Talk:Main Page/Archive index/104

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Question evolution! campaign axman cometh

An advocate of the Question evolution! campaign wrote:

"We have some great news to report! A person who loves the Question evolution! campaign has made the commitment to intensely promote the campaign. Hundreds of hours are going to be added to promote the campaign in the short term. He is going to relentlessly swing his Question evolution! axe at the rotten tree of evolutionism and nothing is going to distract him.

We already know that the evolutionists are impotent against the 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer so the widespread distribution of these questions is going to be very demoralizing to evolution supporters. Questioning, critical reasoning and open inquiry are toxic to evolutionary belief so we are very much looking forward to the widespread dissemination of the Question evolution! campaign."[2]

See: Responses to the Question evolution! campaign Conservative 08:19, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

Administrative attention needed

There are numerous articles in Category:Move requests. Would an admin please take a look? Thanks. --SharonW 14:02, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

Yoohoo, anyone there? --SharonW 10:23, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
Good suggestion. I'll follow up on this issue.--Andy Schlafly 10:29, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

This winter

Mr. Aschlafly, I cannot help but notice that throughout the history of your blog, time and time again you seem to equate weather and climate as if they are synonymous. With making such an egregious error on a basic distinction of concepts, I cannot see how you are at all qualified to speak at all about meteorology or climatology. Do you have any useful insight as to your thinking process which would facilitate such thinking? GustavM 18:48, 20 October 2011 (EDT) 18:48, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

It could simply be an oversight. I know there's a difference between weather and climate, although don't know what it is. And Conservative, your comment doesn't address anything about what GustavM was asking. - JamesCA 19:25, 20 October 2011 (EDT)
Weather is a local phenomena in a somewhat short time-frame. As in the weather in your area might be overcast, sunny, etc today. Climate is a generally predictable, consistent pattern of weather over a larger area and time span. So Florida's climate is a subtropical one because history has shown that it is generally warm, humid, and sunny. Does that help? Ayzmo :) 22:43, 20 October 2011 (EDT)
It does. Thanks for the explanation :) - JamesCA 20:32, 21 October 2011 (EDT)

Colder weather is evidence that the Democratic claims of a crisis of global warming are false.--Andy Schlafly 20:55, 21 October 2011 (EDT)

Technically speaking that isn't true. By that same standard we could point to the abnormally warm summers and say that it is. You can't look at weather patterns and instead must look at the long-term trends of a climate. That's a common misconception. Ayzmo :) 01:48, 22 October 2011 (EDT)
So you're saying that if looking at the average temperature over something like 12 months, throughout the entire United States, that would support/contradict Global Warming depending on the result? But looking at only one summer or winter, that is not sufficient to show a meaningful trend. Right? - JamesCA 02:44, 22 October 2011 (EDT)
There is only one summer and winter per 12 month period JamesCA, so no, that wouldn't be sufficient. -- Maninahat 21:04, 22 October 2011 (EDT)
You have to look at years' worth of data to say anything about about an area's climate and whether or not it is changing. Ayzmo :) 12:18, 22 October 2011 (EDT)
I think the larger point is that a "really scientific" approach to the question of climate change aka global warming is to compare the predictions made by your cherished theory with real world observations. Liberals tend to deny facts when they don't conform to the theory; most conservatives change or discard the the theory when it's contradicted by the facts. --Ed Poor Talk 22:23, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
I get that point, but if one is to argue that cold winter serves as proof against the theory, they should logically regard hot weather as proof supporting it. If a cold winter in the US disproves global warming, do last year's the hot spells and freak forest fires in Russia prove it? And all this is assuming the argument is correct. According to climatologists, it isn't. They don't examine climates by looking at an individual observation of local weather. In fact, climatologists claim that colder winters and hotter summers are themselves an expected consequence of global warming. - Maninahat 10:56, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
LOL, your first point is correct; the second, "politically correct" nonsense. --Ed Poor Talk 12:48, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

Why was this archived again?

This article was archived recently, and then it was archived again not long after, so that the latest archive contains only about 6 topics. Can I ask why? (And why the post about links not supporting the news item they were attached to, was archived when it was posted less than 24 hours before the page was archived.) - JamesCA 19:30, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

It didn't seem like their was much interest in the postings that were there. However, I just added the last two postings in case some interest develops plus I think you made a good point about the 5th graders. Conservative 22:03, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

Senate Bill Moves to Ban 'Fast and Furious' style Operations

I wonder how the liberal media will spin this one? 'Fast and Furious' provision clears Senate DerekE 18:22, 18 October 2011 (EDT)

In the News section not supported by links

The section about the Wall Street Protestors not being smarter than the average fifth grader isn't actually supported by the two links. The first shows the protestors doing poorly on questions that fifth graders wouldn't know. Sure, I would think that most of the protestors should know who the Chairman of the Federal Reserve (38% did). But I wouldn't expect fifth graders to know or care. I mean, why would an 11 year old care about the Federal Reserve? The link doesn't even mention fifth graders. And the second link doesn't mention them either, or anything close enough. I had a brief search on the internet, and couldn't find any articles supporting the news item. Perhaps someone should have a good look and find something, or change the news item? - JamesCA 01:18, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

I had the same problem when I read it though I figure it is a joke. I assume it is in reference to the show Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?[3] Ayzmo :) 22:43, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

Billion Dollar Gamble, That's Worse Than Solyndra

Obama Administration Gives $1 Billion Dollar Loan to Car Comapany to Build Electric Cars... In Finland DerekE 11:42, 21 October 2011 (EDT)

Great catch. I've posted the story.--Andy Schlafly 12:08, 21 October 2011 (EDT)
Link for this story doesn't work in Chrome; It's fine in IE. If you remove the /t from the url, it works better.
Thanks. I'll improve the link on the Main Page now.--Andy Schlafly 14:29, 21 October 2011 (EDT)

9-0-9 Plan

Herman Cain has changed his "simple" plan to the 9-0-9 plan for those who are "poor" after calculations pointed out that those making less than $20,000/year will see their taxes go up by 900%.[4] Just a small thought. Can we get a captcha that doesn't give me Greek letters? Ayzmo :) 18:39, 21 October 2011 (EDT)

I can't believe he is backing down, the 9-9-9 plan was the corner stone of his campaign, and would force many welfare queens to start paying taxes. --KenN 19:22, 21 October 2011 (EDT)

This looks like something worth putting in the News section. Perhaps someone should add it? - JamesCA 19:55, 21 October 2011 (EDT)

I don't see how this rises to the level of a big news story, unless there's evidence this impacts Cain's chances of winning or has some other influential effect.--Andy Schlafly 20:30, 21 October 2011 (EDT)
Part of the appeal of the 9-9-9 plan is that it's simple, and it's revenue neutral. But because that plan would raise taxes on 84% of the population, he's had to change it to the 9-0-9 plan. Because the change makes it not revenue neutral, he'll either have to change one of the 9s, or tax something that was previously exempt. This complicates the plan, making it less appealing. When combined with his flip-flop on abortion, it makes people hesitant to vote for him because he changes his positions, reducing his chances of winning. and . Additionally, it's a bigger story than the 'The Occupy Wall Street crowd is less smart than the average fifth grader' news item, which is not supported by the links. Whereas Cain's change in the plan is citeable, and likely to have a decent impact. - JamesCA 20:53, 21 October 2011 (EDT)
You make good points. But while the criticism of the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd seems to be growing, criticism of Cain hasn't (yet) gotten much support or had much influence.--Andy Schlafly 00:29, 22 October 2011 (EDT)


Odd attribution. Everything I've read about the situation point to the fact that people who have tried to help in accidents have often been sued because China has no Good Samaritan Laws. I guess there's a bit of both since there was a demonstrated need for the laws in the US. Ayzmo :) 22:22, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

I thought the article clearly attributed the problem to a lack of morality, as the quoted headline reflects.--Andy Schlafly 23:11, 22 October 2011 (EDT)
I wasn't arguing that. I was just noting that it was an aspect that I've seen in most articles on it and one that I, personally, find interesting.[5][6] Good Samaritan laws protect people who try to help from lawsuits. Most US states have them though some only protect those with First Aid training(which everyone should have anyway). They were instituted around the US after similar lawsuits and in some cases reluctance to help. I agree that the article gives that reason but I was remarking as to the oddness of it being left out. It wasn't so much a reaction to the title on the page as to the article. Ayzmo :) 00:59, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
You make a valid point, but moral people would help even in the absence of a Good Samaritan law. In Christianity, the lives of others -- particularly a toddler -- come first even if there is a risk of a subsequent financial sacrifice.--Andy Schlafly 01:12, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
I agree. It is our duty not only as Christians but also humans to help others in dire need. Sadly this is often ignored. Morality and ethical behavior are something parts of the world are sorely lacking.Aortuso 01:17, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
This isn't a matter of geography. It's atheism that results in such a callous disregard for life.--Andy Schlafly 20:08, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
Hello? The clip was not just about failing to help. No one tried to warn other drivers not to run over the fallen child! --Ed Poor Talk 22:26, 25 October 2011 (EDT)


I guess Linda tried to fix it but the news article was about a projected win. The news article should be replaced with a new one now that he's won.[7] could do or {]. Both work. Ayzmo :) 15:23, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

