User talk:PF Fox

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PF Fox (Talk | contribs) at 20:39, May 27, 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Block Warning: Do not make edits that subtly change the meaning of the article like you did on fascism, or you will be blocked. --TimSvendsen 23:48, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Fascism

A sentence which reads this way: "Allowing only information which supports the far-left state is a common means of fascist control. This is especially pertinant in websites such as Wikipedia which allow liberal-only information through."

Combined with a later sentence in the same entry which reads like this: "Communism represents the extreme left of the political spectrum, while Fascism represents the extreme right."

...renders the entire entry meaningless. If Fascism represents the "extreme right", how can "allowing only information which supports the far-left state" be "a common means of fascist control?"

Nazi article

Conservatism and ultra-conservatism are right-wing. There is also a radical fringe on the far, far right that is neither conservative nor even ultra-conservative. Nazism falls there so it is a correct statement to say Nazis were not conservative. Not everything on the right wing is conservative. Libertarianism falls on the right side of the spectrum too but it is a very distinct thing from conservatism. Parrothead 16:32, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

205

Before you begin using what WP:ATTFAQ describes as obsolete and depracated cource, I invite yo to review this document. [1]

And what specific point of mine is this supposed to address? Please be specific. --PF Fox 15:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Ellen Schrecker has deprecated herself, not to mention other obsolete information; since 1995, all the previous 50 years of published material needs to be reviewed.
Have you read the Moynihan Commission Report? RobS 15:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

On specifically what points did she deprecate herself? And what did I post from those other sources that proved to be untrue? No, I have not read the Moynihan Commission report. What specifically does it say that renders what I've posted here invalid? --PF Fox 15:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Please do not remove Talk page comments

Please do not remove Talk page comments. [2] RobS 15:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

If I did this it was not deliberate, and I apologize. This system is still new to me. --PF Fox 15:49, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Transcripts may have a proper place; but you've filled it up with Schecker material which she herself has deprecated, and the evidence of trolling I predicted around that article, cited above, you had removed from the Talk page. RobS 16:12, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The majority of my material did not come from Schrecker, as my own notes indicate. And please tell me what I'd posted that she "deprecated." I'd also like to know how the transcripts from the McCarthy hearings -- including the audio -- qualify as "deprecated" material. --PF Fox 16:14, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

McCarthy

What exactly would you like to add? Post it on my talk page.--Elamdri 02:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Archives

I noticed you just added comments to User talk:Aschlafly/Archive4. This isn't appropriate, seeing as how it is an archived discussion. It's history. Editing it is like, going back to the civil war and letting the south win! --Hojimachongtalk 12:50, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Sorry. I am trying to put things in their right places, and my comments were a continuation of that discussion. I'll move them someplace more recent. --PF Fox 12:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Liberal?

Can you confirm your liberal status?

Salvador Allende

I may have been unclear on the talk page, based on your response. [3]

I was asking if stipulating a single standard helps us write the article. --Ed Poor 15:57, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Civility

This makes two snide remarks in a row.

Such remarks are derogatory in a malicious, superior way. [4]

Perhaps it's just a customary way of speaking where you come from, but I dislike the tone of it. I'd rather you say something pleasant and respectful and to the point, like:

  • I feel the burden of proof is on you, not the other editor.

I have blocked you with an expiry time of 2 hours for incivility.

Don't make comments like this. [5] Focus instead on improving articles - or be elsewhere.

We are not equals, and this is not a game of tit for tat. Sysops at this web site have authority to make the sort of judgments I have been making in the last few days. The only comments I've gotten from senior staff is that I'm too lenient. I suggest you find a better use for your time than hanging around here, sniping at regular contributors. --Ed Poor 16:15, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm blocking you again, because (1) you seem to have some useful ideas but (2) you still are "attacking the person" instead of "addressing the point".
Don't say you fear it but something like this:
  • Please include this information; or,
  • According to (blank) McCarthy did (this action) which had (that result).
We're not afraid of ideas here. It's not like some children's school library that censors Uncle Tom's Cabin or Huckleberry Finn because it might have a scary or offense passage. But like a library, there's a certain standard of decorum. --Ed Poor 16:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)


