Talk:Main Page/Archive index/123

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Misconceptions about Boston Weather

While I cannot speak for the whole North East, Boston was very warm yesterday despite the snow. In fact, it was warm enough that it does not make a case against global warming, and you saying that snow is a counterexample to global warming is very silly (weather =/= temperature). Yesterday I walked around without a winter coat because it was too warm to wear one (it was mid 30s, warm for winter in New England, snow or not) Please consider removing those references on the main page, it is borderline embarrassing. Cheers AlexSz 11:37, 9 February 2013 (EST)

Boston did not have a single record high the entire month of January this year. [1] Is that a crisis in global warming???--Andy Schlafly 19:11, 16 February 2013 (EST)

Please explain "best of the public" to me

How does a guy who plays professional football, who was highly drafted from a top-tier college football program, count as anything but an expert/professional? it's not like throwing a football is some sort of hobby for him -- he's a highly-paid specialist/pro. I do not understand the term as you are using it. MattyD 18:43, 13 January 2013 (EST)

I'm a little shaky on the "best of the public" concept in general, and the criteria for selection in particular. I have read the related CP article and was left with more questions than answers. I could be wrong, but I think BotP is an extension of the late William F. Buckley's philosophy summed up in his somewhat tongue-in-cheek quote: "I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.".
Anyway, from what I've been able to decipher, a BotP member is an individual who is able to obtain a high level of success and/or technical proficiency while circumventing the normal hurdles put in place by academia, accrediting bodies, professional associations and/or governmental bureaucracy. At least that's my best explanation. Now how that applies to a pro NFL quarterback... I'll leave that one for Mr. Schlafly. --DonnyC 19:56, 13 January 2013 (EST)
He is of the best of the public because he won, which goes to show how good the best of the public can be. What part of that mental gymnastics exercise is hard to grasp? JaPo 20:02, 13 January 2013 (EST)
From Conservapedia's article on the best of the public. "The best of the public is better than a group of experts." The starting QB for an NFL team is part of a group of experts. He's not just "ordinary people." If I had led the 49ers to victory today, that would be a "best of the public" situation. This guy has trained to throw a ball since he was a kid, and is the end product of elite training and opportunity. MattyD 20:10, 13 January 2013 (EST)
Colin Kaepernick was not at a top college program and was a low NFL draft pick for quarterbacks. His talent could not even be recognized by the "experts" in training camp and numerous practices. He only got a chance to play because the starting QB suffered a concussion.--Andy Schlafly 20:30, 13 January 2013 (EST)

I don't really spend much of my time watching other people play sports, so I just looked up this guy's story on Wikipedia--because they actually have an article on him--and it looks like, well, in this case, "best of the public" means "somewhat under-rated elite athlete." Okay. MattyD 20:42, 13 January 2013 (EST)

(@ Andy) Am I right in thinking that you are not really an avid sports fan? Kaepernick's story is a dime a dozen in sport. A guy who does well in the lower grades, has a period of adjustment into the big time, and then after a season or two has a few breakaway performances that sets the world on fire. Happens all the time and in every sport. No big deal, and certainly nothing to get excited about. The next stage in the story can go one of two ways - he can have "second season syndrome" whereby he gets figured out by the defences next season and has poor results, or he can pull away and turn into a great. Either way, it's all a bit of a yawn, and not anything to get excited about. --DamianJohn 20:47, 13 January 2013 (EST)
But you left something out of your analysis: millions of dollars paid to "experts" to pick who will win games for the team. If you're right that these surprises happen all the time, then the experts are doing a terrible job. Why not save the millions of dollars being paid to the experts?--Andy Schlafly 21:21, 13 January 2013 (EST)
Unfortunately, most of these "experts" are funded through private industry, meaning the general public has no say in what predictions they make, or any say in their employment.brenden 21:24, 13 January 2013 (EST)
You have missed my point somewhat Andy. The point that I am making is that it is rare that a player can immediately make the step up from a lower grade competition to the top leagues, if normally takes a year or two after moving up before a player will be ready - physically and mentally - for the higher level. It seems that the experts have done an excellent job if this player is performing to his potential. By all accounts, Kaepernick did not have a good time of it in his first few chances (2011-12 season) and has done well this year. Also, most players will get a 'break' somewhere along the way, normally associated with an injury or suspension to the starting player which allows them to get their big opportunity. A focussed and determined player who makes the most of their limited opportunities is likely to go far. It seems that whoever picked him and trained him has done very well. Perhaps deserving of their millions (I tend to believe that no-one in sport is deserving of being paid millions - but that is a topic for another day). --DamianJohn 21:35, 13 January 2013 (EST)
No missing of the point by me. People passed over for jobs are often better than the people who are picked. "Experts" are often not the best.--Andy Schlafly 22:56, 13 January 2013 (EST)
I agree, I have heard many such stories like this in both the sporting and professional world. Dvergne 23:17, 13 January 2013 (EST)

This guy wasn't passed over. He got drafted by an NFL team, was trained by the experts on that team to develop his talents, and made the most of the chances he was given. MattyD 23:28, 13 January 2013 (EST)

I note that this page is starting to get excessively long again. Would it be possible for a sysop to archive all topics that where not started this year ? Dvergne 23:29, 13 January 2013 (EST)
I guess we can then include Tony Romo of Dallas as a best of the public quarterback. He was undrafted, from the University of Eastern Illinois, and only got his chance by eventually supplanting Drew Bledsoe in 2006, after 3 years on the team (as the holder for extra points/field goals). Other small school quarterbacks that currently start in the NFL include Ben Roethlisberger (University of Miami (OH)), who got his opportunity after the injury to incumbent quarterback Tommy Maddox, and Ryan Fitzpatrick (Harvard, drafted 7th round 2005). WesleySHello! 09:35, 14 January 2013 (EST)
Joe Flacco from Delaware, Philip Rivers from NC State, Andy Dalton from TCU, Matt Schaub from the University of Virginia (hardly a powerhouse), Kevin Kolb from Houston ... Kurt Warner went to Northern Iowa, Brett Favre went to Southern Miss, and let's not forget that even though he went to Michigan, the best quarterback in the NFL rode the bench for a good part of his career until Drew Bledsoe went down. (something about Bledsoe's backups...) --Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 20:04, 15 January 2013 (EST)

The first burglary has already happened to someone on an interactive map of all gun permit holders in his county

Why didn't the guy use his gun to defend his home? MattyD 11:52, 14 January 2013 (EST)

According to the article he wasn't at home. He was responsible enough to keep his guns locked up, though; the burglars couldn't get into the gun safe. -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 20:06, 15 January 2013 (EST)
So, having guns attracts criminals. Lesson learned. MattyD 20:56, 15 January 2013 (EST)
No, it doesn't you don't have any proof that the burglar chose the house by looking at the map of gun owners. Dvergne 21:11, 15 January 2013 (EST)
No proof you say? Well, using the Conservapedia method of logic I shall cite this very website or affiliates of the website to prove otherwise. The headline reads, "The first burglary has already happened to someone on an interactive map of all gun permit holders in his county". So either Conservapedia is assuming the robbery occurred because the resident was identified as having guns on the map OR they specialize in reporting coincidences. Which is it?
Matty, it seems like you're grasping at straws to blame a law-abiding gun owner for being a victim. No one is ever "asking for it." -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 23:07, 15 January 2013 (EST)
To be fair, I can't say for certain that the victim was a law-abiding gun owner, but I've yet to see anything to the contrary. -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 23:09, 15 January 2013 (EST)

Hurricane Sandy Relief bill carries backdoor spending

Freedomworks and other websites report the Hurricane Sandy Emergency spending bill contains $17 billion for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), notorious as a "backdoor earmark program". OscarO 20:25, 15 January 2013 (EST)

An addition to the Popular Articles section of Main Page

Can this article Korean Airlines Flight 007 be listed in the Popular Articles section of Main page. It has more page views (53,730) than a number of the articles already listedBertSchlossberg 08:30, 16 January 2013 (EST)

Featured on Conservapedia

The Joseph Mengele item that appears first under the headline "Featured on Conservapedia" doesn't link to a Conservapedia article, but to a blog elsewhere. Can those items be kept to the 'In The News' section on the right, to avoid confusion? Wonders 15:42, 16 January 2013 (EST)

They can be. That doesn't mean they will be though. :) Conservative 23:23, 16 January 2013 (EST)
But, if it's not "Featured on Conservapedia", why does it say it is? Seems a wrong way to categorize articles, no? JOBrien 23:48, 16 January 2013 (EST)
It is a article notice and the notice is "featured on Conservapedia".  :) Plus, I think you are getting legalistic. The left front page has had many news items placed there by the owner of the website. If David in the Old Testament could eat the showbread without incurring divine wrath, surely Conservapedians can place news items or article notices on the left main page! :) Plus, there is nothing in the Conservapedia Commandments saying you can't do this! :) Conservative 05:22, 17 January 2013 (EST)
How about "Everything you post must be true and verifiable" and "Any content you create or change (including edits, new pages, images and links) must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language." GregG 09:58, 17 January 2013 (EST)

GregG, how is Kenneth Miller doing on those 15 questions? Has he gotten back to you yet? Conservative 11:38, 17 January 2013 (EST)

Forget all that - the article is simply not featured on Conservapedia. If it was an article on Conservapedia, and it was a 'featured article', that is the only sensible reason for something to appear below that headline - like the large list of CP articles that are immediately below the item. It's simply not true, it makes literally no sense. What's the problem with putting it in the place it's obviously meant to go, on the right? Or perhaps you need a third column, 'Featured web articles'? Nothing wrong with that, why not add it? Wonders 02:20, 18 January 2013 (EST)
The real issue is that you want me to back down to evolutionists. I don't see that happening anytime soon. :) Conservative 07:59, 18 January 2013 (EST)

Sorry, what?! Where did you get that idea?!! Sheesh, talk about being defensive! I have no problem whatsoever with the item itself, what the content is, whatever - you're perfectly entitled to your opinion and beliefs, and to a forum where you publish it. But please - at least categorize it accurately. It's as if you've put a sports page item on the business page of a newspaper or website. Put it under 'In The News' for heaven's sake! It's simply not on Conservapedia! Wonders 14:15, 18 January 2013 (EST)

"Germanic" efficiency

I'm not completely sure about this, but shouldn't it say German efficiency? The Germanic peoples or Germannen auf Deutsch is ususally used to designate a multitude of medieval european tribes. They are not necesseraily associated with efficiency, that would be the (modern) Germans (allthough that is most certainly quite a stereotype).--VPropp 17:52, 16 January 2013 (EST)

See: Conservative 18:34, 16 January 2013 (EST)
I see. It is indeed possible to use Germanic as well. For someone who speaks German it still sound rather unusual though. Thanks--VPropp 18:59, 16 January 2013 (EST)
Is it a good idea to have this and the Josef Mengele item on the front page at the same time?KingHanksley 13:54, 17 January 2013 (EST)
KingHanksley, a lot depends on a reader's degree of cognitive flexibility. I do know that the glorious Protestant Reformation started in Germany. :) I realize liberals/evolutionists/atheists are not known for the inspirational ideas and penetrating insights and are more well-known for their political correctness and ideological rigidness. Therefore, out of Christian charity, I can certainly overlook any cognitive inflexibility you may have! Conservative 14:01, 17 January 2013 (EST)
Not a liberal, sir. I'm just aware of the associations that that juxtaposition is likely to conjure (in anyone - these things happen at a basic level) and would prefer we take a better rhetorical strategy. Perhaps emphasize the Protestant work ethic or focus on Luther rather than "efficiency" in particular which has so many connotations with the German war machine. Or just wait until one item clears to post the other. KingHanksley 14:11, 17 January 2013 (EST)

I like German efficiency. And the Germans are often (not always) good at being industrious, efficient and orderly. Getting things done in the fastest way possible with the least amount of resources is very appealing. It was a key component of the strategy of the Chinese General Sun Tzu.

