Changes

*CP has an owner, it is his <u>absolute right</u> to have whatever viewpoint he wants. To ask any questions he wants to, to speculate as to Obama's motives and/or background.  If people agree, with even a part, they should stick around and help build this place. If they don't, what other reason, ''other than being obstinate or having malicious intent'', could they have? Disagreement is <u>fine</u>, <u>debate is good</u>. But where does it end, and argument without end begin?  The "truth" isn't dependent upon polls, straw or otherwise. Since Conservapedia has officially eschewed a "mobocracy" what in the world is going on here? Can you gentlemen please take this where it belongs, to email?  And yes, Philip, I understand ''your idea'' of the wiki format is different from what I think, what Andy thinks, what your fellow Administrators think. But you and Tim have always known that from the very beginning. It isn't like it was sprung on you by surprise, is it?.  ''It is time to end this foolish and misguided endeavor.'' --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font>^{<font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font>} 23:18, 1 December 2008 (EST)

*CP has an owner, it is his <u>absolute right</u> to have whatever viewpoint he wants. To ask any questions he wants to, to speculate as to Obama's motives and/or background.  If people agree, with even a part, they should stick around and help build this place. If they don't, what other reason, ''other than being obstinate or having malicious intent'', could they have? Disagreement is <u>fine</u>, <u>debate is good</u>. But where does it end, and argument without end begin?  The "truth" isn't dependent upon polls, straw or otherwise. Since Conservapedia has officially eschewed a "mobocracy" what in the world is going on here? Can you gentlemen please take this where it belongs, to email?  And yes, Philip, I understand ''your idea'' of the wiki format is different from what I think, what Andy thinks, what your fellow Administrators think. But you and Tim have always known that from the very beginning. It isn't like it was sprung on you by surprise, is it?.  ''It is time to end this foolish and misguided endeavor.'' --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font>^{<font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font>} 23:18, 1 December 2008 (EST)

::You say: "CP has an owner, it is his absolute right to have whatever viewpoint he wants."

::You say: "CP has an owner, it is his absolute right to have whatever viewpoint he wants."

::However, the point of this project is to show the truth, not one particular person's viewpoint.  If Andy wants to have a website that is an outlet to display his personal opinions and make his own political commentary and political attacks, that is absolutely fine by me.  However, he is portraying Conservapedia as an encyclopedia, supposedly just the truth instead of political bias.  Andy has to make a decision.  Either he has an encyclopedia, and starts treating it like one, or else he can have a website dedicated to his personal opinion.  Either one is fine by me.  However, if he wants to have the latter, then he should advertise it as such.  --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small>^{[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]}  ^{[[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]]} 23:48, 1 December 2008 (EST)

::However, the point of this project is to show the truth, not one particular person's viewpoint.  If Andy wants to have a website that is an outlet to display his personal opinions and make his own political commentary and political attacks, that is absolutely fine by me.  However, he is portraying Conservapedia as an encyclopedia, supposedly just the truth instead of political bias.  Andy has to make a decision.  Either he has an encyclopedia, and starts treating it like one, or else he can have a website dedicated to his personal opinion.  Either one is fine by me.  However, if he wants to have the latter, then he should advertise it as such.  --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small>^{[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]}  ^{[[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]]} 23:48, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:: (Edit Conflict with CPAdmin1) I am not sure that it is my place to answer you, TK, but I feel some things must be said. Andrew Schlafly is undoubtedly the owner of this website. He does have the absolute right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. He does have the right to ask any questions, to speculate as to Obama's motives and/or background. But he does not have the right to post these viewpoints as facts. He is not infallible. No one is. To leave the truth to any one person's judgement, even if it is Mr. Schlafly's judgement, is faulty.  

:::(Edit Conflict with CPAdmin1) I am not sure that it is my place to answer you, TK, but I feel some things must be said. Andrew Schlafly is undoubtedly the owner of this website. He does have the absolute right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. He does have the right to ask any questions, to speculate as to Obama's motives and/or background. But he does not have the right to post these viewpoints as facts. He is not infallible. No one is. To leave the truth to any one person's judgement, even if it is Mr. Schlafly's judgement, is faulty.  

:: You are also absolutely correct in that truth is not dependent upon polls, or "mobocracy" either. But these people who came up with the idea of a straw poll have seen no other way to get their point across. Their point is that any encyclopedic website should treat logic as king. Truth is not necessarily obtainable, but fact is. That is what Conservapedia should strive for: fact. And before anyone says that treating logic as king is atheistic or liberal, do not be too literal, because I hold other, more important things, like God and my faith, above logic. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|<font color="#006666" >JArneal</font>]]''' '' 00:03, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::You are also absolutely correct in that truth is not dependent upon polls, or "mobocracy" either. But these people who came up with the idea of a straw poll have seen no other way to get their point across. Their point is that any encyclopedic website should treat logic as king. Truth is not necessarily obtainable, but fact is. That is what Conservapedia should strive for: fact. And before anyone says that treating logic as king is atheistic or liberal, do not be too literal, because I hold other, more important things, like God and my faith, above logic. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|<font color="#006666" >JArneal</font>]]''' '' 00:03, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:: What Tim and JArneal have said I concur with.  And point out that those opposing us continually misrepresent the situation, by claiming "censorship", the "right to decide what viewpoint to put", etc.  Andy has never explicitly claimed that his viewpoint is sacrosanct (although that does seem to be implicit, and that view is supported by various people claiming as much; obviously they understand the thinking behind his actions also), and in fact Andy specifically said to me that truth is decided by logic and evidence.  He didn't say that it's decided by what he thinks.  But rather than argue logic and evidence, Andy, Bugler, and TK, in particular, are trying to silence the logic and evidence by claiming "censorship" (but never justifying that claim), the right to a viewpoint, that that it's "undeniable" (patently false), that this is supposedly all about how things are done on Wikipedia, and other red herrings that ''don't actually provide logic and evidence''!  In doing so, they effectively demonstrate that they are wrong, as providing logically fallacious arguments is the resort of those that don't have good arguments!  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:02, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::What Tim and JArneal have said I concur with.  And point out that those opposing us continually misrepresent the situation, by claiming "censorship", the "right to decide what viewpoint to put", etc.  Andy has never explicitly claimed that his viewpoint is sacrosanct (although that does seem to be implicit, and that view is supported by various people claiming as much; obviously they understand the thinking behind his actions also), and in fact Andy specifically said to me that truth is decided by logic and evidence.  He didn't say that it's decided by what he thinks.  But rather than argue logic and evidence, Andy, Bugler, and TK, in particular, are trying to silence the logic and evidence by claiming "censorship" (but never justifying that claim), the right to a viewpoint, that that it's "undeniable" (patently false), that this is supposedly all about how things are done on Wikipedia, and other red herrings that ''don't actually provide logic and evidence''!  In doing so, they effectively demonstrate that they are wrong, as providing logically fallacious arguments is the resort of those that don't have good arguments!  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:02, 2 December 2008 (EST)