Talk:Main Page/archive14

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The exercise of freedom

You claim to hold a conservative view point. Conservatives believe in freedom of religion so then why in your articles (homosexuality for example) do you quote the christian bible. True conservatives would give facts and the conservative view not the christian view why do you market this site as it is Racist Christian Propaganda...

Also why do you lock all the articles you don't want changed. They demonstrates more of a fascist view point then a conservative view point. You site vandalism as the reason? The only "vandalism" i have seen is opposition to your view points which you are trying to keep out. That my friends is text book Fascism.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kiniko (talk)

Your comment was already lost once in the archive; I doubt your hate-baiting activities will be of any further success the second time around.-Phoenix 17:36, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
I think you (Kiniko) are confusing "freedom of religion" with the belief that all religions are equal. As Christians, we believe that "following a religion" (for lack of a better term) is something that you choose to do (so "forced conversions" are pointless), and from that it inexorably follows that there must be "freedom of religion". But that is not the same thing as considering all religions to be equal and therefore giving them all equal weight.
And despite what you might have seen, this site suffers from quite a bit of true vandalism, not just people putting opposing views, and that is the main reason that articles get locked.
Philip J. Rayment 23:05, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
That does not mean that, as a supposed encyclopedia, those views should be omitted. You did not address that part of his question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orwell (talk)
No, I guess that I didn't address that part. I reject that we omit opposing views simply because they are opposing views. I know that in articles I've written, I've included the opposing view at least briefly, and I've never removed an opposing view simply because it's an opposing view. However, quite often opposing views are written as though they are the correct view, and people with those views then often complain that we are removing the opposing view simply because we qualify it, or occasionally remove the point because it's poorly written. Philip J. Rayment 01:33, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

(moved comment about a specific page to the talk entry for that page)--Aschlafly 18:52, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Philip J. Rayment wrote: "However, quite often opposing views are written as though they are the correct view"
Just for the record, I find it interesting that you wrote this, considering it's one of the main criticisms people have about this site. signed noform
I can't speak for every page of this site, obviously, but I've often seen people claim that sort of thing simply because something doesn't promote their view as true. Philip J. Rayment 06:33, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

I think people have to prove they're true god follower before beeing able to post here. All those so called scientist are nothing but heretics, lefties and libs Inc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Korbach (talk)

Your grammar, logic and spelling might be better if you had more of an open mind, my friend.--Aschlafly 19:47, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
He could easily start his own wiki - or even just a blog - if he wants to exercise his freedom of speech and press. Why is he complaining about our exercise thereof? Sounds like a double standard.
When someone applies a double standard, it generally means he has no genuine concern for the principle in question, but only wants what he wants: i.e., pure selfishness, disguised as "fairness". It's so easy to see through . . . --Ed Poor Talk 19:21, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Science gets it wrong again.