I cite: "Sun Tzu's strategies and tactics embody the "Eastern tradition of strategy that emphasizes outwitting an opponent through speed, stealth, flexibility, and a minimum of effort." An essay discussing Sun Tzu declares that Tzu promotes "fluidity, flexibility, surprise,,, and intelligence over sheer military might."

Other key principles of Sun Tzu are: finding ways of conquering an enemy without actually fighting (putting the opposition in no win situations), attacking an enemies strategy, attacking weak points of an enemy, the importance of timing and bringing war to an end as quickly as possible.

Sun Tzu is widely credited for writing the classic work The Art of War which is still studied by military strategist today."[2]"Conservative 17:03, 17 January 2013 (EST)

Editing style

A very random and not-terribly-important question: do we have a set guideline for punctuation and grammar, most notably the Oxford comma? I'm seeing varied usage of it, and I was just curious as to whether we wanted it standardized. I personally always use it to avoid confusion between lists and appositives. -- JLauttamusTalk 08:20, 18 January 2013 (EST)

Good question, and good opening for discussion. There is not a set guideline for that type of style issue yet.--Andy Schlafly 13:05, 18 January 2013 (EST)

Religious researchers say there will be approximately 4,000,000 less atheists in the world and about 35,000,000 more Christians in the world by 2025.

This is great news!, I'm a little confused by the math used in this article however, and was just looking for clarification. For example the QE article cited states: "In 2013, according to GCTS, the global Christian population will increase by 85,000,000 adherents per day." If this is extrapolated, this means, the global Christian population will gain over 31 billion adherents this year. Considering the world is currently just over 7 billion people in total, it'd be helpful if someone could explain where I'm misreading these numbers. Thanks! --Krayner 11:45, 18 January 2013 (EST)

Looks like they accidently put in extra zero's as the previous paragraph show 83,000 per day. I assume they put some growth on top of that for 2013.--Mroberts 12:12, 18 January 2013 (EST)

You are probably right, but even if it is 83,000 new adherents per day, that means there will be 31 million new Christian adherents this year when the article states that there will be about 35 million by 2025, with these numbers seems like that will be done by 2014, so I'm still confused by the numbers. --Krayner 15:10, 18 January 2013 (EST)
The article has been updated: Also, the original report is free to get via a free sign up process: Three, if you have any questions about the report, this person heads up Center for the Study of Global Christianity, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and his contact information is given: Conservative 16:51, 18 January 2013 (EST)

Petition difficulties

I don't think it's the criticism that he minded. Petitions were getting filled up for Death Stars and genetically engineered cat/woman hybrid slaves. This way petitions can be taken a little more seriously.--CamilleT 12:35, 18 January 2013 (EST)

Those petitions are easy (and funny) to deal with. It was the embarrassing criticisms that posed the problem.--Andy Schlafly 13:04, 18 January 2013 (EST)
Obama wants to hear the voices of the people, unless they disagree with the Dear Leader. BenCG 16:37, 18 January 2013 (EST)

Criticizing Obama for using a teleprompter

Aren't we over this yet? Everyone uses teleprompters these days, it's established technology and it improves the quality of speeches made. ( ) There are so many things we can tackle Obama on but this one is so tired and so weak considering his main competitors use them too. JRegden 18:58, 18 January 2013 (EST)

No one has relied nearly as much on teleprompters as Obama does. His reading of scripts written by others is beyond absurd.--Andy Schlafly 19:14, 18 January 2013 (EST)
JFK and Ronald Reagan, although they had some different ideas, had a vision on how the country should be run. Setting aside Reagan's illness at the end of his term, they also had the presence of mind to communicate their visions. So they could think on their feet.
Obama isn't able to do this and I don't believe he has a vision he can intellectually defend. And his presidency certainly does have much to show for itself. The first debate with Romney showed this. He gets irritated when his foolishness is challenged and he has difficult articulating it compared to JFK/Reagan. So he relies on canned speeches written by others and not having very many press conferences. He lives inside his little "Obama coccoon" aided by his speech writers, teleprompter and a liberal press who gives him a free ride.
The 2012 election was between Obama the empty suit and RINO Romney the stuffed shirt. Neither of them had a well-defined and intellectually defendable vision they articulated to the public. Conservative 14:21, 19 January 2013 (EST)
Presidents have been using teleprompters since Dwight Eisenhower. Ronald Reagan made frequent use of both teleprompters and speech writers. --DonnyC 21:52, 19 January 2013 (EST)

JFK/Reagan could think on their feet. They weren't professorial and could take criticism with grace. Reagan and JFK were better presidents than Obama. Conservative 07:20, 20 January 2013 (EST)

"means never having to say your sorry"

This should read "means never having to say you're sorry." GregG 21:09, 19 January 2013 (EST)

EDIT: The floor is open for how long it will take the anonymous author of the blog post to correct this grammatical error in the blog post's title. (For future records, a copy of the blog post as I see it right now is at [3].) GregG 21:11, 19 January 2013 (EST)

EDIT: If you had 6 minutes, 39 seconds for the anonymous author to correct the QE! blog post, please step forward!  :P GregG 21:19, 19 January 2013 (EST)

Shall we play the same game for the Darwinist higher education story? We could go further and play "guess the anonymous blogger's identity" - there are more than enough clues. Rafael 08:14, 20 January 2013 (EST)
According to evolutionists, things which appear to happen though an intelligent agent or intelligent agents are very often actually wildly improbable things which happened due to blind natural forces. I don't see the point you two are trying to make here. Conservative 10:26, 20 January 2013 (EST)
I fail to see how the CIA or the NSA have anything to do with evolution of creationism @conservative ! Dvergne 11:10, 20 January 2013 (EST)

I got bored with that Darwin fan blog a long time ago. Just as Taco Bell keeps recombining the same seven ingredients to offer "new" menu items, the author of this blog rehashes the same tired handful of quotes, links, and factoids into "new" articles. If it wasn't for all the typos and grammatical errors, I would have ventured a guess that the blog was being generated from automated scripts. --DonnyC 14:34, 20 January 2013 (EST)

DonnyC, I never got bored with your evolutionist whining as I was never interested in it in the first place. Second, the style over substance related commentary was not impressive. Thirdly, I know you cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists and all the evolutionist bellyaching in the world is not going to hide this matter. Conservative 16:57, 20 January 2013 (EST)
The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks. Why are you such a strong defender and promoter of the little-read Darwin fan blog? Are you in some way connected with its anonymous writing staff? Anyway, of course I can easily answer the 15 questions in a manner that you would find quite satisfying. Here I go "I dunno, God musta done it." Easy.
With that said, I no longer wish to engage you in further dialog "Conservative". Since the rules of this blog would require any sort of exchange to be overly courteous, deferential, and respectful on my part. Yet you would not be hobbled in such a manner, and allowed to hurl a nigh inexhaustible stream of vicious rhetoric at me and my personal beliefs. While the slightest hint of snark or sarcasm from me would have me trotted out the door for "incivility".
Unless... you're interested in having a little debate in a more neutral location. A location where neither one of us can block the other, or oversight edits, or perform any other sort of dishonest tactics. What say you? --DonnyC 18:16, 20 January 2013 (EST)

DonnyC, why don't you make a case on why you are notable enough for me to want to debate you. Since you bitterly complain about the Question Evolution! blog in terms of the quality of its articles and claim without evidence that nobody reads it, why you don't you tell me what notable articles you have created at Conservapedia or somewhere else on the internet. Surely a man with your abilities could point to a number of notable articles you have created on the internet. The reason I ask is that there is a large amount of evolutionist nonsense that is not being read on the internet.[4] Conservative 05:13, 21 January 2013 (EST)

Same old tune aside, the grammatical error is still there...Rafael 11:46, 21 January 2013 (EST)
@Conservative. Let's not play around. You, nor your work, are notable in anyway. Notorious, maybe. List the single topic you wish to debate. Suggest a time and place where you would like this debate to be held (don't waste our time bringing up Shockofgod's chat room). You're next communication will include this information if you expect a response. Any non-sequitur reply will be ignored. --DonnyC 14:00, 21 January 2013 (EST)
DonnyC, just as I suspected! You cannot point to single notable article you have created on the internet. You are just a bitter, talentless, blowhard critic!
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - T. Roosevelt Conservative 14:16, 21 January 2013 (EST)
So stop criticising, Cons., AlanE 17:49, 21 January 2013 (EST)
AlanE, DonnyC has criticized my work at CP on this talk page. Certainly I should be allowed to give a rejoinder. Conservative 20:04, 21 January 2013 (EST)

It's happened again...

Once again, B. Hussein Obama has found a way to take the oath of office outside the public eye. What a shocker! Can there really be any doubt at this point that he's using the Koran? One private swearing-in, maybe. Two? No way that happens by chance. These Muslims will stop at nothing.--ThomJ 12:20, 20 January 2013 (EST)

I do not follow this argument. They had a network pool camera at the swearing-in ceremony, which was broadcast live on nationwide TV. (By the way, a bible was used.) In 2009, the only planned swearing-in was at the US Capitol with a bible on national television. Effective at noon on Jan 20, 2009, Barack Obama became President. However, for the Capitol ceremony, he was told to repeat the oath as recited by John Roberts, who tried to recite the oath from memory. Roberts flubbed a few words out of order. So to avoid any possible question, the White House asked Roberts to drop by for a "do over." Roberts dropped by and Obama recited the oath in the correct word order as a safety precaution without TV cameras or a bible. The whole thing was silly. This year, I noticed that Roberts was reading the oath from a note card instead of trying to do it from memory. The "second oath" in 2009 was not a planned event, so people should not attribute anything to the fact that it was not well planned, not broadcast, or not done with a bible. We are lucky that everyone was friendly and good natured about handling the original flub on the Capitol steps. Wschact 16:42, 20 January 2013 (EST)
Feel free to live in ignorance, Wschact. I do not know if Roberts is an accomplice or just a dupe. What I do know is that BHO has significant resources and tools at his disposal and is more than willing to use them. You do realize how easily film footage can be faked, right? Or, it would be easy enough to take the cover off a Bible and to use it to conceal a Koran. That would be completely in line with taqiyya, and would be just like BHO. I strongly suggest that you open your mind a bit, and maybe you will see the light.--ThomJ 18:14, 20 January 2013 (EST)
Anything is possible, but the fact was that the Constitution requires an oath on January 20. Today, he took the oath on national television, and there is no room left to argue that it was a secret ceremony. The only reason to believe that the three bibles in question are Michelle's family bible, Lincoln's bible and MLK's bible is that is what we have been told. If someone wants to lie about a book and claim that it is a bible when it is not, I think that the person would probably be caught, and if not they would have to answer later for a major sin. If you have evidence, please share it. Otherwise, I think CP's credibility may be harmed by advocating this theory. Thanks, Wschact 19:27, 20 January 2013 (EST)
Traditionally when January 20th falls on a Sunday the president is sworn in by a private ceremony with the public inauguration on the following Monday. This isn't some concpiracy that the President came up with. SJCootware 00:57, 21 January 2013 (EST)
I think it is more than tradition, it is constitutional. Perhaps ThomJ can tell us why Reagan was sworn in at a private Sunday ceremony - and Ike before him. And, I think, five more presidents before the good General. What makes Obama's Sunday different to their Sundays? AlanE 01:16, 21 January 2013 (EST)
I was speaking of the public ceremony being held on Monday as the traditional part, because that is not constitutionally required. SJCootware 10:16, 21 January 2013 (EST
Don't you get it? This is part of the cunning of BHO. He knew that when/if he got a second term, he'd be able to rely on historical precedent in order to do his second-term oath in private, without scrutiny. All he had to do was "fumble" the first-term oath and he'd be able to do BOTH in private. It's very clever, though also very wicked.--ThomJ 11:45, 21 January 2013 (EST)

