Changes

A debate on the Talk page began between Ed Poor[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=434041&oldid=434034], ASchalfly[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=434034&oldid=434032] and myself[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=434047&oldid=434041][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=434102&oldid=434078][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=434112&oldid=434106], where I was accused of supporting a viewpoint on Intelligent Design and/or Evolution - which was never my position, and nor did I ever proclaim an opinion on such matters.  I continued to simply argue for the review to be included.  I was repeatedly  blocked for arguing that whether or not one agreed with the review, it should remain in the the article for Fair Balance, and for pointing out that it was not me who quoted Stein, but the reviewer, who was in fact the only one of the three of us who ''could'' know what Stein "asks" in the movie.  The reason given for the blocks was "misquoting", despite the fact that I only ever posted direct transcriptions from the ''Time'' magazine review[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AMakeTime][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ATakeTwo][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ATakeThree][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AJanEngerlund][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AHarrietJones].

A debate on the Talk page began between Ed Poor[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=434041&oldid=434034], ASchalfly[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=434034&oldid=434032] and myself[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=434047&oldid=434041][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=434102&oldid=434078][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=434112&oldid=434106], where I was accused of supporting a viewpoint on Intelligent Design and/or Evolution - which was never my position, and nor did I ever proclaim an opinion on such matters.  I continued to simply argue for the review to be included.  I was repeatedly  blocked for arguing that whether or not one agreed with the review, it should remain in the the article for Fair Balance, and for pointing out that it was not me who quoted Stein, but the reviewer, who was in fact the only one of the three of us who ''could'' know what Stein "asks" in the movie.  The reason given for the blocks was "misquoting", despite the fact that I only ever posted direct transcriptions from the ''Time'' magazine review[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AMakeTime][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ATakeTwo][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ATakeThree][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AJanEngerlund][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AHarrietJones].

Eventually, Ed Poor [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=434071&oldid=434070 admitted that he had not seen the movie], and therefore was not in a position to comment on what Stein did or didn't say in the film.  Ed Poor went on to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=prev&oldid=438912 remove some of his opinion], leaving others, and finally [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=next&oldid=438912 removed most of the reviews of the movie], claiming that a movie review is [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=next&oldid=438915 "is unrelated to the movie"].    My blocks were [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=next&oldid=434105 not lifted], however my comments were mostly removed from the Talk page[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=prev&oldid=434105][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=next&oldid=434112].

Eventually, Ed Poor [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=434071&oldid=434070 admitted that he had not seen the movie], and therefore was not in a position to comment on what Stein did or didn't say in the film.  Ed Poor went on to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=prev&oldid=438912 remove some of his opinion](admitting it was "incorrect"), leaving others, and finally [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=next&oldid=438912 removed most of the reviews of the movie], claiming that a movie review is [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=next&oldid=438915 "is unrelated to the movie"].    My blocks were [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=next&oldid=434105 not lifted], however my comments were mostly removed from the Talk page[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=prev&oldid=434105][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=next&oldid=434112].

The whole farce is yet another cogent example of censorship in Conservapedia, which always censors information and blocks editors for posting material with which the sysops disagree.  Not only that, but it presents pretty low ethical standards, as Ed Poor presented an opinion and slanders a reputable journalist without the slightest foundation.  [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 17:03, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

The whole farce is yet another cogent example of censorship in Conservapedia, which always censors information and blocks editors for posting material with which the sysops disagree.  Not only that, but it presents pretty low ethical standards, as Ed Poor presented an opinion and slanders a reputable journalist without the slightest foundation.  [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 17:03, 26 April 2008 (EDT)