. The entire state lies at an elevation over 3,000 feet.

At elevations of 5,000 feet, the air is thinner and air pressure is lower than at sea level. It is not unusual for visitors to feel lightheaded for a day or two until they adjust (but actual altitude sickness is very rare). At this altitude, skies are a clearer, brighter blue than at sea level.

== History ==

The [[Native American]] (Indian) groups indigenous to Colorado were the [[Anasazi]] and Utes who lived in the mountainous regions, and several tribes who lived in the flatlands and near the rivers at various times including the [[Cheyenne]], Arapaho, Kiowa, Comanche, Pawnee and [[Sioux]]. <ref> http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/doit/archives/history/histfaqs.htm </ref>

It is believed that in 1541 the Spanish explorer Francisco Vázquez de Coronado was the first European on record to have entered the land that is now Colorado. <ref> http://www.colorado.gov/ </ref> The Spanish called the area Colorado because of its red colored earth. The name is also sometimes credited to a Jesuit, Francisco Garcia, who in 1776 named the land after the Colorado River. <ref>Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names (Oxford 2005) p 116</ref>

The United States acquired land including part of what is now Colorado in 1803 through the [[Louisiana Purchase]]. In 1848 through the Treaty of Hidalgo, [[Mexico]] ceded to the United States more land that is now part of Colorado, and the Federal Government purchased the remainder of it in 1850. Before gaining statehood, Colorado was part of the [[Nebraska]], [[Utah]], [[Kansas]], and [[New Mexico]] Territories, and in 1861 [[Congress]] created the Territory of Colorado. The state now encompasses 104,247 square miles.

The state is bordered by [[Wyoming]], [[Nebraska]], [[Kansas]], [[Oklahoma]], [[New Mexico]], and [[Utah]]. Denver is the State capital and the largest city. The population of Colorado is approximately 4,750,000.

Colorado was the 38th state to join the Union on August 1, 1876, when President Ulysses S. Grant issued a [[proclamation]] of statehood. <ref> http://www.colorado.gov/ </ref>

==Official Symbols==

Colorado has many official state symbols including:
*State Bird: Lark Bunting<ref>[http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/doit/archives/history/symbemb.htm] Colorado Department of Personnel and Adminstration Website</ref>
*State Flower: Rocky Mountain Columbine
*State Animal: Big Horn Sheep
*State Fish: Greenback Cutthroat Trout
*State Tree: Colorado Blue Spruce
*State Folk Dance: Square Dance
*State Fossil: Stegosaurus
*State Gemstone: Aquamarine
*State Insect: Colorado Hairstreak Butterfly
*State Song: "Where the Columbines Grow" and "Rocky Mountain High"

==Notable Coloradoans==

*James Dobson, Christian psychologist and writer. Current head of the group Focus on the Family.

*John Elway, former [[quarterback]] for the [[Denver Broncos]].

*Horace Greeley, newspaper editor and major player in US expansion during the 19th century.

*[[John Kerry,]] US senator and [[Democratic]] nominee for President in 2004.

*Tom Tancredo, US Representative.

==Statewide officials==
*Governor [[Bill Ritter]] (D)
*Senator [[Wayne Allard]] (R)
*Senator [[Ken Salazar]] (D)
==References==

<references/>

{{USstates}}

Miami Dolphins

2008-09-15T21:45:33Z

NateE: rmv Wikipedia link

[[Image:Dolphins.jpg|right|200px]]

The '''Miami Dolphins''' are an American professional [[football]] team based in Miami, Florida. They are part of the [[National Football League]] (NFL), and are the oldest major-league professional sports franchise in the state of Florida.

The Miami Dolphins are part of the [[American Football Conference]] (AFC) and play in the AFC East Division.

The Dolphins play home games at Dolphins Stadium (formerly known as Joe Robbie Stadium and Pro Player Stadium)

==History==

The team was founded by Joseph Robbie and began playing in the American Football League as an expansion team in 1966. They joined the NFL with the AFL-NFL Merger.

