Talk:Main Page/archive32

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


As someone who normally doesn't like to reveal his identity online, my original (and appropriate, if not encouraging of good behavior) screenname was blocked because it isn't my real name. Is it really a good idea to condition being able to participate on this site on providing some real access to your identity so internet vandals and thiefs have another place from which to draw their victims? As a matter of law, do you think Conservapedia could be found contributorily liable for identity theft for maintaining this policy should someone like me, who originally started an account that concealed my identity, have their identity stolen as a result of your policy?

I'm just trying to help you guys be aware of the plethora of legal issues that could arise in the modern internet. Alvin

As of this moment you have zero credibility and your actions may construed as internet harassment. Please desist. Rob Smith 17:00, 9 November 2007 (EST)
Yeah, exactly how is that harassment? He does have the right to have his privacy and identity protected.--Tmcfulton 17:39, 13 November 2007 (EST)
I'm in total disbelief at RobSmith. What's your job here, sir? Are you the guy who drives away people interested in joining the project you participate in? Internet harassment for pointing out a possible legal issue? I know you're not the sharpest crayon in the box, but, with all due respect, grow up and stop being such a jerk. Alvin

Ron Paul

I think it's great how well Ron Paul's been doing--his fundraising campaign has been phenomenal. What do people around here think of his candidacy?--Xerxes 22:53, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

I have one issue with him that gives me considerable pause. Virtually alone among Republicans, he would pull our troops out of Iraq. He seems to believe in the old "Fortess America" idea, that would result in the world outside of America's borders becoming a uniformly unsafe place for Americans even to travel, much less reside and carry out expatriate business or professional operations. Nothing inherently against Commonwealth-of-Nations police or military forces, but I don't see anyone systematically going after terrorists except the US military.
In view of his positions on other issues, positions that I for the most part share, I find his blind spot on enemy-combatant identification a crying shame.
Add to it that some have already suggested that some well-meaning supporters of Ron Paul might be deliberately inflating his support numbers through systematic spamming and other questionable means. Wired News. [1] The principal accuser takes pains to disavow any suggestion that Ron Paul or his official campaign staff have anything to do with this.--TerryHTalk 10:12, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
I like Paul a lot - (not that I'm going to be voting for him, Huckabee's my candidate) mostly because his views on personal responsibility and privacy (such as his stand against the Patriot Act). I think he's a little off with his foreign policy and he evokes international law a little too much. On the domestic issues he's pretty much dead on, but I'm not sure he can unify enough voters to win because he's not a great communicator. It would be great if he could win but regardless he's been a good thing for the GOP in moving the party in the right direction.--Tash 21:24, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

I like Ron Paul well enough hes the most libertarian candidate on the ballot, however that does not qualify him as libertarian. There are a few issues he supports that i dont, but you cant have everything. That's why I actively encourage people to not feel pressured to choose between 2 evils and to find a candidate, no matter what party, that best represents them and vote for that person. The epitemy of democracy --TomLee 22:29, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

I don't like him because he's not a supporter of Israel. I came across a Paul campaign and one of the main arguments used in favor of him was that he would cut the US's support for Israel. DanH 16:22, 4 November 2007 (EST)
It's not that he doesn't support Israel, but rather, he doesn't believe that the United States should give $3 billion of tax payers money every year to a country with the same-size economy as Spain (especially when the money is spent mostly on militarization). Israel has a right to defend itself against the many enemies it faces, but it can do so, without the help of America... remember, they have hundreds of nuclear weapons, and one of the fiercest trained militaries in the region.--Xerxes 17:17, 4 November 2007 (EST)
Another example of liberal hypocrisy. - Borofkin2 20:22, 4 November 2007 (EST)
You mean libertarian hypocrisy? HelpJazz 20:27, 4 November 2007 (EST)

I agree with Xerxes about Pauls view on Israel, perhaps he realizes that forcing jews down the throats of already crazy muslims might have made them angrier and wasn't such a smart move. Also if libertarians are hypocrits then perhaps you should research the Republican party some more... --TomLee 20:40, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Excuse me, but what exactly about his stance is hypocritical?--Xerxes 21:00, 4 November 2007 (EST)

main page format

Right now the "Search" box is too far down the page. I have to scroll down to get to it. Can we move the "Course Information" below it? Its no big deal, but that would be helpful. Thanks. Bohdan 17:36, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

  • I don't think that it is possible. I have tried to and it has not worked. Try asking Mr. Schlafly. He probably know more about the site. --BCSTalk2ME 11:59, 7 November 2007 (EST)
I think I know how to do it. I just want to have Andy's input before making the change. --Crocoite 12:51, 7 November 2007 (EST)
Great! By all means! --BCSTalk2ME 13:19, 7 November 2007 (EST)


The only report I could find about the chupacabra, was the report saying it was a coyote. Didn't see much evidence of liberal hysteria there. Maestro 15:31, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Try this. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 16:20, 4 November 2007 (EST)
Androshka, why is it deceitfully liberal to mistake a coyote for a chupacabra? Do I need an animal-spotters' certificate to be of the elect? Kaplinsky 12:20, 5 November 2007 (EST)


One for Template:Copyright Details is needed without the Image references that current has. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 21:11, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Article of the Month

When is the month up??? --ClaireTalk2ME 13:28, 5 November 2007 (EST)

While we're chatting about CP's time-space-continuum: It appears that we're using Creation Week days ("Earth was trapped in a time-dilation field caused by extremely strong gravitation during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe") for the Daily Bible and History Quotes, right? ;) --Jenkins 15:15, 5 November 2007 (EST)
You're right, we need to post a new "article of the month." Any suggestions?--Aschlafly 23:23, 5 November 2007 (EST)
How about: Asteroid? --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 15:55, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Given the MSM's reticence to talk about the improving situation in Iraq, perhaps Conservapedia can use its voice to do so by featuring its Iraq article - get references on how it's going there. Or - the article on Afghanistan is pretty thin given that country's importance - would featuring it help to improve it?

But I'm the new guy, so take those for what they're worth :-)Dewey 23:30, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Has American Revolutionary War been used yet? If it has perhaps World War II would suffice. Thanks! --ClaireTalk2ME 18:00, 6 November 2007 (EST)

The Mainstream Media ignores.......

I should probably stick to writing brief articles on financial arcana, but every now and then I must sound off here. The headline telling us that MSM is ignoring the news about declining civilain casualties in Iraq is simply not true. I heard about it Friday night on NPR and read an article in the NY Times.

My observation is that it is a fairly common tactic of the right to state that something is being ignored by the media, or covered up by some conspiracy of liberals when, well, the same story is on NPR and in the NY Times. This last occaision was far from the first time these two media puppets of liberal elites gave prominence to a story dear to the right wing.

A right wing friend of mine suggested to me some time ago that I should listen to or read right wing media and not count on what the left says about it. It didn't work out too well, given that it was that egregious buffoon Rush Limbaugh that I listened to, but may I suggest the same to you folks. Flip through the Sunday Times for an hour, or tune into your local NPR station you once a week during your commute. You might be surprised what you hear, and more importantly, learn.--TraJSmith 13:43, 5 November 2007 (EST)

You don't know what you're talking about--or at least I hope you don't. I heard all I needed to hear from or about NPR when David Kestenbaum called the offices of the Traditional Values Coalition and asked them, "Have you been contacted by the FBI yet?" Yet. What is this "yet"? I'll tell you what. Kestenbaum (All Things Considered) accused the TVC of sending the anthrax letters shortly after the September 11 attacks.
So don't tell any of us to trust those lying cads.--TerryHTalk 13:54, 5 November 2007 (EST)
And, it logically follows, NPR did not have a story on the falling civilian casualties, nor did the New York Times, and in fact the MSM ignored the story. Aziraphale 14:58, 5 November 2007 (EST) <-never listens to himself as much as he should...

The trustworthiness of NPR has nothing to do with the point that TraJSmith made - the headline I put up has to do with a specific study done by a news organization. Regardless of whether NPR is trustworthy or not, if they did, in fact, cover the story, then that would suggest the headline I put up is inaccurate. DanH 15:11, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Dan, you are 100% correct. (Are you a liberal in disguise?)--TraJSmith 15:50, 5 November 2007 (EST)

I'm no liberal. I just want to be fair. DanH 17:15, 5 November 2007 (EST)
Erm, right now, our front page basically says "The Mainstream Media ignores the good news! See this FOX News article reporting the good news, for example!" Did I miss the memo where FOX News stopped being a part of the Mainstream Media? If so, could somebody please edit the Mainstream Media article and make it clear that we don't see it as part of the MSM? --Jenkins 19:40, 5 November 2007 (EST)
It's another example of liberal bias. - Borofkin2

"An influential liberal think tank in England, "

While the alleged decline in Christianity in Great Britain may be lamentable, I'm not sure that the fact that the British Empire is no more is equally so - nor can I imagine that any American would wish a return to colonial status. As I recall, there was that whole Revolutionary War over the question...Dewey 19:20, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Good point, but the decline of the British Empire had nothing to do with the American Revolution. In fact, the British Empire peaked after the American Revolution.--Aschlafly 22:38, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Agreed - but imperialism is an evil doctrine that should not be lumped in with Christianity. Dewey 22:43, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Imperialism may be a great evil, certainly many intelligent, moral people feel that American "liberation" amounts to imperialism. Hmm. Also, the British Empire brought millions of immigrants to her shores, and now the expansion of these families is changing the overall balance of chisitianity there.

