Scalia mentioned that in a dissenting opinion, which isn't binding law. --WOVcenter 00:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
- 1 Vic Eliason passage should be removed
- 2 WOV's got a point
- 3 Everything you post must be true and verifiable
- 4 Opposing Christian Agenda
- 5 Improvements
- 6 Very Informative
- 7 Is this real?
- 8 Agendas
- 9 Is this really as big as people make it out to be?
- 10 Please remove the reference to Scott Lively's propaganda book
- 11 Hey, now...
- 12 What the hell?
- 13 Politics and science
- 14 Liberal Deceit
- 15 Sources?
- 16 Mottos?
- 17 References: "small looks better"
- 18 Homosexuality in Congress
- 19 Iran?
- 20 Merge from "pro-Gay"
- 21 Homophobes
- 22 Charity
- 23 Kirk and Madsen
- 24 The concept of a homosexual agenda
Vic Eliason passage should be removed
I write this because I have met VE here in Wisconsin and believe he'd be uncomfortable with the logic of including this information in this particular article. The passage: "Vic Eliason of Crosstalk America rightly points out that if all Americans turned homosexual it would only take a few generations for the United States to lose most of the population of the country through lack of procreation. This would make the US more vulnerable to attack by our enemies." Nobody believes that homosexuality is contagious, like a virus, and the probability is 0% that "all Americans" would turn homosexual. I doubt that any homosexual, including activist leaders, would think it would be possible at all or even desirable. There is as little temptation for a heterosexual to want homosexual sex as there is for homosexuals to want heterosexual sex. Also, the comment about the US being more vulnerable to attack because the country doesn't procreate also makes no sense, given that the likelihood of that happening for this reason is 0%. Three other potential problems. 1) The passage is completely undocumented. 2) The link for biographical information for VE is to Wikipedia. Couldn't someone here write an article about him for CP? He has been, after all, a leading figure in Christian radio for 40+ years. 3) Besides being unrelated to the topic of the article and having 0% possibility of describing a real situation, the passage detracts from the credibility of the article and CP. This passage should be removed.
WOV's got a point
Not only that, but this entire article is biased tripe. It presents the "homosexual agenda" from a one-sided perspective, and is filled with hate commentary. I recommend the entire thing for deletion.
Scalia's remark is regretful and a blemish on the pages of the U.S. Reporter, up there with Scott v. Sanford. But let's not expand it still further.
I have cleaned up biased and vitriolic language as best as I can, but this entry deserves deletion.
Seconded. If this is a homosexual agenda, then what homosexual wrote it? This is nothing but political game-playing: Identify a group as The Enemy and then brand them haters and abusers of family, children, and country. It makes dehumanising them so much easier. - Suricou
- I didn't see anything "hateful" in it. The Scalia reference was not intended to be about what is binding law, obviously. There was nothing binding about his phrase. I'll note that it was in dissent.
- The edits to this article were completely inappropriate, turning it into a liberal puff piece. Wikipedia exists for that. Actually, your edits made this even more liberal than Wikipedia's article on the same topic!