The team made its first Super Bowl appearance following the 1971 season in Super Bowl VI, losing to the Dallas Cowboys. In 1972, the Dolphins completed the NFL's fourth undefeated regular season and won the [[Super Bowl]], making them the only team to complete a Perfect Season. The team also won Super Bowl VIII, making them first team to appear in three consecutive Super Bowls, and the second team to win back-to-back championships. Miami also appeared in Super Bowl XVII and Super Bowl XIX, but lost both games.

The Dolphins were coached by Don Shula, the most successful head coach in professional football history, for the majority of their history. Under his leadership, The Dolphins had losing records in only two of 26 seasons. Six future Hall of Fame members played for Miami during the 70s, including running back Larry Csonka and quarterback Bob Griese. During the 1980s and 1990s quarterback Dan Marino became the most prolific passer in NFL history, breaking numerous league passing records. He led the Dolphins to numerous playoff appearances and Super Bowl XIX.

==See also==
*[[New England Patriots]]
*[[New York Jets]]
*[[Buffalo Bills]]

== External links ==
*[http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/teams/dolphins/index.html Team site]
*[http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/football/pro/dolphins/ Miami Dolphins]

[[category:National Football League]]
[[Category:Florida]]

Colorado

2008-09-15T21:45:08Z

NateE:

{{USState
|name=Colorado
|flag=Colorado_State_Flag.gif
|motto="Nil Sine Numine" (Nothing Without the Deity)
|nick=The Centennial State
|capital=Denver
|language=English
|governor=Bill Ritter
|gparty=Democrat
|senator1=Wayne Allard
|s1party=Republican
|senator2=Ken Salazar
|s2party=Democrat
|population=
|date=August 1, 1876 (38th)
}}
[[Image:colorado.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Colorado]]
'''Colorado''' is a state in the [[United States]]. It is known for its [[skiing]] and snowboarding resorts, such as Vail and Aspen in the Rocky Mountains, which run north-south through the state. The winters are usually very cold and produce many snowstorms.

The United States Air Force Academy and NORAD are located in [[Colorado Springs]], Colorado.

==Elevation==

A number of Colorado cities are located near the Front Range of the Rockies, at elevations of around 5,000 feet. [[Denver]], its capital and largest city, is sometimes called "The Mile-High City, because the official elevation of Denver City Hall is exactly 5,280 feet.

[[Mount Elbert]] is the highest point in Colorado, at an elevation of 14,440 feet. It is one of over 500 mountains in the state that exceed 13,000 feet. The entire state lies at an elevation over 3,000 feet.

At elevations of 5,000 feet, the air is thinner and air pressure is lower than at sea level. It is not unusual for visitors to feel lightheaded for a day or two until they adjust (but actual altitude sickness is very rare). At this altitude, skies are a clearer, brighter blue than at sea level.

== History ==

The [[Native American]] (Indian) groups indigenous to Colorado were the [[Anasazi]] and Utes who lived in the mountainous regions, and several tribes who lived in the flatlands and near the rivers at various times including the [[Cheyenne]], Arapaho, Kiowa, Comanche, Pawnee and [[Sioux]]. <ref> http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/doit/archives/history/histfaqs.htm </ref>

It is believed that in 1541 the Spanish explorer Francisco Vázquez de Coronado was the first European on record to have entered the land that is now Colorado. <ref> http://www.colorado.gov/ </ref> The Spanish called the area Colorado because of its red colored earth. The name is also sometimes credited to a Jesuit, Francisco Garcia, who in 1776 named the land after the Colorado River. <ref>Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names (Oxford 2005) p 116</ref>

The United States acquired land including part of what is now Colorado in 1803 through the [[Louisiana Purchase]]. In 1848 through the Treaty of Hidalgo, [[Mexico]] ceded to the United States more land that is now part of Colorado, and the Federal Government purchased the remainder of it in 1850. Before gaining statehood, Colorado was part of the [[Nebraska]], [[Utah]], [[Kansas]], and [[New Mexico]] Territories, and in 1861 [[Congress]] created the Territory of Colorado. The state now encompasses 104,247 square miles.