Ron Paul Breaks Fundraising Records

Would someone please add this to the main page? In a single day, Ron Paul has raised 3.2 million dollars--all within 20 hours, and it continues to rise. It looks like by the end of the day he will have raised close to 4 million... in a single day! This is an incredible feat, and one that, unfortunately, isn't being reported by major news networks as it should be.

I think it's hardly fair to call Ron Paul a "long-shot" candidate at this point in the campaign.--Xerxes 20:09, 5 November 2007 (EST)

OK, but ... where's your link to the story? I need that to post it. Thanks.--Aschlafly 22:36, 5 November 2007 (EST)
Here is a press release from the Paul campaign [2] and the email sent to those on the mailing list [3]. I don't think it's made it to any news sources yet that I can find. HelpJazz 23:01, 5 November 2007 (EST)
Posted as requested. Win or lose, Ron Paul's candidacy is groundbreaking.--Aschlafly 23:24, 5 November 2007 (EST)
Much appreciated.--Xerxes 23:34, 5 November 2007 (EST)
Just a little clarification. Ron Paul did not break the record for total contributions in a day for the 2008 election cycle, Clinton and Obama are still ahead.[4] All in all, its pretty amazing though! Although I wish the symbolism of the date wasn't how it is (I'm not a fan of "V for Vendetta" or Guy Fawkes).... Congrats Paul supporters, --Tash 23:45, 5 November 2007 (EST)


Why is obama on the main page? Didn't we cover that story before?--IDuan 22:48, 5 November 2007 (EST)

The picture is worth a thousand words.--Aschlafly 23:23, 5 November 2007 (EST)
Ok ... although my point was we've shown it before - and if you repeat a thousand words it's just as ineffective than repeating one word - but well hey, your call.--IDuan 23:30, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Obama's response: Obama calls internet accusation a dirty trick Maestro 07:30, 9 November 2007 (EST)

School shooting

There was a school shooting in Finland. So these things also happen in "civilized", liberal, gun control Europe. At the moment eight dead (a teacher and seven students) and some in critical condition including, probably, the shooter. For english language news, for example,2933,308961,00.html by Leopeo (I can't seem to find the tilde character on my new laptop)

He also said this: "I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection." This means that he was an evolutionist as well as an atheist. - Borofkin2 18:29, 7 November 2007 (EST)
If he applies the power of human intelligence to intervene in this way, doesn't this indicate belief in design? --Ed Poor Talk 10:31, 8 November 2007 (EST)
For equality, we should also post up the letters of recent suicide bombers and terrorists discussing how they are killing in the name of God. It's pretty much the same type of person.AndrewJones 18:48, 7 November 2007 (EST)
In the name of ... "God"? Perhaps you meant "Allah"? I don't recall someone murdering 8 children in the name of God recently, but please give us the details if you can.--Aschlafly 18:52, 7 November 2007 (EST)
How about ministers who murder abortion doctors?AndrewJones 19:40, 7 November 2007 (EST)
That link describes Paul Hill as "a former Presbyteria minister". --Ed Poor Talk 10:33, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Well, Aschlafly - seeing as Islam is an Abrahamic faith that worships the same God as Christianity and Judaism, I suppose that one could see it as the same thing. I think just a question of one group not being able to read Scripture and understand the Lord's message. Dewey 19:16, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Dewey is correct. You might not hear of 8 school children being murdered in the name of God, but you've got over 3000 civilians killed in 9/11, and many dead American soldiers, at the hands of Middle Eastern extremists. All in the name of God. Furthermore, the next time you hear of a terrorist bombing or the latest casualties in Iraq/Afghanistan, are you going to pin the quote "Another massacre related to religion!" beside it? Bruce1 19:25, 7 November 2007 (EST)
  • This whole discussion just goes to show that people, sadly, can twist and pervert any ideology in order to justify killing. Just as this shooter, who claimed to be atheist, does not by a long shot represent all or even most atheists, a terrorist claiming to kill in the name of his/her religion does not accurately represent a vast majority of the followers of that particular faith. --BillOhannity 19:37, 7 November 2007 (EST)
Again, agreed. My previous post wasn't to disparage religion or elevate atheism, but it is inappropriate, and academically dishonest, to suggest that "evolution" - or any worldview of any sort - is responsible or linked to this tragedy. Using it to further a political or ideological agenda is even worse. Bruce1 19:45, 7 November 2007 (EST)
He's an atheist, and evolutionist, and a killer. Your comments are examples of liberal deceit. - Borofkin2 19:51, 7 November 2007 (EST)
Ideas do have consequences, folks. Surely even you accept that.--Aschlafly 19:49, 7 November 2007 (EST)
Correllation does not mean causation. Fred Phelps identifies himself as a Christian, but ruthlessly assaults - both physically and emotionally - his family. By your token, that shows that hardline Christians are child-beaters. Serial killer John Bodkin Adams was a fundamentalist christian. By your reasoning, his behaviour is "yet another link to fundamentalist christianity!" Of course that isn't true, and neither is it true that evolutionists are ruthless amoral killers. Bruce1 19:58, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Perhaps not all aetheists are amoral or immoral killers, but when human ideas as oppsed to revealed truth are the basis of moral law, it can become a slippery slope in a hurry. Dewey 20:01, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Of course ideas have consequences, no one is denying that. However, just because this person called himself an atheist does not mean that all atheists are killers. Just as not all religious people are killers just because some suicide bomber claims to be killing in the name of religion. --BillOhannity 20:05, 7 November 2007 (EST)
Bruce Lee, David Berkowitz, The Yorkshire Rapier, Sampson Kanderayi, Jeffery Dahmer. These are all serial killers who identified themselves as "christian". By Aschlafly's standards, I have five times the proof that christianity motivates people to kill than he does on evolution motivating people to kill. Of course, what I just posited was incredibly academically dishonest and wrong. But, Aschlafly, the standards apply to you too. There is no basis to claim a link between evolution and this tragedy. Bruce1 20:13, 7 November 2007 (EST)

The Muslim god is not the triune God of Christianity. Sure, both may be identified as the same in some sense (e.g. the God of Abraham), but they are quite different in other ways, such as character.

Nobody claimed that all atheists are killers, but the real question is, are their actions consistent with their worldview?. A Christian who murders is being inconsistent with Christian teaching (the Bible), but an atheist who murders is being consistent with his worldview. The Bible teaches that death is "the enemy", and is not the way God designed things to be. Atheists believe that death is a necessary requirement for how we came to be (survival of the fittest means the death of the less fit).

So apart from the people Bruce1 lists as "christian" not acting consistently with Christianity, Dahmer is actually an example of the opposite. He was an evolutionist who said that he didn't see what was wrong with what he was doing as he didn't believe that there was a god to whom he was answerable.