MLK Day of Service

I'm curious as to what people will be doing in terms of community service to honor Dr. King's memory. MattyD 14:23, 20 January 2013 (EST)

I'm taking the day off to relax. There is no such thing as a day of service. I do community services year round, not just one day. --Jpatt 16:17, 20 January 2013 (EST)
I'll be planning for our 5th annual March for Life trip this Friday, and look forward to hearing the Rev. King's niece, Alveda King, give a pro-life talk at this event on Friday. Matty, will you be able to attend this year?--Andy Schlafly 16:42, 20 January 2013 (EST)
I'm a long way away from DC, and I, and my church, support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, so probably not. MattyD 17:13, 20 January 2013 (EST)
People attend from thousands of miles away - surely you're not further than a 5-days drive from D.C. And perhaps you can invite other members of your church. Thousands of the attendees were once "pro choice," or even "pro abortion," themselves.--Andy Schlafly 17:51, 20 January 2013 (EST)
Between work obligations, a lack of funds for such a trip, and a commitment to my position rooted in years of debate and reflection, I will pass. For the record, I would never consider myself "pro-abortion," I think the trinity of "safe, legal and rare" best encapsulates my position on the issue. Thanks for the invite, though -- hope you have good weather and a safe trip. MattyD 17:59, 20 January 2013 (EST)
Trinity? really? You couldn't come up with a better word to describe that liberal falsehood? I think it would be good for liberals who feel compelled to do service in his name--to recognize the contributions he made were through the Christian faith! Not just MLK, Jr., it was Reverend. --Jpatt 18:34, 20 January 2013 (EST)
MattyD, you are most certainly NOT a Christian.--ThomJ 11:47, 21 January 2013 (EST)
Do you mean he has opinions that differ from yours, ThomJ? --Esseph 13:09, 21 January 2013 (EST)

Bill Gates

His wife the Cafeteria Catholic and having kids likely influenced his belief in God.--Jpatt 16:17, 20 January 2013 (EST)

I'm sure that helps ... the Catholic part, not the cafeteria part.--Andy Schlafly 16:32, 20 January 2013 (EST)

Lance Armstrong library headline

I'm fairly certain you'll find that the sign in the library was put there by someone with a good sense of humor and this should not be reported as fact. WilcoxD 22:34, 20 January 2013 (EST)

Humor and the truth are not mutually exclusive. See Mystery:Does God Have a Sense of Humor?--Andy Schlafly 23:31, 20 January 2013 (EST)
That may be, but the headline "Lance Armstrong books moved to fiction section in Australian library" is still factually incorrect. I suppose it's up to you to decide whether you'd rather remove that headline or the word "trustworthy" from your logo ;) WilcoxD 23:46, 20 January 2013 (EST)
Andy; it was a tongue in cheek sign, stuck up by a trainee librarian at Manly (Sydney...and I had better say it, though it makes the rest of the world cringe at the implied American ignorance...Australia) public library, which caught the eye of a few people who like to Twitter and away it went from there. AlanE 00:05, 21 January 2013 (EST)
Everyone needs to lighten up. Its funny - and its true. In fact its funny because its true--DamianJohn 01:53, 21 January 2013 (EST)
Who's not lightened up, Damian? I have Marianne on my mind - the Delacroix version. AlanE 02:12, 21 January 2013 (EST)

Rapper thrown off stage

So I just read that article. It said Lupe Fiasco is anti-establishment and didn't vote for anybody. It also said he was born Wasalu Muhammad Jaco. Shouldn't Conservapedia be a little more careful about what it's implying? -Cilla

Conservapedia supports free speech -- even by people we might disagree with. That's a big difference between conservatives and today's liberals.--Andy Schlafly 11:11, 21 January 2013 (EST)
So you think that anybody should be allowed to say anything on a private event whether it pleases the organizers or not? As here on Conservapedia? --AugustO 11:26, 21 January 2013 (EST)

Yeah...I'm new here but it seems people who you disagree with get blocked or banned pretty quickly. That doesn't sound like supporting free speech to me. - Cilla

Obama was sworn in on Sunday, so it's merely an attempt at idolatry today.

I'm not well versed in the peculiarities of the American inaugurations, but I think Ronald Reagan second inauguration had a private ceremony on Saturday, Jan 20, 1985 - and then a public event the next Monday? Clearly this wasn't an attempt at idolatry, was it? --AugustO 11:10, 21 January 2013 (EST)

No, because Ronald Reagan was a humble man. B. Hussein Obama is the most arrogant president...well, ever. But surely you understood this before you posted?--ThomJ 11:49, 21 January 2013 (EST)
Idolatry is about "how" and "why". Reagan didn't speak at the Berlin Wall ("tear down this wall") to promote himself.--Andy Schlafly 11:57, 21 January 2013 (EST)
What does that have to do with holding an Inauguration? MattyD 11:58, 21 January 2013 (EST)
Because time and time again, Fearless Leader has demonstrated that he and his clique have the media on a leash; when the opportunity comes up, they jump at the chance to paint him as the greatest man ever. ZetaSonic 12:08, 21 January 2013 (EST)
It seems that Obama isn't the first one to be criticized over his inauguration on Jan 21:
WASHINGTON President Reagan's 1985 inaugural committee won the April Golden Fleece award for spending $15.5 million of taxpayer money on its private festivities, Sen. William Proxmire said yesterday.

The Wisconsin Democrat each month makes an award for what he says represents "the biggest example of ridiculous, ironic or wasteful government spending."

--AugustO 12:11, 21 January 2013 (EST)
Did Ronald Reagan's supporters censor criticism of him as Obama's lackeys do???--Andy Schlafly 12:16, 21 January 2013 (EST)
Again, what does that have to do with holding the Inauguration? MattyD 12:20, 21 January 2013 (EST)
Um, Lupe Fiasco. Hello? ZetaSonic 12:31, 21 January 2013 (EST)
What does that incident have to do with seeing today's ceremony as an act of idolatry because he took the official otah yesterday? That is the argument being discussed. MattyD 12:35, 21 January 2013 (EST)
How about this? Are you ignorant of Obama's personality cult? How the media props him up to be God? The man is an opportunist. ZetaSonic 13:07, 21 January 2013 (EST)
That may or may not be true, but it is irrelevant to holding a formal inauguration ceremony, as has happened 56 previous times in American history, regardless of when the official oath was taken. MattyD 13:14, 21 January 2013 (EST)
There were certainly protests against Reagan's second inauguration. Were the protesters invited to the capitol rotunda or to speak at some of the balls? I can't spot them here, but we certainly would have heard of that! --AugustO 12:32, 21 January 2013 (EST)

President Obama does not schedule the Inauguration. The Constitution requires taking the oath on January 20. However, there is a lot of ceremony involved in the Inauguration, including a big parade down Pennsylvania Avenue and a ceremony at the Capitol that is planned by a joint Congressional committee. Many military units, including marching bands are also involved in the planning. Because there are many downtown churches and many people want to observe Sunday with their families, for most of the nation's history, the Inauguration ceremonies were not held on Sunday. Holding the parade and ceremony on Sunday would disrupt the lives of many people who would be forced to work on that day or could not travel to their church, etc. I personally believe that not holding the ceremony and parade on Sunday is a good policy. The next time this will happen is January 20, 2041, and people are already planning on holding the parade and ceremony on the following day. The parade was planned to be held today whether Obama or Romney was going to be sworn. I think this is an example of America respecting people who want to observe Sunday and has nothing to do with Obama. Thanks, Wschact 13:38, 21 January 2013 (EST)

In the news: Azawad

Why is there nothing about the Islamists in Mali and Hollandes intervention.--Alex00 13:21, 21 January 2013 (EST)

Super Bowl teams are set

So which team should conservatives be rooting for? Ravens or 49ers? DanAP 15:43, 21 January 2013 (EST)

Neither. Sports are un-Christian as they encourage idolatry and the worship of false gods. And the "Super" Bowl, in particular, is worrisome because it compels people to violate the Sabbath.--ThomJ 12:15, 23 January 2013 (EST)


"Obama flubs the oath." "There aren't enough of Conservative Sports Stars" that get an award from Sports Illustrated." "The inauguration is nothing more than Obama-idolatry." "Tom Brady made a dirty play, and reporters like him." Are you having a bad day, Andy? All you have done since this morning is moan, whine and complain. Maybe you should have a drink and take a nice long bath or something. MattyD 22:36, 21 January 2013 (EST)

Whose whining? You might look at your own statement.
Pointing out liberal bias or bad sportsmanship is not whining, but is enlightening. We can all learn from it.--Andy Schlafly 22:41, 21 January 2013 (EST)
Now, Andy, it's okay if he flubs something; as long as he's on the American Left, he's immune to criticism! ZetaSonic 23:00, 21 January 2013 (EST)
You're correct Andy, there's nothing wrong with pointing out bias of any stripe. I just wish this site were a bit more proficient at it. What do I mean by that? Well many times the news headlines read something like: "Liberals falsely claim X[Citation Needed] While the truth is actually Y[1]" or something like "Conservative icon does something awesome![2] While liberals sit and mock him[Citation Needed]". You see the problem there? Without citations to support both the claim and counter-claim, it makes CP look like it's either being dishonest or world champion strawman wrestlers. To be fair, I understand that general editorializing shouldn't require a source. But when a post makes a definitive statement about what "liberals" or "atheists" are purported to believe, then I think a source linking to a flesh and blood liberal atheist making said claim should be provided. --DonnyC 23:13, 21 January 2013 (EST)

Also, what do you mean about Obama flubbing the oath "again?" Roberts was the one who goofed last time. MattyD 23:31, 21 January 2013 (EST)

Since the AP, yahoo news, and other mainstream media noted it, where is a source for the second line? Also, since this was just a repeat ceremony, not an "official" oath, how could it "matter"? Wschact 02:12, 22 January 2013 (EST)

The lamestream media headlines were "no flubs" - which is clearly false.--Andy Schlafly 11:43, 22 January 2013 (EST)
The media clips that I get do not have any "no flubs" headlines for the January 21 oath. There are a number of media outlets that picked up on the AP story about clipping the word "States" on January 21. I then did a Google search on "obama oath "no flubs"" and all of the results were reports on the January 20 oath. I did not check all 8,000 results, but if you have some links to false coverage of the January 21 oath, we could certainly build a powerful article around them. Wschact 12:53, 22 January 2013 (EST)
"no flubs, no re-dos" is the headline all over the internet. But Obama did flub the oath again, yet almost no headlines about it.--Andy Schlafly 13:06, 22 January 2013 (EST)
Associated Press, which was the source for the NJ Herald story, reported the flub as a stammer. Is a possible speech impediment newsworthy? What purpose is served by making a noise about this? --Esseph 13:45, 22 January 2013 (EST)