The state is bordered by [[Wyoming]], [[Nebraska]], [[Kansas]], [[Oklahoma]], [[New Mexico]], and [[Utah]]. Denver is the State capital and the largest city. The population of Colorado is approximately 4,750,000.

Colorado was the 38th state to join the Union on August 1, 1876, when President Ulysses S. Grant issued a [[proclamation]] of statehood. <ref> http://www.colorado.gov/ </ref>

==Official Symbols==

Colorado has many official state symbols including:
*State Bird: Lark Bunting<ref>[http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/doit/archives/history/symbemb.htm Colorado Department of Personnel and Adminstration Website</ref>
*State Flower: Rocky Mountain Columbine
*State Animal: Big Horn Sheep
*State Fish: Greenback Cutthroat Trout
*State Tree: Colorado Blue Spruce
*State Folk Dance: Square Dance
*State Fossil: Stegosaurus
*State Gemstone: Aquamarine
*State Insect: Colorado Hairstreak Butterfly
*State Song: "Where the Columbines Grow" and "Rocky Mountain High"

==Notable Coloradoans==

*James Dobson, Christian psychologist and writer. Current head of the group Focus on the Family.

*John Elway, former [[quarterback]] for the [[Denver Broncos]].

*Horace Greeley, newspaper editor and major player in US expansion during the 19th century.

*[[John Kerry,]] US senator and [[Democratic]] nominee for President in 2004.

*Tom Tancredo, US Representative.

==Statewide officials==
*Governor [[Bill Ritter]] (D)
*Senator [[Wayne Allard]] (R)
*Senator [[Ken Salazar]] (D)
==References==

<references/>

{{USstates}}

Colorado

2008-09-15T21:43:26Z

NateE: rmv red links

{{USState
|name=Colorado
|flag=Colorado_State_Flag.gif
|motto="Nil Sine Numine" (Nothing Without the Deity)
|nick=The Centennial State
|capital=Denver
|language=English
|governor=Bill Ritter
|gparty=Democrat
|senator1=Wayne Allard
|s1party=Republican
|senator2=Ken Salazar
|s2party=Democrat
|population=
|date=August 1, 1876 (38th)
}}
[[Image:colorado.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Colorado]]
'''Colorado''' is a state in the [[United States]]. It is known for its [[skiing]] and snowboarding resorts, such as Vail and Aspen in the Rocky Mountains, which run north-south through the state. The winters are usually very cold and produce many snowstorms.

The [[United States Air Force Academy]] is located in [[Colorado Springs]], Colorado.

==Elevation==

A number of Colorado cities are located near the Front Range of the Rockies, at elevations of around 5,000 feet. [[Denver]], its capital and largest city, is sometimes called "The Mile-High City, because the official elevation of Denver City Hall is exactly 5,280 feet.

[[Mount Elbert]] is the highest point in Colorado, at an elevation of 14,440 feet. It is one of over 500 mountains in the state that exceed 13,000 feet. The entire state lies at an elevation over 3,000 feet.

At elevations of 5,000 feet, the air is thinner and air pressure is lower than at sea level. It is not unusual for visitors to feel lightheaded for a day or two until they adjust (but actual altitude sickness is very rare). At this altitude, skies are a clearer, brighter blue than at sea level.

== History ==

The [[Native American]] (Indian) groups indigenous to Colorado were the [[Anasazi]] and Utes who lived in the mountainous regions, and several tribes who lived in the flatlands and near the rivers at various times including the [[Cheyenne]], Arapaho, Kiowa, Comanche, Pawnee and [[Sioux]]. <ref> http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/doit/archives/history/histfaqs.htm </ref>

It is believed that in 1541 the Spanish explorer Francisco Vázquez de Coronado was the first European on record to have entered the land that is now Colorado. <ref> http://www.colorado.gov/ </ref> The Spanish called the area Colorado because of its red colored earth. The name is also sometimes credited to a Jesuit, Francisco Garcia, who in 1776 named the land after the Colorado River. <ref>Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names (Oxford 2005) p 116</ref>

The United States acquired land including part of what is now Colorado in 1803 through the [[Louisiana Purchase]]. In 1848 through the Treaty of Hidalgo, [[Mexico]] ceded to the United States more land that is now part of Colorado, and the Federal Government purchased the remainder of it in 1850. Before gaining statehood, Colorado was part of the [[Nebraska]], [[Utah]], [[Kansas]], and [[New Mexico]] Territories, and in 1861 [[Congress]] created the Territory of Colorado. The state now encompasses 104,247 square miles.