The CBS News article refuses to say by how much Jindal won!--Andy Schlafly 16:22, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
Honestly, I just clicked on the first couple from Google News. The Washington Times seems quite good. Ayzmo :) 17:25, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
I wasn't criticizing you. I was criticizing the lamestream media, which do not include the Washington Times.--Andy Schlafly 20:06, 23 October 2011 (EDT)


There are probably much deeper issues here than Madonna not taking care of her older brother - for instance, he lost his job at his father's vineyard. Most family-run businesses don't fire a family member without a very good reason. It's quite possible that the family (including Madonna) have tried to help in the past and finally drew a line in the sand. --SharonW 10:48, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

It is ironic that churches now generously support the brother of someone who made a ton of money exploiting Christian symbols for personal gain. Has Madonna even donated to churches in a significant way?--Andy Schlafly 11:32, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
Yes, it is ironic. My point was that we don't know the whole story, and the headline borders on gossip and speculation. --SharonW 11:54, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
I woudn't expect to know. Very possibly when her right hand donates to a charity, her left hand doesn't even get to hear about it.--CPalmer 11:38, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
Significant donations to churches are rarely confidential - hundreds of parishioners, some with contacts in the media, would likely know. So I'd expect the public to know if Madonna gave substantial money to churches. I think it's unreasonable to assume that she might have done so without anyone else knowing about it.--Andy Schlafly 12:09, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
If I ran a church, or any charity, and someone made a donation but wanted to remain anonymous, I would respect their wishes. However, I'm not saying that I think Madonna has donated to a church. I'm mainly saying that I think it's unchristian to speculate about people's charitable giving, when Jesus said that it should be a private act.--CPalmer 12:15, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
Churches need donations to provide public services ... like free food to Madonna's brother. I don't see anything wrong with speaking up for churches and the need for people to donate, especially someone who profited enormously by exploiting church symbols.--Andy Schlafly 12:32, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
It's one thing to point out the need for donations, and/or ask for them for churches. It's something else entirely to imply that someone hasn't donated because her brother happens to be a homeless person. And what about his responsibility for taking care of himself? We don't know the whole story, and until it is known, it's speculation and gossip. --SharonW 15:19, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
Edited to add - this doesn't just apply to Madonna either. I was fed up with the speculation in the media and all over the internet about Steve Jobs and his apparent lack of charitable donations too. Quite frankly, it's nobody's business. I donate every time I get a paycheck. I don't list it on my taxes for two reasons - 1) it's not anybody's business and 2) claiming charity on your taxes defeats the purpose of charity, in my opinion. --SharonW 15:22, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

I really don't see why there should be any doubt about the appropriateness of having this item on the Main Page. What's the point of having an article that shows liberals are uncharitable if we won't allow ourselves to present the evidence which back it up? I say that we keep this news item right where it is. - Markman 16:19, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
Madonna is very charitable person, she gave at least 10 million to start schools in Africa. There was lots of news coverage over this, mostly because it was a disaster. The money ended up be siphoned off all the way along and nothing was ever built, but that makes her foolish, not uncharitable.--PeterNant 16:35, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
Not really... She gives to charity, but not in order to truly help anyone in need but simply in order to make herself look good in the eyes of the public. Case in point, why else would she donate in such a publicized manner to high profile causes while being completely callous toward her brother? - Markman 16:43, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
In addition to Markman's observations, Madonna has profited enormously at the expense of church symbols - a point worth emphasizing. Regardless of whether Madonna's brother is blameless, it's churches that end up picking up the pieces, and that costs money. Such irony cries out for commentary.--Andy Schlafly 18:23, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
Mr Schlafly, your arguments do not seem consistent with Markman's. Markman was complaining that Madonna was only donating to charity for the sake of publicity, whilst you earlier claimed that she didn't donate at all (as evidenced by a lack of publicity). So which is it? Is she donating and feeding off the subsequent publicity or is she doing neither? Is she donating for the sake of self image, or not donating out of selfishness? It seems a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't; that she is being criticized regardless of how much she actually supports charity. (NB, for the record, she allegedly supports at least 21 different foundations or charities, though I don't see any particularly religious ones). - Maninahat 14:58, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

Rand Corporation

It's mostly a military thinktank, and it's not liberal. I wouldn't say it's conservative either, but a single flawed study doesn't mean anything. Anyways, this'll be my last comment until I expand mainspace some more. Be sure to look out for a new article on consistent life ethic and expansion of the homeopathy article.--CamilleT 13:59, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

You're right about the history of Rand, but obviously it has branched out into commenting on issues that have nothing to do with the military. And given its location in California, I expect Rand to have liberal views on domestic issues!--Andy Schlafly 16:46, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

Herman Cain is for smokers!

I was incredibly disappointed to see Herman Cain's new political ad, featuring the most bizarre choice in political advertising history - to feature, as the final shot, his chief advisor taking a long drag on a cigarette!!!! How any candidate for President could have the mindless idiocy to allow this kind of stupid endorsement for one of the biggest killers known to us is beyond me. I can't even remember the last time I saw someone indulging in this filthy habit on television or in a movie! What a moron! And I thought he was beginning to win me over. JanW 16:57, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

Do you not watch movies or TV Jan, smoking is all over the place. And wonderful, because of ONE thing you hate cain now? Fickle loyalty is a terrible thing to have.--SeanS 19:01, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
It's a shout-out to the libertarian crowd and those who think that efforts to limit where and when people can enjoy a completely legal product like tobacco are an example of an overstretch of state power. ScottDG 19:07, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
Well, in truth Sean, I don't know what shows or movies you're watching, because no network show or movie shows smoking. Yes, cable shows and movies can show smoking, but that's a different matter. Having lost a family member to lung cancer caused by smoking, and seeing how horrific that can be, I'm just a very anti-smoking person, that's all Sean. And I cannot understand how you can describe this killer habit as "wonderful". And as for the impact of it in a political ad, well I certainly think that the Presidential race is often about the candidates being, in general, good role models for our society - and certainly, featuring smoking in a campaign ad is essentially an endorsement of the activity (the shot could easily have been 'lost on the cutting room floor', so putting it in is a definite choice. And I don't think a Presidential candidate should endorse lethal habits like smoking. It exhibits terribly bad political judgement and sensitivity, I think. And as for it being a 'shout-out' to libertarians, well, then libertarians are crazy. Smoking, and second-hand smoke is a scourge of this nation, and a lethal killer - apart form which, I don't want to pay taxes (or health insurance premiums) for stupid smokers to be treated for self-induced cancer. There's simply o two ways about it, and countless studies have shown it to be the case. JanW
Sean's use of the term "wonderful" was him being sarcastic about Jan bailing on Cain because of a relatively small matter, not about smoking being "wonderful." And libertarians might be crazy, but last I checked, that's not the government's business, and neither should the enjoyment of a legal substance be the government's business, or anyone's business, for that matter. ScottDG 19:25, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
I don't see that sarcasm myself, but humor is often lost in the writing. However, your 'enjoyment' of a "legal substance" is most certainly my business if you're smoking, and I (or my child) die or suffer ill health from inhaling your secondhand smoke. Smoking is not only lethal for you, but society in general also suffers. If you could smoke in the great outdoors, a mile form me, and dispose of your butt cleanly, then I have no problem, but then there's the fire hazard risk..... JanW 19:31, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
Well, then I suggest you write to your Congressman and propose that the state pass a law to limit people's freedom to use tobacco. You might want to bear in mind, however, that neither Prohibition nor the War on Drugs worked, so good luck with that. 19:35, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
So the solution is to see a Presidential candidate endorse smoking?!! I don't think that's helpful to our society. Perhaps I don't mind if you do your smoking elsewhere, but the President shouldn't be endorsing it. Heaven knows, Obama smokes or smoked, but you never saw him doing so in a political ad - it's political suicide. Do you by an chance work for Big Tobacco? JanW
You say "Big Tobacco" as though meeting the market demand for a legal product upon which many American farmers' livelihoods depend is somehow a bad thing. And how exactly is Cain "endorsing" anything? There's nothing to endorse, or even remotely controversial, about consuming a legal product. He might as well have been drinking orange juice or eating a bran muffin for all the law has to say about it. ScottDG 20:04, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
So your saying we should make smoking illegal? Isnt that MORE government regulation, which you are clearly against? If he wants to smoke let him, if he wants to get the smokin crowd in, let him. Its a minor issue that 99% of the population will neihter notice nor give a damn about, and it doesnt change ANY of his other positions at ALL. your fickle, nothing more Jan--SeanS 21:18, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
Out of curiosity, did Jan support Cain beforehand? Because changing ones opinion from 'don't support' to 'definitely don't support' over even small issues isn't being fickle. - JamesCA 01:16, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
Thank you James. If you actually read what I wrote,"I thought he was beginning to win me over", it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out my position on Cain from that. My point was less about him specifically than about the notion of a Presidential candidate endorsing smoking. I think Big Tobacco are vile institutions and smoking ought to be banned outright, yes. But that's just me. I live in California, where thankfully smoking in most places, public and increasingly private, is banned, about which I'm very grateful indeed - we're close to banning smoking in residential apartment buildings, which I'm incredibly happy about, given that my neighbor downstairs smokes like a chimney on her balcony and so my apartment constantly stinks of smoke, let alone the health risks to me. Just because it's legal doesn't mean I have to be sickened by her behavior. And I think the nation's costs of healthcare could be greatly improved by banning this complete scourge on our society. But does that make me "fickle"? I don't think so - just a rabid anti-smoker. JanW 13:16, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
It makes you unrealistic. --SeanS 08:26, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
Plenty of things are legal, but not desirable - rudeness, for example. It's the mark of a civilised society that we trust most people to behave well most of the time, instead of needlessly getting the law involved. So while I support people's right to smoke if they want to, I agree that a presidential candidate shouldn't be encouraging it. Just as I don't think people should be locked up for being rude, but I wouldn't be likely to support a candidate who directed personal insults at his/her competitors on a campaign poster.--CPalmer 08:54, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
So you don't support any candidate ever? The basic hallmark of representative elections is proving you're better then the other candidate, and that tends to involve making them look bad somehow, --SeanS 09:37, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
I sincerely hope that isn't your real view of politics. I support candidates who give me an attractive proposal for what they themselves will do. But even if you must criticise a competitor, it is possible to explain why their policies are wrong without being rude or insulting.
Perhaps the British multi-party system helps us here. If you only have to beat one candidate, a smear campaign might work. But where I live, there are generally at least three candidates with a fair chance, so positive campaigning has a better chance of succeeding.--CPalmer 09:45, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
American politicians thrive on insulting their opponents rather than actually discussing the details of their own ideas and plans. There isn't a single candidate (or any of their supporters), liberal or conservative, that will give an absolutely honest answer to an honest question without trying to deflect attention toward their opponent in a negative manner. Politics in America has devolved into the desire for power, rather than the desire to govern. Both sides are equally guilty. It's part of the reason we're in such a mess right now - no one will talk, or listen, to one another. They might as well don boxing gloves and step into the ring to decide the winner. --SharonW 10:22, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
I still think the politicians should play either a game of risk or Diplomacy instead of elections. And what sharon said, so so much. And except on a very local level theres never going to be a viable third party, at this point the two big parties have both made sure of that --SeanS 10:44, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
That's a shame. The current coalition government in the UK is a long way from perfect, but it's a tonic to see two parties having to engage with each other instead of automatically dismissing each other's suggestions. And they are making some quite significant changes - in defiance of people before the election who said that coalition led to weak, ineffectual government.
We have a smoking ban too, you know. Pubs are a lot nicer these days, although whether a law was needed is still arguable.--CPalmer 11:42, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
As a smoker myself, this ad speaks to me. It is nobody's business (and certainly not the government) if I choose to smoke. We all hear about this "Well my baby (always with the baby eh?) and I don't want to get lung cancer from your dirty smoke!" Fine! then I will just drink myself into a stupor and run you and your baby over with my's that for ya? I am sick and tired of people bashing smokers. The 1950s is a time Conservatives and parents love...and pretty much everyone smoked and do you know what? We are still deformed babies, no epidemics of people dying of cancer in their 20s and to be honest...those unhealthy smokers in the 40s and 50s lived a lot healthier than the non-smoking, tofu-eating, Diet Pepsi drinkers of today. So next time you want to bash smokers or want laws enacted to restrict my God-Given Right to smoke, just remember you have your vices (oh yes you do, nobody is perfect but Jesus) and we can do the same to you. If you believe in the government or you sticking your nose into other people's business like mine, the decision to vote your honest ideology into office is not hard; be honest with yourself and vote Democrat. I will still stand for the liberty of myself and others and vote Conservative. -- Austenbosten 13:25, 28 October 2011 (EDT)