Scientists have discovered that all modern cats be traced back to a Middle Eastern wildcat. Unfortunately the scientists got the timescale wrong. They claim domestic cats can be traced to wild progenitors that interbred more than 100,000 years ago. Had they looked up Conservapedia they would have found out that all modern cats are descended from the pair Noah released from his ark - in the Middle East! [1] BritCon 07:04, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Oddly enough, most scientists don't use CP as a resource, for some reason. Maestro 11:09, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
Hmmm, 100,000 years ago. Seems like that's greater than 6,000. Anagramer 13:35, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
Just to clarify, the article is about domestic cats, not all cats (lions, etc.). It also offered no explanation of how they came up with the figure of 100,000 years. But no, science didn't get it wrong; the scientists who believe in millions of years got it wrong. Philip J. Rayment 09:16, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
Quite right, I should have made it clearer that the supposed discovery was about the ancestry of domestic cats. I did find the 100,000 years figure unbelieveable in light of our knowledge of Noah and his good deeds. However I would be interested to know who the scientists are who think the common ancestor of modern domestic cats was around millions of years ago. Why these scientist don't simply access the educational, clean, and concise entries here at the trustworthy encyclopedia evades me. Does anyone know why scientists are so eager to avoid the truth? BritCon 10:26, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
Not all scientists do believe the millions of years (or 100,000 in this case). But the ones that do believe that timescale have a worldview that rejects the Bible, or at least the Biblical timescale. That is, it's a faith issue, not a scientific one. Philip J. Rayment 10:48, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
The claims of an Old Earth are based on circular reasoning about radiometric dating. Most likely decay rates have changed along with the age of the earth. It is logically absurd to use a decay rate observed now to make claims about the history of that decay rate, and thus the age of the earth.--Aschlafly 11:14, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
When creationist Barry Setterfield proposed that the speed of light had decayed from a much higher figure to today's value (an idea that most creationists no longer accept, incidentally), one criticism of his idea was that he was extrapolating 400 years' worth of measurements back 6,000 years, and that extrapolation of that order was unreasonable. Yet uniformitarian scientists routinely extrapolate less than a century's measurements of radioactive decay rates back millions and even billions of years! Philip J. Rayment 11:29, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
Atomic clocks are not knows for wandering wildly out of time. --TummyMaster
True, and I never said they were. Your point is...? Philip J. Rayment 21:18, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
I don't see how extrapolating a set of data beyond its reasonable limits is any different from assuming that the story of Noah's Ark is true. --Xenophobia
What is a "reasonable limit"? And the point was the inconsistency of the arguments, not the extrapolation per se. Philip J. Rayment 20:37, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
The point I'm trying to get at is why does the originator of this topic assume that the Noah's Ark explanation is the undisputed maxim? Pointing out the shortfalls in other theories and methods (like carbon dating) does not make your own theory any more right. Xenophobia 22:10, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
The originator of this topic had his tongue firmly planted in his cheek when writing that, I'd suggest. But from my point of view, a reliable eye-witness testimony, which I consider the Bible to be, trumps things like carbon dating which have been shown to not always be reliable and which presume that Biblical history if false. Because they are based on such assumptions, they are not the reliable, dispassionate, methods that their supporters claim them to be. Philip J. Rayment 22:29, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

The half life of a particular nucleus can be calculated from first principles of quantum mechanics. From pure math you can go from a nucleus 6 protons and 8 neutrons to a half life of 5730 years. [2] [3] No extrapolation is done. The same math works for substances with thousands of years for a half life as do substances with minutes or hours for a half life. The math has been experimentally confirmed. If you want to change the math that argues such to attempt to make it give answers that are compatible with a young earth, you again need to change fundamental properties of nature that would be (and are not) observerable. If you wish to do this, start with Introductory Nuclear Physics and identify the flaws in that book and then make the claim that radiometric dates of millions and billions of years is unreasonable. --Mtur 12:58, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

I doubt any credible mathematician would agree with you, Mtur. There are hidden assumptions there in your "pure math".--Aschlafly 13:45, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
No, there aren't. You can get a rough estimate with very minimal assumptions. (I haven't studied this in a while, but if I recall correctly it takes very little to get the correct numbers within an order of magnitude which is more than enough to establish that some things are very old). In any event, as usual, it isn't a single line of evidence that gives us these conclusions but a multitude of lines, correspondence between the predicted half-lives, observed half-lives, data from tree rings, and data from other forms of dating. JoshuaZ 15:50, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
Here is a short article explaining the truth about Carbon-14 dating, the most common form of radiometric dating. [4]--Locke 17:54, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
To summarize: We, scientists that is, can reliably date objects up to 60,000 years old using Carbon-14. For anything older than that either Pottasiam-40 (Half Life of 1.3 Billion years), Uranium -235 (Half Life of 704 million years), Uranium -238 (Half Life of 4.5 billion years), Thorium-232 (Half Life of 14 Billion years) or Rubidium-87 (Half Life of 49 Billion years)must be used, allowing us to effectively date even the oldest of fossils. --Locke 18:44, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

Responses to several posts above:

Mtur, if I understand you correctly (and your references don't help; the first is not freely available and the second is the calculations for someone who already understands what it is talking about), you are saying that radioactive decay rates are not measured, but calculated from a knowledge of quantum mechanics. Even if this is the case (and I'm quite sceptical), it was not the case when radiometric dating started to be used. So the point that I was making—that there is a double standard in criticising a creationist for extrapolating whilst uniformitarians extrapolate(d) far greater ages—is still a valid point.