The state is bordered by [[Wyoming]], [[Nebraska]], [[Kansas]], [[Oklahoma]], [[New Mexico]], and [[Utah]]. Denver is the State capital and the largest city. The population of Colorado is approximately 4,750,000.

Colorado was the 38th state to join the Union on August 1, 1876, when President Ulysses S. Grant issued a [[proclamation]] of statehood. <ref> http://www.colorado.gov/ </ref>

==Official Symbols==

Colorado has many official state symbols including:
*State Bird: Lark Bunting<ref>[http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/doit/archives/history/symbemb.htm Colorado Department of Personnel and Adminstration Website</ref>
*State Flower: Rocky Mountain Columbine
*State Animal: Big Horn Sheep
*State Fish: Greenback Cutthroat Trout
*State Tree: Colorado Blue Spruce
*State Folk Dance: Square Dance
*State Fossil: Stegosaurus
*State Gemstone: Aquamarine
*State Insect: Colorado Hairstreak Butterfly
*State Song: "Where the Columbines Grow" and "Rocky Mountain High"

==Notable Coloradoans==

*James Dobson, Christian psychologist and writer. Current head of the group Focus on the Family.

*John Elway, former [[quarterback]] for the Denver Broncos.

*Horace Greeley, newspaper editor and major player in US expansion during the 19th century.

*[[John Kerry,]] US senator and [[Democratic]] nominee for President in 2004.

*Tom Tancredo, US Representative.

==Statewide officials==
*Governor [[Bill Ritter]] (D)
*Senator [[Wayne Allard]] (R)
*Senator [[Ken Salazar]] (D)
==References==

<references/>

{{USstates}}

Anything Goes

2008-09-15T21:38:33Z

NateE:

"'''Anything Goes'''" is a 1934 musical production written by [[Cole Porter]]. The show contains many Popular songs which have become standards, including: ''You're the Top,'' ''I Get a Kick Out of You,'' and ''Anything Goes.''

The show enjoyed a very successful revival in 1987 on Broadway, starring Patti Lupone as Reno Sweeney. The book, which had often been considered frivolous and problematical underwent an almost complete rewrite, and several songs were added or removed to fix some pacing issues. Several famous Porter songs not in the original script, including "De-Lovely," "Friendship," and "Easy to Love," were added, as well as some songs Porter wrote while at Yale.

[[Category:Music]]

Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

2008-09-15T21:29:54Z

NateE:

'''Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right''' is a book by [[Al Franken]] purporting to uncover inaccurate or misleading statements by [[conservative]]s.

The book's subtitle used the phrase fair and balanced popularized by the [[Fox News Channel]]. In response, Fox News sued Al Franken before the release date, claiming that the book's subtitle violated its trademark of the slogan "Fair and Balanced."<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34035 Fox News sues Al Franken, publisher]</ref> Franken has stated that this was an attempt to "prevent the publication" of the book, a statement that Fox denies.<ref>Franken said," ... the Fox News Channel, a news organization, tried to prevent the publication of [my] book." [http://www.frankenlies.com/lies/cspanlie.htm]</ref> The lawsuit was dismissed, and provided Franken with free publicity just as the book was launched. The book was originally scheduled to be released on Sept. 22 but the date was pushed forward to Aug. 21 and 50,000 extra copies were printed because of pre release publicity.<ref name=Laughter>[http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/23/nyregion/23FRAN.html?ex=1376971200&en=221c949c94e93f90&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND In Courtroom, Laughter at Fox and a Victory for Al Franken]</ref> According to the publisher, "We sped up the release because of tremendous demand for the book, generated by recent events."