(Realigning to the left)
Austenbosten, a part of me sympathises with you: it's your life and you are the one who will choose how to live it. If your health suffers because of your actions, it will be nobody's business but yours, after all. And, perhaps, the people who love you. However, you must realise that this is a very tricky subject.
What interference should a government have into a citizen's personal freedom? If you said "none", think again: advocating complete freedom means allowing people to use heavy drugs, such as heroin, or cocaine.
"Ah," you might say, "that is different. A person who uses heroin or cocaine becomes a danger to others, as he loses control over himself."
That might be true, but how about alcohol then? Should it be made illegal too? After all, a person under the influence of alcohol is much more likely to have a car accident, or to pick a fight in a bar and stab somebody.
"But the crime is not alcohol consumption", you could object, "but rather, driving under the influence of alcohol, or attacking someone with a knife. Alcohol drinking alone endangers nobody but the user."
Indeed, but then why punish, say, cannabis consumption, or even cocaine consumption? You could object that the actual "crime" is not smoking cannabis or snorting cocaine, but rather driving while high, or shooting someone while under the influence of cocaine. What is the difference?
Of course, this has nothing to do with smoking a cigarette, as this will have no influence on your personality and will not lead you to be a danger to others. Affecting other people's health through passive smoke is already being taken care of through public smoking bans. But then again, suicide, or euthanasia, are not allowed: should they be allowed? And if they are not, why should a "slow" form of suicide like tobacco smoking be permitted? But if you ban tobacco, what stops you from banning unhealthy food? ...
To sum it up, I am not trying to defend any particular point of view; what I am saying is that the topic of personal freedom is a very tricky one, and drawing a clear, logical line of what should be permitted and what should be banned is not obvious. We already have such line, but it's not based on clear logical arguments; it's rather based on history, traditions, custom. What should be allowed, and what should be forbidden? I'd like to hear your opinion on the subject.
Respectfully, --Leo-from-France 14:17, 28 October 2011 (EDT)

The ad showcases a non-politically correct campaign. Smokers have been treated like heroin addicts by the Nanny State. It is completely legal, and millions of people do it. But it's a no-no and it flies in the face of conventional wisdom. The ad has been viewed 4 million times and likely cost less than $1,000 to make. [8] As bizarre as people claim, it blew the doors off fundraising efforts by helping to haul in more than $5 million for the month of October.--Jpatt 23:20, 28 October 2011 (EDT)

From the Associated Press, no less

Nobody likes Occupy Wall Street--CamilleT 21:22, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

Great catch - I posted it.--Andy Schlafly 22:26, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
I would point out that that title doesn't represent the content of the article. The article just highlights how the views within OWS are quite diverse. It doesn't say anything about how those values correspond to the American public at large. When I saw the title I expected a poll about how Americans viewed OWS, not of views of the people involved. Just my $.02. Ayzmo :) 00:01, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
The article contains multiple references to how people are getting "fed up" (a quote from the article) about the effects of the OWS conduct.--Andy Schlafly 00:13, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
He may have meant the article Jpatt linked to--CamilleT 01:34, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
I'm sorry, I thought I'd created a new section on this, not just commented somewhere. Not sure how that happened. No, there is an article on the mainpage about how OWS is way out of touch with America but the headline doesn't really match the message of the article. Ayzmo :) 23:39, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

Perhaps a silly request/suggestion

Why not alphabetize the popular pages list? There doesn't seem to be any order to them. I don't know if that is something that can be done with some wikicode or whether it would have to be done manually but it would make it a little nicer looking and make it easier to find an article. Ayzmo :) 00:04, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

We generally like to order them by popularity/importance. I can take a look at the current listing order later this week. Conservative 03:30, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

Disastrous sentence on Main Page Right....

"In the upcoming Jezebel Productions (A title should go here, I think.) vs. a zealous creation evangelist armed (who is "vs." this evangelist? Is he fighting somebody?) with a powerful anti-evolution campaign battle (How exactly is someone "armed with a campaign battle"? This makes no sense.) (Also, there should be some sort of predicate here), every Bible readers ("every Bible readers" is a numerical disagreement) knows who is going to prevail." ScottDG 13:41, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

Seemed clear enough to me; it's a headline. I don't know the details.--Andy Schlafly 13:45, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
It's been fixed, but the phrase " a zealous creation evangelist armed with a powerful anti-evolution campaign battle" makes sense to you? I've never heard of someone being "armed" with any kind of "campaign battle" before, but maybe that's just me. ScottDG 13:58, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
I did revise MPR post before I read your post. I am looking forward to the Question evolution! campaign hacking evolutionism to bits and feeding it to the dogs. Look for Evolutionism Alpo in your local grocery store. :)

Amy Winehouse...