The concept of "civility" seems entirely subjective. Maybe we should find a way to codify what you mean, so this user and others have a clue about its ramifications. --Huey dun gotcha 16:03, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Meet me at Conservapedia talk:Civility. --Ed Poor 16:06, 31 March 2007 (EDT)


It depends on what the issue is, but Ed is a reasonable guy.--PalMDtalk 20:32, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*blush* thanks, because I would hate to be accused of making an excuse for derrailing political discussions heading in directions you dislike into long and pointless quibbles --Ed Poor 12:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
You were not who I had in mind, Ed, but I'm sorry, my comments about this "political spectrum" nonsense stand. It's interesting to note that it's almost never invoked when the Communists are referred to as "leftists" -- only when the Nazis (or for that matter, the Klan) are referred to as being on the "right." Why do you think that is? --PF Fox 12:26, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
A good question, which has long puzzled me. According to my calculations, Communism is twenty times worse than Nazism. So I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would want to be associated with the left. Maybe it's because Hitler's side lost, and Life Magazine published pictures of plaintive yet attractive white people from his death camps.
Anyway, I added the Communist-Nazi left-right spectrum here. --Ed Poor 12:51, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
I find nothing "puzzling" about it. My experience has been that lately the people most eager to conflate liberalism/leftism with Communism are also the one's most unwilling to acknowledge the fact that Hitler was a right-winger, probably because they assume that since THEY conflate liberalism with Communism, others MUST conflate conservatism with Nazism. Rather than give up their own over-simplified vision of the left they struggle vainly to alter the meaning of "right wing" so that they don't sit on the same bench -- however far down that bench -- as Nazism. Now that the middle of the Twentieth century is falling from living memory, they are trying out a form of revisionism that would have gotten them laughed out of the room if they'd offered it twenty or thirty years ago, in the presence of people who'd actually fought and remembered the Third Reich.
I'd be interested in knowing what manner of arithmatic goes into determining that "Communism is twenty times worse than Nazism." (Is it the same math that defines 3,000 murdered people as "a few?") I can only tell you that as someone who remembers the black civil rights era, I can readily see why people would want to be identified with liberalism and the left. I did not know Martin Luther King Jr., or Viola Liuzzo, or Michael Schwerner personally, but I have known other liberals and leftists who I've admired, who fought bravely in World War II (and in some cases, even before that, in the Spanish Civil War,) who literally put their lives on the line working with the poor in Central and South America, forming unions in the American south, striving to ensure black Americans could practice their right to vote in Missisippi and Alabama during the '60s. These were liberals and leftists, Ed. Not conservatives. They were also principled and brave people who were on the correct side of important issues, most of them protecting rights that presumably all Americans -- liberal and conservative -- consider vital. --PF Fox 14:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Don't say stuff like this:

  1. having a decent regard for the truth.
  2. If the person uttering this untruth is saying it through ignorance, they need to actually read up on the subject
  3. they are fracturing the 9th Commandment. --PF Fox 15:08, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

It's not civil. It's inflammatory.

You'd do better to say:

  • I disagree with you about what 'wing' Hitler was on.
  • We need to get this right.
  • Children look up to grown-ups as examples.

Okay? See you tomorrow. --Ed Poor 17:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

If the truth is inflammatory here, that's a pity.
How does that 9th Commandment go again? Seem to remember the words "false witness" in there somewhere...--PF Fox 12:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

IRC

Colin and TK are on IRC, irc.freenode.net in channel #conservapedia You're more than welcome to join. Crackertalk 15:44, 9 April 2007 (EDT) You'd have to get an IRC program, chatzilla for firefox, mIrc.com works well too, but it depends what OS you have and all that. Crackertalk

Standards of scholarship for this site

You seem to be on a crusade. You have repeatedly inserted your POV (or a widely held POV that you apparently hold) as if it were an undisputed fact.

