User talk:Ed Poor/3

From Conservapedia
< User talk:Ed Poor
This is the current revision of User talk:Ed Poor/3 as edited by Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) at 21:13, April 10, 2007. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

PAL

Feel free to help out on my user pages. Also, I left a comment on the Planned Parenthood page. It's currently at least as much of a disaster as Evolution, but Im not sure I want my neck in that guillotine. Also, I added clarification to User:Palmd001/Falsifiability Challenge--PalMDtalk 10:32, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd like to see a List of falsifiable hypotheses. Is your FC headed that way?
You're better off steering clear of "owned pages". There are thousands of other writing opportunities around here. I have a huge backlog, most of which I haven't even posted at [[User:Ed Poor] yet - but you can check my 'ideas' section. --Ed Poor 10:34, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Since Im not much of a wikigeek, it doesnt matter to much to me where these go. If you want to rename/move them feel free. I wasn't planning on making a list of falisfiable hypotheses, simply because Im still waiting for a bright IDer, like philip or someone, to fill in the creation section.--PalMDtalk 11:08, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Although, i sort of like the way the science classroom looks now.--PalMDtalk 11:10, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

If we provide sufficient infrastructure, I bet we can get Michael Behe or William Dembski to contribute. --Ed Poor 11:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
posted response on my talk page.--PalMDtalk 13:05, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I invited Andy to find someone for the religion section in Contraception and I invited PhillipR to take a look at the falifiability page. FYI PalMDtalk 14:42, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Super! --Ed Poor 14:44, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

deleted "NASCAR": substandard

Aw, a pity that you vaped it. I thought it was quite symbolic. *chuckles* --Sid 3050 11:38, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

See Conservapedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. --Ed Poor 11:41, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
...why do we have a Hall of Fame for stupidity? (And why did you remove the part about that fellah requesting it?) Besides, some might argue that a few of the currently sysop-owned articles should belong on that list, too. --Sid 3050 11:44, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Why, why, why? "I don't know - oh - oh, I don't know.". --Ed Poor 11:48, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
...er, okay... --Sid 3050 11:51, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Undoing move

Hop on IRC if you want. I'm not sure what the goal is, but there appear two be four different pages here:

--Interiot 13:25, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

or to preserve the talk page history, how about the other way around? --Ed Poor 13:30, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Sure, sounds good. --Interiot 13:42, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Draft/Theistic Evolution

Suggest moving this to User:Ray Martinez/Theistic Evolution - it's his opinion piece (see history) and should most definitely not be a sub-page of Draft. --Sid 3050 13:57, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Another requested move

Would it be possible to move Questions or Comments to User talk:JessicaS/archive1, since it isn't appropriate for a mainspace article? Thanks. --Interiot 14:04, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

The two of you - little devils! ;-) I'm going to wait and let Interiot do all this after the students promote you to WikiGnome-in-chief! --Ed Poor 14:08, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Oh, I've got a ton of edits queued up. If the Panel doesn't think the promotion is a good idea though, I might have to leave a couple of them a day here. --Interiot 15:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Is that a threat? <grin> --Ed Poor 16:02, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Did you still want to move my Bias article?--PalMDtalk 16:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I keep wondering about that. Depends on whether you want (1) two copies, one private for you alone and one public for all of us to chew on or (2) a single copy.
If you want it to be a single copy, tag it with {{policy proposal}} and I will move it out of your userspace into public namespace, i.e., to Conservapedia:Bias. --Ed Poor 17:00, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh well, looks like I'll have to be coming to you for the foreseeable future. Could you also move Arlington National Cemetary to Arlington National Cemetery due to a typo?

  • Moved.

Also, not to nitpick or be vulgar, but anal sex could be redirected to sodomy if you think it's a good idea.

And the three redirects listed at Special:BrokenRedirects have been stuck there for several days and could be deleted.

  • Deleted.