The lawsuit described Franken as "intoxicated or deranged"<ref>[http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/entertainers/pundits/bill-oreilly/fox-vs-franken-complaint.html Fox News v. Al Franken: initial complaint]</ref> as well as "shrill and unstable," and a "C-level political commentator" In response, Franken joked that he had trademarked the word "funny", and that Fox had infringed his intellectual property rights by characterizing him as "unfunny."

On August 22, 2003, U.S. District Judge Denny Chin denied Fox's request for an injunction to block the publication of Franken's book, stating the network's claim was "wholly without merit, both factually and legally." During the judge's questioning, spectators in the court's gallery frequently laughed at Fox's case. Franken later wrote, "Usually when you say someone was literally laughed out of court, you mean they were figuratively laughed out of court, but Fox was literally laughed out of court."<ref>[http://journalism.smcvt.edu/defender/05.03.06/sanders.htm Franken endorses Sanders]</ref> Three days later, Fox filed papers to drop its lawsuit<ref name="Laughter"/>

Franken describes his side of the legal battle in a paperback-only chapter of Lies entitled "I Win".

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Books]]

Talk:Al Franken

2008-09-15T18:10:03Z

NateE:

Al Franken

2008-09-15T18:08:18Z

NateE:

[[Image:Al franken.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Al Franken''' is a [[liberal]] activist<ref>Al Franken is an [[activist]] masquerading as a 'satirist' who deliberately [[smears]] and [[defames]] people he disagrees with ... [http://lyingliar.com/index.htm]</ref> and former radio host for the [[Air America]] network. Franken worked as a comedian writer and performer on the television program ''[[Saturday Night Live]]'' and the star and screenwriter of the motion picture ''[[Stuart Saves His Family]].''

Franken calls conservatives "nasty, hateful people", yet:
* he quipped to the Harvard Crimson: "I dislike homosexuals. I was glad when that [Harvard] homosexual got killed." <ref>http://www.gaypatriot.net/2007/01/18/al-frankens-anti-gay-past/</ref><ref>http://lloydletta.blogspot.com/2007/01/al-franken-jokes-about-murder-of-gay.html</ref><ref>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=112149</ref>
* he wrote in ''Lying Liars'' that a "Methodist minister had had his head up his %#@" in a dispute about the Bible<ref>"Do you know what God’s punishment is for liars?" [the minister] asked me ... "God’s punishment for liars is that they believe their own lies." The minister was referring to 2 Thess 2:10-12 which says substantially that. Franken acknowledged his mistake in the paperback version</ref>

His radio show was originally going to be called "The Liberal Show." Upon debut, it was known as "The O'Franken Factor," a name Franken chose to parody [[Bill O'Reilly]] and taunt him into a lawsuit, getting his show free publicity<ref>[http://www.kgw.com/business/stories/kgw_033004_biz_progressive_radio.d7edf1d8.html Al Franken's liberal radio network comes to Portland.</ref> When the lawsuit failed to materialize, the show was renamed "The Al Franken Show."

He announced that he would run for a [[Senate]] seat in [[Minnesota]] in 2008 as a [[Democrat]]. Franken's rudeness, vulgarity, and his tendency to make outrageously offensive comments have led to questions about whether or not he will alienate himself from the important undecided swing voters<ref>http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1083904.html Star Tribune retrieved 6 April, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/06/frankens-senate-race-haunted-by-1995-rape-joke-on-snl-set/ Franken’s Senate Race Haunted by 1995 Rape Joke on ‘SNL’ Set]</ref>, even in a state such as Minnesota known for electing a wrestling star as governor.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001818/bio</ref> Franken has also been called under fire for a boorish interview he did in Playboy magazine that is considered by many to be unbecoming for a senatorial candidate<ref>http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/franken_playboy/2008/05/29/100040.html?s=al&promo_code=635B-1</ref> and is hurting him in his Congressional run.<ref>http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Washington_Post_franken/2008/06/18/105702.html</ref>