Please stop this, or I will suspend your account. --Ed Poor 15:09, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Please explain in what manner I've pushed my POV so that I can avoid it in the future. How is Jara's very well-documented death a matter of PF Fox's POV? --PF Fox 15:10, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Trolling

Please note, I do block for trolling. [6] RobS 15:24, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

And how am I guilty of trolling? --PF Fox 16:13, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
You write as if you don't understand my remarks about Pinochet. This appears to be a pose. You are blocked for the rest of the week. --Ed Poor 13:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

You have impressed senior staff with your significant contributions. Welcome back! --Ed Poor 19:15, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. --PF Fox 10:23, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Booty

Booty is the most important element of dancing. Do you agree--BushRules12 00:44, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Knock it off

Do you want to be blocked again? I reverted your last edit to the article on Ann Coulter's book Slander because it constituted malicious context-dropping. Your block log is getting rather long, and if I have to block you yet again, it will likely be for significantly longer. Consider yourself warned.--TerryHTalk 19:36, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh Heaven forfend that anyone apply CONTEXT! --PF Fox 19:45, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
I said the dropping of context. The full context of anything that Ann Coulter said about anybody consists of the words and deeds of the other person, that provoked whatever she said that you find outrageous.--TerryHTalk 19:54, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
Then by all means, let's include the fact that she considered the women disagreeing with her about how to deal with terrorism and voting for Kerry valid reason for nastily implying that they were enjoying their husbands deaths! How about it? --PF Fox 20:01, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
First, that's the wrong book.

Well then, my apologies. How silly of me to forget that the primary objection to Slander was the gross inaccuracies that riddle it. --PF Fox 12:40, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Second, in Godless: The Church of Liberalism, she gave the real reason for what she said: that they were enjoying the attention they were getting. Have you even read the book that the quote came from? I don't think you have.

Yes, I did read the book. Please explain how claiming that the widows were enjoying the attention they were getting renders her statement about them enjoying their husbands deaths less offensive. --PF Fox 12:40, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Part of being an editor is finding things out for yourself--not quoting secondary sources that, in all likelihood, got it wrong.--TerryHTalk 20:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

It's a good thing that I've read Ann Coulter's books, then, isn't it? --PF Fox 12:40, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

No, no it isn't. :) Once you see something like that, you can never unsee it. (But I do admire your taking one for the team like that. --Ghoti 19:28, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

Al gore sr

I cannot read your citation because it requires a login password.Богдан Talk 17:32, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

The word "inhabitants" includes men, women, and children.Богдан Talk 23:59, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Not always. Some readers might assume it just means grown men.
And you wouldn't want them MISINTERPRETING the Bible, now, would you? --PF Fox 00:02, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
How about "all the inhabitants"?Богдан Talk 00:04, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
Nope. Let's be frank about this Bohdan. Joshua's army went in and courageously ran through women, the elderly, children, and babies. Why does saying this bother you? --PF Fox 00:06, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
It bothers me because its redundant. Your insistance on adding this does show little understanding of ancient warfare though. I warn you that this is considered trollong and trolling is a blockable offense.Богдан Talk 00:10, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

LOL! Warn away. I'll lose no sleep over it. And I understand enough about ancient warfare to know that killing everyone down to the last infant was NOT the norm (see Numbers 33.) As for it being "redundant" I think what bothers you is that observing exactly what "inhabitants" means in this context is uncomfortably close to the point. Those shots of Joshua's men stomping babies to death woudn't look too great in a DeMille Biblical epic, would it? --PF Fox 00:15, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, in other parts of the Bible, Moses' army slaughters everyone EXCEPT virgin teenaged girls. (Guess what they did to them.) And this is supposed to be the basis of our country's morality? I think I'll stick to Tom Paine, thanks. --Ghoti 19:26, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

== Olberman ==

Careful, that was an awfully Reality-Based thing you said. You'll probably get banned for it. --Ghoti 19:24, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

  • So will Trolling, Ghoti....enjoy your vacation, ok? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:42, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Hi

Hi there -- I've only been on Conservapedia for a couple hours, but it seems like you're frustrated with how things work here, as regards the standards for evidence. I can totally sympathize with your frustration. So I'm curious: Why do you stay? Dannyhorn 16:21, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Because liars, and the manner in which they respond to the truth and attempt to circumvent it, fascinate me. --PF Fox 16:39, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:PF_Fox&oldid=179353"