And Category:Speedy deletion candidates needs to be cleaned out. And these could be moved to the Conservapedia: namespace: Official Conservapedia Usernames, Userfy, and Sysop/Admin Abuse. I think that's the non-trivial things that are in my queue. No hurry on these, they've been in my queue for several days. Thanks. --Interiot 21:52, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Neutrality

Ed - Some of my first edits on this site were cleaning up the Rudy Giuliani page. The entire page consisted of a list of reasons for Schlafly Conservatives to not vote for Giuliani. Now, I am no fan of Rudy Giuliani. I lived in NYC during the tail end of his tenure as mayor. I personally believe Rudy represents the best chance the GOP has of winning the presidency in 08. As such, a scathing page hitting him right in his conservative credentials was like manna from heaven to me, but it wasn't encyclopedic.

So I'm proud of my work on that and on John McCain and on 2008 Presidential Elections and on Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians and I point it out to Andrew. Andrew quickly admonishes me for removing his "facts" about Giuliani and McCain. And removing his speculative analysis on the 2008 election (That analysis? Tommy Thompson is more electable than John McCain. That was the entire page).--Rustyjd07 17:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

You can pass as many proposals as you want. He has yet to accept any corrections of any of his work. In the end, the only voice that matters on this site is his and those he agrees with.Myk 14:59, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Perhaps some are being disingenius? Making sure the "Conservative" point of view is included, and giving due credit to the Bible, doesn't imply strict nutrality. And since "nutrality" is subjective, who is to decide? Certainly Wikipedia doesn't even attempt it. And, Myk, even a casual perusal of Andy's archives show many reversals and accomodations of his work. Feeling as you do, why are you here? Merely to have a place to snipe and make false remarks? There are many larger sites to do that on, where your audience would be 100 times larger.--~ TerryK MyTalk 16:34, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Civility

I have responded to your civility post on my talk page. --Horace 16:20, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Question from new user

Hi - I'm new to this site. After spending a few minutes here, it looks like you're running the show. My expertise is in legal issues, as well as rhetoric and communication history. Is there anything I can focus on to build this site? --Rustyjd07 17:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Hmm, I must throttle back then. I'm a very prolific contributor of small changes, and an active sysop. I'm basically a generalist, and when I see patterns I try to codify them: formats, templates, even policy proposals.
However, I am building a cabal of minions to take over the universe. So, yes, you may assist me. ;-)
Can you create a Law portal? You know, organize all the legal articles in a coherent, user-friendly way. I'd love to see an general article on Law - what it's good for, its history, any abuses you'd care to point out (undisputed, like the Dredd Scott decision or voting rights discrimination against blacks); plus current controversies of the last 30 to 50 years.
The art of rhetoric: how to write a good Conservapedia:article!!! Plus classic rhetoric; any thoughts on Robert Pirsigs 'Zen and the Art' novel; rhetorical tips, tricks and taboos; Logical fallacies explained clearly enough that even high school kids can go, "Oops! I don't want to do that, better reword."
Anything about how people have communicated since the dawn of time: grunts, grimaces, hand signals, talking, writing, cave paintings, monuments. Animal communication: how do bees tell other bees where the good pollen is?
And this is just off the top of my head. Do want me to really think about it? :-) --Ed Poor 22:03, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

templates?

Want to toss Template:Prove into the fact category cleanup? Its not a science fact, nor a political one - just something needing background material. --Mtur 21:46, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Blocking duration

Ed, I urge the Sysops to block for infinite duration in the case of obscenities, as in Theimp. We don't want an expired block to come back to haunt us (which has happened here). I undid your shorter block of Theimp and then reblocked him for infinite duration.

