SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1,074:
Line 1,074: + + + + + + + + + + Line 1,082:
Line 1,092: − +
→Atheistic Troll: Can we get to the bottom of the "Question Evolution booklet" issue?
:::Is the author George R.R. Martin? We have been awaiting his publication for a long time also (Joking of course).--[[User:Chewy Suarez|Chewy Suarez]] ([[User talk:Chewy Suarez|talk]]) 10:28, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
:::Is the author George R.R. Martin? We have been awaiting his publication for a long time also (Joking of course).--[[User:Chewy Suarez|Chewy Suarez]] ([[User talk:Chewy Suarez|talk]]) 10:28, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
::::Re: book/booklet: Things happen in people's lives. Projects experience unforeseen difficulties. One thing for certain, the growth of European creationism[https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/title/creationism-europe] and the growth of evangelical Christianity and Islam in Britain, insures that a bungled 19th century attempt to come up with a viable explanation of the origin of animal/plant life on earth will be extinguished.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 10:53, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
::::Re: book/booklet: Things happen in people's lives. Projects experience unforeseen difficulties. One thing for certain, the growth of European creationism[https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/title/creationism-europe] and the growth of evangelical Christianity and Islam in Britain, insures that a bungled 19th century attempt to come up with a viable explanation of the origin of animal/plant life on earth will be extinguished.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 10:53, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
:::::Oh my! I had not intended for this discussion to get sidetracked by the "Question Evolution booklet" issue. But, as long as we are here, and now that the Cons's appear to have left the site, we have a chance to lay this matter to rest once and for all.
:::::The predictions by the Cons's (though I believed at the time that there was only one of them) of some forthcoming "Question Evolution booklet for middle-school students" has been going on for several years. One of my early recollections of it involves some Canadian woman writing it, and sending it out for review by some students, and some other people (perhaps from RW) wanting to see it, and being rebuffed. The earliest reference I can find now is from 2012 (long before Wikignome72 arrived here): [https://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly/Archive59#Orwellian_changes_of_Conservapedia.27s_history here]. And here it was again in March, 2019: [https://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/174#Question_Evolution_book_for_middle_school_students here]. And again in April: [https://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/175#Question_Evolution_book_and_an_evolutionist_pretending_to_be_omniscient here].
:::::All questions were rebuffed, as in the comment "If anyone wants to know about the past, present or future of that project, it is incumbent upon them to determine this." from the March 2019 page. This strikes me as peculiar. When I go to Amazon, for example, looking for a book, it typically tells me how to buy it. Occasionally a book is listed prior to publication, in which case the web site tells when it will come out and how to place a pre-order. Telling the person, in effect, "It's none of your business how to find out about this book" strikes me as not a good way to do business.
::::::'''Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light to all that are in the house. Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.''' -- Matthew 5:15-16
:::::All this has struck me as odd for someone who was so intensely concerned with popularity statistics and page views for their many articles. It has led me (and I suspect others) to wonder whether this whole "Question Evolution booklet" issue was nothing but a childish and narcissistic fantasy on Cons's part. But here's the good news: We can now put this whole issue to rest. Since the Cons's are gone, and you (Wikignome72) seem to be in close contact with at least some of them, could you use your influence to find out from them what was going on, and whether this really was just a fantasy? I'm sure that you, as a responsible person, will be able to unravel all this. That would help us all to achieve closure. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:26, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
:Well, this gets more confusing practically every day. Wikignome72 writes ("I asked another editor of the account [clearly referring to the Conservative account] to change the password ..." '''Another''' editor? This suggests the WGN is one of the editors of that account. But that would be sockpuppetry, which is clearly forbidden, and gets people banned instantly. So we have to assume WGN simply misspoke.
:Well, this gets more confusing practically every day. Wikignome72 writes ("I asked another editor of the account [clearly referring to the Conservative account] to change the password ..." '''Another''' editor? This suggests the WGN is one of the editors of that account. But that would be sockpuppetry, which is clearly forbidden, and gets people banned instantly. So we have to assume WGN simply misspoke.
:So it's all very confusing. I don't know what the relationship is between WGN and the Cons folks, or the relationship among the Cons folks. But it appears that the number of Cons folks is 3, not 4.
:So it's all very confusing. I don't know what the relationship is between WGN and the Cons folks, or the relationship among the Cons folks. But it appears that the number of Cons folks is 3, not 4.
:By the way, I don't normally follow Richard Dawkins, or all the atheist material the the Cons folks, and WGN, write, but today I just happened to look at [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=atheism,atheist,Richard%20Dawkins,agnostic,agnosticism a Google trends page]. And I thought "Mission accomplished!", depending on what the mission is. I can't figure out what the surveys mean. They seem to be treating Richard Dawkins as though he, personally, is a religious stance. But the [http://www.sneps.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/jssr_15101.pdf pre-2043] page certainly suggests that something has been a smashing success!!
:By the way, I don't normally follow Richard Dawkins, or all the atheist material that the Cons folks, and WGN, write, but today I just happened to look at [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=atheism,atheist,Richard%20Dawkins,agnostic,agnosticism a Google trends page]. And I thought "Mission accomplished!", depending on what the mission is. I can't figure out what the surveys mean. They seem to be treating Richard Dawkins as though he, personally, is a religious stance. But the [http://www.sneps.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/jssr_15101.pdf pre-2043] page certainly suggests that something has been a smashing success!!
:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 20:40, 28 September 2019 (EDT)
:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 20:40, 28 September 2019 (EDT)