Hasn't she been dead since July?--James Wilson 20:04, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

I think they just released the official coroner's report, but they had said something earlier about her alcohol level being high. --SharonW 20:20, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
I don't know why the official report took so long.--Andy Schlafly 20:56, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
I changed the headline per the above comments. How's it look now?--Andy Schlafly 21:03, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
Looks good now.--James Wilson 21:19, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

I'm a little fuzzy on the details, but I believe the process is more formalized in Britain than here in the US - when a death is sudden and unexplained, they convene an inquest where I believe all the evidence is compiled together (coroner, police, etc.) before making a formal ruling. That probably explains the gap between the death and the announcement. --SharonW 23:10, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

Perhaps ... but alcohol levels can be tested and disclosed with 24 hours. I wonder if the results in this case were delayed on purpose.--Andy Schlafly 23:21, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
Sure, but they can't make the claim it was purely due to alcohol without testing for other substances, checking the organs etc. Only after that process can they say definitively it was alcohol alone. MaxFletcher 23:24, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
And that takes 3 months, without releasing tentative findings beforehand???--Andy Schlafly 23:34, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
"but alcohol levels can be tested and disclosed with 24 hours...." "without releasing tentative findings beforehand..." As if the cause of death and medical records of a private citizen in another country is something that you have any business or legitimate interest in learning about. ScottDG 23:38, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
Just because she had a high blood-alcohol level doesn't mean that she died of alcohol poisoning. They probably wanted to be sure, especially given the amount of press that the announcement was sure to bring. They probably didn't want to say anything prematurely. Personally, I welcome their carefulness. It shows that they wanted to make sure they were right before they said anything. We could use some more of that on this side of the pond. Ayzmo :) 23:42, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

I think there was an "informal" release of the information, as I remember reading about it within a week or so of her death. There wasn't any reason to rush the process, other than for curiousity's sake. I do remember her family was informed rather quickly, and they're the ones who count in this situation. --SharonW 23:43, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
Sharon, where you say "curiosity," I would say "gossip." ScottDG 23:44, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
As far as I am concerned the time taken is not important nor is any release regarding cause of death to the public. Its a family issue and whilst cause of death is public knowledge we should be respecting the family rather than wondering if "results were delayed on purpose", which is simply disgraceful.Aortuso 23:49, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

"And that takes 3 months, without releasing tentative findings beforehand???" (Andy Sclafly)

And what if the tentative results turn out to be incorrect? The person who has just died is unfairly besmirched while the grieving family of a person who has just tragically died must endure more torture for no good reason. Lets put making sure the results are right as the first priority and providing fodder for people who like to gossip and revel in the misfortune of others as a low priority.
Seriously, please think before you just write the first thing that comes into your head. Seriously. --DamianJohn 02:20, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
Additionally, if a release is made prematurely for someone well known like Amy Winehouse, if it ends up being wrong, it can't be walked-back easily. The mistake would result in conspiracies such as the premature report being the actual one with the second being a cover-up, or something similar. By being cautious, they ensure that they do their best to ensure that what is released is the truth, and prevent needless conspiracy theories. - JamesCA 08:22, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
Yeah, that is part of my thinking too. And to be perfectly honest, why is it anyone elses business what the coroners report says? Coroners work to establish the cause of death to assist in law enforcement and other proceedings. They are not in business to provide information to people who have a morbid curiousity. This whole business from Andy is very unsavoury and revealing. --DamianJohn 00:18, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
"And to be perfectly honest, why is it anyone elses business what the coroners report says?" If Amy Winehouse was not a celebrity I would have agreed with that statement. But the matter of fact is that she was a successful singer adored by many around the world, and much of her career was about promoting the amoral hedonism which is so rampant in today's western world. Her song Rehab is all about taking alcoholism lightly and treating it as "cool". By bringing the cause of her death to light we show the ultimate consequences of reckless lifestyle.
In regards to the time it took the for the coroners report to finally come out... As Andy previously said, determining the amount of alcohol in her blood was a matter of 24 hours. Even if three months of post mortem exams were really necessary to determine the precise cause of her death (and I seriously doubt that), the medical examiners should have informed the public about Winehouse's binge drinking in the hopes of dissuading others from following in her steps. Besides, even if it wasn't possible to immediately reach the definitive conclusion that alcohol poisoning was the cause of Winehouse's death, it should have been obvious that her demise was directly caused by some factor of her libertine lifestyle. Alcoholism, drug use, promiscuous sex - it was obvious from the start that one of these was about to conclusively shown to be the cause of her death.
And finally, were the results of the autopsy delayed on purpose? While I cannot say so with absolute certainty, it is not hard for me to believe as such. Britain, much like the rest of the western world, is currently suffering from moral decay. Even the so called conservative government of David Cameron is working vigorously right now to redefining the institution of marriage. The idea that liberal forces within the UK would work to delay the release of the autopsy report in an attempt to avoid undermining the youth's faith in hedonism and the entertainment industry is not an assumption divorced from reality. - Markman 01:50, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
First, as I have said numerous times, the fact that alcohol was found in her system was released within days of her death. Second, she was a singer, doing a job. The world did NOT own her, and she did NOT owe the world anything. She had a business contract with her fans. She provided music, they bought it. Society's attitude that the public deserves to know the intimate details of a famous person's life is garbage. A musician provides a service to the audience, as does an actor, an author or a sports star. That's it. It's the fans' problem if they raise these people up on pedestals that are shaky in many cases. It's the public's problem that they're "shocked" that these celebrities turn out to be human after all, with all-too-real human failings. The celebrity is no different than the CEO who cheats on his wife, or the janitor who uses drugs, or the accountant who drinks too much - they're just unlucky enough to have a bunch of people obsessed with them. In reality, it's the public who has the bigger issues here. --SharonW 09:24, 28 October 2011 (EDT)

It is highly unlikely that any autoposy was 'delayed on purpose'. To suggest so shows a slight lack of understanding of the UK coroner courts system. The coroner's courts in the UK are a legal institution and coroners are notoriously independent. The idea that anyone within the UK judicial system would delay an autopsy report is fanciful. The report was delayed because until presented to the coroner it can not be revealed without breaking the law. Once presented to an inquest then the report becomes public and this is what happened. Davidspencer 08:00, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
You have no idea what the various factors were in assessing her cause of death, maybe the coroner in charge might have a better idea than you. Your conspiracy theories based upon some notion of moral decay is amusing though. Don't know where you come from but in most of the world it is better to get the results of coronial inquiries right rather than appeasing the tinfoil hat wearers. --DamianJohn 02:34, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
First of, I would kindly ask you to refrain from using personal insults while addressing my posts. I don't expect everyone to agree with me and I'm quite willing to engage in debate with others who hold viewpoints different from my own, but being attacked like that is something quite different.
Anyhow, it was quite obvious from the beginning that Winehouse's death was related to the self destructive lifestyle she had. A 27 year old woman, who has a history of alcoholism, drug abuse, erratic behavior and chain smoking to the point of suffering from severe respiratory problems suddenly dies. Occam's razor demands only one conclusion. Had the coroner released his finding of fatal alcohol blood level during the days following Winehouse's death and not three months later when the story faded out, perhaps more people would have took notice of it and learned a lesson. - Markman 03:01, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
He didn't use any personal insults; he just pointed out that you don't know what you're talking about. How could the coroner release his findings in the days following her death when THE INQUEST HADN'T BEEN HELD YET? The inquest is when the coroner's findings are decided and to make any statement before that would be illegal. --MandyC 08:12, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
The Shabbat is about to set in less than half an hour; after that I won't be able to respond to people on this website (or even use electrical appliances for that matter) until tomorrow's afternoon. Since I'm kind of limited in time my reply might be a not raise all points raised against me, I'll try to offer a more comprehensive reply afterwards.
"He didn't use any personal insults" - I think that implying I'm a "tinfoil hat wearer" is an insult.
"How could the coroner release his findings in the days following her death when THE INQUEST HADN'T BEEN HELD YET?" Even if we assume that it really took three weeks for the coroner to reach a definitive conclusion, he could have still revealed that excessive amounts of alcohol was found in her blood. And no, contrary to what another user said the media did not reveal right after Winehouse died that she had excessive blood alcohol. The media only said that bottles of vodka were found in her vicinity, not revealing how severe Winehouse's binge drinking was. Why this is a a public matter? Because Winehouse promotes immorality by cultivating a bad girl image. If she's really going to do so than it's more than appropriate that the public will know what kind of consequences will result from the following in the lifestyle of her idol. Winehouse's death was tragic, and if the we won't bring to the public the lesson that is to be taught from it (that the hedonist lifestyle liberals lionize will only lead to disaster) than truly we are doing them a great disservice by not helping to prevent other Amy Winehouses from reaching an early end. - Markman 10:10, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
Quote: "Amy Winehouse‘s family says the singer had alcohol in her system – but not illegal drugs – when she died last month." published on August 23, 2011 [9]
Yes, the media did report it. --SharonW 10:28, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
How many times do you have to be told that the coroner could not release his conclusions before the inquest because that would be ILLEGAL? In fact the coroner wouldn't even have heard the evidence before the inquest, so he couldn't have come to any conclusions to release. Nobody tried to cover anything up here, nobody tried to delay the release of anything and there is no hidden agenda at work. Winehouse died, an inquest was added to the list of inquests that needed to be performed and now it has been. In the UK we have an established system for doing inquests and it was followed. There is no conspiracy. --MandyC 10:24, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
The media promote celebrities and their lifestyles, while repeatedly downplaying, withholding, delaying or concealing the truth about the results of those lifestyles. As a result, many people are misled into less productive and less happy lives than if they were simply told the truth in a timely way.--Andy Schlafly 10:19, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
People are responsible for their own lives, their own decisions and their own behavior. Passing the blame to the media or to celebrities doesn't change the fact. --SharonW 10:33, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
People become addicted to alcohol and other drugs for a variety of reasons. Media reporting of coroner's inquests is not one of them. The coroner did its job, for once the media did not muckrake with gossip and the families rights were respected. Perhaps we should stop trying to make political points out of personal tragedies. By all accounts Winehouse was an amazing singer - the tragedy is that we have lost an artist years too soon. --DamianJohn 16:09, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
It's not like there was any attempt to hide her behaviour either. The UK media was full of critical articles about her lifestyle for years before she died. To say there was a coverup really is tinfoil hat stuff. --MandyC 17:08, 28 October 2011 (EDT)

Rom Houben

While I for one would love for the story to be true, you might want to do a bit of follow-up research:

  • "The staff at Houben's care center first tried an on-screen keyboard that he could operate using his right index finger, which is not fully paralyzed. For a while, it seemed like a good idea and, after some practice, Houben was able to type rather quickly. He made many mistakes, but his messages were understandable. Still, using that method required the assistance of a speech therapist, who stood behind him to support his hand.