I've really enjoyed and appreciated your contributions here, by the way!--Aschlafly 22:37, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I was thinking about that; I'm too soft-hearted, but I will take a few tough pills and get with the program! :-) --Ed Poor 22:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I sent him some of mine, those pills. ;-) --~ TerryK MyTalk 22:44, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Dawkins/Hammond

I don't want to get into a revert war over this. I have no problem with the sentence being there, there's just no evidence for it. I'd prefer it to go down and as I stated on the talk page, once we have a citation then it should go staight back up. I wholeheartedly agree that we need to see all sides of any argument before making a decision. Airdish 18:28, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Sometimes, instead of arguing about it, it is faster and easier to just find the cite, and put it in.  ;-) --~ TerryK MyTalk 19:05, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Sometimes it is, but sometimes you're on the way to do something else and just want to something to be quickly highlighted. (point taken though :-) ) Airdish 19:10, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Bias

Sorry, Ed. Whichever page I left that comment on I forgot to watchlist and lost track of. And then I left this response on your userpage and not on your talk page. Neeeeed coffee. Myk 14:26, 4 April 2007 (EDT)


I hope this is the right way to respond to you

Ed, I was a Wiki-newbie when I got the boot, so I'm still fairly new to this whole process. I noticed your words of encouragement regarding Intelligent Design and I wanted to drop a quick reply. I hope I'm not vandalizing your page and I hope this is the proper way to reply to someone. I'm not an Intelligent Design expert. I am an editor and a nationally published writer. My comments at the Wikipedia ID page were primarily to point out logical/grammatical/fairness issues. I'm happy to help edit and I think the creation of this site is important for our children. If you need a minion to do some editing let me know. Everwill 07:22, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Many are the volunteers clamoring to become one of my teeming minions. ;-)

Irc

I be there. Crackertalk

Science Classroom

I have a proposal to open a science classroom. The idea is to have experts in science (and I mean standard, practical science) answer basic science questions. It would not be a place for ideologues to leave their views or smear others. It would not be a place for non-mainstream science, e.g. creationism...as it is still not considered mainstream, it needs its own classroom. For example, someone could ask how scienice explains "x", and someone could give the standard answer. If anyone is interested in collaborating, especially wikigeeks who would have an idea how to set it up, let me know.--PalMDtalk 12:35, 31 March 2007 (EDT)


I trust you...--PalMDtalk 10:07, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

It's Not Fear

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)

If fear is not a factor, it's certainly odd that I get so very few answers to simple and direct questions. It's also odd that so much of what I posted to the McCarthy article, all of which was cited and factual, was removed. --PF Fox 18:37, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Without having looked at the edits... and without knowing your opinions of McCarthy... let me say that it is perfectly possible for things to be "cited and factual," yet tendentious. A good example would be the initial version of the article on Brown University. Take a look at it: it is completely factual and almost completely cited (and a citation for the "slavery" section is easily found). I say this because whenever someone says "everything I added was cited and factual," it always raised a bit of a red flag in my mind. Now let me go look at those edits... Dpbsmith 13:50, 1 April 2007 (EDT) OK, I see your point. Dpbsmith 13:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

It's nice to know that somebody here does. Too bad it won't change anything. --PF Fox 22:25, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Re: Tone and content of comments

Thanks for the suggestion. I wasn't attacking him, I was genuinely amused by the fact that that was not immediately reverted, and especially with an edit summary like it was given. Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 10:28, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Joy, fun and expressions of amusement are always welcome. See also the emerging Conservapedia:Civility discussion. --Ed Poor 15:34, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Uploading

I just resize image to less than 150kb, then try use random combination of letters as filenames, such as 56335.jpg or uuy587.jpg, usully works in less than 4 tries. Actully, this problem should be fixed on the server side, instead of requiring users to use stupid hacks. Jaques 14:01, 2 April 2007 (EDT)


Contraception

Don't know if you care, but my very accurate and informative contraception article was eviscerated.--PalMDtalk 18:25, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Contraception

Apparently, Andy has decided that contraception/birth control information is not a useful part of an encyclopedia. Any ideas? He has threatened to ban me for continuing to include it.--PalMDtalk 18:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, I don't know of any person who disagrees that abstinence is the only 100% effective way to prevent STIs and pregnancy. It's not a conservative or liberal view, it's a simple fact like 2+2=4. No sexual contact, no possible way of pregnancy or STIs. ColinRtalk 07:58, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Mr. Just-Being-Argumentative here. In the mid-1900s it was a routine procedure to treat the eyes of newborn infants with silver nitrate to protect them from congenital syphilis. So unless you consider being born to be a kind of "sexual contact," abstinence is not 100% effective at presenting STIs. Dpbsmith 08:32, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Calling per request...