Let me help you out here Andy. If you wanted to make your headline completely honest, where even your most ardent liberal critics couldn't "whine", it would read something like this: Obama suffers "stumble" during oath.[3][4] Yet lamestream media report "no flubs, no re-dos"[5]

See how easy that is? The first claim summarizes (not editorializes) the headline from the source. The second claim again, summarizes the headline and provides a source. Though not as strongly worded as you would prefer, it is far more honest. --DonnyC 15:14, 22 January 2013 (EST)

It might be better to cite AP rather than the NJ Herald, since the latter sourced the story from the former. --Esseph 15:24, 22 January 2013 (EST)

I am pleased that Andy took down the "no flubs" media claim. The Reuter's reference was dated January 20 about just the January 20 oath. I did not see a single news item about the January 21 oath that claimed it was flawless, unflubbed or without stumbles. CP could validly highlight the fact that Obama stuttered during the January 21 oath (although it does not have any significance because it was not a "real" oath taking.) But CP lost credibility when it claimed that the mainstream media's "no flubs, no re-dos" was covering the January 21 oath, when these were stories written on January 20 about the January 20 oath. This episode reinforces the need to appoint a committee to fact-check and administer the main page. It is too much work for any one person, and the job should be rotated so that the burden is shared. Wschact 01:42, 23 January 2013 (EST)

@Wschact, I think the Conservapedia Student Panel is the final arbiter of such matters. Perhaps you can formally petition Andy's pupils to get your committee set up. Other than that, I know of no other process on CP for the airing and redress of grievances. Or any other manner of formal arbitration. --DonnyC 02:15, 23 January 2013 (EST)


  1. Random factoid
  2. 'nother factoid

Obama, "natural born citizen", constitutional precedent...isn't Andy a lawyer?

Citing colonial-era British common law is inapplicable in this circumstance. The definition of "natural born citizen" in the context of presidential eligibility has been established through precedent to mean any citizen born in the United States.

We have had six prior presidents with a non-citizen parent or parents: Andrew Jackson (both parents were Irish immigrants), Thomas Jefferson (mother born in England), James Buchanan (father born in Ireland), Chester Arthur (father born in Ireland), Woodrow Wilson (mother born in England), and Herbert Hoover (mother born in Canada).

So unless you're trying to argue that Thomas Jefferson didn't know what his colleagues meant when they wrote "natural born citizen" into the constitution, your appeal to 18th century British common law is invalid.--JHunter 21:42, 22 January 2013 (EST)

In the examples you cite above, were these foreign-born parents citizens of the United States prior to their children being born? Karajou 21:48, 22 January 2013 (EST)
"Natural born citizen" does not mean any person born in the United States. Children born to diplomats in the United States are not natural born citizens, for example.--Andy Schlafly 22:03, 22 January 2013 (EST)
That's not what User:JHunter said, Mr. Schlafly. He said any "citizen." Many of the first presidents were not natural born citizens by your definition, because their parents couldn't possibly have been born in a United States which did not exist yet. Furthermore, later presidents such as Herbert Hoover and Woodrow Wilson were born in the United States to, for example, one parent with US citizenship. That is also the case that applies to President Obama, and it is founded in perfectly legal ground. To continue suggesting that he is not eligible to be President of the United States borders on delusional and unpatriotic. Furthermore, it belittles the credibility of this website. I would strongly suggest this article be removed from the main page.
Furthermore, the reason that children of diplomats are not legally citizens of the United States is because the diplomats are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Not because of some seemingly constantly changing definition of "natural born." He was born in the United States. With one parent having citizenship, to boot. The article on this website admits as much. That makes him a natural born citizen. JaPo 22:24, 22 January 2013 (EST)
Wrong, JaPo. The definition of natural born citizen has been established by previous cases as well as by the intent of the Founding Fathers. It means literally a child born in the United States to parents who are already U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth, especially the citizenship of the father. Karajou 22:40, 22 January 2013 (EST)
Do you have a source for that claim? In particular, for the claim about "especially the citizenship of the father"? The Conservapedia article that you linked me to expressly states:
"In this case, Wong Kim Ark was found to be entitled to citizenship in perpetuity through the 14th Amendment, by virtue of being born within the United States, despite both parents being non-citizens, and having been raised out of the country. The decision was affirmed by the US Supreme Court. The case was referenced as recently as 2009, in which the Indiana Court of Appeals declared, "based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents" Thus is seems incontrovertible that someone born within the United States, and who thereby gains citizenship, is a natural born citizen."
I would assume that, in order to be consistent, you would also admit that Senator Marco Rubio is also ineligible for the office of POTUS?JaPo 22:45, 22 January 2013 (EST)
First, Wong Kim Ark was determined to be a citizen according to the 14th Amendment, but NOT determined to be a natural born citizen. He doesn't meet the requirements, and the individual who put that line within the article apparently is assuming he's superior to Jefferson or Washington. Second, Rubio also cannot be president; he is not a natural-born citizen. Karajou 23:06, 22 January 2013 (EST)

Re: wrangling over Obama: Obama is a lame duck president with a job performance rating lower than most second term presidents. He is facing considerable economic headwinds. I doubt he will be able to advance his agenda in second term and at best will be able to minimize losses to his agenda. Politically he is more adept than Jimmy Carter, but given the right economic environment, the public at large could easily sour on him like they did Carter. Conservative 04:20, 23 January 2013 (EST)

Re. Marco Rubio - is that really true, Karajou? Can Rubio definitely not run for President because of questions over his citizenship? I hadn't realized that - but I see that WND is reporting the same thing - and the same concern for Bobby Jindal. A lot of conservative folks will be disappointed by the news, I'm guessing, although hopefully it will allow the GOP to put forward a candidate who properly represent the Tea Party and other properly conservative movements. Wonders 12:40, 23 January 2013 (EST)

In the news. Clinton

Hillary Clinton has said that she made a mistake by intervening in Libya. The result was the war in Mali. unsigned by Alex00

The key years before Jesus' birth

Alexander the Great, Ptolemy, Julius Caesar, Brutus, Antony and Cleopatra, and Caesar Augustus all had something in common. What is it that unites all of these famous historic figures?... They all lived during a very brief period of time before the birth of Jesus Christ! So many things happened during those few tumultuous years between the death of Julius Caesar in 44B.C. and the birth of Jesus Christ roughly around 4 B.C. that almost no other time in history is nearly quite as significant.

∗LOL∗ --AugustO 15:32, 23 January 2013 (EST)

Oh, come on, who wrote that? Ptolemy, born 90 AD; Alexander the Great: 356-323 BC; Julius Caesar lived in the years following his death and the birth of Christ? Good Lord. MattyD 15:46, 23 January 2013 (EST)
User:Conservative, I'd prefer if you put articles featured on Conservapedia on the left-hand side of the main page (as it says in the title). But could you please at least spare us the links to such nonsensical "articles"? --AugustO 16:15, 23 January 2013 (EST)

I wonder if that is a parody site? The claim to be "serious political commentary for serious conservatives", a header that claims that it is "planting the seeds of thought to encourage a nation" and a footer that states "A journalist has no better friend than the truth" top and tail a junior high school retelling of "Cleopatra", complete with a few "I bet the teacher won't read this too closely" bombs. Rafael 16:35, 23 January 2013 (EST)

"I bet the teacher won't read this too closely"? Homeschooled, perhaps? I don't believe it is a parody, unless concordance across the web proves he or she's pulling it all off other sites. Too much work has gone into it; a parodist would never be so obsessive. Conservapedia should reach out to him/her and welcome his/her insights, such as they may be. The initial article, however, does not inspire confidence. --Esseph 19:40, 23 January 2013 (EST)
Oh, and his site design is awful. --Esseph 19:42, 23 January 2013 (EST)
The web site's source is almost an example of "how not to write HTML," with copious amounts of <br> tags and all. I'm confused, though, because at least the CSS seems reasonably competently written. GregG 20:29, 23 January 2013 (EST)
Just to nitpick: Cleopatra was a Ptolemy. Just saying. AlanE 20:17, 23 January 2013 (EST)
Gentlemen, why don't you show us all how it's done and attempt to write a better article on the subject. I dare you! Then we will hold a contest and see who gets the most votes. May the best man win! Conservative 20:37, 23 January 2013 (EST)
I think the response you were looking for was: "Gentlemen, I was in a hurry when I posted that link and did not have the time check the authenticity of its historical claims. Now that obvious factual errors have been pointed out to me, I will quickly remove the link so none of Andy's history students are misled. Thank you, God bless you, and have a great day!" --DonnyC 21:01, 23 January 2013 (EST)
Winner winner chicken dinner! I think checking the accuracy of linked articles on our main page is something that all administrators should strive for. GregG 21:10, 23 January 2013 (EST)
Gentlemen, I triple dog dare you to attempt to write a better article on this subject and let's have a contest with a vote. Cross this line in the sand at your peril! Liberals vs. Scott Rohter! Let the contest begin. Unless of course, you are very afraid! Are you afraid gentlemen? Conservative 22:32, 23 January 2013 (EST)
So, let me get this straight. You are standing behind an article that lists Alexander the Great, born almost 400 years before Christ as an example of great men who lived in the years immediately preceding His birth. MattyD 22:37, 23 January 2013 (EST)

I just want to see a liberal write a better article. Are liberals admitting they can't do it? Conservative 22:42, 23 January 2013 (EST)

So in other words, yes. MattyD 22:47, 23 January 2013 (EST)

Here's an even better idea. How about a writing contest against User:Conservative? It'd be easy. We limit it to a single mutually agreed upon topic. We limit articles to an agreed upon word count and each participant will post their entry to either their user page or as an essay. Then we let the judging (voting) begin. Simple. For fun we can toss in a few more ground rules such as: an article that consists of mostly quotes, fails. Posting unrelated pictures with nonsensical captions is also a disqualifyer. Invoking Hitler and/or Nazis in any way would also be considered a forfeit. Stuff like that. I think it would be great fun. --DonnyC 23:02, 23 January 2013 (EST)

... and while everyone goes off and writes their essays this terrible article remains as one of the two or three most prominent things currently on the main page. What are you trying to prove, User:Conservative? What point are you trying to make? Do you honestly believe no liberal is capable of writing an essay better than this primary-school-esque attempt? WilcoxD 23:38, 23 January 2013 (EST)

Scott Rohter vs. liberals - conservatives won again! Liberals are afraid to try to write a better article. They know they cannot do it! I am afraid conservatives are going to have to declare victory! Again! Conservative 23:54, 23 January 2013 (EST)

Most people could probably run a business better than he does. Some victory. --EdgarP 00:43, 24 January 2013 (EST)
EdgarP, the liberal Wikipedia on a rather famous writer named Edgar: "Unable to support himself, on May 27, 1827, Poe enlisted in the United States Army as a private." - Wikipedia on Edgar Allan Poe. It seems as if even the liberals agree that your logic is severely flawed! :) Conservative 08:28, 24 January 2013 (EST)
Since I'm not a liberal, I'm afraid I can't satisfy your ill-posed challenge, but I will submit the section "The Early Roman Empire (31 BC–AD 193)" of the liberal Encyclopaedia Britannica article "Ancient Rome" (this may be a subscription link, but if this fails, you should be able to find the article in a library). GregG 00:09, 24 January 2013 (EST)
How the Bible revised Britannica: and Conservative 00:51, 24 January 2013 (EST)
User:Conservative, you seem to adhere to the motto "if you never give up, you can't possibly lose". Monty Python's Black Knight followed this philosophy, too - and while he thought that he was invincible, he just looked stupid most of the time.
An intro for an essay on a historic topic worse than the one presented by you is hard to imagine, perhaps something like
Martin Luther and Abraham Lincoln had something in common: they lived during a very brief period of time before the American Revolution
would do the trick.
--AugustO 04:16, 24 January 2013 (EST)
AugustO, I am shocked that an evolutionist would challenge the idea that this period is but a sliver in time! Even as a young earthy creationist, I can clearly see this! :) Conservative 08:20, 24 January 2013 (EST)

Your humour is much appreciated, but it does not detract from the weakness of this piece. If we take out the anachronisms, 44BC to 4BC is no more a significant period than, say, 1066 to 1106 AD or 1492 to 1532 AD and a lot less significant than any forty year period over the last two hundred and fifty years. This error is compounded by the writer's focus on what is essentially a love story from tertiary sources, with the important stuff spun around it. Quite what this article has to do with conservative ideas or the chalenges facing America and the world today is anyone's guess, unless it's a badly judged attempt to compare the US to Rome in the way that writers in the 16th century compared England to Rome, an idea that was past its best even then.

