Changes

:::::I realize that, but isn't it possible that it could eventually reach an arbitrarily large number that would be extremely close to 100% conservatism? In my humble opinion, conservatism (as is the case with nearly everything) has some sort of limit. Whether it will be reached in our lifetimes (or 10 or 100 lifetimes from now) is unknowable. My point is, if there were some sort of hypothetical figure that represented total conservatism, that it could not be reached by Conservapedia's Law? Of course, I hope that eventually we do reach 100% conservatism, but I am curious as to your opinion, Mr. Schlafly. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 23:55, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::I realize that, but isn't it possible that it could eventually reach an arbitrarily large number that would be extremely close to 100% conservatism? In my humble opinion, conservatism (as is the case with nearly everything) has some sort of limit. Whether it will be reached in our lifetimes (or 10 or 100 lifetimes from now) is unknowable. My point is, if there were some sort of hypothetical figure that represented total conservatism, that it could not be reached by Conservapedia's Law? Of course, I hope that eventually we do reach 100% conservatism, but I am curious as to your opinion, Mr. Schlafly. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 23:55, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::I do not follow your logic. Geometric progressions always reach infinity when the absolute value of the ratio is greater than or equal to 1. Conervapedia's Law posits a ratio of 2. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 12:57, 24 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::I do not follow your logic. Geometric progressions always reach infinity when the absolute value of the ratio is greater than or equal to 1. Conervapedia's Law posits a ratio of 2. Do you expect conservative edits to Conservapedia to increase at this doubling rate? If not, why? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 12:57, 24 March 2011 (EDT)