Philip J. Rayment 20:27, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Building on Philip's insights, it's no accident that all of the major school shootings, from Columbine to Virginia Tech to the one in Finland on the main page, were by atheists/evolutionists hostile to Christianity. That wasn't just a coincidence, but was a consequence of an amoral, godless belief system that embraced survival of the fittest. Yes, ideas do have consequences.--Aschlafly 20:38, 7 November 2007 (EST)
Actually, Andy, the VTech shooter identified himself as a christian, and mentioned numerous references to christianity, such as "Jesus is crucifying me".
Philip, I appreciate your measured response, but I must disagree. One need only look as far as the Old Testament to see that murder, not just of individuals, but by scores, are not only justified, but the will of God. In the Flood, he exterminates most of the race because of their sinful tendencies (or even those who didn't sin, as God killed the wicked and the righteous.) The underlying lesson here is that those who lead lives of sin should be indiscriminately wiped off the face of the earth. There are many instances in the Bible of immoral and unscrupulous acts of barbarism and flat-out murder.
Also, murder is NOT consistent with an atheistic worldview. Sure, nature operates by the principles and pressures of natural selection, but that doesn't mean that people go around killing disabled people or anything. We live in a society that harbors the weak and caters to the less fortunate. If anything, I would say that conservative principles on welfare and related issues are far more closely related to principles of natural selection, suggesting that the poor who decide to help themselves deserve to elevate their status, while those who don't simply do not deserve our pity or our money, and will weed themselves out.
I would take a good long look at your claims about christianity AND atheism. While I agree that Christianity, at its core, does teach that murder is wrong, atheism surely does NOT teach or endorse murder. Bruce1 20:57, 7 November 2007 (EST)
I seem to recall that the Virginia Tech killer was rebelling against the Christianity of his parents.
God sent the flood because the entire world was wicked; Noah and his family were saved because Noah was the only "righteous" man (although by God's standard, we are all unrighteous anyway ("all have sinned"—Romans 3:23??), so God has every right to do away with every one of us; it is because of His grace that he offers us an alternative).
Yes, the Bible has examples of immoral acts—it wouldn't be an accurate history without them, as these things happen, but it not only doesn't endorse murder, it commands against it.
You say, "nature operates by the principles and pressures of natural selection, but that doesn't mean that people go around killing disabled people or anything", but you are confusing what happens with rationale. Just because most don't do what evolution effectively teaches doesn't mean that it doesn't teach it. And the fact is that too many people do go around killing on the basis of evolution.
Yes, we live in a society which harbours the weak, but this is because these societies of which you speak have a Christian heritage; this idea of helping the weak is a Christian principle, not an evolutionary one, which says to eliminate the weak (less fit).
Philip J. Rayment 21:19, 7 November 2007 (EST)
Bruce, obviously someone who says that Jesus is crucifying him is not Christian, but is anti-Christian.
Atheism teaches that sin does not exist, and thus murder is not sinful. Evolution teaches survival of the fittest. Combine the two, and it's easy to see why an atheistic evolutionists, like the Finnish murderer, would not be bothered by massacring innocent children. The logic of the principles *does* tend to permit that conclusion, just as surely as smoking a pack of cigarettes a day does tend to result in lung cancer for some people.--Aschlafly 21:22, 7 November 2007 (EST)
In response to Philip, evolution absolutely does not say anything about going and eliminating the weak. What it says is that in nature, without external influence, the weak tend to die out over time. It doesn't say anything about leaving the weak alone to die or about actively trying to eliminate the weak. It just states what tends to happen without outside intervention. Also, I'm wondering what examples you have about people going around killing on the basis of evolution, because I have never heard of such a thing except in cases such as this person in Finland, where he was clearly operating under a sick and twisted interpretation of the theory. As I said earlier, claiming that this person accurately represents the beliefs of evolutionists is irresponsible and no more accurate than claiming that a suicide bomber accurately represents the beliefs of all religious people. --BillOhannity 21:49, 7 November 2007 (EST)
Evolution says everything about eliminating the weak: if they are not eliminated, they survive and perpetuate, and there is no evolutionary progress, i.e. no evolution. Darwin was inspired by Malthus' ideas about populations competing for scarce resources. Sure, it doesn't actually say that the weak must be deliberately killed, and in that sense perhaps killers such as Hitler and this Finnish student are misunderstanding it, but it does say that without the strong out-competing and our-surviving the weak, there will be no evolution. So evolution requires that the weak die.
Furthermore, evolution teaches that we are accidents of nature; rearranged pond scum, in contrast to Christianity which teaches us that we are made in the image of God. So evolution essentially teaches us that we are worthless, and if we are worthless and not made in God's image, what's the problem with eliminating a few of us? William Provine expressed it well:
Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.
Other examples have already been mentioned in previous posts on this page, including other school shootings and Jeffrey Dahmer. Of course, we could also add Hitler, Stalin, and Mao for starters, with belief systems based on atheistic ideologies[5].
Nobody is claiming that this Finnish shooter "accurately represents the beliefs of evolutionists"; we are claiming that his beliefs are consistent with what evolution teaches. Most evolutionists have a more Christian attitude to life than one based on evolution. That is, although they believe in evolution, they don't go along with the consequences for morality. Even Dawkins, a committed evolutionist, says that he is "a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics". But some people are more consistent, and actually apply evolutionary principles to their morals, with disastrous results.
Philip J. Rayment 01:19, 8 November 2007 (EST)

I find it lamentable that this website is focusing more on the fact that the murderer was a liberal than it is focusing on the tragedy of the incident. From a Christian standpoint, I feel we should be focusing more on those that have died than we should be on why he murdered. --Batista 23:14, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Nobody said he was a liberal - people only pointed out that the was a self-described evolutionist and atheist. Dewey 23:15, 7 November 2007 (EST)

My mistake, I must not have been focusing. Regardless, I still believe that the focus seems to be in the wrong area here. (unsigned - by Batista)
Batista, if a bridge collapsed and killed 9 people, would you have the same reaction: don't focus on "why"? In some ways the tragedies caused by certain belief systems (e.g., atheism and evolution) are more predictable -- and more preventable -- than tragedies caused by poor maintenance.--Aschlafly 23:45, 7 November 2007 (EST)
But similar to a bridge collapse, this was probably easily preventable. I understand that I cannot completely understand the circumstances but does it not seem apparent that someone should have picked up on this with all he was doing. I am not trying to say that what he believed in didn't have an effect on what happened, I'm just saying that the main page has a title similar to that of a tabloid newspaper, immediately jumping to the conclusion that most users of Conservapedia want to hear, that it is all at the hands of an evolutionist and atheist. Maybe this kid just needed a good Christian to reach out to him and help him, or at least realize what was going on. --Batista 23:56, 7 November 2007 (EST)
You still seem unwilling to accept that a misguided belief system can be the cause. It would be as though you kept demanding more maintenance for a bridge that had a faulty design. All the maintenance and watching in the world is not going to fix a faulty design. It's obvious that this killer was driven by a bad belief system, not by a lack of good people to reach out to him.--Aschlafly 00:29, 8 November 2007 (EST)
So you are saying this kid had a faulty design and was beyond hope? I refuse to believe that. I imagine (and of course I don't know for sure) that this kid was probably raised in a bad environment and/or picked on by his peers to the point where he snapped. Granted, I agree with you that having some kind of religious belief system in place would have helped him deflect some of his anger, and I think that his lack of this belief system could have contributed to this sad event, but I don't think it's fair to say that because he's an atheist he did this. There are plenty of atheists that aren't murderers, there are plenty of Christians that are, as well as people of all sorts of different belief systems. It is shameful that you take tragic events as such and try to politicize them. --Colest 10:29, 8 November 2007 (EST)

As someone trained in law enforcement, I have heard enough times the classic cliche "there's never a cop around when you need one". It's as if the cop needs ESP or clairvoiance or that sixth sense in order to be on the scene before the bad guys strike. I see the same excuse here. "Where was the good Christian when that kid needed him?" There were good Christians there, Batista, and it's very obvious from that boy's writings, that boy's video rant, and from that boy's T-shirt, that he rejected them all. In the Bible Jesus speaks of the rich man and Lazarus, and while in hell the rich man is pleading for an angel to be sent to his brothers to warn them of his fate. Abraham replies back that if they refused to believe what was clearly written in the Bible, then they're not going to believe an angel sent from Heaven. Karajou 02:18, 8 November 2007 (EST)

This thread is turning into a debate on Who kills more innocent people: religious believers or atheists? which should probably have a page of its own. --Ed Poor Talk 10:35, 8 November 2007 (EST)
I would, If I may, like to cite the Holocaust, the Crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition. And note here that the percentage of Atheists in Prison, 0.21%, is much less then the percentage of actual atheists in the USA, about 6-9%--Tmcfulton 17:37, 13 November 2007 (EST)


What was the main beef about the Telegraph's view that RG is the most influential conservative in the US? Is it that he is not considered a conservative, or that he is not the most influential? Interested to know. -- Ferret Nice old chat 15:09, 7 November 2007 (EST)

  • Many evangelical conservatives will not support Rudy due to his past limited support for abortion and Gay rights, is the reason, in a nutshell. --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 16:25, 7 November 2007 (EST)

I read a magazine article suggesting that Robertson's (admittedly bizarre) endorsement is a tacit recognition that he has the best chance to beat Hillary Clinton. Although I feel a little disappointed that Mike Huckabee didn't get the endorsement, I admit that Giuliani would be better than Hillary... not much better... but still...-MexMax 16:34, 9 November 2007 (EST)


There's a new contest: Contest3 - if anyone is interested please add your name to the "Those interested" section and hopefully you'll be contacted by a captain!--IDuan 22:50, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Yay! *smile*