  • At one point, Laureys, the neurologist, claimed that he had ruled out the possibility that it was actually the speech therapist doing the writing. But it turns out that his checks weren't quite thorough enough. Obtaining reliable results requires a rather protracted procedure. Patients with serious traumatic brain injuries are not always capable of following difficult instructions. They also sleep a great deal, and sometimes they sink into extended periods of delirium. In order to rule out false negative results, repeated tests need to be conducted over the course of several weeks.

  • Laureys has now carried out those tests, and his results hold that it wasn't Houben doing the writing after all. The tests determined that he doesn't have enough strength and muscle control in his right arm to operate the keyboard. In her effort to help the patient express himself, it would seem that the speech therapist had unwittingly assumed control. This kind of self-deception happens all the time when this method -- known as "facilitated communication" -- is used.

  • In the more recent test, Houben was shown or told a series of 15 objects and words, without a speech therapist being present. Afterward, he was supposed to type the correct word -- but he didn't succeed a single time."[10] (emphasis added)
Atheist doctors are more likely to hasten death.[1] Hello, I am your atheist doctor. Take two cyanide pills and call me in the morning.

Please see: Atheist doctor

Flickr graphic, see: see license agreement)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Conservative (talk)

What on earth are you getting at, Conservative? Sometimes your responses are so far out there, I can't even begin to figure out where you're going with them. You do realize that it was the same doctor who initially announced that Houben was communicating with a computer who later announced that the tests were wrong? That he's made an error? And where on earth did you get the idea that the doctor was an atheist? Did you read the article I referenced? The doctor is continuing his research in the hopes of helping this type of patient. --SharonW 11:16, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
"Hello, I am your atheist doctor. Take two cyanide pills and call me in the morning. " What could possibly drive you to say such a thing? Doctors work to preserve life and quality of life. All doctors, whether they're Muslims, Christians, or not religious. It's incredibly offensive for you to say that an "atheist doctor" would prescribe cyanide to a patient. A doctor will on;y give up when the patient wants to. He will try all treatments that have a chance of working. A doctor that does not adhere to this is barred from practice upon discovery and investigation. In the case of persistent vegetative states, it is always with a heavy hand that with family consent a they "pull the plug." No doctor wants to kill his patients. Now, there has been plenty of research on persistent vegetative states. What you think of that research, I don't care. Personally, I would not give up treatment on a loved one. I would cling to hope indefinitely. And if you feel the same way, then I'm sure you'll be glad to see pass a healthcare bill to pay for these expensive long term care facilities. Unless you were one of those in the crowd at the Republican primary debate where Ron Paul was asked what he would do should an uninsured man fall into a coma.--CamilleT 13:51, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
I think the Western World has exhibited a post Darwinism callousness in terms of respecting life. You have abortion, etc. Nazi Germany which was very Darwinian was extremely callous and murdered handicapped people and various ethnic groups. In addition, America seems to have a bigger problem than most countries the world in term of shooting sprees. I would also point out that Jack Kevorkian was an atheist. Next, I should have read SharonW's article before responding. The post was unsigned and I had initially thought an atheist had posted the material. Although people do recover from comas, etc., this does not appear to be the case here. Next, various people have various reasons for going to medical school and unfortunately not all doctors are ethical. I personally have seen health care professionals lack a desire to give the best treatment to their patients because they would earn less income. It is sad, but true and that is why I think patients very much need to do their due diligence. Lastly, I do see a health care crises happening in the Western World due to: unhealthy lifestyles, an aging population, many people have poor job skills, declining wealth in many nations due to a lack of competitiveness and financial problems due to massive debt. I see more health care rationing on the horizon and I think people really need to be diligent to do everything they can not to get sick in the first place and to take better care of their health plus have financial reserves in case of sickness. I wish this were not true about the Western World, but unfortunately this seems to be the case. Conservative 17:01, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

Addendum: I wanted to add that financial collapse, which is a possibility for various countries in the Western World on the horizon, can have dire consequences on the health care system and on its citizen's health. In Greece, which is experiencing major financial problems right now, suicides are way up. I have also been told by someone in the former Soviet Union said that basic health care often broke down in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union and some people did not get insulin, etc. Conservative 17:21, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

The point is not whether the world is becoming more callous, whether euthanasia is right or wrong, whether atheist doctors are more or less humane than Christian doctors, or whether the economic collapse of the Western World will lead to dire consequences on the health care system. All of those topics are interesting and worth debating, of course, and I'd be glad to participate to such debates on a separate page. However, the point here is that the Rom Houben story has been proven false and therefore shouldn't be presented as true in the news section. I recommend its removal from MPR for two reasons:
1. It has been proven false;
2. Even if this was true, this is "news" from 2009, and therefore hardly fitting for an 'In the news' section.
Respectfully yours,
--Leo-from-France 11:42, 28 October 2011 (EDT)


That news article has it wrong. Being as I'm in Florida and have a lot of friends who went to UF, or are attending UF, I can tell you that Tebowing is actually not mocking Tim Tebow for most people doing it. It is just fun. I wish it were because, as an FSU alumnus, I despise Tebow but that news story is just wrong. Ayzmo :) 16:42, 28 October 2011 (EDT)

Yep - I don't like him 'cause he was a Gator. ;-) --SharonW 19:32, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
Ayzmo, I'm confident that anti-Christians are trying to mock Tebow. I find it amazing that anyone would doubt it.--Andy Schlafly 21:48, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
Oh, I'm sure there are people mocking Tebow. I LOVE to mock Tebow for a number of reasons. But I think that the article is making a bigger deal out of it than it really is. It is all a joke. Ayzmo :) 00:39, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
Ayzmo, it's mockery of Christian prayer. This isn't rocket science, and this isn't the only example. You might spend some time with atheists and observe how some of them really do mock Christianity.--Andy Schlafly 00:52, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
So, atheist are mocking Christians, Christians are mocking atheists. What is the problem? ErnestO 01:45, 29 October 2011 (EDT) (AugustO)

British Monarchy change of succession

Where's the evidence that it was changed for political reasons? - JamesCA 18:05, 28 October 2011 (EDT)

Politics have been a part of rules of succession in the British monarchy for centuries. I'd be surprised if politics didn't play a part in any decision. It's traditional. --SharonW 19:26, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
But there's a difference between politics playing a part, and being the major reason. - JamesCA 01:34, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
Maybe politics didn't play a part - maybe it's just a simple case of William, as the heir presumptive, wanting his first-born, regardless of gender, to inherit after him. --SharonW 01:53, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
And speaking as a British conservative woman, I think it's a great change! If this law had been passed a thousand years ago we might have had a lot more like Elizabeth I and Victoria, and a lot less like Edward III. --MandyC 01:00, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
I agree with the gist of your argument, Mandy. But why single out Edward III? He was no worse -- and probably a tad better -- than most medieval monarchs. That twit Edward VIII would have been a much better choice to make your point. Mind you, neither of those two had elder sisters. --Jdixon 11:03, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

The monarchy, Amy Winehouse....

For an American encyclopedia, y'all seem to be really invested in the day-to-day affairs of a country we broke with over 200 years ago...ScottDG 21:04, 28 October 2011 (EDT)

Well, we sort of broke with it over 200 years ago. Unfortunately, British culture has continued to be influential on this side of the pond. The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Darwin, .... But I think the influence is waning.--Andy Schlafly 21:14, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
Jesus Christ, Andy, do you not enjoy anything at all?PaulyG 21:26, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
Wow, what a statement: are you saying that if someone criticizes the Beatles, the Rolling Stones and Darwin, then there's not much else to like? How did people get by for most of world history?--Andy Schlafly 21:45, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
"The Beatles, Rolling Stones..." Half-century old rock bands? These are a problem for you? ScottDG 09:49, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
Scott, just saying: "For an american wiki, why do you at all avoid the stereotype that americans are only interested in america?"--SeanS 15:44, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

I guess the Big American Flag in the logo might have something to do with that. ScottDG 16:59, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

That isnt very sound logic :P--SeanS 17:34, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

Main Page

Right now, the last three entries on the main page and 4 of the last 7 are about the snow in the northeast. Am I the only one who thinks this is unnecessary?

You're not the only one who thinks that. Now that you've pointed it out, it does seem over-the-top. One 'it's going to snow... A LOT!' entry would be enough - JamesCA 02:04, 30 October 2011 (EDT)
And on a similar note, for the energy rationing one, where's the article showing that energy is being rationed? The link doesn't, it just talks about how lots of people have lost power. - JamesCA 03:08, 30 October 2011 (EDT)

Article about education wrong

The article about the states applying to be able to block tutors from helping students is blatantly wrong. The No Child Left Behind program isn't working because it is designed poorly. Part of that program requires schools which consistently fail to meet the pass rates to set aside money for tutors. Both parties know the problem needs to be fixed, however both parties are being slow, and as a result states have applied for an exemption to that part of the program. The states are not blocking tutors from helping failing students, they are applying to be exempt to have to pay for tutors to help failing students. In addition, there is no mention of teachers unions in the article. Those who select sections for the news need to read the articles better so they don't write summaries greatly inconsistent with the article. So can someone fix this? - JamesCA 03:28, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

I think JamesCA may be right about this. I was approached by a recruiter for a tutoring company who said essentially the same thing; federal money subsidizes the tutoring company, who pay tutors and pocket the rest; parents get free tutors for their kids; the school has no say in the matter at all (at least in New York City). --Ed Poor Talk 22:34, 1 November 2011 (EDT)

Madonna redux

It appears the situation between Madonna and her brother isn't as simple as just being a case of her ignoring him.