==Franken's problems with the truth==
On Franken's website there is the admonition ''"Anybody who deliberately propagandizes with lies should be held up to scorn and ridicule"''<ref>http://lyingliar.com/index.htm</ref>. Throughout his books he has held himself to "impossibly high standards" to tell the truth about those he has written about. Author Alan Skorski researched two of Franken's books (''Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot'' and ''Lies and and the Lying Liars who Tell Them'') and found an extensive pattern of lies, mistatements, factual inaccuracies, among them:
*Accusing Ann Coulter of "lying with footnotes" by "citing a source and misrepresenting what it says"; throughout his book Skorski states that Franken has done exactly that on numerous occations (Skorski, pg. xiii)
*The collision between Bush foreign policy advisor Richard Armitage and news reporter Helen Thomas, which Franken had claimed broke both her hip and jaw (''Lying Liars'', pg 218), but which Thomas herself said never happened (Skorski, pg 208). After this came to light, Franken later added a footnote in the paperback version of the book saying, "The Helen Thomas thing is a joke."<ref>Franken, ''Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them'', page 227 of the paperback</ref>
*Franken stated he is "often comparred to Rush Limbaugh" when on the air, despite the fact that by the time he left his Air America show to run for the U.S. Senate, his radio network was reduced to just over 40 market stations as a result of severely-low ratings and ultimately bankruptcy. Limbaugh, by comparrison, plays on more than 600 stations with an average daily listening audience of 22 million (Skorski, pg 303).
*Franken claimed on his radio show (June 1, 2005) that Rush Limbaugh made up a quotation supposedly said by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which claimed Ginsburg said "replacing 'Mother's Day' and 'Father's Day' with a 'Parent's Day' should be considered...". Skorski did a Google check on Ginsburg and discovered a May 20, 2005 column from the ''National Review'' titled "Bench Warmers, Putting Judicial Nominees in Perspective, Part III"; this column cited a September, 1974 article written by Ginsburg which advocated for the creation of a "Parent's Day" to replace both Mother's and Father's Days.
*Franken claimed John Murphy of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was lying when took a pro-CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement) position on PBS's ''Lehrer Report'' (July 27, 2005) stating "we've seen unemployment fall to 5.0 percent today, which is lower than it's been in decades." <ref>http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm</ref>. Skorski demonstrated that Franken took the unemployment figures under the Clinton Administration by the month (rather than by the year as the Bureau of Labor Statistics does) and willfully distorted them to make it appear that it was Murphy who was lying (Skorski, pg. 77-78).

== Tax Issues ==

During his [[Senate]] campaign in 2008, it was discovered that Al Franken had not paid [[taxes]] in 17 states he earned money over the last four years. Franken blamed it on his accountant saying "This all really comes from one mistake, which is him not understanding that I was supposed to pay state taxes in these other states." Franken says he will pay those states now, plus interest and penalties for a total of $70,000. <ref>[http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/05/01/accountants/ Accountants: Franken's tax problems should have been caught] Minnesota Public Radio, May 2, 2008</ref>

== Playboy Article ==

In 2000, Al Franken's comments appeared in Playboy Magazine article titled "[[Porn]]-O-Rama!" He was quoted as saying that the [[internet]] is a great tool for learning and that his 12 year old son was able to do a report on bestiality for a sixth-grade assignment.