It's not the only howler on that website. Elsewhere, the author tells us "War certainly stopped Adolph Hitler, and it was the only thing that could have stopped him!" (something Hitler himself contradicted in Mein Kampf) and "War also put an end to fascism in Spain [...] by stopping Franco"

Challenging liberals to write better articles is silly. Liberals and conservatives and all shades in between have all written better articles - anyone who has had study history under any kind of rigour has done better.

The article is sloppy and has no place anywhere in a Trustworthy Encyclopdia, let alone on the main page. I'm sure I speak for many when I respectfully suggest it is removed by someone who has the editing rights to do so. Rafael 09:38, 24 January 2013 (EST)

Rafael, you wrote: "Your humour is much appreciated, but it does not detract from the weakness of this piece. If we take out the anachronisms, 44BC to 4BC is no more a significant period than, say, 1066 to 1106 AD or 1492 to 1532 AD and a lot less significant than any forty year period over the last two hundred and fifty years. "
It would be a lot more impressive if you defended your view in an article. Unless of course, you don't believe you are able to write a better piece than the one featured on the main page. Conservative 11:27, 24 January 2013 (EST)
1492 - 1532: Columbus, Luther, Calvin, Thomas More, Henry VII, Cortez, Balboa etc. 1066 - 1106: the rise of the Turks in esatern Europe, William I of England, the first crusade etc. 1789 - 1829: French Revolution, Washington, Napoleon, colonialism starts drifting into empire, the first stock exchanges, international banking houses, the first novels in English... 1649 - 1689...

Nobody needs to set up a vanity website and write a piece refuting the original assertion to prove it's a dog. Facts and basic historical research prove it's a dog: choose any historical event and, within forty years, you will find world changing people and events without having to rehash an Elizabeth Taylor movie.

I cannot understand why the Trustworthy Encylopedia would keep such a badly conceived and factually incorrect article in the "Featured on Conservapedia" section of the main page. Rafael 12:36, 24 January 2013 (EST)

Rafael, was Jesus Christ the most significant figure in world history?[5][6][7][8][9][10][11]
Why do you have to set up a separate website? Doesn't Conservapedia allow editors to create essays? Conservative 07:16, 25 January 2013 (EST)
I agree completely about Christ's importance, which makes an essay about two pagans' love affair even more irrelevant.
However, interpretations and speculative essays have no place in an encyclopedia. Facts do.
All of which is academic. Thank you for doing the right thing and removing the link Rafael 07:57, 25 January 2013 (EST)

BBC documentary about creationism

The link leads to a copy of an anonymous Australian's correspondence with Encyclopaedia Britannica about the hearing of cobras. Which is kind of not what I expected ... but hey, this is Conservapedia! --Esseph 09:40, 24 January 2013 (EST)

Thanks, I fixed it. Conservative 10:21, 24 January 2013 (EST)

Sandy Hook Hoax

I see that Conservapedia/Andy Schlafly's official Twitter page is calling the Sandy Hook massacre a hoax. That is problematic. MattyD 09:46, 25 January 2013 (EST)

I also see your reading skills are a bit problematic given the account clearly says who it is. Dvergne 09:59, 25 January 2013 (EST)
MattyD, the Twitter feed came directly from this headline [12], and the hoax refers to liberal control of the information. What I'm not going to put up with is your twisting of this headline to imply that we created created and/or called it a hoax. Karajou 10:16, 25 January 2013 (EST)
Well at least the link is gone now. I'm frankly amazed that someone was fooled by the article, and posted it as actual news. brenden 15:32, 25 January 2013 (EST)
The link is still there Brendan. Nobody was fooled, it was an interesting look at media malpractice. Frankly, I am amazed a liberal such as yourself still posts here. BTW, I never did call it a hoax and I believe Adam was the only gunman. --Jpatt 15:54, 25 January 2013 (EST)
Well as long as nobody took it seriously :D brenden 16:00, 25 January 2013 (EST)
With all due respect to Jpatt I think the author is strongly insinuating that the events at Sandy Hook were a hoax. Before I go into that, I'd like to formally recognize a few points above: 1) the twitter account is clearly marked, and Dvergne was right about that; 2) I agree withJpatt's point that the article's author is strongly denouncing the liberal media's coverage style. I think the author goes further however. I'll note at the outset that I refuse to watch televised news so I'll take no issue with the article on those points. First, the author refers to the events at Sandy Hook as "the alleged Sandy Hook elementary school massacre"--no news source I've encountered disputes that the events were a massacre, and this language makes it seem like the author believes the events were a hoax. Second, this language: "But when all the facts point to an alternate reality existing, as opposed to the one the media is forcing down everyone's throats..." seems to be referring not to the media coverage but rather the events themselves. By that I mean, I do not believe that language is discussing the gun grab attempt, but rather the facts of the shooting. Third, this language: "The arrest of a camouflaged individual running into the woods, away from the school, as officers arrived and the fact that the “crisis actors” and officers on display, for public consumption, seem to have been pulled from an active (school shooter) drill that was ironically being held right down the road..." seems to be supportive of the hoax contention that the media used actors and covered up the existence of a second shooter. I believe Jpatt when he said that he believes there was only one shooter--but the article's author seems to think otherwise. Although I do not know the author, I will note that another article written by him advocates that the shooter died the day before the shooting. See here Just my .02 Thanks, WilliamWB 16:26, 25 January 2013 (EST)
I read the article same as you. Even the title affirms the author's view. I am not denying it was an article about Sandy Hook hoaxes, I am fascinated by it. Nothing is what it seems to be because the media, who is supposed to ask the questions, has another agenda and because a corrupt government is pushing laws that would not have prevented Sandy Hook or the next mass murder. These are crazy times I m sure we can agree. Pretending those with an agenda are working in our interests is a big mistake. They, not I, they, not the author, have created another conspiracy theory. Corruption abounds.--Jpatt 17:16, 25 January 2013 (EST)

March for Life censorship

As someone who marched for life yesterday, I think the march (and pro-life activity) deserves much more attention than it got. However, it was, in fact, covered by many liberal sources: NPR, The New York Times, CNN, USA Today, and The Washington Post, to name a few. GregG 09:59, 26 January 2013 (EST)

Yeah, I saw it mentioned for a scant 5 seconds on the NBC evening news. Meanwhile 3 anti-gun protesters at Walmart got more airtime, Manti T'eo got two weeks of air time. --Jpatt 13:36, 26 January 2013 (EST)
Your perspective of the coverage on the Right to Life March hardy makes itself valid. 1977Wingman 20:03, 26 January 2013 (EST)

The USA Today article that I saw did not cover the March itself, but a story about a group that went from Iowa. And I saw television coverage there from only one station: EWTN.--Andy Schlafly 20:45, 26 January 2013 (EST)

I saw the EWTN camera platform during the march. I also saw vans for Fox News and NBC Universal near the rally. GregG 22:14, 26 January 2013 (EST)
Where was Fox News and NBC Universal? I didn't see them along the march, as EWTN was. I'm sure the organizers would have made room for them at a good location if they wanted one. And was ABC and CBS News there at all??? That's called censorship when two news networks, which benefit from a government-granted monopoly over their frequency allocation, deliberately refuse to cover such a large rally because of its message.--Andy Schlafly 22:51, 26 January 2013 (EST)
They were at the rally on Madison Drive, between 7th and 9th St. (the Diocese of Trenton congregated west of 9th St., across from the Natural History Muesum). Two journalists for the Catholic periodical for the Diocese of Trenton was there with a microphone and what appeared to be a video camera. Other networks may have been there, but I didn't see them (but I didn't enter the main rally group or stray far from the Diocesan congregation point or the march path until I reached the end of the march). There were about four production vans near the rally, but I don't remember the affiliations (aside from the ones I mentioned: Fox News and NBC Universal). I will say that the only camera setup I saw during the march was EWTN. GregG 23:10, 26 January 2013 (EST)
If ABC and CBS News did not have a government-granted monopoly, then they could censor all they want (and be criticized for it). But they are given special broadcast frequencies by the government and no one else can use them. Censorship by such companies, while taking a government-granted monopoly, for political reasons is outrageous. And where was PBS???--Andy Schlafly 23:17, 26 January 2013 (EST)
It was covered with footage on the PBS NewsHour at about the 12:11 mark for about 25 seconds. [13] GregG 23:34, 26 January 2013 (EST)

Palin leaving Fox

The link states that Fox dropped Palin, but the article it links to says that Fox had asked her back, but she wanted to do other things. If she does plan to do other things, it was probably a wise career move. That job is kinda like color commentators in sports...its meant for people who can no longer play. I am sure Palin has a few more seasons left.

When a star is dropped, both sides almost always say it was by mutual consent, or at the star's request. But it is unlikely Palin would walk away from continuation of her Fox deal.--Andy Schlafly 20:53, 26 January 2013 (EST)

"the Napoleon Complex!"

"Napoleon" is misspelled.

(Aside: why am I surprised that these sorts of misspellings seem to arise from one particular user's edits to MPR?)

GregG 12:15, 27 January 2013 (EST)

Good catch!--Andy Schlafly 12:34, 27 January 2013 (EST)
I won a prize in a spelling bee. Of course, modesty prevents me from saying what prize I won. :) And of course, a Bible believing lady in my church won a prize in the same spelling bee. :)
Lastly, you will be glad to know that in 2013, I suspect to shake the malady that messes with my sleep and occasionally leads to mistakes on the main page. There are a number of venues I will be pursuing to alleviate the situation some of which have very high rates of success. Of course, none of these successful treatment rely on evolutionary pseudoscience. How is Kenneth Miller doing on those 15 questions for evolutionists? Have you heard back from him yet? Conservative 17:10, 28 January 2013 (EST)
Hasten more slowly, Cons. Read what you have written before saving it. We all make simple mistakes, typos etc but 90-odd percent are caught before it's too late. At least mine are. For example, if you had read your last post you would have been able to put an "a" in front of "venues". AlanE 18:08, 28 January 2013 (EST)
No one is calling you out on misspellings, Conservative, it is a case of the main talk page being the only forum users can make mention of spelling/grammar/etc errors on the main page, as we haven't the means to correct them ourselves. I, too, was a spelling bee champ, almost making it to the round before the finals (I was runner-up). WesleySHello! 19:32, 28 January 2013 (EST)

I have access to some spelling and grammar checking software to check typos and other erratum plus I could use the preview button as well. In addition, there are some things I could be doing to improve my sleep. I will take this as a lesson learned.