I have tried several times. You still have my #, right? Perhaps you had better call me, lol. --~ TerryK MyTalk 21:26, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, my cell phone broke, and it took me a few days to realize it. Email still works, and I've sent you my daytime number. --Ed Poor 09:10, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Evolution

Ed, I would hate to see Conservapedia devolve into a mirror image of Wikipedia. I'm very troubled by the form and style of the article about Evolution. It looks like exactly the same time of tripe that I was fighting against at Wikipedia at Intelligent Design. I'm not a scientist or a philosopher. I'm not qualified to really write about either of these topics, but I know a hit job when I see one. Is there anything I can do to help? Everwill 08:01, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes. Please write clearly and neutrally at Origins debate. --Ed Poor 08:03, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Time out for excessive roughness

With all due respect, you must be forgetting that I'm a sysop too, and have been one (including my hiatus) longer than you. ColinRtalk 08:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

And I apologize if I seemed like I was rubbing my status in your face to get you to back down. I consider any good sysop my equal or even a higher power based on their actions, not length of time as a sysop. ColinRtalk 08:37, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Add "moron" to "pariah", then. :-( --Ed Poor 08:32, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
I'd prefer you don't. It's not your fault you didn't know I was a sysop. Look, I realize you may be personally opposed to gay marriage, I'm from a small rural town in TN, where everyone is against it. But I'm sure you'll agree personal viewpoints have no place in encyclopedic entries and some of your edits were personal views, not facts. We cool? ColinRtalk 08:35, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Cool, and I reverted all my changes but the first. Thanks for your mild response to my inflammatory, uh, 'initiative'. --Ed Poor 09:09, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Hey, no problem, I'm glad we could work it out. I'm assuming the heading is referring to why you were gone for so long. If you want my opinion, I'd prefer you didn't punish yourself, as that's valuable time you could be helping out, but if you feel that taking a break to cool off or whatever is best, I can't argue with that. I just don't want you to feel like you should have to punish yourself. ColinRtalk 09:12, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
No, it's a sporting metaphor: "An act of excessive roughness against an opponent, often rather minor violence that stops short of fighting; incurs a minor penalty." [1] --Ed Poor 09:15, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm familiar with the reference, thus assumed that the heading was referring to why you were inactive for so long. If that was the case, then I stand by what I said above, if you were just busy or whatever, cool beans and I'll leave it at that. ColinRtalk 09:18, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for your sympathetic understanding. Let's move on! --Ed Poor 09:24, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

You're getting better

Try this, type Same-sex marriage three times in a row. How many times did you put the quotation marks around the marriage? It shrieks POV! That you have one isn't an issue, that it might bleed into the article, well that what it is. Crackertalk 10:09, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I can't, my fingers rebel. I won't revert anyone's removal of the scare quotes, any more than I would revert words like centre or colour, or references to CE instead of AD. But I'm allergic to using marriage to describe homosexuals, and I think it's part of the gay rights agenda to accept the concept and the term. They are sneaky! --Ed Poor 10:17, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps it's just people using a word that was untill recently generally used to refer to a 'bond' between a man and a woman for a bond between two people of the same sex. Is it really part of an agenda? On the other hand I'm allergic to using mouse to describe a computer input device, and I think it's part of the computer geek agenda to accept the concept and the term. They are sneaky! So I can understand where you are coming from.
WhatIsG0ing0n 10:36, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I know too much, too many dark things. (Strider, in The Lord of the Rings) --Ed Poor 10:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