If being freely available is a criteria for being a reference on this site, I recall having to buy two articles from Science to get the full context of the quote. To this extent, I would suggest looking through other quotes that have been pulled and seeing if you can find a full context for the quote - if not, removing it. Linking to anything other than the full article with the full context that the user can read should be prohibited. If you have questions about decay rate, I would urge you to take a nuclear physics or quantum mechanics college class and study the matter. It is only math. "Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe." -- Galileo Galilei The full quote for this is "Philosophy is written in this grand book - I mean the Universe - which stands continually open to our gaze, but it cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and interpret the characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles and other geometrical figures, without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it." Translation from Assayer, published 1616. --Mtur 20:11, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
I wasn't meaning to imply that being freely available was a criterion for being a reference on this site; it's merely a criterion for me being able to look up what you are talking about. I was merely mentioning why I didn't look up your reference; no criticism was intended. Beyond that, I'm not sure what you are getting at regarding quotes, because I was responding to something that you were saying, not to a quote. I don't have questions about decay rates; I'm answering your claims about them. It is not "only math". It is maths combined with assumptions, which has already been pointed out to you. Philip J. Rayment 21:14, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

Barry Setterfield also used mathematics; the real question, in the case of radioactive decay, is not the maths, but whether or not the radioactive decay rates have always been the same. That is one of the "hidden assumptions" that Andy was presumably referring to.

JoshuaZ, the "multitude of lines" of evidence themselves all suffer from similar problems. Carbon dating, for example, has supposedly been calibrated (in part) by reference to dendrochronology, but the dendrochronological dates used in that calibration were, in part at least, derived by using carbon dating! And often radiometric dating is "calibrated" by comparing it not to samples of known age, but to samples that have been dated using other radiometric dating methods that have been "calibrated" not by comparing it to samples of known ages, but to samples that have been dated using other radiometric dating methods... —circular reasoning.

Locke, your linked article explains how Carbon dating is supposed to work, but offers no evidence that it does work. In particular, it omits any mention of the assumptions behind it and other radiometric dating methods, including the assumption that there was no global flood. And your inference that "scientists" are of one mind on this is incorrect, as there are scientists (admittedly a small minority, but too large a minority to simply dismiss) who believe otherwise.

Philip J. Rayment 23:32, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

The comments by the evolutionists above that a physical constant (decay rate) can be predicted by "pure math" is, of course, completely absurd. "Pure math" doesn't prove anything physical. You've been duped if you think it does. Once you realize that, then let us know what your assumptions are. Until you realize that, don't waste our time.--Aschlafly 23:49, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