Lastly, to the gentlemen at a certain website, the spelling bee prize I won was most certainly not a "Thank you for participating. We are all winners prize". :) It was based on God-given talent, hard work and achievement! :) Conservative 21:55, 28 January 2013 (EST)

If you aren't already using Firefox, you should, as it has a built-in spell check. I appreciate your candor and ability to reflect on yourself/yourselves and pray for your continued healing. (By the way, "God-given" should have a hyphen.) GregG 22:53, 28 January 2013 (EST)
I hate hyphens. The Oxford Guide to Plain English says concerning hyphens: "It is difficult to use hyphens consistently, and there is usually someone to disagree with your best efforts."[14] The question mark and exclamation point are far superior to the hyphen! Are they not? :) Conservative 08:14, 29 January 2013 (EST)
Perhaps a word from Victor Borge would help here... AlanE 13:27, 29 January 2013 (EST)
Off on a technical tangent, Google Chrome, does too (As does every other modern web browser, including IE 7,8,9, and Opera). Unless you use Lynx, or something similarly outdated, spellchecker shouldn't be a problem. brenden 14:40, 29 January 2013 (EST)

New resource site for Conservatives/ TEA partiers?

Has anyone else seen the Tea Party Community site yet[15]? It's not something the MSM will cover, it ties in nicely with some of the Conservative News and Views posts, it could work well with some of the Question Evolution! stuff and there is huge synergetic potential for Conservapedia.

Is there any chance it could be featued on Main Page Right? Rafael 10:29, 29 January 2013 (EST)

Media doesn't ask Colin Kaepernick about his Christian Faith

and I'm wondering why it matters....really, does anyone (including Christians) give a damn? The 2nd year QB, who is a far better player than CP favorite Tebow, is taking his team to a SB and you think people are just dying to know what his thoughts on Jesus are? Perhaps he likes to keep his faith private as it should be. 1977Wingman 10:29, 29 January 2013 (EST)

Kaepernick's strong Christian faith is more interesting to more people than most of the other questions asked by the media of him ... yet the media repeatedly avoid generating publicity about Christian success. Notice everyone heard about Lance Armstrong's lack of faith when Armstrong was riding high.--Andy Schlafly 11:47, 29 January 2013 (EST)
re: Private faith - "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels." - Jesus Conservative 13:53, 29 January 2013 (EST)
My perspective is that don't know anything of this man's faith and it's not our business if he doesn't share it. You cannot say he has any shame. You don't know. Faith is nothing to be crowed about. Jesus held that to be suspicious. Matthew 6:5-8 says it best. To criticize the media is as much to criticize this man for something that is unfair to expect of him. There are paths to salvation and Jesus gives the whole of the law in Matthew 22. As we love God with all our hearts, souls, and minds, we are to love our neighbors. So justification by grace is a gift given freely by God to human beings to return his love and join him if we might. Justification is increased by good works. They are not for boasting or any man's glory. They are to praise God and share in His love for all mankind. The rest is God's business. He knows what we need before we ask. Matthew 6:8. Nate 17:36, 29 January 2013 (EST)
Sounds to me like the "praying should be done only in Church, and never express one's faith for the benefit of others" fallacy. The counterexample is Jesus Himself.--Andy Schlafly 18:18, 29 January 2013 (EST)

Super Bowl

Is it worth mentioning on the main page that regardless of the outcome of the Super Bowl, an adoption success story will win - either Kaepernick on the 49ers or Michael Oher on the Ravens? Of course, adoption success stories in the Super Bowl are nothing new - Hines Ward won the MVP a few years ago. Gregkochuconn 21:17, 29 January 2013 (EST)

Didn't know about Oher or Ward. Would you like to add them to the adoption success story entry, and from there they might be referenced on the Main Page?--Andy Schlafly 21:52, 29 January 2013 (EST)
I see you did add Ward. How about Oher?--Andy Schlafly 22:40, 29 January 2013 (EST)
Oher was already on there - I didn't add him a second time :-) Gregkochuconn 20:47, 30 January 2013 (EST)

Won't a win for the 49'ers mean affirmation of the Homosexual Left Coast agenda ?--User:Mroberts 10:22, 30 January 2013 (EST)

"A Tea Party activists"

"Activists" should be singular. GregG 00:37, 30 January 2013 (EST)

"Justice Antonin Scalia is not conservative enough anymore."

You mean, the same Justice Scalia who wrote the majority opinion in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion (2011), Wal-Mart v. Dukes (2011), and CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood (2012); a concurring opinion in Citizens United v. FEC (2010) and Ricci v. DeStefano (2009); and joined in a dissent in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)? GregG 00:46, 30 January 2013 (EST)

Scalia moved 0.000000001% away from the ultimate far right of the party, therefore not conservative. This is what conservatives literally believe. JRegden 18:15, 30 January 2013 (EST)


'"Faith, family and football, that's my M.O., bro," - can you remove the 'bro'? He said it as a joke to pun on 'M.O', but he is a smart man of Jesus not some drunk fraternity moron, and I worry this conveys the wrong message. JRegden 18:14, 30 January 2013 (EST)

Article on about Kaepernick's Life as an Adoptee

Article is available at [16]. The author, Rick Reilly, also talks about his own adopted daughter. Back when Reilly wrote for Sports Illustrated, he wrote a similar article about Hines Ward when he won Super Bowl MVP. Gregkochuconn 20:49, 30 January 2013 (EST)

"Perfect Doubling By Century" on Greatest Conservative Words

Either the last number should be 248, or it's not a perfect doubling. I'm guessing the former. Gregkochuconn 20:52, 30 January 2013 (EST)

Great catch! Why do typos like that happen??? It's the fundamental role played by entropy in the world (Heisenberg Uncertainty, Second Law of Thermodynamics, Murphy's Law, etc.) Thanks for mentioning the need for correction.--Andy Schlafly 21:23, 30 January 2013 (EST)
The Conservative Word hypothesis is errant. See: And there is abundant evidence showing it is errant. Conservative 08:29, 31 January 2013 (EST)

Ray Lewis

With the Super Bowl coming up, the Ravens' outstanding linebacker Ray Lewis, is giving thanks to God. Shouldn't this be a main page story? - Cilla

Chris Culliver

So I guess he changed his mind.,0,1902344.story --JDrag 12:22, 31 January 2013 (EST)

Roe v. Wade should be overturned - article in UConn's paper

Here's an article I wrote for UConn's paper as to why Roe v. Wade should be overturned. [17] Note that this was part of our (almost) weekly "Blue vs. White" feature where two columnists take opposite sides on an issue (hence the references to "my opponent." You can view her article at [18] or you can view them both together in the PDF edition of the paper at [19] Gregkochuconn 06:15, 1 February 2013 (EST)

Darwinism in Germany

Hi, I'm from Germany and have some corrections regarding the main page news:

  1. It spells "kaputt" and is rarely used in German anyway
  2. regarding the linked blog: "Evangelische" schools don't teach creation. They teach evolution in biology class and creation in religion class, the latter usually includes teaching students that genesis doesn't have to be taken literally.

Maybe you'd like to correct that.

Greetings from Stuttgart


GregorSchmitt 12:46, 2 February 2013 (EST)

Considering the fraudulent work of evolutionist and atheist Ernst Haeckel, I will trust a real news organization such as The Locale over the report of a German Darwinist and their organization reports German biblical creation belief is growing. See:
I further cite from The Locale: "Private schools run by conservative evangelical Christians – the flavour of faith associated in the United States with fundamentalist and creationist beliefs – are growing in number and prominence in Germany. Some 26,000 students attend about 80 evangelical schools (not to be confused with Germany’s mainstream Evangelisch Protestant churches). Half of these schools are represented by the new Association of Evangelical Schools, which advocates teaching creationism alongside evolution."[20]
An adequate spelling of kaput was used. See:
Your post smacks of desperation and a willful ignoring of bad news for German Darwinism. I think you are cracking under the pressure. You remind me of this video: Sing it Heine!  :) Conservative 13:09, 2 February 2013 (EST)
I'm not cracking under anything, I'm a creationist myself. If you don't want help from a native speaker just say so. No need to get rude. GregorSchmitt 13:30, 2 February 2013 (EST)
I don't believe you are a creationist and I am still sticking with the report of the news organization The Locale. Conservative 13:39, 2 February 2013 (EST)
I respect that and there was absolutely no need to block me, especially with such a bogus reason. . GregorSchmitt 14:12, 2 February 2013 (EST)
Why are you so defensive; afraid your argument is shot full of holes, maybe? If you are, your fear is well-founded, and if not, I really can't help you. Thuischlfl 21:20, 2 February 2013 (EST)
Thuischlfl, thank you for your form letter like comment short on specifics. Not impressive at all. Conservative 00:03, 3 February 2013 (EST)
The pot calling the kettle black much? Thuischlfl 13:18, 3 February 2013 (EST)

Vive le Biblical Creationism!

Nitpicking here, but it should be "vive le créationnisme biblique", for consistency reasons. brenden 17:28, 2 February 2013 (EST)

The Question Evolution! campaign will not back down! Creationists will never surrender!

Prominent Canadian creationist Ian Juby endorses International Question Evolution! Day.[21]

An International Question Evolution! Day blitz is launching at 8pm Greenwich Mean Time today. [22]

"We shall never surrender". - Winston Churchill

"I have not yet begun to fight!"." - John Paul Jones

I hope that clarifies things. :) Conservative 11:40, 3 February 2013 (EST)

"I have not yet begun to fight!" - That I can believe. Please inform me when something newsworthy has happened. --AugustO 12:28, 3 February 2013 (EST)
8pm Greenwich Mean Time is drawing nigh! :) Conservative 12:42, 3 February 2013 (EST)
Awesome time-telling skills, fella. JohanZ 13:45, 3 February 2013 (EST)
The world trembles with anticipation and fear as the Skype conversation between User:Conservative/15 questions for evolutionists and an anonymous supporter of the QE! campaign draws near. I guess I will have to examine after-the-fact whether the event described above was actually newsworthy. GregG 13:48, 3 February 2013 (EST)

GregG, the world does not tremble. There are a lot of people in the world who believe in biblical creation and a lot of non-Darwinists in the world as well. By the way, how is Kenneth Miller doing on those 15 questions for evolutionists? Any word back yet? Have you tried calling him yet? Conservative 15:59, 3 February 2013 (EST)

So, tell us more about the blitz... --AugustO 16:24, 3 February 2013 (EST)
It seems an announced British invasion may be starting.  :) A fan of Creation Ministries International takes on University of Cambridge educated historian Dr. James Hannam about the murderous depravity of atheist leaders and requests him to answer the 15 questions for evolutionists.[23] Conservative 19:14, 3 February 2013 (EST)
So your big event that merited two blog posts and spamming several times on Conservapedia was you writing an anonymous blog comment on someone else's blog. That's all manner of pathetic. --EEdwards 19:55, 3 February 2013 (EST)