- The hour is very late and I need to lock this page to guard against vandalism or conversion to a liberal message. I can unlock tomorrow. Thanks.--Aschlafly 02:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
- Presenting both points doesn't make it a liberal puff piece! It presented only one perspective (Focus on the Family), and referred to the Shepard incident as OVERBLOWN. That's awful!! I consider my entry a moderate tack, but if you can think of an acceptable compromise that preserves an unbiased perspective, be my guest. It shocks me to see you go against your own commandments, though, about not including bias, and not importing a political perspective. I have tried to, and continue to try to, do the same.--AmesG 02:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
- Instead of the http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm cite you may want to use this one  This cite goes straight (NPI) to a section of the book After the Ball. -)Crackertalk 02:24, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
- Thanks. Will do tomorrow. Goodnight, Cracker!--Aschlafly 02:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
I would definitely change the "promote homosexuality in schools" to "promote acceptance of homosexuality in schools". Definitely sounds like they're trying to make me gay. --Splark 21:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
- I agree with the comments of AmesG and Splark. The idea that one's ideological opponents have a specific "agenda" is an all-too common one, but such agendas are more often touted by those who oppose than by those who support a group. That a Supreme Court Justice referred to it, or that it's in some leaflet somewhere, isn't substantive evidence that it exists.. Boethius 18:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Aren't those five points of the "homosexual agenda" linked to more of a strategy than an "agenda"? And, aren't they the standard strategy for all interest groups? 1. Talk about your issue. 2. Show your group is harmed unless you get what you want. 3. Provide facts so people can justify agreeing with you. 4. Portray yourself and your point of view as right and moral. 5. Portray your opponents and their point of view as wrong and immoral. 6. Get corporate or other financial support. Every group and lobbying organization does that, and I don't know that singling out gays and the gay rights movement as doing that is really informative.--Epicurius 11:23, 15 March 2007 (ED
I will go on the record and say that yes, there is a homosexual agenda. As a homosexual myself, I'm pretty much in the middle of it. All we want is to be treated the same as any other tax-paying American. If my partner is injured, I would like to be able to have the same visitation and decision-making power as a husband/wife would. I would like to be able to transfer property when I die without having to jump through a million legal hoops. Many people claim that we want "special" rights. We really don't. We just want to be treated the same as everyone else.--Patthew 12:01, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
I think this page is extremely biased. It presents only one side of the issue and is locked to prevent the other side from responding. Proof of a bias of another kind here. -Gasmonkey
Everything you post must be true and verifiable
This entry violates the first (and perhaps most important) Conservapedia commandment. There is no homosexual "agenda" -- no "they" who "wrote a book", no 10-point plan. It's the same kind of paranoid nonsense that's in the articles here on Joseph McCarthy and Alger Hiss (WP has far more accurate articles on both subjects, with the one on Hiss very clearly identifying areas of controversy), with conspiracy-theorist types quoting and sourcing one another. I propose this entire article for immediate deletion. Boethius 10:56, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Agreed. The "Homosexual agenda" is no more factual than the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Delete, or recreate as an article about the popular (?) but false belief in this "agenda." Pkoad 00:21, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
- It refers to the gay rights activism, which may be a grassroots movement but which has multiple goals which are easily identified. The Liberal POV that such goals are non-existent is a kind of denialism.
- It will be good for the article to discuss this denial, in conjunction with gay rights critics who oppose the points which the denialists says no one advances. (Not worded right, but I think you get the gist.) See you all tomorrow. --Ed Poor 00:29, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
- There's no more gay agenda other than there was a "black agenda" before Brown came down. The gay agenda is equal treatment. Oh no, quick, ma, shut the doors! Equality's a-comin'!-AmesGyo!
- I'd say "keep it" so the world can really see how these strange nutkins think. But in the interest of humanity, decency, and honesty, it is a pack of paranoid, politico-religious agenda lies. Really, really strange nutjob lies. Human 02:51, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- Keep:Let's assume for one moment that the homosexual agenda is complete hogwash and homosexual activists don't believe in it: Isn't the fact that Conservative Christians do believe in it enough to keep the article so that the "opinions" of Christians about homosexual activists be here. The fact that many talk about it is clear evidence that this is a valid article--Djcreativity 15:47, 9 May 2009 (EDT)
- Shouldn't we present information that is factual, and not misleading, though? If the intention of the article was to present Christian responses to gay rights activism, it should be presented as such. Given that After the Ball was published twenty years ago, presenting it as an active force in the gay rights movement (rather than as a foundation of the movement as a whole) is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? If we were talking about the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam we could reference Malcom X and Louis Farrakhan, but to act as though their works were part of current politics and national discourse would be misguided at best, and flatly wrong, at worst. --Jfavor 00:40, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
Opposing Christian Agenda
I can't work out what the point of the "Opposing Christian Agenda" section is. The sentences don't make sense, and the referenced page does not mention homosexuality or gay. I propose the section be deleted by someone with the privilege to edit the article. --Scott 01:33, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
- I think it's not nearly explicit enough. More than anything else except perhaps abortion, the homosexual subversion of Christian values is illustrative of the influence of Satan upon liberals and other leftists, and his influence through them on our society. Should I rework the section to include such? --Nathan 22:20, 11 February 2009 (EST)
Shouldn't Gayness in part 1. of the agenda be Gaiety? The term homosexual protectors in part three surely merits its own article. Is this the same as Homosexualists? Auld Nick 07:11, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
- Any attempt to trivialize or confuse the issue will be frowned upon here. --Ed Poor 07:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
We should delete the cite at the bottom saying that homosexuality caused Nazism. That's a truly disturbing allegation.-AmesGyo! 12:59, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
- Especially considering that the Nazis actually murdered thousands of homosexuals during World War II.--Autofire 18:32, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
I believe langauge needs to be corrected in the the first bullet of the list of homosexual goals. It currently states "Censoring sections of the bible condemning homosexuality." The source cited is an article about an offensive tee shirt being censored not the bible its self. There needs to be eaither a new source about Homosexuals attempting to change the bible or the wording must be changed to "preventing materials that denounce homosexuality from being displayed publicly."