"It is clear that Madonna knows about his plight, and that she has repeatedly offered to help by paying for him to go into rehab. His father has offered to give him his job back if he gets professional help.

But ask Anthony whether his sister and their 80-year-old father, Tony, have helped him and he is immediately riled.

‘I’m a zero in their eyes; a non-person, an embarrassment,’ he tells me, his voice rising.

‘If I froze to death, my family probably wouldn’t know or care about it for six months.’ Anthony, who has considerable reserves of self-pity, but little capacity to be honest about himself, says he doesn’t need rehab, which is ‘boring’. He just needs a job, he says, and to meet the son he hasn’t seen for ten years.

‘My family seem to think rehab is some kind of magic panacea for life’s ills,’ he says, cracking open a bottle of his favourite tipple, Wild Irish Rose, a strong and ruinously cheap fortified wine."[11]

The main headline was quick to point to the stories that said she ignored him. This is why I don't like gossip, because during my 49 years, I've rarely seen it be 100% correct. --SharonW 15:53, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

Democrat Corzine causes crash with MF Global bankruptcy.

We should mention how the Democrat party always manages to screw things up on the home page. HP 18:46, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

The president Americans most want back

It's Reagan--CamilleT 02:19, 1 November 2011 (EDT)

So this isn't a good news item? He beat Roosevelt as the president that could fix the economy--CamilleT 01:18, 2 November 2011 (EDT)


Perhaps it would be a good idea to create a page to put errors in the main page that are factual or spelling/grammar errors, and keep the page editable 24 hours (if that's possible). I mention this because recently the main page said that Kim Kardashian's marriage lasted 72 hours, when it actually lasted 72 days. This has been fixed, but when I noticed it, the talk page couldn't be edited because of the time. It would help ensure that such errors are corrected as quickly as possible, regardless of the time of day. - JamesCA 21:27, 1 November 2011 (EDT)

Newspapers often run corrections about stories printed the prior day, or even several days earlier. Your suggestion of always-editable pages is a good one but I'm not sure if the software permits that approach.--Andy Schlafly 22:56, 1 November 2011 (EDT)

Judge William Adams

I'm kind of surprised I haven't seen this anywhere in news yet but a video has surfaced of a judge in Arkansas beating his daughter with a belt for using the internet. I won't link the the video because it is pretty intense.Ayzmo :) 08:17, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

This is a classic example of liberal big government persecuting responsible parents in the privacy of their own home. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doglover (talk)
The judge is from Texas, not Arkansas. AverageJoe 17:43, 2 November 2011 (EDT)
Yes because Beating your frikken child is perfectly ok! Whoever you are line 2 poster, please, don't have children because assault isn't a fun thing to go to jail for/--SeanS 19:44, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

I saw the video and that wasn't assault, it was harsh disciplinary action. The daughter should not have disobeyed her parents like that. --Doglover 22:20, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

What happens in that video is way beyond harsh disciplinary action and goes straight to child abuse. Disobeying her parents or not that doesn't give them the right to beat her like that. And AverageJoe, you're right. I saw he was a judge in Aransas county apparently. My mistake. Ayzmo :) 23:36, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

The parents were doing what they thought was right. If you listened to the father in the video, he states that the girl was a liar, a cheat, and a thief. She should be thanking her father that he didn't put her in jail because he is a judge after all. --Doglover 23:50, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

Stop with this nonsense. It's quite apparent that the only reason you're here is in to troll us and act as a parody of a conservative in order to besmirch our community. Do not bother replying to me as this will be my only comment to you (I suggest other will ignore you as well), I hope that one of the sysop will ban this clown from our website. - Markman 23:58, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

While disciplining is ok under Texas law, this seems to go beyond disciplining. It seems almost voyeuristic. HP 18:09, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

Dissent and Global Warming

Mr. Schlafly, I do not understand why you seem to take the position that there is no dissent within the global scientific community about "global warming," or as it is more appropriately called, "climate change." I suppose that it really depends on what type of dissent you are interested in. If you are interested in qualified climatologists, meteorologists, physicists, and atmospheric chemists, discussing with varying degrees of disagreement the exact manner in which climate change is manifested and the motivating factors therein, then there are many examples of that occurring often. However, if you are simply out to make the statement than "hur dur sometimes it snows and sometimes weather gets hot," and expect that to be taken as a serious, cogent, argument against scientific record, then that is something else entirely. Do also please note that the scientific community, especially but not limited to that of the "climate change" community, is not a homogenous group of perpetually agreeing people. There is a myriad of different research topics and attitudes about this phenomenological change of our planet and it can hardly be boiled down to, "there is no dissent," especially when you simply make a claim out of political posturing. --StevenP 22:06, 2 November 2011 (EDT) 22:05, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

I agree there is dissent about global warming, but Democrats do not welcome it. The dissent is typically at the professional risk of the scientist who voices it.--Andy Schlafly 22:17, 2 November 2011 (EDT)
Do you have any evidence to back this up? Specifically, I am interested in peer-reviewed work from accredited scientists from notable research programs, not fringe psuedoscientists who balk at the entire concept of climate change as a complete hoax. --StevenP 22:21, 2 November 2011 (EDT)
Actually, the position that there is no dissent within the global scientific community about global warming is the liberal view. Conservatives, as is well known, believe that there is significant dissent, and they base this belief on polls and petitions, along with scientific papers and books.
The idea that there is a "consensus" among scientists is silly. If as many as 5% of scientists disagree with a theory, then the theory clearly still needs work. --Ed Poor Talk 22:28, 2 November 2011 (EDT)
What is the percentage of scientists who disagree with the theory that there are meaningful counterexamples to evolution or counterexamples to relativity? Is it more than 5%? ScottDG 22:59, 2 November 2011 (EDT)
Why do we talk about the liberal v conservative view of global warming/climate change/whatever you want to call it? Why can't we talk about the scientific view. The fact is that an overwhelming percentage of the world's scientists agree that climate change is occurring. Yes, there are those who disagree but there are also people who disagree that the world is round. The fact that a minority disagree does not by itself discredit a theory or give it any less precedence. Ayzmo :) 23:46, 2 November 2011 (EDT)
What temperture is this gizmo taking? The outside natural air? The Lennox home heating air pump? Both?
I agree, Ayzmo, we shouldn't talk about liberal vs. conservative positions; we should talk about facts. For instance, it is a fact that an overwhelming amount of scientists believe in man-made global warming. It is a fact that scientists at that certain English college get their temperature readings to base those global warming conclusions from satellite-connected temperature sensors placed at thousands of locations world-wide. It is also a fact that thousands of those temperature sensors were deliberately placed near sources of man-made heat or man-made cooling, which would in turn change the temperature readings sent to those satellites. One such temperature sensor is in the pic to the right. And it is also a fact that while they and their supporters blame man for the supposed increase (when there is actually none), they are clamoring to change laws and increase taxes. So, we are going to post the evidence against man-made global warming here; we are going to post the fraud that it is; and we are going to post the liberal tax-happy money-stealing agenda that goes with it. That my friend is called dissent. Karajou 00:05, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

Ayzmo, you are missing the point. Liberals say there is one scientific view - "the scientific view", as you put it - yet in fact the world's climate scientists are divided about what causes global warming. To be trustworthy, we need (a) to indicate what percent of scientists support or oppose the various aspects of the idea and (b) to show our readers a comparison between what the theory predicts and what has been observed.

Science doesn't work by overwhelming percentages: that is how politics works. The higher the percentage of scientists who think a false theory is true, the higher the percentage of scientists are wrong. In our science articles, we only report the science.

In our political articles, we report opinion: including opinion about science. For example, most Democrats support AGW theory. Yet, after hearing even a 3 hour debate between scientists about AGW theory, a significant number of AGW supporters changed their minds. It seems the AGW supporters like to omit certain inconvenient facts when making their arguments, i.e., facts which contradict their position. This indicates dishonesty, which is more a hallmark of politics than of science. --Ed Poor Talk 15:18, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

I didn't miss the point oddly. What I pointed out is that the science which isn't conservative v liberal. And from what I can tell there is no ideological differences between the scientists on either side of the debate(this would be especially true if we accept this site's premises that the majority of people are conservative). And no, science isn't "done" by overwhelming percentages. That's an incorrect statement. But when an overwhelming percentage of a huge amount of research shows something and an overwhelming percentage of a large number of scientists agree that it says something that shows that whatever it is showing is likely to be true. If 90% of a huge amount of data showed that cell phones caused cancer(not the case) then a lot of us would probably be really scared and would take a good hard look at our cell phone usage. We wouldn't say, "Well, 10% of papers/scientists disagree."
Your statement "he higher the percentage of scientists who think a false theory is true, the higher the percentage of scientists are wrong." bothers me. How do you know it is wrong? The majority of scientific data supports the idea that it is true. Yes, it could be wrong but the evidence doesn't support that. And that's the way science works.
AGW is an entirely different matter. I can't say that I've made up my mind on the matter but I haven't looked into the research as much. Ayzmo :) 16:17, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

Challenge to healthcare

How are the Courts toying with the challenge? Both the District Court and the Circuit decided that those bringing the case didn't have the required standing to bring the case. Also, I wouldn't count this as significant news, because the questions presented almost certainly won't be considered because: The Supreme Court can't take them into account. If they grant cert, and if they overrule the Circuit Court (which is unlikely, because as far as I know, 'they don't have standing' decisions are almosts always affirmed by higher courts), then the case will be sent BACK to the District Court for them to actually hear the case. - JamesCA 16:24, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

News Items Wrong

1) 2/3 of Dutch psychologists don't allow their researchers to see their raw data. This is different to not releasing the data. In psychology, the raw data is the results of the individual participants. However, the data is the actual statistics, which is very different. Also, "Ten years worth of false studies were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals" is not supported by the link.