Writer's Strike

I've written a brief article on the Writer's Strike happening now in Hollywood which essentially amounts to a lot of liberals deliberately wrecking the LA economy because they feel they're entitled to bigger paychecks. Perhaps there should be an article on the front page? SSchultz 00:31, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Hi, SSchultz - I'm new around here and don't want to step on any toes, but isn't looking out for one's best interest and trying to maximize what you get for your hard work and God-given talent what it's all bout in the free market? It seems to me like trying to earn more money - as much money as possible - and do with it as you please is what economic conservatism is all about. It's what I'm all abou when it comes to work, anyways. Dewey 10:42, 8 November 2007 (EST)

So you're saying that Capitalism is just as selfish as Socialism? Capitalists earn as much as they can through investment of savings, as well as their own hard work and ingenuity. Socialists use government power to force the rich to share with the poor. How does that make either system ethically superior to the other? --Ed Poor Talk 10:46, 8 November 2007 (EST)

I'm not saying anything about capitalism vs. socialism or morality as much as I'm saying that if these writers - even if they are libs, which is besides the point - think they can play the system to get a better deal for themselves, then in our free-market system we shouldn't criticize them for it, as Schultz seems to. Yeah, I'm ticked that 24 won't be on, but these writers gotta look out for number one - as do I. If the market doesn't support the writers people will buy books and cds and go to basketball games and do other stuff with their entertainment budget and time, and the writers will lose. Shultz is the one making the socialist argument, that these writers owe something to the LA economy. They don't - they owe to themselves and their families, nobody else. That's the "free hand" at work - and the way things should work. Dewey 10:52, 8 November 2007 (EST)

The point, Dewey is that it's one thing if the writers want to work and negotiate honestly, but when they hold the studios over a barrel and cease working just because they want to fatten their wallets, that simply isn't American. I'm not claiming that the writers owe anything to the LA economy, but the fact is that if they weren't striking then they would be contributing to the economy. I wonder if the city of Los Angeles can sue the Writer's Guild for the damage they are causing. SSchultz 19:51, 8 November 2007 (EST)

I think the issue of "right to strike" divides conservative economists, though I would expect must of us to disfavor collective, coercive actions like strikes as a way of advancing personal interests.--Aschlafly 20:07, 8 November 2007 (EST)

"...just because they want to fatten their wallets, that simply isn't American"...Schultz, doing whatever you legally can to fatten your wallet IS American. As American as it gets. Something about "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Dewey 00:14, 9 November 2007 (EST)

If I work hard and negotiate a raise with my employer, that's fine, but the WGA is employing the "Workers of the World Untie" mentality. That's communism, plain and simple. SSchultz 00:20, 9 November 2007 (EST)
Actually I don't think communism would've allowed labor unions --IDuan 00:23, 9 November 2007 (EST)
Actually, you would be wrong. (Forgive the Wikipedia reference, but it's the best I could find on short notice). SSchultz 00:40, 9 November 2007 (EST)
Organized labor is hardly the same thing as communism, and I don't think that the Writers Guild of America is particularly concerned with the workers of the world. TigersRoar 14:07, 11 November 2007 (EST)

I thought the idea of Communism was that the Party was one big union. I was clearly wrong, thanks for the cite, Sschultz. Does anyone else think it's hilarious and telling, by the way, that Wikipedia has a huuuuge series on organized labor :-) ?-MexMax 16:31, 9 November 2007 (EST)


A new one - when you think it ought to be changed - could be The Creation of Adam, from the Sistine Chapel. It strikes me as being marvelously on point, and beautiful, too. Although I cited to a Wikimedia Commons image, please note that it's common domain.-MexMax 00:03, 9 November 2007 (EST)

We will have it in mind. Next proposal, please set it in the Masterpiece talk page too. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:03, 9 November 2007 (EST)
Please see Painting Masterpieces. There is this painting since 26 May 20, 2007. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:06, 9 November 2007 (EST)
Thanks friend, forgive my mistake!-MexMax 10:35, 9 November 2007 (EST)
Perhaps this would work. --BCSTalk2ME 10:51, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Dude, awesome choice i love that painting! --StevenM 13:42, 18 November 2007 (EST)

Wanted Pages

Since the list of wanted pages is rapidly dwindling to things I know nothing about, is there a way to expand it by including items with, say, 4 or even 3 redlinks? And maybe wait 'til Monday AM to do so, as it will give fertile ground for contest participants. Dewey 16:59, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Yes, great idea. When the number dwindles closer to zero, then we'll expand it to include 4 redlinks!--Aschlafly 11:30, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Contaminated Toys

I don't think the latest Breaking News headline is correct. It suggests that there was a safe compound in the toy, which was then switched with a known drug. Neither of these things are true. The compound in question, 1, 4-butanediol, was mistakenly used in lieu of the proper chemical, 1, 5-pentanediol. It was accidental. Also, the compound itself is not a drug, as the main page suggests. Rather, when it is ingested, the body converts it into gamma-Hydroxybutyric acid, which itself is an anesthetic, but is used by some as a date-rape drug. I think the headline suggests hysteria that is not present in the real story. I suggest it be changed, and if nobody objects, I would change it myself to something like: "Toxic chemicals in toys prompts worldwide recall" or something like that. Let me know what you think. Hutchins 11:00, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Also, I think it should be noted (maybe?) that the children affected by it ate several dozen (!) of these beads. And if you're interested in China's exports, why not focus on the excessive amounts of lead paint in some of their products? Hutchins 11:04, 11 November 2007 (EST)
Hutchins, I've reviewed your suggestions and appreciate them, but frankly I don't think see evidence for describing this as "accidental". There have been many other instances of Chinese suppliers switching harmful contents into toys exported to the United States. It may or may not be true that the harm is unintended, but regardless the switch itself is not "accidental".
Your suggested replacement headline does accurately depict the pattern of this problem. But thanks for your suggestions. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 11:37, 11 November 2007 (EST)
Thanks for your swift reply. In response to your analysis of my suggested headline, what about it is inaccurate? Also, though the "accidental" bit is certainly debatable, the headline still suggests that the date-rape drug is actually in the toys, which it is not. A chemical that turns into the drug is what is present in the toys. Also, where is the evidence that the original constituents of the toy were "switched" for the chemical in question? Thanks! Hutchins 12:26, 11 November 2007 (EST)
REPLY: "In response to your analysis of my suggested headline, what about it is inaccurate?" It isn't fully descriptive of the problem and its pattern.
"Also, though the "accidental" bit is certainly debatable, the headline still suggests that the date-rape drug is actually in the toys, which it is not. A chemical that turns into the drug is what is present in the toys." That is a meaningless distinction inappropriate for a headline.
"Also, where is the evidence that the original constituents of the toy were "switched" for the chemical in question?" This is a recent problem and the toys had been previously sold without complaint. That implies a "switch" similar to other toy contamination cases from China. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 12:38, 11 November 2007 (EST)
REPLY: "It isn't fully descriptive of the problem and its pattern." I must not fully grasp the problem/pattern then. What are you trying to highlight with the headline then?
"That is a meaningless distinction inappropriate for a headline." I must respectfully disagree. This is certainly an important distinction, especially in a headline, because one is factual and one is not. For example, if a man were to have drank something with methanol in it, should the headline say "Man served drink containing formaldehyde"? When consumed, methanol is metabolized to form formaldehyde, which is of course highly toxic. The exact same applies here. The toys are NOT coated with this date-rape drug, but rather a chemical that becomes the drug. Do you see where I'm coming from here? The distinction is very important because saying the toys contained this drug is factually inaccurate.
"This is a recent problem and the toys had been previously sold without complaint. That implies a "switch" similar to other toy contamination cases from China." Actually, these toys are relatively new, and there have been no toys created that would contain the chemical in question. Read up on the toy, it's actually quite interesting, but the premise is that the chemical is used as a bonding agent that, when in contact with water, allows the beads of the toy to adhere together, thus making 3 dimensional crafts. There are no similar toys on the market, nor have there ever been, so this incident is without precedent. Therefore, the "switch" moniker is incorrect, as well, or at least an unsubstantiated claim.
Let me know what you think. Hutchins 12:51, 11 November 2007 (EST)
This is a "switch". When they made the toys, they replaced one ingredient for another. Thus according to the dictionary, this is a switch. Geo.Complain! 18:23, 11 November 2007 (EST)

"Liberal" Yale

Out of curiosity, why is Yale so Liberal? The current president and vice president (Republicans) are Yale alumni, as was the first president Bush, and former president Ford.-RonaldHarper 12:44, 11 November 2007 (EST)