Reference number "8" rrefers back to the Conservapedia site. In order to maintain integrity it must refer to an ouside source if one is not provided the reference and quote should be deleted. Currently it is a logical fallacy and is not up to encyclopedic standards. Someone not dyslexic (i.e. somone who isn't me.) should get on that.
Excellent portrayal of the truth. This is a nice breather from the left-wing saturated wikipedia.com. If you agree with the article, you should check out the highly accurate article on homophobia. Everyone knows that the creation of homophobia is a foundation of the gay agenda.
Wikipedia is subject to open edits that don't reqier an account. Are you suggesting that the monitors of wikipedia aka "everyone who can type" has a liberal bias?
Is this real?
This article seems like a parody. I can't believe that... oh yeah, I'm at conservapedia. I can believe anything. Flippin 12:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
As well as the mysterious reference to a "leading book in the homosexual movement", it refers to a book claiming that the Nazi Party supported homosexuality. Clearly this has to be satirical. Either that, or someone has a serious case of paranoia - all the sources, as well as being of dubious credabililty, point towards independent events but the whole point of the page is to talk about a shadowy conspiricy - a 'Secret Society' of homosexuals trying to gayify the world. I suggest deleting the whole page - and if it reappears in a similar form, delete and protect. - Suricou
So since there are so many references on this wiki to the "homosexual agenda" can we also cite the "Conservative Agenda" or "Republican Agenda" or "Christian Agenda"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by prof0705 (talk)
- I don't see why not, as long as they sourced and reasonably recognizable as phrases in common use. In fact, here, I would expect an article on conservative agenda to be very good. Human 17:56, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
This article violates the Conservapedia:Commandments (number 2: cite sources and 5: personal opinion).
- It claims to quote Focus on the Family for the definition of The Homosexual Agenda without giving a specific reference, and FotF is only claimed to be quoting "a leading book in the homosexual movement" without even bothering to name the book or its author.
- The two bulleted points in "The Goals" (about 8-year-old boys and 12-to-14 year olds) are stating as fact the opinion of Craig Osten, a vice president at the Alliance Defense Fund.
- Several of the other references to that section are either citing journalist's or lawyer's opinions, not facts or any quote from the people who are alleged to hold the agenda under discussion.
I am prohibited from editing the page but I suggest that the Agenda is moved to the top, and the original source for it cited, rather than a vague second-hand reference. The judge's quote should then be indented as a block quote so it is more clearly identifiable as quoting the judge. The Goals and Opposing Christian Agenda should be cleaned up and cite proper sources not opinions, or be more clearly marked as only opinions of people who oppose the Homosexual Agenda. If Conservapedia could handle it, even a quote from someone who supports it would be good. --Scott 06:06, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
- Conservapedia:Commandments (number 2: cite sources and 5: personal opinion) is superceded by Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks:
- Sysop's and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked.
- Note: Their [Special:ListUsers/sysop sysops] instructions, as to Conservapedia policy [...] are to be followed, which means if a sysop has decided it is so it is so. If you continue to argue you may get blocked.
- Auld Nick 07:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
What about Hot man on man/woman on woman action? I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that homosexuals were pretty in favor of that.
Is this really as big as people make it out to be?