2) The Idaho online course requirement was objected to by the public, not the teachers unions. In a 21-day period for public comment, the majority of comments felt there was no need for an online learning course.

3) Republican endorsements: For most of the endorsements, the article doesn't mention when they endorsed the potential candidate. Of Romnney's 31 endorsements, for 16 of them, no year is mentioned. This is still more than Perry's 10, Gingrich's 5 and Paul's 3.

4) The guy who studied puppetry isn't a puppeteer, he's a teacher! He taught at a high school, then spent 3 years studying his passion (puppetry), went back to the school he taught at for a job, but because of budget cuts, although the Principal was thrilled to have him back, the school couldn't afford it. He's not trying to get a job in puppetry, he wants a job teaching.

Perhaps those selecting main page stories should check to make sure that what they're writing is actually supported by the article, and not misleading. - JamesCA 21:51, 4 November 2011 (EDT)

I posted (2) and (3) and the facts in the stories do support the headlines. For (2), the story explains the intense opposition by teachers' unions and it is reasonable to infer that teachers were behind the public campaign against the requirement. It's difficult to imagine why parents would object, and why they would bother to attend public hearings to voice such objections. But teachers are so opposed that they plan to hold a referendum to overturn it!
As to (3), even if half of Romney's current congressional endorsers are new, that's barely 5% of the Republicans in Congress. That's very weak for someone the lamestream media have long declared to be the frontrunner.
More generally, as has been explained before on this site, lamestream media articles are typically cited here for their facts, not for their liberal interpretations.--Andy Schlafly 22:09, 4 November 2011 (EDT)
1) - wasn't addressed.
Where does 2) explain the intense opposition of teachers' unions? And it isn't difficult to imagine. Parents may have the opinion that for their child, learning in a classroom is better for them than learning online. And for parents that do have this opinion, of course they would bother attending public hearings, it's their child's education.
3) Although it's only 5% (which is more than the others), it's 47% of those who have given endorsements since '08. Many politicians may wish to wait until it gets closer to the primaries before they endorse someone, ensuring that they endorse someone who actually has a chance of winning the nomination (17% of Republicans have endorsed a candidate so far). It is still early in the campaign. I heard recently that at this point in the campaign 4 years ago, the frontrunners for Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, neither of whom won the nomination. - JamesCA 23:15, 4 November 2011 (EDT)
From the Boston Globe article linked in the headline:
  • "The Idaho Education Association blasted the decision in a statement Thursday"
  • "I am a little conflicted, I am. It won't work for every kid, and I think requiring it is a horrible idea," said [teacher] Wisenbaker, who also reasons that some students may thrive learning online. "But it shouldn't be an option for saving money."
But James, if you're not convinced about the insight of the headline, so be it. I don't expect everyone to be convinced.--Andy Schlafly 23:31, 4 November 2011 (EDT)
Here's how I got this headline Ten years worth of false studies were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. "The scandal, involving about a decade of work" NYT, "over many years in studies which were then published in peer-reviewed scientific journals." TVNZ --Jpatt 00:16, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

Union travesty

I don't get it. The union, The Fraternal Order of Police, criticized the state trooper for not listening to the dispatcher and cuffing a police officer. Why is this a union travesty?--CamilleT 22:42, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

Because the union is wrong to defend such behavior by one of its own. The dispatcher's opinion is irrelevant in light of such outrageous facts.--Andy Schlafly 22:55, 5 November 2011 (EDT)
I suppose he should have put his siren on--CamilleT 23:09, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

Camille, you seriously don't see the problem in a corrupt police organization bullying a righteous cop for upholding the law. The Miami police officer, thinking he was higher than the law, was not driving to an emergency. He was driving to his own off duty job on the taxpayer dime.

Police unions are usually corrupt, and at times racist, organizations whose sole job apparently is to protect dirty cops and create a safe environment for police corruption. I blame police unions for a lot of the mistrust citizens, especially including minorities, have with law enforcement. HP 14:55, 6 November 2011 (EST)

Camille, here is a story of how police unions try to bully the blacks from exercising their constitutional rights.]. FYI, Houston has the only police union in Texas and they, along with the Dallas Police Officer's Association, are an obstruction to fair justice. Maybe, NAACP should take on the real perpetrators of oppression ... the police unions. (I am in no way endorsing Quanell X, just pointing out racial acrimony is exacerbated by police unions.) HP 20:24, 6 November 2011 (EST)

In response to Camille, I strongly disagree that the off-duty Miami police officer should have put his siren on as he traveled to a second job. That would be have been an abuse of authority.--Andy Schlafly 20:56, 6 November 2011 (EST)

Oh no, I thought he was on-duty. My mistake.--CamilleT 01:12, 7 November 2011 (EST)
Well, I for one am extremely grateful for the fact the off-duty police officer had his lights on, since he was going one hundred and twenty miles per hour! Last time I checked, the highest speed limit here in Florida was 70 mph. Maybe he actually saved someone's life by having his lights on, since he was driving more than recklessly. --SharonW 21:38, 6 November 2011 (EST)

Sharon, please read the story before making assertions. He did not have his sirens on, and Andy is right, that would be an abuse of authority. Public sector unions are an anathema to liberty. HP 21:50, 6 November 2011 (EST)

HP, I would recommend rereading my statement, as I said "lights" several times. I also didn't necessarily disagree with Andy, just pointing out that the worst offense was the speed he was going. --SharonW 22:20, 6 November 2011 (EST)
(edit conflict) In furtherance of HP's comment, I really don't see anything defensible about the off-duty Miami cop's actions or (more importantly) his union's defense of him. Lots of people have been killed by such high-speed driving (120 miles per hour?!). Yet his union is putting the police officer who pulled him over and arrested him to protect the public on the defensive about it.--Andy Schlafly 22:24, 6 November 2011 (EST)
It was also a bad offense for the Miami cop not to stop when signaled to do so. And it is highly offensive for his union to criticize the trooper who was doing her job.--Andy Schlafly 22:27, 6 November 2011 (EST)
I wasn't defending the off-duty police officer, Andy. I've seen too many times where policemen are given a "by" by their fellow officers. I just think the speeding is a worse offense than having his lights on, that's all. As you said, he could have killed someone. Next time, I'll leave my sarcasm at home. --SharonW 23:03, 6 November 2011 (EST)

Sharon, he had neither his lights nor sirens on. Please at least try to be factually correct before you try to be snarky. HP 23:51, 6 November 2011 (EST)

Recent Quantcast traffic data for Conservapedia


By the way, this article ranks #14 at Google. Should Conservapedia expands its informational offerings on this topic, its ranking certainly could go higher. And of course, the more overall wiki traffic CP gets, the more various CP articles will receive from interwiki web traffic. Conservative 11:10, 6 November 2011 (EST)

Do we have any way of knowing which pages are the biggest entry points and by how much? DouglasA 13:25, 6 November 2011 (EST)
DouglasA, I just did a search on Website traffic analysis and found some material for you. Conservative 16:01, 6 November 2011 (EST)
I was thinking more, does CP have tools that show which hits are from internal links and which outside links. It'd be interesting to see how people find particular materials. In a lot of cases pages have too little linking to them in-site. DouglasA 05:29, 7 November 2011 (EST)
Andy knows more about the MediaWiki software and I doubt most non-profit websites spend a lot of time figuring out who is linking to them. With that being said, I think you make a good point about interwiki linking within articles. Time spent interlinking between articles would be time well spent as it would help readers plus have the added benefit of keeping people on the website longer and possibly get people to contribute more content. Conservative 08:27, 7 November 2011 (EST)

Asteroid Collisions

'Atheists claim it is random chance that asteroids do not harm us with collisions, but pure chance would mean that a massive collision is inevitable. '

Oh, come along! Geologists (okay, I can't swear they were all atheists) have found evidence of hundreds of collisions with asteroids and other extraterrestrial objects. And many are believed to have been extremely harmful. --QPR 11:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)

The impact of the headline is lost on me as it seems to be very poorly thought out. Is the headline suggesting that "atheists" claim that collisions do not occur or something similar to this effect?--SharronM 11:46, 8 November 2011 (EST)
I'd have thought that in 6 thousand years the "chance" of a disastrous asteroid collision is low anyway AleXD 20:00, 8 November 2011 (EST)