There also is the fact that many people are simply revolted by the thought of homosexual-acts (not the people themselves) and this carries over into opinions and articles...I don't like that one is not "allowed" to be revolted by what revolts one anymore. Crackertalk

Ad hominem attacks

I'm just curious, Ed, if you read his example of an adhominem attack and it it merits a warning. Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#More_bias My edit at 2:04 eastern. Myk 14:46, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed the Wise and Beneficient, please expand your comment on my talk page. I'm sorry if I'm eating your time, but I'm not sure if you're admonishing Myk or myself. ;^) Everwill

Thanks for the clarification! I love Conservapedia.Everwill 15:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Prototheria

You might want to leave it...it is the subfamily of monotremes--PalMDtalk 16:26, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

And those are? --Ed Poor 16:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
egg-laying mammals

I hate to bug you

While padding the Virginia article I spawned an article on the Beltway. How do I make The Beltway and Beltway the same article? Everwill 20:43, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

And yet another tech support question. The >ref< tags don't appear to work the same way here. I've been editting random articles like blitzkrieg and upanishads. Everwill 08:09, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

No problem, that's what I'm here for. :-) Simply add <references/> wherever you want the notes to appear. [2] --Ed Poor 08:20, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Quotient

Why did you revert my last edit in the liberal quotient?User:Order 7 April 00:38 AEST

I didn't expect that you were a math teacher. I will see how the discussion further develops. User:Order 7 April, 1:20 (AEST)
Consider an SAT prep teacher who is paid $50/hour. If Kaplan pays $16/hour, what's his "Kaplan quotient"? --Ed Poor 12:31, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Historical Revisionism

To what extent is revisionism concerning the Nazi era tolerated at Conservapedia? In the article on National Socialists, RobS has repeatedly removed a reference to the early incarnation of the Nazi Party as being "right wing" when in fact just about every historical AND contemprary source I've consulted refers to them in that manner. He seems to be on a crusade to pass off his own decidedly idiosyncratic definitions as common usage. Is it verboten here to rever to the Nazis as "right wing? I don't notice a similar squeamishness about referring to Communism as "lefist." --PF Fox 12:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

We have not settled on a standard for usage of terms like "left" and "right". Would you care to take the first crack at Political spectrum? --Ed Poor 12:30, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
The standard for using the term "right wing" to apply to the Nazis was settled on seven decades ago. Are you telling me, in all seriousness, that Conservapedia has decided to revise this very venerable and established assessment of the Nazis? and if you've not settled on that standard, why do I see "Communism" referred to as being on the "left?" --PF Fox 12:35, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
If you aren't going to write about the political spectrum, someone else with less passion and integrity might have to do it. ;-) --Ed Poor 12:40, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Do you consider a certain dearth of integrity desirable in someone who posts here? And you haven't answered my question. Has Conservapedia decided to revise the historical AND contemporary assessment of the Nazis as "right wing?" And if the definition of "right and left" is truly up for grabs here, why is Communism referred to here as being on the "left?" --PF Fox 12:48, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
LOL, no, I do not look forward to the death or dearth of integrity here. And at the risk of repeating myself, we have not settled on a standard for usage of terms like "left" and "right". --Ed Poor 12:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, I know you said that. So why is Communism referred to here as being on the "left" and why have you suddenly decided that over seventy years of historical assessment of the Nazis should now be tossed out? --PF Fox 13:07, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

King speech

I'm under the assumption that King's apeech was public domain, since it was uttered in a public setting (I could be wrong). I think a good idea would be to do a mere double-check on this, just to be safe. But the link to the video, that could be placed in King's article so people could see and hear it in it's entirety. Karajou 12:32, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Last I heard, Dr. King's estate claims copyright on the "I have a dream" speech. Check with User:Aschlafly.
I did a check at the link mentioned by user:scott on Aschlafly's talk page, and there is a copyright. It's good that checks are made. Karajou 12:43, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Sometimes I feel like a bug under a microscope. --Ed Poor 12:46, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Nothing to worry about. All you're doing is ensuring stuff is done right around here, and there's nothing wrong with that :) Karajou 12:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Civility