It isn't pure math per se, but you can get the rough order of decay rates of smaller nuclei from very basic QM and some very simple assumptions (such as rough strength of the weak, strong and electromagnetic forces). Now here's the rub- if any of those forces were substantially different in the past, we would see different types of decay altered at different rates. There's no way to make them all speed up or slow down at a uniform rate (and yes, that is basically pure math from the relevant equations). Moreover, we have empirical confirmation that nuclei have been behaving the same way for a very long time. One obvious example of this is the Oklo nuclear reactor, which is the remains of a naturally formed nuclear reactor in Oklo, Gabon. See here for some background. Phil's earlier comment about dendrochronology being circular reasoning also isn't accurate in that one can get a decent 8000 years or so of dendrochronological records without using any radioactive dating, but the data from that agrees very closely with estimates using C-14 decay and a few other dating methods. JoshuaZ 14:21, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
How does the Oklo nuclear reactor confirm "that nuclei have been behaving the same way for a very long time"?
I didn't mean to claim that all dendrochronological dates have been derived using radioactive dating, which is why I said "in part, at least". But that was just one problem with such dates; there are other problems with such dates also. Initially, dendrochronological dates rely on the assumption that one ring is produced each year, or at least that we can tell when this is not the case. We don't have any sequence of rings 8,000 years long, so we have to try and extend what we have by attempting to match multiple sequences of rings together to build up to older dates, and such matching, is, for one thing, somewhat subjective.
Philip J. Rayment 06:19, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
Oklo confirms that because the data doesn't make much sense with any other hypothesis. If for example, the weak force had been stronger than we would see Oklo having gone through a period with more small products of fission and the isotope ratio would be different. Similarly, if we modified the strong force we would see similar changes in the isotope ratio. And if we modified the weak force enough to alter almost any radioactive decay process by almost any non-neglible amount, Oklo would have had a meltdown which would be left in the geological record. (As to dendrochronological dating, one can actually tell pretty easily with many tree types a true ring from a false ring. Heck you can teach little kids how to tell. Tree rings have been very well understood by scientists for almost 200 years and even that was largely a codification of good old-fashioned folk knowledge. The trees used for such dating are of species which are known to make fewer problematic rings. Also, sometimes rings actually fuse together or become to small to see if they are separate which extends the ages in the other direction. The bottom line is that we have cut down or core-sampled many trees that have known planting dates so we have a pretty good understanding of how these things operate. Furthermore, the matching of sequences isn't "subjective" but can be done either macroscopically (by looking at ring size) or by looking at isotope ratios (generally nitrogen if I recall). When the two match over an extended set of rings, you can be pretty sure you've got a match. Even if one makes highly conservative assumptions about reliability one easily gets a straight record back about 7000 years. JoshuaZ 11:35, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
So are you saying that the researchers have tried a creationist hypothesis with the Oklo data? But what I think you are really saying is that no secular scientist has yet come up with a hypothesis to explain how Oklo would fit with a young Earth. Yet apparently a creationist has (mentioned here).
Your tree-ring argument is now largely one of authority—that the scientists know what they are doing. Yet I know of scientists—including one I know personally who works with trees for the CSIRO (Australia's main science organisation)—who reject the accuracy of dendrochronology. How many trees have been cut down or core sampled that are known, from observation, to have always made consistent rings for 7000 old? And when you are lining up two sets of rings, they will not match exactly, so you have to make a judgement as to whether or not they are "close enough".
Philip J. Rayment 12:24, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
I don't what you mean by a "creationist hypothesis"-, independent of a hypothesis you get lower and upper bounds for things like the coupling constant and the strength of the weak force. As to the link given to the ICR, I can't comment on it in detail because that contains only an abstract but I will say that 1) again this is an example of where the totality of different lines of evidence is much harder to deal with than a single line and 2) from the comments there it looks like they are just assuming that you can speed up the decay rate. Again, you can't do that uniformily. There's no mechanism that any creationist or anyone else have ever presented that would speed up all decays at the same rate, and if they were sped up at different rates the isotope ratios would look very different (see for example dating with zircon crystals using both U-235 and U-238 which have very different decay chains). As to the matter of tree rings, it isn't a matter of authority any more than any other area of science is, you can go get out a textbook on tree rings or cut down a few trees and you'll get a pretty decent understanding of it. We don't have many trees (actually as far as I'm aware any trees) that go back as a single object 7000 years, but we do have trees that have been cut down with known planting dates dating back hundreds of years and we can get pretty decent understanding of what happens from them. And again, isotope ratios and similar techniques allow us to verify decisions to match up rings, so the subjective element is easily eliminatable. JoshuaZ 11:37, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