Project 200+

I see this project is back in the headlines - has another group joined? WilcoxD 17:04, 3 February 2013 (EST)

"Another" would imply there was at least one organisation that had already joined. Project 200+ isn't real. They aren't incorporated, they have no website, no actual notion of what this "coalition" is going to do, and no one even knows it exists except for "Conservative." --EEdwards 20:09, 3 February 2013 (EST)
EEdwards, what is the difference between Paul Gosselin and you?[24] Unless you become a young earth creationist activist, you are never going to be invited the Question Evolution! forum! :)
A secret society is "a club or organization whose activities and inner functioning are concealed from non-members. The society may or may not attempt to conceal its existence."[25]
Good luck finding the forum on the internet! :) Conservative 00:26, 4 February 2013 (EST)
And now I see you are plagiarising Wiki here too, Cons., AlanE 00:37, 4 February 2013 (EST)
It's OK Alan, Ol' "Conservative" here is an admin so none of the rules, guidelines, or commandments of this site apply. --DonnyC 00:41, 4 February 2013 (EST)
No plagariazing. I cited my source.[26] Conservative 11:10, 4 February 2013 (EST)
OK then, you copied from Wiki - isn't that also on a CP stone tablet of no-noes? It's a lazy way out. It would have taken less than a minute to paraphrase the source. (Then again , maybe not....  :-) AlanE 13:33, 4 February 2013 (EST)

AlanE, I cited a source that I now see quoted Wikipedia. I thought it was the reverse and Wikipedia was borrowing from the source I used. Second, if it is really an important issue for you, feel free to change the wording of the 2 sentence article. I am moving on, however. Conservative 04:06, 5 February 2013 (EST)

thanks Andy

The Gods sense of humor makes sense now. Thanks for explaining the joke god made that only you understood. BodsHumor

I'm not sure where the "sloppy play" comment is coming from, either. This is clearly one of the best played, most intense Super Bowls in recent memory. A classic. JaPo 22:49, 3 February 2013 (EST)

The political correctness here was playing the Super Bowl in the Superdome out of pity for Katrina

For the past 8 years, liberals, in a pathetic attempt to try to shame Bush over Katrina, have kept on trying to prop up New Orleans as this great city that had been unfairly victimized because its citizens were black and which can still hold major events. Let us not forget the last time the Superdome was in the major news, women were getting raped by animals in there. Insanity is doing the same thing twice and expecting different results. Goodell, A RINO who is the son of another RINO Senator Goodell, wanted to use the NFL to try to "rebuild" New Orleans, (bear in mind when New Orleans won this bid - right after Katrina). This should be their lesson. BenCG 00:44, 4 February 2013 (EST)


I just tried to find the statistic that was mentioned on the Main Page and the QE blog. All I could find was a statistic that was at least ten years old. So my question is: Why does this seem to be newsworthy?--VPropp 18:10, 4 February 2013 (EST)

The Christian Post source and another source given in the article were from 2007. There was also fresh news in the article. Conservative 04:01, 5 February 2013 (EST)

Richard III's remains

Andy: I fail to see the humour in Richard's remains being found in a parking lot. I don't find anything funny about his death, whatever his supposed power-hunger which was no greater than the leader of the men who killed him - and certainly I don't find anything remotely humorous about the treatment - the mutilation - of his body before the good monks of Grey Friars claimed him and gave him a Christian burial beneath the alter, or thereabouts, in the abbey. I can't find anything funny about Henry VIII's dissolution of the monasteries, nor the inevitable waste of the site over nearly 500 years into a "carpark" as you flippantly call it as though the "Brits" are somehow strange for calling it such a strange name. (Anyone with the merest smidgeon of basic knowledge of Britain and its history would know that interesting finds are occurring all the time in the most unexpected of places.) I do find it mildly amusing that you have so little faith in the general knowledge of your compatriots that you have to explain what a "parking lot" is, and in your failure to know your own site, where the discovery of his remains was reported in September. (See Richard III) Perhaps God will permit Himself a wry smile after all. AlanE 01:27, 5 February 2013 (EST)

Bashing the Super Bowl

What exactly is the point of the negative Super Bowl headlines? There was glowing praise here just a couple weeks ago about Colin Kaepernick and his "best of the public" performance. But he didn't win. So now political correctness is all the NFL cares about? (The NFL cares about money. That's all). I firmly believe that had the 49ers won, all the headlines here would be positive. You'd be raving about the "adoption success story." And so what, the lights went out. That probably turned out to be a positive, since it seemed to take the Ravens' momentum and at least made it an exciting game. Why can't we just acknowledge that instead of having an agenda about every little thing.

- Cilla

We really need a committee to edit and update the Main Page items. As I understand the facts, power failed inside the SuperDome, but the outside of the SuperDome had uninterrupted electric service. This would mean that the problem that caused the power failure would not be on electric circuits regulated by the State of Louisiana or FERC. I have not seen anything to indicated that the power failure was due to regulation. (I assume that the editors mean reliabiilty and economic regulation rather than voltage regulation.) I would keep the criticism of "regulation" off the main page until we have some evidence that a failure of a regulated service was involved in the game interruption. Thanks, Wschact 19:41, 5 February 2013 (EST)
Lights go out in sporting events occasionally all over the world. It recently happened here in an All Black test match and in South Africa during a cricket match. It happens and it will continue to happen regardless of whether the usage is managed by regulators or the free market. More gratuitous criticism of something that Andy doesn't like or understand I'm afraid. --DamianJohn 19:58, 5 February 2013 (EST)

Getting to the Super Bowl was worthy of positive commentary. But the Super Bowl itself has become an example of political correctness, replete with "sensitivity training" for an outspoken player.

The power outage was a farce, well worth criticizing and almost certainly the result of "limit energy" policies. Really, it is not that difficult to keep the lights on, except when global warming types insist on rationing energy.--Andy Schlafly 21:36, 5 February 2013 (EST)

Getting to the Super Bowl is worthy of positive commentary but how one plays once they get there isn't? And I saw no positive commentary about Joe Flacco who tied Joe Montana's record for most playoff touchdown passes. Why? As far as the political correctness of the Super Bowl, I clinked on the link. This is what it says at the top: "Politically correct restrictions on what we can say and how we say it have been is imposed by leftists to restrict debate and silence opposition.[1]" Isn't that exactly what your administrators do here? You ban or block contributors at the drop of hat should they disagree with your opinion. Politically correct indeed.

As far as the power outage, just Monday you said "the experts" didn't know what caused the blackout. Now you seem to know better than they do. Or are you just assuming it had something to do with energy rationing? (yes)


Foul-mouthed Flacco deserves criticism, not praise. Did he ever apologize?--Andy Schlafly 15:59, 7 February 2013 (EST)

I read an article that attributes the power outage to a faulty relay. I don't think it has anything to do with green energy, rationing, or global warming. GregG 18:19, 8 February 2013 (EST)

The power outage was a farce, well worth criticizing and almost certainly the result of "limit energy" policies
Yes Andy, many will agree it was a farce, however longtime NFL watchers will tell you it is much more likely the NFL TV Committee, which is in charge of scheduling and maximizing TV revenues, likely pulled the plug to slow Baltimore's momentum cause the game was turning into a rout. The largest TV audience had to be held to the end, but if the 4th quarter score was 35-6, they would have tuned out. The NFL had to get SF back into the game and make it a little more competitive. And this was obvious and corroborated by the officiating once play resumed. To suggest the power outage had something do with anyone other than the NFL TV Committee seems uninformed and conspiratorial. Remember, the Department of Homeland Security has been involved in Super Bowl planning since its inception; facial recognition technology was first introduced at the Super Bowl. And it wasn't a local problem as New Orleans has hosted nearly half of all Superbowls over the past half century. It's a routine event there. OscarO 11:10, 9 February 2013 (EST)
Here: National Special Security Event. How come we haven't heard a report from these guys? It was they're responsibility, one would think. OscarO 11:30, 9 February 2013 (EST)

A homosexual evolutionist in Maryland is caught in a creationist bear trap.

This item is just ridiculous: how is this exchange between "Maryland Bear" and the verbose "15 questions for evolutionists" newsworthy? Am I the only one who thinks that "15 questions for evolutionists" (who seems to be Conservapedia's admin User:Conservative) doesn't look good in this discussion? If this is a kind of self-promotion, it failed utterly. Or as one commentator said Not all publicity is good publicity. --AugustO 15:48, 7 February 2013 (EST)

August, I share your overall criticism, yet I'd rather see this specific editor expend calories updating and promoting their own personal blog as opposed to treating this encyclopedia as such. If it wasn't for that blog, we might have seen a homosexuality and bear traps article. --DonnyC 18:10, 7 February 2013 (EST)
What has criticizing the grandiose and self-serving garbage this person says ever achieved? You're wasting your time talking about it unless you like the inevitable personal attacks. I don't personally find his spiteful hateful references to your church very neighborly but neither of us is the right kind of Christian so I guess we get what we deserve from someone who is. Nate 18:28, 7 February 2013 (EST)
[comments redacted by author] brenden 20:10, 7 February 2013 (EST)

Nate, you have been given a very generous offer to debate Question evolution! campaign fans. Given the recent rise of biblical creation belief in the United States and the explosive growth of global creationism and your inability to satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists, you should be grateful that they were willing to debate your evolutionary pseudoscience. Nate, I am still not impressed with liberal members of the Roman Catholic Church such as yourself. At least in America, Conservative Protestants are far more Bible literate than liberal Catholics and the data supports this as you are aware.[27] Conservative 20:57, 7 February 2013 (EST)

"Needless to say, he say soundly shown the error of his ways and the deficiency of his "logic". You can see for yourself in the comment section of THIS ARTICLE" - User:Conservative, you may want to update that sentence on your blog. -EdgarP 16:54, 8 February 2013 (EST)

@ user:conservative, I agree. Dvergne 19:11, 8 February 2013 (EST)

Pardon me for stepping into this doo-doo, but I did a double take at homosexual evolutionist (has there been research done to indicate what percentage of the homosexual population are evolutionist? one could speculate they exist in comparable numbers as YEC homosexuals do, and I could support the reasoning behind this if requested). As to readability, the Fliech-Kincaid readability index indicates the text in question requires `13.6 years of eduction, and the SMOG index (Simple Measure Of Gobbledygook) 12.9; AugustO does have a valid point, Conservapedia:Guidelines#Article_level recommends accessibility at a high school (ages 14 to 18) level, and this requires more than a high school education to understand. Can it be dummed-down, somewhat, cause truthfully, I'm having trouble with it, too (it's the authors use of words with more than four syllables that affect the readability scores). Thanks. OscarO 17:05, 9 February 2013 (EST)

evidence for the prevalence of homosexual evolutionists

A 2012 Gallup poll claims 46% of Americans believe God created the world sometime in the past 10,000 years (the definition of YEC). That would be an estimated 146 million believers, of which 2% (tossing aside Kinsey's claim of 10%) are gay (and there is no reason not to believe otherwise). That would be an estimated 2.87 million YEC homosexuals in the United States. Using the same 2% figure (adjusting for pre-adolescence) we can assume there are approximately 5 million homosexuals in the United States. Unfortunately, there is no data on what percent reject YEC or embrace evolution. Further, we would have to subtract the number of gay YEC believers from the 5 million figure so as they are not counted twice; that would yield a paltry 2.13 million homosexual evolutionists.
So, YEC gays beat homosexual evolutionists, hands down. Now I invite anyone to challenge this cursory research, but the difference in results still would be marginal. OscarO 19:33, 9 February 2013 (EST)

Trimming on Template:Mainpageright

I thought I would just throw in my two cents.