OK, I'm willing. Wait while I calm down, now that I've gotten that out. --Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 13:03, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Vandal Alert

Check out the history of Pentagon. I just removed a bit of wackiness. Everwill 15:34, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

For urgent cases, please post to Conservapedia:Abuse. Another good sysop to talk to is User:MountainDew. --Ed Poor 15:37, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Free Trade Union

A "Free Trade Union" is a Trade Union separate from an official or a government controlled Trade Union. The Word "free" is moderating the term "Trade Union," not merely the word "trade." --PF Fox 18:07, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh, thanks. I was wondering about that. --Ed Poor 18:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Flat Earth

Hi, I responded to your comments on my own talk page as I don't like to fragment discussions across multiple pages! Hope that's okay and I look forward to your response. MatteeNeutra 21:04, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

I've been doing the wiki thing for 5 years - I can handle any mode of communication: ping-pong, fracture, slippy-dippy, you name it. ;-) --Ed Poor 23:04, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Thought you might be interested

I was thinking about rules of conduct. You might be interested in this. --Horace 07:42, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, that's an excellent start. --Ed Poor 07:51, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Horace, please see "The Truth" on My Manifesto. Ed, do you have any idea why my references aren't working properly at Chesapeake Bay? Everwill 09:42, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

  • There was an extra <ref> tag in the way; such tags must be "closed" with a </ref> tag. Otherwise all subsequent text will be hidden. --Ed Poor 11:17, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Pentagon

Hello, just wondering if you could move the Pentagon page to Pentagon (Disambiguation) as per my request on the talk page? Cheers :) MatteeNeutra 12:56, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Happy Easter!

Happy Easter to you, Ed!

The eleven disciples went to the hill in Galilee where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him, Jesus drew near and said to them, "I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth. Go, then, to all peoples everywhere and make them my disciples: baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and teach them to obey everything I have commanded you. And I will be with you always, to the end of the age." Matthew 28
Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right. You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. You know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached— how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him. “We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” —Acts 10:34-43 NIV

--~ TK MyTalk 04:40, 8 April 2007 (EDT)


Disillusioned

Ed, Happy Easter.

I'm sad to say I'm a little disillusioned by Conservapedia already. I am extremely irritated by the liberal bias pervading every corner of Wikipedia, but I'm equally saddened when I look at the Evolution article here. I might just stop editting for a while until I see how things develop. Maybe I need to start my own "middlopedia"? Everwill 16:08, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Political spectrum

moved from User:Ed Poor

Ed Poor-- Nice job on the political spectrum page. Conciseness is next to godliness. I didnt appreciate being called a weasel... but your editing was good.

I still support separate pages for left/right/ and spectrum. The left/right pages are now very concise. But I think we should leave them open for people to expand on. --Redblue 07:55, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

LOL, the weaselly part I cut out was (I think) actually written by me. Lemme go check. --Ed Poor 07:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Nope. It was Mathematica: It has been commonly pointed out that ... [3]
Doesnt really matter who wrote it... the current version strikes me as clearer. --Redblue 07:59, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
As I expected, someone here has gone onto the Political Spectrum page and changed "Nazism" to nationalism -- but of course, has left the identification of Communism with leftism. It now reads: "In discussions of mid-twentieth century Eurpoean international politics, Communism is usually called "left-wing" and nationalism "right-wing". Folks here are making my points for me. --PF Fox 14:22, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, I support the removal of the bogey man, Nazi. Their style of government was Socialism. That is Left-Wing, in my book. There isn't a dime's worth of difference between their style of governing and the Communists. But maybe I am missing something? --~ TK MyTalk 14:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
No, the Nazis style of government was not "socialism" and was not regarded as socialism by either socialists or Nazis or any other observer. They were no more "Socialists" than Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard were members of the GOP. What you're missing, TK, are the facts of history. What exactly have you read about the Nazis? And I mean read IN BOOKS, not online. --PF Fox 14:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
  • I checked the membership list of the GOP, and I can agree that the Republican Guard were not members, although I did run across some suspect, Arab-sounding names, which I will have looked into.  :p --~ TK MyTalk 14:38, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
So in fact you've read nothing about the Third Reich. --PF Fox 15:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, Ed, there it goes, the section on Communism being associated with the left and Nazism associated with the right has been completely erased, courtesy of RobS. Better watch out. He might change the end of the Weimar Republic in the WR's article to 1939 yet...