== Books by Franken ==
*''I'm Good Enough, I'm Smart Enough, and Doggone It, People Like Me!'' (Dell Books, 1992) (in character as Stuart Smalley)
*''Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot'' (Delacorte Press, 1996) (a satirical book of personal attacks on [[Rush Limbaugh]] as well as other conservatives.)
*''Why Not Me?'' (Delacorte Press, 1999) (a parody-journal kept through the fictional "Franken for President" campaign)
*''Oh, the Things I know! A Guide to Success, or Failing That, Happiness'' (Plume Books, 2003)
*''[[Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them|Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right]]'' (Dutton Books, 2003) (targets conservative commentators and the media, particularly [[Ann Coulter]], [[Bill O'Reilly]], [[Sean Hannity]] as well as Fox News)
*''The Truth (with jokes)'' (Dutton Books, 2005) (Franken's view on how [[George W. Bush]] beat [[John Kerry]] in the 2004 Election with what Al Franken calls the "Fears, Smears, and Queers strategy")

==References==
*Skorski, Alan. ''Pants On Fire: How Al Franken Lies, Smears, and Deceives,'' Cumberland House Publishing, Nashville, Tennessee (2005)
*[http://www.frankenlies.com/ Website devoted to exposing Franken's lies from his two books, ''The Truth'' and ''Lies and the Lying Liars'']
<references/>

==Links==
*[http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0291253/ Al Franken] at the Internet Movie Database
*[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1142525 Al Franken] at National Public Radio

{{DEFAULTSORT: Franken, Al}}
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Authors]]
[[category:Broadcasters]]

Eminem

2008-09-11T15:46:57Z

NateE:

Eminem is the stage name of popular rapper '''Marshall Bruce Mathers III'''. Born October 17, 1972, Mathers grew up in [[Detroit]], [[Michigan]]. He is an award-winning [[musician]] and holds a [[Grammy]] and [[Academy Award]].

He is known for his [[rap]] music, and specifically its frequent use of [[profanity]], drug references, and sexual content. His lyrics have often been criticized as violent, [[homophobia|homophobic]], and [[misogyny|misogynistic]].

==Personal Life==

Mathers' personal life is well known because of his public persona and a frequent topic in his music, most notably his relationship with Kimberly Anne Scott. The couple met while both were in high school, and began a troubled relationship in 1989. The two married 1999, but divorced in 2001<ref>[http://marriage.about.com/od/entertainmen1/p/eminem.htm About.com marriage profile]</ref>. As Eminem, Mathers recorded several violent songs, including Kim, and 99 Bonnie and Clide, both songs deal with murdering Kim in violent fashion<ref>Mathers' has stated that his music was a form of artistic release and was not to be taken literally</ref>. The two reconciled and remarried in 2006, but filed for divorce again lass than three months later.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6195977.stm BBC News, Eminem divorces for second time]</ref> Mathers also has shared custody of his biological daughter, Hailie Jade Scott and Alaina, who he adopted Kim Scott's sister.

==Albums==

* 1999: The Slim Shady LP
* 2000: The Marshall Mathers LP
* 2002: The Eminem Show
* 2002: 8 Mile Soundtrack
* 2004: Encore
* 2005: Curtain Call: The Hits
* 2006: Eminem Presents the Re-Up
* 2007: Eminem's fifth studio album

==Films==

* 2000: Da Hip Hop Witch (Cameo-Performance)
* 2001: The Wash (Chris)
* 2002: [[8 Mile]] (Jimmy "B-Rabbit" Smith)
* 2008: Have Gun — Will Travel (Paladin)

==Awards==

[[Academy Awards]]

* 2003 - Best Original song, "Lose Yourself" from [[8 Mile]]

Golden Globe Nomination

* 2003 - Best Original Song in a Motion Picture, "Lose Yourself" from [[8 Mile]]

Grammy Awards

* 2000 - Best rap solo performance for "My Name Is" from The Slim Shady LP
* 2000 - Best rap album for The Slim Shady LP
* 2001 - Best rap solo performance for "The Real Slim Shady" from The Marshall Mathers LP
* 2001 - Best rap performance by a duo or group (with [[Dr. Dre]]) for "Forgot About Dre" from Dr Dre 2001
* 2001 - Best rap album for The Marshall Mathers LP
* 2003 - Best short form music video, for "Without Me" from The Eminem Show
* 2003 - Best rap album for The Eminem Show
* 2004 - Best male rap solo performance for "Lose Yourself" from the 8 Mile O.S.T.
* 2004 - Best rap song for "Lose Yourself" from the 8 Mile O.S.T.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Musicians]]