  • Out of curiosity, do you believe because certain people who attend a university belong to one political party or another, that somehow dictates that institution's outlook? --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 12:54, 11 November 2007 (EST)
Oh, surely Mr. Harper doesn't deny that Yale University is very liberal! I know that liberals tend to refuse to admit they are liberal, but that takes the cake! The fact that 40 years ago a few Republicans went there (often simply imitating their fathers) is the silliest evidence I've ever heard for denying what its culture is today.--Aschlafly 12:55, 11 November 2007 (EST)
What makes it liberal? Do the universities openly support Democrat candidates and/or denounce Republican ones? Is it that the university itself is Liberal, or that the student body tends to be liberal? Hutchins 13:01, 11 November 2007 (EST)
  • Both. Their faculties are chosen from among like-minded souls, most university students are more liberal than they end up being later, etc. Combination of factors. --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 13:06, 11 November 2007 (EST)
I'd love to see a study done that illustrates this. Do you, just off the top of your head, have any links to statistics that suggest a disproportionately liberal student body/faculty? Hutchins 13:07, 11 November 2007 (EST)

So, if some one would spray paint a church wall, would there be an headline in conservapedia asking if christian indoctrination incite racism? Why wouldnt there be? yes, thats right, it would be idiotic. Now, my question is why do you have headline like that when it happens to be a public school where the graffiti is? WillM 19:38, 11 November 2007 (EST)

1. Yale is not a "public school," . 2. Show me an example of people spray-painting anti-semitic or racist graffiti on a church and the parishoners not denouncing it/scrubbing it off the next morning/ making a statement distancing the church from the sentiments expressed in the grafitti. Just one will do. Dewey 19:44, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Dosent matter if the school is public, here where i live the universityes are public schools, it could just as well be any place, you dont know who made the graffiti and his/hers politcal wievs. The article clearly allso says: "A cleanup crew arrived soon after the vandalism was reported and spent several hours vigorously scrubbing the paint with wire brushes and chemicals." Mayby you should actually read it. And what are you actually saying, that no one could spray paint a church wall? WillM 19:51, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Wow -maybe you could look into remedial writing classes at those fine, fine public schools in your hometown. I'm not saying that nobody would paint a church wall - but I won't argue counterfactuals, either. 19:54, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Well, i have been studying english for 3 years now, so i might not write it perfectly, but seams i can read it better than you do. But back to the point, would you like to tell me finally, if you would make a headline like the one i proposed, asking if christian indoctrination incites racism, if there was an graffiti like the one in the story in a church wall? WillM 19:59, 11 November 2007 (EST)

I cannot speak for anyone else but myself. But I give you my personal assurance that if I find a news story about someone writing the N-word on the side of a church and the parishioners laughing about it, I will do my utmost to have that story posted on the front page. Stay tuned. Dewey 20:09, 11 November 2007 (EST)

WillM, your hypothetical "if" doesn't exist. Racist graffiti is not spray-painted on the side of church walls and, if it were, you can bet the congregation would not be "laughing" along with it as the Yale students did. Please deal with the facts that did happen, without inventing facts that did not occur. The incident at Yale raises questions about the effects of its ultra-liberal culture. Address that if you want an intelligent debate.--Aschlafly 20:11, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Here you go [6], racists graffities at church. Might we now get the headline i proposed to the front page? WillM 20:24, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Re-read my post: your story is missing a crucial element: "if I find a news story about someone writing the N-word on the side of a church and the parishoners laughing about it..." Andy and I may disagree about this - it doesn't surprise me in the least that racists, or atheists would target a church - it's kind of in their nature to do such a thing, after all. But I can't imagine the congregation that would take it sitting down - or as a "joke." Peace. Dewey 20:29, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Oh well, here is one from a church school whose pastor thinks the swastika graffiti on their wall was just a childs prank. [7] Mayby he even laughed at the prank, we never know, as most of the news really dont take any notice of such things, in schools there are lots of diffrent kind of people, i bet the student in that church school who might have made it thought it was funny, mayby even laughed at it. And what do you actually know about the people who laughed at the graffiti at Yale? They might have been church goers from good home, story dosent tell that, you just assume they where corrupted by evil liberals. WillM 20:35, 11 November 2007 (EST)

"so we are installing security cameras to stop it," Jeff Hartman, the pastor of the church, told WJZ's Derek Valcourt." Sounds to me like the pastor is taking it seriously enough. Those things aren't cheap. " Mayby he even laughed at the prank, we never know." No, we don't know, but that's a heck of an accusation to make with no proof. "And what do you actually know about the people who laughed at the graffiti at Yale? They might have been church goers from good home." And they might have been three-headed space aliens, too, but I doubt it. But what they were for sure were students at one of the most exclusive liberal colleges in the country - that much is a fact. Less conjecture, please. Again, Peace. Dewey 20:44, 11 November 2007 (EST)

You are asking for less conjecture from me? When the frontpage news about this is nothing but conjecture. You dont know who made the graffiti, you dont know who laughed at it, you dont know why they laughed at it. Wasn't this supposed to be the trustworthy encyclopedia which prints facts, not speculation and wild accusations without any proof? WillM 20:55, 11 November 2007 (EST)

When one reads the article the accusation of students laughing looks a lot like hearsay doesn't it Schlafly? Reminds me of something you said on the Talk:Richard Dawkins page. My recollection is that you were against hearsay. I guess you must have changed your mind. GingerMeggs 22:20, 11 November 2007 (EST)
Ginger, please learn something here before you criticize. No, the front page article does not describe hearsay, while the poster to the Talk:Richard Dawkins entry did. If you still cannot understand the difference, then ask me politely and I'll explain it carefully to you. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 22:35, 11 November 2007 (EST)
I can't understand the difference. Could you explain it to me please Mr. Schlafly? GingerMeggs 22:40, 11 November 2007 (EST)
I hope you're being sincere. Here goes: hearsay only refers to statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. It does not apply or limit use of testimony about hearing a statement, if not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The article's description of the laughing is not hearsay; the description of representations by an unknown Oxford clerk about Richard Dawkins are. Get it now? Godspeed.--Aschlafly 23:05, 11 November 2007 (EST)
I was being sincere. I still am. I regret to say, however, that you are a little confused.
You are asserting (are you not?) the truth of the proposition that Yale students laughed about the graffiti. That assertion is based upon an observation of an employee of the dining service. That observation was passed on to a journalist who wrote an article which you have read. That is actually double hearsay. The article constitutes a document which would not be admissible as evidence of the matters stated therein because it would be hearsay (as you should be aware, I can’t just turn up to court and start tendering newspaper articles as proof of the matters asserted in them). If the matter was litigated over, the journalist would need to be called to give evidence. But even the journalist could not give evidence about the students laughing. The dining service employee would have to be called to give evidence of that.
All of this goes to demonstrate that hearsay is a legal concept which has no real place on a site such as this. Most of the references on this site constitute hearsay in one form or another. If you insisted on no hearsay you would wipe out most of your current articles.
The point is that your use of the hearsay argument on the Talk:Richad Dawkins page was entirely misconceived. If you are an honourable person you will apologise to British_cons for trying to bully him with a bogus argument. However, you will be relieved to hear that I shan’t hold my breath.
P.S. This is the second time I have had to post this response. TK deleted the first and called it trolling. That is typical of the dishonesty of this site. By deleting my response it looks as if I have been convinced by Schlafly’s weak argument. Have some guts TK and let Schlafly stand up for himself. HPagetF 15:36, 11 November 2007 (EST)
Yes, I'm not sure I understand what Aschlafly is saying about the laughing not being hearsay and would appreciate clarification. --JordanB 15:51, 12 November 2007 (EST)
Demand for clarification from someone who gets on here via a proxy address? I don't think so. Karajou 16:12, 12 November 2007 (EST)
Karajou, what does a proxy IP have to do with anything? My place of work uses proxy addresses for security. I think it would be extremely presumptuous to discern anything about HPagetF or his motives based on how his computer connects to the internet. Hutchins 18:19, 12 November 2007 (EST)
We've had a number of habitual offenders to this site who use proxies to cover their tracks. No, we're not going to authorize the use of proxies for any reason at all; if you want that changed, you'll have to talk to Aschlafly about it. Karajou 16:05, 13 November 2007 (EST)
I've been asked to respond to HPagetF's comments. He's added another (unnecessary) layer of hearsay to the analogy. The original issue was "When one reads the article the accusation of students laughing looks a lot like hearsay doesn't it Schlafly?" That "accusation" by the witness who heard the laughing is not hearsay, for reasons I explained above. Moreover, HPagetF's point that hearsay is thereby OK as a device in informed discussion is flatly wrong.--Aschlafly 20:42, 20 November 2007 (EST)
The reason I asked you to respond was that, as a lawyer, I thought that the points made by HPagetF were correct. You're not suggesting that you spoke to the dining service employee are you? Or even the reporter? So the story, so far as Conservapedia is concerned, is hearsay. It's as simple as that.
I suspect that the point that HPagetF was trying to make (albeit in a somewhat obnoxious manner) is that, if you analyse most discussions (including informed discussions), you will find a good measure of hearsay in most of them. There has to be. None of us have direct experience of all of the myriad things that we talk about. --Gridley 20:54, 20 November 2007 (EST)
HPagetF simply introduced an additional layer of hearsay that was irrelevant to the point.--Aschlafly 21:22, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Your choice of Presidential Candidate?