While I personally do not like anyone being too open about their personal lives, especially concerning anything to do with sex, still when I hear about a "Homosexual Agenda" I can only think of another fear that other people once tried to infect people with: it was called "The Protocols of The Elders of Zion." I think some of you may understand my point... Jros83 16:15, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, I don't really understand why people even care if someone is homosexual or not. If you're not a homosexual yourself you're not gonna be involved with homosexuality so why even care? It doesn't affect you in that case. If someones is homosexual, then fine. Let them be. Has nothing to do with you. JohnKite 11:33, 28 January 2009 (EST)
- Do you not care about God, JohnKite? Do you not care about His society? Do you not acre about moral erosion, disease, and the future of humanity? Do you not care about what is right and what is wrong? MauriceB 11:35, 28 January 2009 (EST)
Please remove the reference to Scott Lively's propaganda book
This is propaganda. It seems you don't allow neutrality here. GayMan 21:51, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
- I agree. Numbers 1-5 on there are kinda wrong, and number 6 tops it off as crap. Clorox 23:11, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
I'm LGBT and I'm certainly not aware of any sort of "agenda" being discussed. Perhaps this is just a typical case of right-wing paranoia? --Afi 18:07, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
You're not aware because you're not hive-minded. The agenda is memetic, therefore you're not all going to know about it. --Pious 18:21, 24 June 2011 (EDT)
What the hell?
The “homosexuality agenda" was created by Focus on the Family, which you say later in the article, ACTIVELY OPPOSES homosexuality. You wouldn’t let me post Jon Stewart quotes on the Bush page, so why is this kind of crap aloud here? Tesfan 11:43, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
This is exactly the sort of thing that inspires violence against homosexuals. Be more neutral.Alloco1 12:34, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
- Good luck pal, I've been saying that for months. And watch your language, they'll ban you for that here. Maestro 12:46, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
Politics and science
Dr. Ronald Bayer, writing in Homosexuality And American Psychiatry: The Politics Of Diagnosis said the APA decision was a political one, not a scientific one: "The result [of the APA removal of homosexuality from the DSM] was not a conclusion based upon an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times." 
I suggest we change the category from Deceit to Liberal Deceit because liberals universally support the gay agenda. --Konservativekanadian 22:26, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
- Bad idea. It's not deceit. Clorox 23:16, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
Again I find myself disturbed by the language of absolutes that have infested this site. There are liberal and homosexual philosophies mentioned in this site that some liberals and homosexuals don't have simply because they don't know about them- and it's certainly not a stretch of the imagination to say these people are generally ignorant. Are children in Africa who die young damned simply because a missionary doesn't exist where they live and they couldn't have possibly heard the good news about Christ? I think not. I believe they get another chance to. --Pious 18:26, 24 June 2011 (CDT)
Are there any sources besides those accusing the gay agenda? There's no evidence of any organized "agenda", and all of the goals and such are provided by those opposing it. Best case, this is an article about a pundit talking point, and worst case it's a conspiracy theory masked as an encyclopedia article. Shouldn't it at least mention that there has never been any evidence of even a mildly organized or centralized gay agenda? The fact that it's permanently locked further undermines CP credibility. RWest 12:32, 13 November 2007 (EST)
- Focus on the Family quotes below from a leading book in the homosexual movement which outlines the points of the homosexual agenda:
There is no source cited here. The source is "The Overhauling of Straight America," an article which appeared in the November 1987 issue of a gay magazine called The Guide. Shii 22:44, 23 November 2007 (EST)
- Thanks, I just added an online link to it.--Aschlafly 23:04, 23 November 2007 (EST)
The edit replacing "beliefs" with "mottos" was unjustified. There is a (baseless) belief system inherent in the homosexual agenda.--Aschlafly 18:41, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
References: "small looks better"
Why? All the other articles I've seen have references at regular text size. What's particular about this article that it needs to have really tiny footnotes? Sideways 17:24, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
Homosexuality in Congress
In a recent discussion with a friend of mine, we discussed what is here called the "homosexual agenda". In addition to the notion of whether "everyone has an agenda" (something I would consider adding to the Debate pool if anyone would like clarification of my terms/beliefs here, I brought up the notion of whether or not there exists a disproportionate number of homosexuals or, unfortunately, scandals regarding previously latent homosexual desires among otherwise Conservative men (Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Bob Allen, the Glenn Murphy scandal), and whether this constitutes the corrupting nature of power, or, as my friend (a somewhat eccentric, Ron Paul-supporter type) suggests, whether these men are "moles" (his term, not mine) representing a quote, "homo infiltration". To put it bluntly, imagine the Manchurian Candidate, but with sodomy.