Your argument on decay rates seems to be basically saying that there is no way to make the decay rates compatible with a "young" Earth, yet creationary scientists do believe that they can be compatible. I was referring to this general idea, not a specific hypothesis. And of course those same scientists have produced evidence that decay rates must have changed, even if they haven't explained how they could have changed (I don't think they have; this is not an area that I'm really familiar with).
I said that "Your tree-ring argument is now largely one of authority: You said, "Tree rings have been very well understood by scientists for almost 200 years ... we have a pretty good understanding of how these things operate". I understand the principles, and the principles sound good, and I'm sure that the principles have been shown to be generally true, but that doesn't mean that they are always true or that we can always identify exceptions. So reading a few books and looking at a few trees does not show that trees always produce one ring per year. In fact, multiple rings per year have been induced in a Bristlecone Pine by simulating a two-week drought.
Philip J. Rayment 23:45, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
Regarding the first comment, of course YECs think that they can be made compatible, the point is that if one looks at Oklo and thinks a little bit about how the weak and strong force interact with radioactive decay rates it becomes very hard to mess with decay rates without leaving a lot of evidence(I suggest you read the articles I cited above which may help matters). Regarding tree rings- it isn't an argument from authority since you can look up the same basic methods, and yes while it is possible under controled circumstances to add ring for a year or two, we do know the circumstances that you can do so are pretty narrow. Unless you are arguing there was a long period of many years where the planet suffered near universal droughts at a highly regular interval for years on end, there isn't much one can say (and in any event, tree rings induced by droughts look different). Finally, the claim above that we don't know how things might have been different in the past is always true, but that amounts to basically saying "well maybe things were magically different". That becomes functionally identical to omphalism or Last Thursdayism. JoshuaZ 11:54, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
So it isn't "pure math" after all. That didn't fool us, so now you're trying a different approach. But decay rates would be different depending on energy, the closeness to the origin of the universe, and other factors. The "very long time" for your empirical confirmation is no more than 100 years. What a joke to extrapolate that to billions of years. You don't cite any authorities for your specific claim that decay rates have not changed because there is no evidence for it. Quite the contrary, one would expect different rates near the origin.--Aschlafly 20:49, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
No, JoshuaZ's not changing his approach; it was Mtur who claimed it was pure math, and it is JoshuaZ who is admitting that it's not pure math. Philip J. Rayment 06:19, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
As Philip, observed that was Mtur, not me. And if you insist on citations, a handful for starters would be Limits on the Variability of Coupling Constants from the Oklo Natural Reactor J. M. Irvine Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Vol. 310, No. 1512, The Constants of Physics. (Dec. 20, 1983), pp. 239-243. A good introduction to some of the relevant material is "Cosmology with Varying Constants" Carlos J. A. P. Martins Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, Vol. 360, No. 1801, Astronomy and Earth Science. (Dec. 15, 2002), pp. 2681-2695. If you want, I can provide more citations. This is a well-studied and well-understood area. JoshuaZ 11:35, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
I am curious for your citations on that, in particular with respect to quantum mechanics. This should be accompanied by the predictions that such a theory makes and how they would be observable in today's universe. This should account for alpha particle, beta particle and gamma ray decay. The thing that troubles me most about the idea of God adjusting these rates is that it makes God into a deceiver - making the universe look as if it was old, but not really. Alternatively, it is the case of man attempting to repress his own God given reason. The old and grand universe with a consistent and subtle mathematical beauty at its core is much more worthy of an all powerful creator than a young human centered one that is scheduled to end any day now.
So, I return to the question - where are the flaws in the math? Citations please. What predictions would this make about what is observable? For such a theory to be useful it has to have more predictive power than the one that exists (with an old universe). --Mtur 21:38, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
If, hypothetically, God actually made the world around 6,000 years ago, and if God told us that He made the made the world around 6,000 years ago, even if it's true that He changed rates or did other things that makes the world appear older, how does that make Him a deceiver? Please explain. Philip J. Rayment 06:19, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