The fact that Mr. Schlafly regularly decides to trim stories to MPR submitted by other users (a list of examples going back just to the start of February 2013 follows: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38] [but no story removed in this edit], [39] [one paragraph of a story removed]) suggests that there is a misunderstanding among the administrators as to what constitutes an item "In the News" that the "MSM isn't fully covering." I think all administrators and contributors would be well-served by having a concrete list of standards to check new submissions against. That way, if an administrator or contributor believes that a news item doesn't fit our standards, it can be brought up on this page (or perhaps a special page dedicated to Template:Mainpageright.

(By the way, it also appears that trimmed stories do not get archived. I wonder whether this is by design.) GregG 18:33, 16 February 2013 (EST)

GregG, I think you are still smarting from Darwinism shrinking in Latin America while biblical creationism is growing in Latin America![40][41] By the way, how is Kenneth Miller doing on those 15 questions for evolutionists? Any word yet? Conservative 18:59, 16 February 2013 (EST)
Your comment seemed highly irrelevant to me. (Also, a helpful tip: you only need one colon to indent a reply. I went and fixed that for you.) GregG 19:08, 16 February 2013 (EST)
There will be a new Pope. Will Darwinism have less and less influence in Roman Catholicism? [42] Tell Kenneth Miller I said hi if he ever gets back to you. :) Conservative 20:23, 16 February 2013 (EST)
Once again, Cons, you have constructed a sentence unable to be parsed. Slow down and smell the roses. There seems to be a battle of "wills". :) AlanE 20:34, 16 February 2013 (EST)

That is a fascinating headline: "There will be a new Pope. Will Darwinism have less and less influence in Roman Catholicism?" Pope Benedict's successor will almost certainly be less sympathetic to Darwinism than Pope Benedict has been.--Andy Schlafly 20:45, 16 February 2013 (EST)

I've been talking about this with my discussion groups at a diocesan church and a Catholic order of brothers and lay members of another organization since Pope Benedict was elected. There is a big variety of thoughts about this subject. I am very interested to know what what your reasoning for your opinion is. It is not "almost certainly" as far as I know. Our departed John Paul II did not agree with you as we discussed several years ago and Holy Father Benedict said the evolution creationism debate is "absurdity" because evolution is not inconsistent with Catholic faith. Do you know what your mother Mrs. Schlafly feels about this? I will listen to her radio programs after Pope Benedict announced he would resign at the end of the month but I would OBVIOUSLY like to know if you can share anything you can! :-) This is a very interesting transition! ("Conservative", I'm going to delete any anti-Catholic or otherwise irrelevant and disruptive comments you make here fair warning) Nate 01:59, 17 February 2013 (EST)
NKeaton, a non-European pope would not be bound by a European pope's adherence to the evolutionary paradigm. Darwinism was birthed in Europe and adherence to its ideology is stronger in Europe than in some places in the world. For example, in most places in Africa I would guess Darwinism is less held to than in Europe.
Phyllis Schlafly is against evolution as can be seen HERE and HERE. Conservative 17:30, 17 February 2013 (EST)
I didn't ask whether Mrs. Schlafly accepts the theory of evolution. I asked for Mr. Schlafly's insight into what he thinks about the question of whether "Darwinism" will have less influence in the Catholic Church. That's interesting. You'r opinion is not. I grew up reading and hearing Mrs. Schlafly's thoughts from the ERA debate and earlier. I would be extremely interested to know what this conservative Catholic family thinks about the direction the Church will take. And I will take 25+ years of studying this issue with the Carmelite Brothers and other Opus Dei supernumeraries and benefiting from discussion with my brother, who has a PhD in theology from Notre Dame and has been a Jesuit priest for 30 years, over your opinions on the irrelevant matters you address. You are so massively outgunned in anything that could possibly hold my interest that I hope you'll keep your thoughts on the Catholic Church to yourself. Nate 01:30, 19 February 2013 (EST)

NKeaton, Bible believing protestantism isn't very dependent on one man in terms of leading it in a new direction and it is growing fast - even in Latin America and Brazil where many Catholics are converting to Protestantism.

We don't need to read tea leaves or rely on supernumeraries or Ph.D.s from liberal academia (whose school featured the abortion loving Barack Hussein Obama to speak at their university), in order to discern our future direction.

By the way, the liberals at that university allowed a religious symbol to be covered up because Obama and/or his people insisted it be covered up! And your relying on these type of people to discern your religious organization's future direction. Very sad. That is all have to say. By the way, if a third world pope is elected and that day is coming should Jesus tarry, liberal Darwinists such as yourself will have less influence.[43] Get used to that idea because it is coming! Conservative 03:05, 19 February 2013 (EST)

Again. You say nothing of any intellectual significance here. There is a question pending. It's to be answered according to Catholic dogma, theology, and history. Stay on top or just don't comment. I'd prefer if you chose the latter. And you have to know that if you kept calling me a liberal darwinist to my face you'd end up with a bloody nose. God bless the internet for cowards like you. Nate 03:12, 19 February 2013 (EST)
NKeaton, [personal attack removed], I am not a short-tempered and violent person who often loses arguments badly and gets upset. Second, my martial arts training would certainly block any futile attempts by you to bloody my nose! Conservative 03:46, 19 February 2013 (EST)
"I am not a short-tempered and violent person who often loses arguments badly and gets upset." I think the evidence indicates otherwise. GregG 08:58, 19 February 2013 (EST)
A project like this prospers on people working together toward improving articles. Anything else, especially attacks directed specifically at users, detracts from the wonderful thing that we are creating here. Do not try to advance or defend your argument, idea, or position by posting ad hominem attacks -- arguments to the man -- attacking the person you're debating with. It is one sure sign you are losing the debate, your position has been weakened, or fails.[44] --EdgarP 22:39, 19 February 2013 (EST)

Time out for moderation: Guys, please address the underlying issues, instead of making (and rebutting) personal remarks). --Ed Poor Talk 09:13, 19 February 2013 (EST)

GregG, practioners of the martial arts and biblical creation apologetics are taught to remain calm in the face of adversity and danger.  :) And unlike evolutionists, we are not faced with 15 fundamental questions which we cannot satisfactorily answer that make us very mad and frustrated! :) Conservative 12:15, 19 February 2013 (EST)
So that's how you came to be "flying through the air at a great rate of speed", Cons., :)AlanE 14:04, 19 February 2013 (EST)
Quite the mental image, isn't it? Launching himself through the air with technique as lithe and supple as his prose... JohanZ 16:42, 19 February 2013 (EST)
JohanZ, I received an above average grade in a social dance class at my alma mater and I had an attractive partner. :) And unlike the the overweight, atheist Penn Jillette, I never publicly humiliated myself by doing the dance move the "walrus slide" while performing the cha cha cha. Please see the overweight atheist Penn Jillette do a "walrus slide" HERE and also see Penn Jillette's walrus slide vs. thin Indian Christian lady dancers. One of the dancing judges said that Jillette was very heavy on his feet! Surprise, surprise! Conservative 18:09, 19 February 2013 (EST)
Aye. Cha cha cha's are rarely improved by walrus slides. Does your church organise any dances? Might be a good way to meet some sweet Christian ladies. JohanZ 19:05, 19 February 2013 (EST)
I'm terribly sorry but I came to this page to see what passes for thoughtful "debate", and here's what I've learned:
  • Hugo Chavez's colonostopy proves Einstein's theory of relativity;
  • A new pope will de-emphasize evolution because Penn Jillette can't do the walrus slide.
How infomative. OscarO 20:34, 19 February 2013 (EST)
To be fair Oscar, is there any other place on the internet where you could have learnt all that? --DamianJohn 04:05, 20 February 2013 (EST)
JohanZ, why are you using the pronoun "your"?Conservative 12:45, 20 February 2013 (EST)
I believe using "your" in that context is correct. [45] brenden 14:33, 20 February 2013 (EST)
Is JohanZ making a number of assumptions? Conservative 14:53, 20 February 2013 (EST)
What assumptions? Said to a man: "your church"; said to a woman: "your church"; said to two men: "your church"; said to two women and three men: "your church." Please be more specific since some of us are confused. MelH 15:23, 20 February 2013 (EST)

MelH, regarding two of your examples: the plural use of "your" could only be used if "they" went to the same church! :) Setting aside the "your" issue there are a number of assumptions which JohanZ made. Conservative 16:05, 20 February 2013 (EST)

Agreed, but the pronoun doesn't change in "your churches." But I figured I miss some other assumptions that JohanZ made. MelH 16:24, 20 February 2013 (EST)
No, "Conservative", one can use "your beliefs" if one is talking to any number of people with any number of beliefs. Please stop these pointless attempts to distract from your poor grammar. The Christian thing to do is to accept your mistake; ask for forgiveness if necessary (I don't think it's necessary here) and move on. RobertE 17:23, 20 February 2013 (EST)
If he's referring to my assumption that he currently lacks a sweet Christian lady to call his own, then all I can (politely) say on the subject is that it's difficult to believe otherwise. JohanZ 18:19, 20 February 2013 (EST)
"Social dance" appears to be PC language Conservapedia refers to as part of a unisex culture which is not necessarily indicative of heteronormity. In what context is it being used here? OscarO 18:52, 20 February 2013 (EST)

Getting back on the subject

I think it's a good idea for Mr. Schlafly to have solid guidelines or expectations regarding items that are added to Template:Mainpageright. (I should add that it's probably less work than simply trimming each unacceptable headline as it is added.) GregG 21:11, 19 February 2013 (EST)

EDIT Here is a suggestion for some guidelines: (For the purposes of these guidelines, a "news item" is the content of an entry on Template:Mainpageright or any future section of the Main Page where a portal of news items may be.)

  1. All news items must comply with the Conservapedia Commandments.
  2. Since Conservapedia is primarily accessed by the web, all news items must contain at lease one link to an reputable external web page.
  3. All pages linked from news items must be "true and verifiable," (as per our First Commandment) "family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language" (as per our Third Commandment), and free from copyright infringement.
  4. All pages linked from news items must clearly state the real name of all of the authors of such pages. Web pages written by staff affiliated with a reputable newspaper, magazine, or radio or television station or network are excepted from this requirement.
  5. News items should pertain to a single event or a series of related events. News items should not be stale by the time they are first posted. A story that is merely an announcement of past, present, or future activity (like a press release) should not be posted, unless the announcement is itself covered by other reputable news sources.
  6. All content in news items (including images) should accurately and concisely summarize the story. Brief editorializing and commentary in the text of a news item are encouraged. A single news item should not exceed 100 words. Images that are not in the public domain may be included only with good cause.
  7. Although all newsworthy topics should be timely covered, special attention should go to conservative stories not given their due attention by the mainstream media.

GregG 21:30, 19 February 2013 (EST)

I would like to add that the total length of the news section should be reduced drastically. No new visitor to the site is going to wade through 200+ news items, especially considering many of them are quite stale. I see no reason for there to be more than 20-30 news items displayed on the front page at any given time. Also, a news story that the "MSM isn't fully covering", that links to the mainstream media... is a bit of a self-refuting argument. --DonnyC 14:48, 20 February 2013 (EST)