I was wondering if anyone here (I imagine you have all put some effort into the research and sourcing for this article) had ever heard trustworthy sources, blogs, or essays dealing with such a belief. I obviously don't support the endorsement of wingnut theories, but if it is a more widespread belief among self-avowed Republicans and conservatives, then I think it bears mentioning. I wait to see if any such evidence exists. MICasey 10:48, 9 September 2009 (EDT)
This site considers Iran as an example for how to deal with homosexuals?? I hope this is a joke; otherwise, this is one of the sickest, most hateful websites I've ever seen. You claim to follow Jesus, and then condone executing homosexuals?? This must be an example of following the hard-ass God of the Old Testament.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Pete5383 (talk)
- This site does not condone the murder of homosexuals by the state. It is a true statement on Iran and most Muslim countries are no different. So yes, they oppose the homosexual agenda but that doesn't correspond to the section which talks of political/cultural opposition. Instead, a foreign section needs created and the FACTS put in the proper place.--Jpatt 22:37, 17 August 2010 (EDT)
Merge from "pro-Gay"
Westboro is probably the only authentically "homophobic" group in the USA. They used to have a "God hates fags" website. No one takes them seriously, on either side of the ideological battle lines. They are the poster boys for hate speech. --Ed Poor Talk 17:00, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
- Cut from lede:
- Liberals generally give much less than conservatives to charity, but charity work by gays in particular is virtually non-existent.
- This needs references, if true. But I don't believe it - or maybe I just don't understand it. Isn't Gay Men's Health Crisis a charity? (Or is it merely a non-profit organization without a charitable purpose? --Ed Poor Talk 17:44, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
Just happened to see this, and so here is some data:
On average, weekly churchgoers donate 3.8% of their income to charity, compared to 0.8% for those who never go. Independent Sector (charitable clearing house): Atheists won't save Europe by Don Feder; http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27937
Religious citizens who make $49,000 gave away about 3.5 times as much money as secular citizens with the same income. They also volunteered twice as often, are 57 percent more likely to help homeless persons, and two-thirds more likely to give blood at their workplace. Arthur C. Brooks' Who Really Cares. http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2008/001/8.11.html
In 2006, Americans gave 1.66% of their aggregate income to charity, with donations totaling US$182 billion. This rate of giving is more than double that of Canadians, who gave 0.76% of aggregate income (CA$8.4 billion in total) to charity in 2006. http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/Generosity_Index_2008.pdf
$8.8 billion worth of goods and services that churches are giving overseas to developing (“Third World”) countries. This figures out to be nearly 40 percent of the foreign aid provided by the United States to the same region. U.S. foreign aid to those same countries is $23.5 billion. Carol Adelman of the Hudson Institute, from Notre Dame University study. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Church/Default.aspx?id=118566
Giving as a percentage of income was higher at the depth of the Great Depression in the 1930s (3.3 percent of per capita income in 1933) than after a half-century of unprecedented prosperity (2.5 percent in 2004) John Ronsvalle and Sylvia Ronsvalle, The State of Church Giving through 2004: Will We Will? 16th ed. (Champaign, Ill.: Empty Tomb, 2006). ^
The proportion of adults who tithe dropped by 62 percent in the past year. (2) Just 6 percent of born-again households tithed to their churches in 2002. (3) Tithing, when it occurs, is generally among Protestants: 5 percent of adults who attend Protestant churches tithed last year, compared to less than one-tenth of 1 percent among Catholics. (4) Among the groups most likely to tithe are people over 55, college graduates, Evangelicals, Republicans, conservatives, and residents of the South—but there was no segment among which at least 10 percent tithed. George Barna. News release by Barna Research Group, May 19, 2003. ^
Including religious, American households overall gave 3.5% of their income to charity, with approx. 33% going to to religious institutions. Utah was the state with the highest average per-capita charitable contributions, followed by Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee and Arkansas. Professor Arthur Brooks, 2005. http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2005/February/200502181639511CJsamohT5.593508e-02.html