Oklahoma Earthquakes

I saw a number of articles recently about how the large increase in the number of earthquakes in Oklahoma may be due to hydraulic fracturing (aka "fracking," a method of extracting unconventional oil and gas trapped underground in shale). The link between fracking and earthquakes in Oklahoma is far from conclusive right now - there is much debate and speculation, and many experts have said that the quakes are too strong to be caused by fracking. But we know experts can't always be trusted, and some people think fracking puts stress on faults that leads to earthquakes later. There have been studies linking fracking and earthquakes both in Oklahoma and elsewhere. I'm not saying fracking is definitely to blame for Oklahoma's quakes, just putting this out there as a possible explanation for further scrutiny. --AaronT 21:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)

A young Earth isn't a good enough explanation for you? ScottDG 12:58, 9 November 2011 (EST)
I don't see why a young Earth would lead to an increase in earthquakes; has anyone suggested a mechanism for this? If anything I'd have thought a young Earth would have a steep DECREASE in earthquakes as it settled down. Obviously the weight of water during the flood would have loaded a lot of energy into the crust, but I'd expect a peak in earthquakes right after the waters receded followed by an immediate decrease. --SamTC 18:23, 9 November 2011 (EST)
I have an open mind about this, but what exactly do you mean when you say a young Earth explains a sudden 20-fold increase in earthquakes in one specific geographic region? --AaronT 18:16, 9 November 2011 (EST)
It now seems possible that hydraulic natural gas fracturing caused the Olklahoma earthquakes. However there seems to be a debate about whether or not earthquakes are increasing in general. Conservapedia says they are. Ameriwiki says they aren't. They both provide sources and these sources obviously contradict each other. Any idea where we can find reliable figures? --SamTC 18:20, 9 November 2011 (EST)
With regards to the question of whether earthquakes are increasing in general, there was recently a pretty good discussion on this page, which can be seen here. It appears that the main source used here on Conservapedia to support the assertion that the number of sever earthquakes doubles every 40 years does not agree with hard geological data.--AaronT 20:23, 9 November 2011 (EST)
So what does the data say? The Ameriwiki page here: [12] claims to be based on USGS data and shows a slight decrease over 100 years. Is this right? --SamTC 20:30, 9 November 2011 (EST)

Aschlafly says they are increasing and that is evidence of a young earth. That's enough evidence here. ScottDG 20:36, 9 November 2011 (EST)

With all due respect, no it isn't. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Before we can say that earthquakes are increasing we need data that shows they are, and the data here and at Ameriwiki contradict each other despite both claiming to come from the same primary source (USGS.) --SamTC 20:39, 9 November 2011 (EST)

Ohio health care question

I read the linked news article, and it said that experts have said that the language of the bill would not block a federal healthcare bill, only a state one, so I don't see how that's a defeat for Obamacare. --Dfrischknecht 10:17, 9 November 2011 (EST)

"Is this the crisis of global warming that Democrats predicted?"

Close. It's the crisis of climate change that scientists predicted. Good effort, though. ScottDG 12:07, 9 November 2011 (EST)

Changed to "insisted would occur." Okay, this is the kind of weather that climate scientists insist will occur as a result of anthropogenic climate change. So, in a word, yes. Excellent headline! ScottDG 14:10, 9 November 2011 (EST)
No, I think Democrats changed their prediction from global warming to climate change only after it became obvious that there is no crisis of global warming. The common phrase, after all, is "global warming."--Andy Schlafly 14:24, 9 November 2011 (EST)
People who want to trick others frequently use confusing terminology. By the time the general public found out what "global warming" meant, advocates of the AGW theory felt the need to confuse people more. So they dropped the GW term and started using "climate change" instead.
The trick here is that no one can deny that the climate changes. But the purpose is to avoid being pinned down on what they mean. If they get pinned down, then their position can be compared to reality. Their position is that most of the warming from 1850 (or 1900, or 1950) is human caused and is leading to a climate disaster. Already that is actually 3 different positions.
They'll do anything to distract the general public from the fact that there is no consensus about cloud cover and that a significant number of scientists disagree with the so-called "consensus" over AGW theory.
In particular, they have no answer to their claim that CO2 changes precede temperature changes. This is because - as all climate scientists know - the historical record shows that it's just the other way around.
Scientists are human beings. They need jobs. Far too many of these jobs are dependent on funding (grants). There's a huge push to publish papers that are supportive of AGW theory, and a disincentive to rock the boat. A paper which rebutted AGW was rejected by Science on the grounds that "its readers would not be interested!"
We are doing science by press release instead of methodically comparing predictions to observations. The politicization of science has really gotten out of hand, and the liberals are not going to back down on this. Like the Communists, they'll keep insisting their stupid theories are right for as long as they can get away with it.
Anyone who wants to help clarify the issue is welcome to contribute to articles on global warming, "climate change", etc. But those who want to confuse the issue may not. Liberals are free to edit this articles if (and only if) they will present the liberal point of view, properly attributed. But it must be clearly written, and it must not be presented as fact but as the POV of the person or group that promotes that viewpoint.
The rest of us will take care of comparing viewpoints with reality. --Ed Poor Talk 09:37, 11 November 2011 (EST)


It generally starts snowing in Alaska during the first week of November.

Are we going to have a MPR story like this every time it snows? That's going to make for a long winter...--CarlY 20:17, 9 November 2011 (EST)

Arrivederci, grammar!

How is that the user who is basically frothing at the mouth to deliver the intellectual riposte to atheism and "evolutionism," cannot get their simple contractions right? It is "who's," not whose. --FitzS 18:20, 9 November 2011 (EST)

Good grammar catch!--Andy Schlafly 18:24, 9 November 2011 (EST)
Fitz, I see you are not acquainted with the style over substance fallacy. Second, the grammar cobbler seems to have no shoes. You should have written "evolutionism" and not "evolutionism,". Conservative 18:42, 9 November 2011 (EST)
It seems Andy and Conservative disagree over the significance of the style over substance fallacy. I have to say I'm with Conservative. --QPR 19:07, 9 November 2011 (EST)

Asteroid - missing something?

I don't understand the Asteroid story. Yes it is chance we don't get hit Asteroid's but sometimes we do get hit. Atheists and Christians say this is so. I don't understand the point being made. MaxFletcher 20:49, 9 November 2011 (EST)

I'd just like to point out

That a crowd at a Republican presidential primary debate is likely to be quite conservative. So I wouldn't see that as the death knell of the lamestream media--CamilleT 00:13, 10 November 2011 (EST)

The crowd is likely to be Republican, not necessarily conservative, and the crowd is likely to be predominantly media-watchers if they are attending that sort of media-sponsored debate.--Andy Schlafly 00:46, 10 November 2011 (EST)


My cousin married a wealthy girl from neighboring Columbia. Everywhere she goes, she would travel with armed body guards. Kidnapping for ransom is very common in South America.--Jpatt 12:18, 10 November 2011 (EST)

Wow, that's a tragedy.--Andy Schlafly 17:58, 10 November 2011 (EST)

Serious mistake re: the Herman Cain headline

Whoever wrote that headline needs to go beyond Ann Coulter's article, because it is simply not the case that "all of the sexual allegations against Herman Cain are coming from Chicago." Karen Kraushaar is from Michigan and now lives in Maryland, neither of which are in Chicago. It's a pretty basic and fundamental fact that seems to have been overlooked. ScottDG 17:41, 10 November 2011 (EST)

Changed to "nearly all" in light of your comments.--Andy Schlafly 17:56, 10 November 2011 (EST)
Not bad, but if you read the Coulter piece, a better word would be "one." Because that's exactly how many accusers from Chicago she mentions. One. ScottDG 18:08, 10 November 2011 (EST)
The headline was obscuring the Marine birthday, so rather than consider your request to wordsmith it further, I simply deleted it. Thanks for your feedback.--Andy Schlafly 18:26, 10 November 2011 (EST)

Veterans Day

Just a quick request for someone with privileges to add a mention of today being Veterans Day to the main page. We owe them so much - thanks. --ChrisY 08:35, 11 November 2011 (EST)

Does Conservapedia not think it's appropriate to commemorate soldiers and their sacrifices? ScottDG 09:42, 11 November 2011 (EST)
I agree that Veterans Day (Rememberance Day for those of us of the "English" persuasion) should certainly rate a mention. Aortuso 20:57, 11 November 2011 (EST)

Scott, quit feigning outrage. That is a Liberal Trait. Veteran's day is not necessarily news, but at any rate, your insinuation that Conservapedia does not respect the sacrifices of our veterans and soliders is, quite frankly, disgusting. HP 21:11, 11 November 2011 (EST)

"Feigning outrage? Read your post, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. User:ScottDG might have jumped the gun with his comment but, HP, seriously, turn it down. Aortuso 21:29, 11 November 2011 (EST)
I meant what I said Aortuso. Unlike your respectful earlier post regarding Rememberance Day, Scott's post was unnecessarily accusatory. No one I know of at Conservapedia does not respect the contributions of our American soliders. HP 02:25, 12 November 2011 (EST)
Whilst I agree with your assessment of User:ScottDg's comment I don't agree with commenting for comments sake. Personally I would have let him have his little rant about the users here. He was just trying to wind people up in the hope that someone will pay attention. Anyway, no matter. Its over now Aortuso 21:44, 12 November 2011 (EST)