Hey guys! Howdy! I'm looking forward to hearing which candidate you all are thinkin' of voting for? It's a confusing year - yet again - and I don't really see any on Republican candidate who I actually really can get behind. What do others think? Looking forward to being part of the dialogue! (PS Don't worry about my name, I'm only so-so on Huckabee, I just wanted to pick SOMEONE!!!!) Huckabeeforlife 22:00, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Hmm. perhaps you don't understand the essence of conservativism; perhaps you don't understand it may not be any of your business in asking, or perhaps you don't understand many conservatives consider rude in doing so? Rob Smith 22:32, 12 November 2007 (EST)
How's this: I support not-hillary. The best candidate in the world.--IDuan 22:35, 12 November 2007 (EST)


There does seem to be a very obsolete dualist view on this site between Conservatives and “Liberals”, its seem that conservative = Good and Liberal Evil. And there are no shades of grey. Booth 12:19, 13 November 2007 (EST)

You mean the difference between right and wrong is obsolete? Those shades of gray can also equate to what Jesus said with the Church of Laodicea in Revelation 3:15-16:
I know your works; you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth. (NRSV)
It's either right or wrong around here; if you want shades of gray where speculation is fact and where loopholes are authorized, Wikipedia is down the street. Karajou 16:10, 13 November 2007 (EST)
No, what he's saying is that you have defined conservatives as good and liberals as evil with no good reason.--Tmcfulton 17:21, 13 November 2007 (EST)
Tmcfulton, you can see our articles on conservative and liberal and draw your conclusion on which one is good, and which one isn't. I know I have. But Karajou's right, this site may not be for you.-MexMax 17:25, 13 November 2007 (EST)
Yeah, because I'm really going to trust a definition of Liberal and Conservative on CONSERVApedia. I've read the articles. They're biased.--Tmcfulton 20:08, 13 November 2007 (EST)
So, uh, why does the Conservative article not have an enormous, mocking image?---Guentar 20:19, 13 November 2007 (EST)

You are either misunderstanding me or proving my point, I said that you seem to think that the opposite of something that is right must be wrong, I did not say that the opposite of right isn't wrong. Booth 18:56, 16 November 2007 (EST)

Democratic National Convention

Way to go. You put a humorous and completely irrelevant article as "Breaking News." You don't even realize how unprofessional that is. I would take it down, if I were you, because it is meaningless and made up.--Tmcfulton 17:22, 13 November 2007 (EST)

This is a conservative site; that there's a little conservative humor on the front page really shouldn't be a shock, or something to be ashamed of.-MexMax 17:23, 13 November 2007 (EST)
See how liberals have no sense of humor?--Aschlafly 17:23, 13 November 2007 (EST)
Haha, I wish I could be surprised, Andy :-) -MexMax 17:29, 13 November 2007 (EST)
Yes, that clearly proves that I am unable to appreciate a joke. Good one, Andy! As I said before, it is unprofessional and meaningless, and degrades the quality of your encyclopedia.--Tmcfulton 17:36, 13 November 2007 (EST)
I don't necessarily think its a bad thing to have conservative humor (or any kind of humor for that matter), or even to have it on the front page. But the breaking news section might not be the best place for it. The breaking news section should probably be reserved for...well, news. However, I am glad that you're willing to admit that it is humor and not what you actually think is on the democratic party agenda. --BillOhannity 18:22, 13 November 2007 (EST)
How 'bout a knock knock joke, too? Maybe a riddle? Seems as relevant and encyclopedic as an obscure and unfunny blog post about an event 9 months from now to me. And c'mon, "Al Gore invented the internet" again? Liberals stopped using "subliminable" jokes years ago, and at least George Bush actually said that one. --LutherBifteck 00:25, 14 November 2007 (EST)

It's not so much that it's offensive or inappropriate, it's just not, you know, funny. "A mainstream political party supported by somewhere around half of the country's electorate is so treasonous as to burn the flag at their convention and swear allegiance to a multi-lateral organization!!!!" HILARIOUS!!!!! Wow - jokes like this are why people like Colbert, the Daily Show, Lenny Bruce and Carlin and not the "fake news on Fox" show. Arthur 20:53, 13 November 2007 (EST)

Congratulations you trustful Encyclopedia you, this site is a great educational resource--Benburned 19:30, 14 November 2007 (EST)

Indirect vandalism

Someone brought this point up a while ago, but I think it's worth reiterating. Why doesn't Conservapedia store IP information so that people can't spam refresh and influence the page view count? I went to the Statistics page yesterday and was shocked to see that the top ten pages viewed (and many more in the top 100) are all to do with Homosexuality. This is obviously some sort of indirect vandalism to make the site look ridiculous.

In addition, the vast majority of the last 3 million page views have been visits to these pages about Homosexuality, which is misleading when we advertise our page views on the front page as though it indicates site growth.

What can we do about this?--Xerxes 23:15, 13 November 2007 (EST)

I'm pretty sure when you say misleading you mean distasteful. Several Admins on this site have quite actively promoted the many articles concerned with homosexuality on this site. Given that, the statistics you point to are probably accurate. However, if the sites admins do intend to jigger the most popular pages to hide this fact, it would seem only honest to reduce the number of page views they brag about. DarrenSmith 07:15, 14 November 2007 (EST)
The site administrators are looking into this. Jallen 08:13, 14 November 2007 (EST)

Iowa Poll

You may also want to mention that Huckabee is second place in Iowa and in striking distance of leader Romney. --Tash 12:13, 14 November 2007 (EST)

Hepatitis B not contagious in schools?

This was new one for me, i have been in the delusion that transmission results from exposure to infectious blood or body fluids containing blood, but if the trustworthy encyclopedia says it can't happen in schools... Kids allso might not spend all their time in school, so mayby they should take it just in case? WillM 21:14, 14 November 2007 (EST)

Ah, you want condition entrance to school on something that has nothing to do with school??? That's the trouble with government power, WillM, it is soon abused like that.
Let's try your logic on this one: no overweight kids are allowed in school anymore!--Aschlafly 21:27, 14 November 2007 (EST)
Is obesity contagious now? --Gridley 21:32, 14 November 2007 (EST)
Beat me to the punch Gridley. Andy: I'm fairly sure if a child becomes obese, they will not spread obesity through the school.Guentar 21:34, 14 November 2007 (EST)
Well, others have made good points but actually i wasn't saying anything about the mandatory of the vaccinations, infact i think allso that it should be voluantery in most cases, if there arent pressing needs to vaccinate whole population towards some specially dangerous disease. But what i am saying is that it would be smart for those persons to just take the vaccination. Allso i think that the claim that Hepatitis B is not contagious in schools should not be made. You can catch it everywhere. WillM 21:35, 14 November 2007 (EST)
Right, make it voluntary, so why is public school trying to send parents to jail for not doing it? The vaccine increases the risk of multiple sclerosis by threefold, by the way, according to a peer-reviewed study. And Hep B is not contagious in school any more than AIDS is, and surely you don't think people should be banned from school if they have AIDS.--Aschlafly 21:39, 14 November 2007 (EST)
As i just said, my point wasnt the mandatory vaccinations, my point was that you aren't safe from hepatitis B in schools, as you arent from AIDS:s either and one shouldnt make claim like that in encyclopedia. You are allso making bad comparisons, if there was a effective and easy way, like vaccination to prevent AIDS, i could see why schools would like their kids to have vaccination against it. And once again, it should be mentioned that its offcourse not just for school. WillM 21:45, 14 November 2007 (EST)
In response to Andy:
  1. I would like to see this study
  2. Actually I believe it's more contagious than AIDS (particularly in children with hemoglobin problems). HPB also has a higher chance of infection upon proper contact than AIDS. One of the big issues is that it's frequently asymptomatic, so while someone may contract it as a child, they will end up being a carrier for their entire life, threatening the lives of others. Andy, surely if there were a vaccine for AIDS, wouldn't you demand every child be innoculated with it?-Guentar 21:46, 14 November 2007 (EST)
Since Andy hasn't shown us this study, I will. You'll note under the second header that the CDC states that there is no causal relationship between Hep B vaccine and Multiple Sclerosis, that the findings of MS in the prior study were likely coincidental, and subsequent studies have not shown any link. But consider, we know the effects of Hep B: Chronic infection ranging for 6 - 90% depending on the age of exposure, and death for 15 - 25% of the chronically infected. Sounds like the vaccine saves a lot of lives for very little risk, but it's only effective if an entire population is vaccinated. Vaccinating a few people here and a few people there doesn't create an effective barrier, and also creates a situation where the virus may be repeatedly exposed to immune individuals and may evolve a way around that immunity thus invalidating the vaccine completely. That is a situation that noone wants. SSchultz 22:28, 16 November 2007 (EST)
As i just said, my point wasn't should the vaccinations be mandatory or not, my point was that people aren't safe from hepatitis B in schools, as you arent from AIDS:s either and one shouldnt make claim like that in encyclopedia. You are allso making bad comparisons, if there was an effective and easy way, like vaccination to prevent AIDS, i could see why schools would like their kids to have vaccination against it. And once again, it should be mentioned that its offcourse not just for school. WillM 21:45, 14 November 2007 (EST)
Why should we mandatorily vaccinate against AIDS? If you sdon't engage in sexual relations, you won't get it. Same with Hep B? You are missing the point that mandatory vaccinations for a non contagious disease is not a substantial government interest that overrides the rights of parents. Geo.Complain! 02:57, 15 November 2007 (EST)
Of course you can get it in other means that sexual relationship, whats with you people? i thought the news article was just a slip up and no one here really beliaved that you would be somehow immune to these diseases in schools or if you didn't have sex. Sex might be the most likely cause, but any exposure to infectious blood or body fluids containing blood can be the cause. Some one gets a nose bleed, you help them and happen to have a cut in your hand, or for example some accident at gym class, the possibilityes are endless and as said before there is allso life outside schools. Im not in favour of mandatory vaccinations in normal circumstances, i just think everyone should be smart enought to see the benefits and take them when offered. Allso sex as cause is not out of the picture for many teens. Their parents might not want them to take the vaccine in the pretence that their kids don't have sex but the reality might be very diffrent. WillM 08:29, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Apparently I did do something wrong. Ah well.