A liberal researcher who was surprised at finding that showed conservatives being more giving, set out to do a more thorough analysis, only to confirm the findings: http://blog.geoiq.com/2009/01/07/dataset-of-the-day-who-is-more-generous-republicans-or-democrats/
Also, the top 10 most generous countries are:
1. United States 2. Ireland 3. Australia 4. New Zealand 5. United Kingdom 6. Netherlands 7. Canada 8. Sri Lanka 9. Thailand 10. Laos
The United States’ first place in the rankings marks a significant improvement from 2010, when it ranked fifth. Other countries making significant gains include Liberia, which went from 39 to 14, and Morocco, which leapt from 33 to 12. http://www.worldvision.org/news/new-report-ranks-most-generous-countries. Daniel1212 22:27, 27 February 2012 (EST)
Kirk and Madsen
The WP page on Marshall Kirk  has this but which i cannot find a source for:
"Marshall suffered from severe migraine headaches that were preceded by a strong desire to talk in a rapid monologue. He found that if he gave into these "babbling fits", the headache would be alleviated. He had other medical problems and suffered from bouts of depression that required electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) on three occasions. Because of the negative effects on his memory, he considered ECT to be the last alternative to avoid death. In part due to this medical history, his knowledge of pharmacology was usually greater than that of anyone who treated him. When he died, he was found alone in his apartment by two friends."
Also cannot find anything on Hunter Madsen (pen name "Erastes Pill")Daniel1212 23:54, 24 February 2012 (EST)
The concept of a homosexual agenda
A blocked user wrote (in part):
- I made several edits to this page which either eliminated the presentation of personal opinion as fact or which placed notes that statements were not verifiable and were not accompanied by a citation. I find the article as a whole fairly interesting because whether or not an actual homosexual agenda exists, the concept of a homosexual agenda most definitely exists either as an actual agenda held by gay activists or as a perceived agenda by those who oppose acceptance or expansion of rights.
- None of the changes I made changed the fundamental content of the article, but simply attempted to enhance the article by removing or noting items that lacked references to verifiable data or which were expressions of personal opinion (both of which are forbidden by the conservapedia commandments). This was met with immediate reversion of the edits (which is fine) and blocking of my account from making further changes and blocking of the IP address from which I logged in (which is unacceptable). As you can see on the history page, this was done by user Markman.
- I understand that a site such as conservapedia is probably subjected to significant attempts at sabotage, but it is unfortunate that the sight has become inhospitable to legitamate attempts to improve the quality of the site by removing mere statements of personal opinion which are un-referenced, un-substantiated, and and un-verifiable.
- Conservapedia could have been a great resource, but it has, unfortunately, allowed itself to become nothing more than a site that presents propaganda and opinion as fact in violation of its own commandments.
Overlooking for the moment the apparent admission that you have logged in under a new username to evade a block, your unsigned comment gives no particulars such as a "diff" to support your complaints. Please use the proper channels if you want a more substantial response. --Ed Poor Talk 09:57, 22 February 2013 (EST)
Please do not jump to conclusions. I did not create a new account to evade a block. I checked the previous username this morning and it was no longer blocked. The user that blocked me (Markman) gave as one of the reasons for the block, that I had used a user name which violated conservapedia policy (a policy which I searched for but could not find). Out of respect for Marman's complaint about my user name, I created a new acount in order to comply with the conservapedia policy on usernames (which, again, I could not find). I am sorry, but I am not familiar with this forum and I don't really know what "diff" means. Finally, I also do not know what would be the proper channel for this commentary. I read (in its entirety) the page linked as "conservapedia commandments" and all the pages linked to from that page. Im also not sure what you mean by "unsigned". I was logged in when I made the original comments and I didnt realize that a signature was needed in addition to being logged in. Also, I did not intend to use inflammatory language in the initial post. It was more a reaction to being blocked under false pretenses and I did not mean to offend anyone. Sorry about my ingorance of this forum, but I am new to the entire wiki process. Is there some sort of tutorial or guidelines available on the site? Thanks, Mikers.