Still "puzzled?" --PF Fox 16:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)


Sarcasm bans?

If you are banning for sarcasm, could you look at this edit and this edit? --Mtur 19:48, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Which rule of rhetoric did Sid violate? --PalMDtalk 19:49, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Sarcasm bans? That's a GREAAAAAAAAT idea. /rolls eyes.-AmesGyo! 19:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
I hereby ban you for one blink of an eye. ;-)
Sweet! Do theoretical bans count to my ban counter? I think I'd be up to lucky #13 if so.-AmesGyo! 19:55, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Only theoretically. --Ed Poor 19:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Loving it.-AmesGyo! 20:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, I am sure many of you already have your socks laundered, as you will soon be needing them.  :p --~ TK MyTalk 20:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

That, TK, was one of the most amusing and clever comments left on this site, EVER.--PalMDtalk 20:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Oh Doctor! You'll turn my head! --~ TK MyTalk 20:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)


Ed!!! That was a FAIR mirror, not quite a parody. It points out the hypocricy of the article, and it contained an apologia. Please reinstate it.--PalMDtalk 20:45, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

You'll save time pointing out flaws in the article, by using the talk pages. Parody is a waste of time. --Ed Poor 20:54, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Ed, tho I dont think parody is a waste of time, when done correctly. I did pretty much mean what I said about consensus, but I could be wrong about whats best. Flawed being here.PalMDtalk 22:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

If I knew what was best, I'd run for mayor or something. --Flawed Being 22:52, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
you have just been overruled by the perfect being.PalMDtalk 22:54, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

And by the way, since he as a horse in the race, he shouldnt get a vote. IMHO Pete

Yep

It's me at #conservapedia, not an impostor. And I don't condone Richards edits, but he didn't really break any rules. --Hojimachongtalk 23:22, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

  • You feel not the slightest guilt discussing this place and policy, away from the glare of public notice, where the rest of us cannot defend ourselves or answer, eh? --~ TK MyTalk 23:25, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Terry, sign on any time, day or night, irc.freenode.net, #conservapedia.--PalMDtalk 23:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Been there, done that. I was there this morning. They moved to another channel, or the locked one that was created, to continue their plotting and dirty tricks campaign. --~ TK MyTalk 23:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm..ok, whatever you say, Mr. Nixon...--PalMDtalk 23:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

  • LOL...doesn't alter the fact it has happened several times. More than enough to wear out any benefit of the doubt on my part. --~ TK MyTalk 23:51, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

The non-page formerly known as Uniting Church in Australia

Ed, can you please help me find where to see non- or deleted pages? I know that I created Uniting Church in Australia about 2-3 weeks ago. Now, I go back to do some more on it, and it's gone, presumably deleted (as in AFDed.) Yes, I borrowed heavily from the Wikipedia entry; but, I was a significant author (but not 'establish'-er) of the content over there so it is 'mine' and I could borrow from it and 'spin' it a little for this context and be true to both. I will go back in and re-create it; but, that could also be removed if people think I am only 'borrowing' again. It has taught me to set the "Watch this page" for all situations. Advice, please. Peter Ellis 23:54, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor/3&oldid=98231"