Actually, hep B is contagious via a huge number of non-sexual vectors, including food that was handled by carriers. With the large number of illegal immigrants who have not been inoculated against the disease who currently work in the agricultural sector, the probability of contracting hep B from poorly prepared food is increasing. --NerdyInTheExtreme 23:13, 15 November 2007 (EST)

You are completely wrong. Notice how you can't cite anything to support your claim? Wikipedia might be a better home for your biased, false statements.--Aschlafly 23:16, 15 November 2007 (EST)
Actually, I may have been thinking of hep C… both have a vaccine. My bad. --NerdyInTheExtreme 23:20, 15 November 2007 (EST)
No, the problem was not that you made a mistake or that your grammar is poor ("My bad"???). The problem is that you jumped to criticize Conservapedia with a closed mind, rather than reading with an open mind. Try an open mind, OK?--Aschlafly 23:36, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Heres a cite then: Transmission through blood contact is quite possible as stated. Injury in gym class perhaps? Or maybe a fight? QNA 12:22, 16 November 2007 (EST)

Wow, you're brilliant - why do you think the CDC overlooked your mechanisms for transmission of the disease??? I'll tell you: because your suggestions are false, and attributable to liberal bias to force children to receive a dangerous vaccine that they do not need..--Aschlafly 12:57, 16 November 2007 (EST)
So you are really saying that it is liberal bias that hepatitis B can spread from exposure to infectious blood or body fluids containing blood and it wasn't just a slip up at the front pages news? Im speechles. WillM 13:52, 16 November 2007 (EST)
Will, do yourself a favor. Learn how to spell "speechless", and open your mind to the truth. Do this for yourself, and your future. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 13:55, 16 November 2007 (EST)
Andy, suggesting that Will's spelling error excuses you from addressing his points is foolish. The CDC does state that one should employ barrier protection against blood in order to prevent transmission of Hep B [8], and it is entirely possible to be exposed to blood in a school. A skinned knee, a bloody nose, or a poke with a pencil can all create exposure to blood, and it only takes a small exposure to transmit Hep B from person to person. Furthermore, the CDC states that the Hep B vaccine is the best protection against Hep B. Here is a citation stating that the rate of transmission is as high as 2.6% in the group studied. Here is another citation which discusses a case where a school nurse became exposed after coming into contact with a student's saliva and mucus while the skin on her hands was chapped. It's clear that Hep B is transmissible in a school environment, and if the vaccine can prevent even one case of this fatal disease, then it is worth it. SSchultz 22:22, 16 November 2007 (EST)
SSchultz, point to several cases of transmission at school then. Of course you can't. Also, do tell us why school teachers are not required to receive the vaccine.--Aschlafly 14:43, 19 November 2007 (EST)
Andy, my previous post contained at least two examples of an in school transmission of Hep B, but if you would like further examples, I can certainly provide them. Here the WHO lists child to child transmission as one of the primary modes of infection. Here's another study which states that Hep B can live on dry surfaces for up to 7 days and that hand contact with these surfaces can create a chain of transmission. Here's an example of a student to teacher transmission without any overt exposure to blood. Here is a case of child to child transmission in a day care center, which notes that 161 children between 1983 and 1987 were found to have acute Hep B. [In some populations, childhood transmission was more important than perinatal transmission as a cause of chronic HBV infection before hepatitis B immunization was widely implemented. For example, in studies conducted among US-born children of Southeast Asian refugees during the 1980s approximately 60% of chronic infections in young children were among children born to HBsAg-negative mothers Here]is another study documenting child to child Hep B transmission prior to the advent of the vaccine. It's true that widespread vaccination has severely limited child to child transmission, but without continued vaccination the rates will rise again. As far as teachers being vaccinated, I think it's a great idea and that teachers should be required to be vaccinated as well. SSchultz 20:57, 19 November 2007 (EST)


Governor Sonny Perdue prayed for rain... and got what he asked for. Let me make myself clear: I'm not going to go so far as to suggest a causal link. However, I will say that it's nice that some American governors aren't afraid to wear their religion on their sleeve. Is this worth a main page breaking news mention?-MexMax 23:46, 14 November 2007 (EST)

Brown University

More women than men go to college these days. Why does having more women apply for admission to Brown make the University "liberal" and why is it deemed newsworthy?--McIntyre 07:25, 16 November 2007 (EST)

You speak in non sequiturs. While more women than men go to college these days, the imbalance in Brown's applications is striking. No one said that the imbalance in applications is what makes the school liberal.--Aschlafly 12:54, 16 November 2007 (EST)
I do not see what could be considered a non sequitur in my prior comments. As for "the imbalance in Brown's applications" being striking, another poster has already noted this below.--McIntyre 10:23, 17 November 2007 (EST)

20,000 clean, high quality entries

Is this included in the 20,000? Unfortunately I'm no expert so I can't really question what that has to do with law. FactFinder 09:21, 16 November 2007 (EST)

Yes, it's a legal concept. Have an open mind and you'll learn more. Avulsion is a legal concept also, which I doubt you know, and you can learn from that also.--Aschlafly 09:36, 16 November 2007 (EST)
Thanks for clearing that, my open mind now accepts the increase or accumulation of land by natural causes, as out of a lake or river as a legal concept. The truth is really setting me free. FactFinder 11:07, 16 November 2007 (EST)
I don't see any sign of open-mindedness in your comments, or insight. Those who do become open-minded, to learn the truth, do become free. Try it sometime.--Aschlafly 12:53, 16 November 2007 (EST)
I don't know about this guy/gal's open-mindedness (have they taken your test yet, as I have?), but can't we agree that just because a term might come up in court cases on the appropriate subject doesn't make it a "legal term?" By that standard, nearly all terms, ever, are legal terms. There are plenty of terms-of-art that my firm makes use of, and our testifying experts use them in their depositions and at trial, but I wouldn't say that classifying the "lingo" of brownfield redevelopment, for example, as "legal terms" would make sense.
I know, I know, see my own page, but sometimes I can't help myself. Aziraphale 02:15, 17 November 2007 (EST) <-should learn to. I know already, ok?

Brown College Women vs Men

I'd just like to point out that, nationwide, more women are applying to colleges than men (not just liberal colleges). According to PBS:

Women now make up 56 percent of the college population -- and that number continues to rise.[9]

Granted, Brown College has a higher ratio than the national ratio, but statistically it's still within normal parameters. Nowhere near being an outlier, and not newsworthy except for capitalizing on the fact that it's an "ultra"-liberal school. GofG ||| Talk 18:12, 16 November 2007 (EST)

Finally, good news out of Iraq

I noticed a very good piece of news coming out of Iraq. Iran finally came through on its deal to stem the flow of bomb making equipment to Iraq. Presumably the reduction was the cause of a halving of roadside bombs. That includes a type of bomb that sends off a molten chunk of copper that goes through the almost impenetrable American armor. A greater decrease is expected as stockpiles run out. That still leaves almost 2000 attacks, but the decrease is still quite welcome. PostoStudanto ✉Tλlk 19:52, 16 November 2007 (EST)

Iran doing everything it can to avoid American crosshairs

Sometimes it boggles my mind that Iran, a country that outlines special rights for its Jewish minority in its constitution, is likened to the Third Reich for its opposition to Israel, and made out to be an imminent threat to American national security.

