Changes

::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)

:::::Philip, Tim, JArneal, what I said was, in addition to the parts you addressed is:

:::Philip, Tim, JArneal, what I said was, in addition to the parts you addressed is:

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

:::::Yes, I realize you disagree.  And I also realize you wouldn't accept that what you claim Andy (and others) are doing, is exactly what you (and others) did to me, at one time.  No proof presented to me, nothing.  No right to confront accusers, etc. But it seems to me you have a double standard, depending upon the situation, and if you agree or disagree with it.  Can you, Philip, disagree with your employer, or their decisions about schedules?  Are you allowed to argue publicly about cut-backs?  I don't think so.  Taking the job of an Admin, you by necessity forfeit certain rights others have.  I think your claim of being able to wear "two hats", be at one turn an Admin, and as it suits you, an editor of equal standing with the majority of CP users,  is a fallacy.  I am not one of those clamoring for your removal, odd as that might seem to some.  I am, however, looking for a resolution, and an end to this public family squabble short of blocking and removal as an Administrator.  Someone has to give.  IMO, those "someones" should be those who Andy has given his trust to, and endowed them with special rights others don't have, out of common courtesy. Can you guys please take this to email? --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font>^{<font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font>} 01:17, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::Yes, I realize you disagree.  And I also realize you wouldn't accept that what you claim Andy (and others) are doing, is exactly what you (and others) did to me, at one time.  No proof presented to me, nothing.  No right to confront accusers, etc. But it seems to me you have a double standard, depending upon the situation, and if you agree or disagree with it.  Can you, Philip, disagree with your employer, or their decisions about schedules?  Are you allowed to argue publicly about cut-backs?  I don't think so.  Taking the job of an Admin, you by necessity forfeit certain rights others have.  I think your claim of being able to wear "two hats", be at one turn an Admin, and as it suits you, an editor of equal standing with the majority of CP users,  is a fallacy.  I am not one of those clamoring for your removal, odd as that might seem to some.  I am, however, looking for a resolution, and an end to this public family squabble short of blocking and removal as an Administrator.  Someone has to give.  IMO, those "someones" should be those who Andy has given his trust to, and endowed them with special rights others don't have, out of common courtesy. Can you guys please take this to email? --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font>^{<font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font>} 01:17, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::::Again, your analogy fails.  If this was a project for Andy's purposes, and Andy's opinion, then it might hold some water.  However the object is supposedly advancing the cause of truth.  Therefore, truth should come before Andy's opinion, which is all that the Obama thing has become.  Also for your analogy of an employer there are 2 definite differences.  For one, an employee is bound to do the work of the employer because he is under contract, and being payed to do it.  CP is a volunteer project, so editors should have more freedom.  Secondly, as I pointed out already, CP is about truth, not about Andy, A business is about making money for the owner/shareholders, therefore all work is done to further their purposes.  so your analogy fails.  --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small>^{[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]}  ^{[[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]]} 07:48, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::Again, your analogy fails.  If this was a project for Andy's purposes, and Andy's opinion, then it might hold some water.  However the object is supposedly advancing the cause of truth.  Therefore, truth should come before Andy's opinion, which is all that the Obama thing has become.  Also for your analogy of an employer there are 2 definite differences.  For one, an employee is bound to do the work of the employer because he is under contract, and being payed to do it.  CP is a volunteer project, so editors should have more freedom.  Secondly, as I pointed out already, CP is about truth, not about Andy, A business is about making money for the owner/shareholders, therefore all work is done to further their purposes.  so your analogy fails.  --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small>^{[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]}  ^{[[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]]} 07:48, 2 December 2008 (EST)

This project is led by Andy, and leadership is necesary. Where disputes occur, he is rightly the arbiter of what constitutes truth. It is our duty to display loyalty to and respect for his judgement. What you are doing, Tim, is not only arrogant (in claiming for yourself the right to adjudicate) and wrong (the 'arguments' put forward by you and your clique hold less water than a broken sieve), but disloyal and subversive. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:56, 2 December 2008 (EST)

This project is led by Andy, and leadership is necesary. Where disputes occur, he is rightly the arbiter of what constitutes truth. It is our duty to display loyalty to and respect for his judgement. What you are doing, Tim, is not only arrogant (in claiming for yourself the right to adjudicate) and wrong (the 'arguments' put forward by you and your clique hold less water than a broken sieve), but disloyal and subversive. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:56, 2 December 2008 (EST)