How about the various other predictions from various disciplines of science of the age of the world/universe that put it well beyond the 6000 year age set by the bible. Geology/fossil records, thermodynamics, and the myriad of sources in astrophysics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Liberalguy (talk)

More circular logic, repackaged as astrophysics rather than decay rates???? Spell out the logic in your argument and the flaws will be self-evident.--Aschlafly 19:44, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

the problem many liberals and progressives run into when confronted with this problem is that they try to use science to disprove religion--when they are really 2 completely different entities. The scientific method might prove something, and be repeatable and verifiable but it has no ability to challenge religious certainty. Why? Simple, religion does not revolve around secular-humanistic foibles like reason and rationality. There is no way to prove the existence of religious truths, one must have faith--thus there is no way to disprove the same. Yes, scientists, liberals, professors, etc. can point to concepts like the fossil record, geological timetables, archeology, etc. to construct mountains of data and verifiable information, but what good does that do to one's belief in God? Nothing. Science needs to be removed from school curricula, it has only served to weaken people's faith. The early Christians did not have biology, geology, botany, astronomy, algebra, physics, chemistry, etc. and they were the true chosen ones, by Jesus Hiself. I call on all conservatives to be REAL conservatives and take us back to the time of the Bible, before the days of scientific influence, it has reduced the faith of the masses. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CorporalJesus (talk)

If it wasn't for the influence of science, you wouldn't the internet, your computer, the electricity to power it, or the materials to make it, an subsequently, the ability to gripe about the influence of science on this forum. Stryker 12:38, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
I suggest moving this part of the thread to Debate:Which is better: science or religion?
Whilst science and religion might be two different areas, the Bible and scientists both make conflicting claims about certain historical events, such as the origin of the universe. So, in theory, one can be used to prove the other wrong. But notice that I said "historical events". We are talking here about history, not science. Yes, science, which was brought about by a Christian worldview, has brought us many benefits, but science is about observations, testing, reproducibility, etc. The past cannot be observed, tested, or reproduced, so science is not the appropriate tool for studying the past. (Which is not to deny that it can be very useful as an aid in investigating particular ideas, such as the composition of an ancient metal object, for example.) History is best studied by studying what eye witnesses recorded, and the Bible claims to be just such an eye-witness record. If the unfalsifiable ideas of secular scientists conflict with the historical record of the Bible which I consider to be a reliable record, why should I believe the ideas of the scientists who weren't there over the observations of the witnesses who were there? Philip J. Rayment 20:36, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
Philip, I know you'll disagree with me, but it must be said: To answer your question about believing the "ideas of scientists who weren't there" or "witnesses who were there," you must acknowledge certain assumptions. The first assumption is that science can provide a methodology of looking into the past and interpreting past events (for example, you're probably well aware that according to modern physics, the image of a distant star we see twinkling in the sky at night can be many thousands or millions of years old, essentially causing us to "look into the past" when we see it), and the second assumption is that there really were witnesses that left an accurate record of what happened. Obviously, the principle of parsimony must be applied to choose which assumption is grossest, but the application of that principle is up the individual, I'm afraid. I think that's the bottom line of the subject, how about you? Stryker 01:14, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
No, I don't really disagree with you, and I'm pleased to see that you've been brought to the point of agreeing with us creationists! Creationists have been pointing out for years that this issue depends on the assumptions one makes, not on objective science. Yes, science can provide a methodology of studying past events, but apart from light reaching us from distant parts of the universe, it is not looking at the past, but looking at the present and trying to deduce things about the past. But so often, anti-creationists claim that science trumps the witnesses, simply because those anti-creationists have the assumptions such as the witnesses didn't really exist and that interpretations of the scientific evidence are evidence themselves. The physics tells us how far away the stars are; the age is a deduction from the distance and the speed of light and the assumptions that the speed of light has always been constant (which I'm not disagreeing with, but is not necessarily the case) and that time has always passed at the same rate throughout the universe. Philip J. Rayment 02:22, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia on the Daily Show!!

After being mentioned in the LA Times, now Conservapedia has attracted the notice of the Daily Show! Here is the link! <>

Why do I feel like Lewis Black just placed us in the crosshairs of 9 million vandals....--Elamdri 04:52, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
Elamdri, you are great. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:26, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
Haha, thanks. Well, I mean, the publicity is nice of course, but I could do without the animosity.--Elamdri 16:20, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

It's Lewis Black. Animosity is his schtick.

By the by, the episode reran tonight, so be aware. AManInBlack 23:31, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the tip. We'll watch out for the loony lefties. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 00:12, 11 July 2007 (EDT)