Some interesting news articles have come out in the past week. Namely that Iran is initiating talks to enrich its uranium outside the region in a neutral country like Switzerland, thus "removing fears it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons." [10]

We need to look through the Administration propaganda and see the real reasons they want to invade Iran. Look at this:[11].

Do you think it might be likely that the United States considers Iran an enemy (which they declared in 1997 when the Project for a New American Century, led by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, called for regime change in Iran), because Iran opposes oil profit sharing agreements between American corporations and the Iraqi government, and because Iran has started exporting its oil in alternative currencies and is trying to push OPEC to do the same?

Examine the facts and decide for yourselves. But before you make any conclusions, make sure to research the Project for the New American Century, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, and the Iranian Oil Bourse.--Xerxes 16:02, 18 November 2007 (EST)

  • Yes, I have noticed since 1980 just how poor Iran has been trying to avoid America's "cross hairs". Too bad we don't have more with better aim. --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 22:03, 18 November 2007 (EST)
I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Both of my parents were born in Iran, and I still have family living in Iran. Please refrain from such hostile remarks, especially when you clearly know very little about the entire situation. I assume you're talking about the Islamic Revolution that happened in 1979 (which was an uprising to oust a brutal dictator that the United States put in power in 1953), after which your government supported Saddam Hussein in a bloody war against Iran which lasted 8 years and cost 1 million Iranian lives.

What, again has Iran done to your country?--Xerxes 00:17, 19 November 2007 (EST)

NYU Votes for Sale

I'm confused about why the headline claims that selling votes is a liberal idea. The poll was across 3000 random students, they couldn't all be liberals. SSchultz 16:33, 18 November 2007 (EST)

  • Exactly right, Steve! I am almost 100% certain, that among that sampling at NYU, and that radical professor's class there had to be at least .01% who self-identify as "conservative", or were deceitful liberals saying they were! --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 22:01, 18 November 2007 (EST)
Well, the poll was taken across 3000 NYU students, not just people in the professor's class, and I haven't seen anything to indicate that she's a radical. SSchultz 23:37, 18 November 2007 (EST)
SSchultz brings up a good point. How is she a radical? Furthermore, how can you know the political alignment of the majority of the 3000 random students surveyed without any modicum of proof? ARobson 13:44, 19 November 2007 (EST)
This is a faith based encyclopedia. Proof is not required. FactFinder 13:54, 19 November 2007 (EST
  • The Professor is a fairly well-known and self professed liberal. And her radical ideas/beliefs are easily found with a not too detailed search. Her leanings have nothing to do with her students, however that the majority of NYU students self-identify as "liberal" or left-wing, has indeed been documented hundreds of times, even by NYU. To raise that Red Herring is indeed another good example of liberal deceit. And that has been documented here on CP thousands of times, including user ARobson above being yet another Canadian Troll, a sock of user Hutchins as well! --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 14:37, 19 November 2007 (EST)

There should be nothing hard to undestand on this one, the people interviewed where random 3000 students and no one knows if they where liberals or conservatives. Thats it. You can gues all you want, and seams thats what this "trustworthy" encyclopedia has been doing a lot on its frontpage, and yes propably most would say that they are liberal, but you cant just assume that they all where or that based on this conservative youngs in universityes wouldn't be just as eager to sell their votes. This is horrible example of "news" WillM 18:21, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Ok, fair enough on the professor being a radical, I did find some more information on her liberalism after a little searching, but the study was still random, so I think categorizing the study as espousing liberal values isn't really valid. SSchultz 20:59, 19 November 2007 (EST)
  • Steve, you are in total denial. There is little doubt the majority of students attending NYU are liberal. Some studies show that to be 6/1! Is there anyone so mindless out there as to assume from my post not one person surveyed were Conservative? But you stretch the imagination if you wish to claim conservatives were among those willing to forfeit their vote forever for a million bucks, or an Iphone. IPhones are merely the latest tasteless toys of law students who like to talk liberal yet show off what most Americans cannot afford. --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 23:08, 19 November 2007 (EST)
Which studies show that NYU has 6 times as many liberals as conservatives, and why should we assume from a random study of a non-partisan question that only liberals would answer that they would sell their votes? There are some pretty rabid liberals out there, like the Move On crowd that would never sell their votes, and I'm sure there are some apathetic conservatives who would. SSchultz 23:13, 19 November 2007 (EST)
  • Since you wish to continue to be in denial about the realities of urban campuses and their idealogical make up, I am not going to continue this tit-for-tat with you, SSchultz. You paint yourself as completely uninformed, arguing a point that is really a truism. Godspeed to you. --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 23:22, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Protected pages

How am I supposed to actually edit here when so many pages are protected? This is ridiculous. Halah 22:53, 18 November 2007 (EST)

Pick one of the thousands that aren't? If you can't find any articles that interest you other than our most vandalized or controversial ones, place a note on the talk page of the protected article with the information you want added.HelpJazz 22:58, 18 November 2007 (EST)
Depending on why and when it was locked, a request to the protecting sysop to unlock it for you to edit it might be answered in the affirmative. No guarantees, but there's no harm in asking. Philip J. Rayment 04:43, 19 November 2007 (EST)
  • Unfortunately, the user making this post was a common vandal/troll, and inserted profanity and insults in their one other edit here and was blocked by another Administrator. --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 14:30, 19 November 2007 (EST)
That's not much of a shock is it? Good answers gentlemen, but wasted on ears that never wanted to hear. Learn together 16:45, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Gettysburg Address

The article on the Gettysburg Address is concise and to the point, yet it does not contain the phrase attributed to it by the 'Breaking News' section. --Jimmy 12:19, 19 November 2007 (EST)

God bless you for pointing that out!!!! I've fixed that terrible mistake now.--Aschlafly 12:48, 19 November 2007 (EST)
Here's an answer that may explain the discrepancy: [12]. There are three drafts written by Lincoln, either just before or just after the Gettysburg dedication. The first draft is this image, written by Lincoln and given to one of his private secretarys, John Nicolay. The second one was given to his other secretary, John Hay [13]. Both of them have been consulted by scholars and historians as they were written within days of the dedication, and because of their minor discrepancies with each other they give insight as to what Lincoln was thinking as he wrote. As to whether or not one of them was the actual reading copy is up for debate, as they do not match what eyewitnesses heard that day, nor do they match what was given to reporters for publication. Karajou 05:51, 20 November 2007 (EST)


Might I suggest changing the link in the Breaking News section to Mitt Romney instead? Currently it redirects to a breed of sheep. Feebasfactor 19:16, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Done. Thanks for the hint. --Crocoite 20:38, 19 November 2007 (EST)

KVI Radio link

Are you sure you want to highlight this? The comment on their site seems to mock Conservapedia.--McIntyre 21:01, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Think they are mocking the other conservative websites also?--Aschlafly 21:59, 19 November 2007 (EST)
I don’t think so. They list other websites, but unlike their link to Conservapedia, they include no commentary. --McIntyre 22:07, 19 November 2007 (EST)
  • I don't think it is mocking at all. I see a somewhat humorous entry, letting users know they won't be finding the smut and leftist world view that is rampant on Wikipedia! --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 23:17, 19 November 2007 (EST)--şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 23:17, 19 November 2007 (EST)
It looks to me like they are being mocking toward CP. The "sanitized for your protection" quip seems to suggest that CP "sanitizes" reality, protecting the reader from things detrimental to CP's worldview. Not a very tasteful insult, but I'm not sure it belongs on the news page. Jergen 09:11, 20 November 2007 (EST)
Yes, your comment is not a very tasteful insult, and I suggest you refrain from them. Karajou 09:36, 20 November 2007 (EST)

8 and 9 year old accused of rape

This is one more example of how sick our society is, I didn't even know that boys of that age could physically do something like that, this land truly needs God. Just wanted to post this here if anyone wants to make it frontpage news ConanO 22:35, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Thanks for your posting, but we don't want to go the way of FoxNews by posting shocking crime stories on the front page, though I agree that such crimes are examples of how sick our society is becoming.--Aschlafly 10:45, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Rape victim to be whipped

A 19 year old rape victim has been sentenced to 200 lashes in Muslim Saudi Arabia [14] - its a good example of the excesses of Sharia law. Perhaps appropriate for main page? - Borofkin2 18:59, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Perhaps not - I just read Aaschfly's comment above. - Borofkin2 18:59, 20 November 2007 (EST)