Talk:Main Page/archive60

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search



If I admit to being liberal, will you burn me at the stake or throw Bibles at me.

No, I am an apathetic-liberal. No one will "persecute" you as long as you comply to the Conservapedia Commandments... I think. Nate 14:05, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Possible breaking news[edit]

British teens top the drunkenness league table of the developed world, according to a recent study by Edinburgh University for the World Health Organisation. Among 13-year-olds suveyed, teens from Wales were the most drunken; Scotland came second and England fourth. Meanwhile cannabis use is 'above average' amongst British teens. Could this possibly have anything to do with the multifarious failings of the atheistic British state school system? Ref: Bugler 13:20, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

The article implies that pressure and stress (not atheism) are to blame.JPohl 13:39, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
This business about 'pressure and stress' is pure hooey, take it from me. What 'pressure and stress' in an educational system that rewards bad behaviour, dissolves educational standards, hands out qualifications like sweets, and provides no ethical guidance at all? What these children need are proper moral standards and guidance handed out in a disciplined environment. Bugler 13:46, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
"I don't like the evidence I've presented, so I'll just go with my own unproven conjecture"JPohl 13:56, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
I don't understand what bearing this has to do with atheism in public schools. The public schools in the US and Canada are just as much atheistic as those in Britain. In the Bible Belt, obesity rates are higher than in more secular parts of the US[1][2], divorce rates are higher[3][4], and teen pregnancies are higher[5] despite the larger presence of abstinence programmes. Now just because those in the Bible Belt are theists, doesn't mean that they are more prone to divorce, obesity, and teen pregnancies. Likewise, just because one is an atheist, doesn't mean that they are more prone to alcoholism or cannabis use. This is just another case of false attribution. Kilmarnock 13:54, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
You think that the lack of moral guidance - as would be provided by classroom prayer and other manifestations of strong pastoral care - has no role to play in all this? You really need to get a grip. Bugler 13:58, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
First of all, be civilised. There is no need for the ad hominems. One can freely engage in discourse without telling the opponent to "get a grip". It seems ironic that you propose moral counselling with such an attitude. Now I never said that a lack of moral guidance has nothing to do with this. I said that a lack of theism has nothing to do with this. Those are two different points. Please refrain from turning my argument into a straw man. If the rate of teen pregnancies, alcoholism, narcotics use, divorce, and obesity are high, moral guidance and counselling can be a healthy reinforcement to combat these negative causes. However, that is not synonymous with classroom prayer or bringing religion into the classroom. The Bible Belt has a more theistic population and they are worse of in the instances of teen pregnancy, divorce, and obesity. Simply bringing religion back in the classroom won't work. Kilmarnock 14:12, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Bugler, religion is not the only methodology in which healthy life choices can be taught. My parents have taught me very healthy life choices (I eat healthy, exercise, do not drink excessively, do not do drugs) and we are atheistic as anything. It is good guidance by parents and family and friends that instill healthy life choices, not necessarily religion. --AndrasK 15:54, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

AndrasK, you invoked the fallacious point #6 of liberal logic. Sure, there are happy, healthy atheists. The same can be said about 100-year-old smokers. They exist. But compare a random group of 100 teenagers raised on atheism to one raised on Christianity, and it's like night and day. The story about Britain is just another illustration.--Aschlafly 17:30, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Considering that 20% of state (public) schools in England are Church of England or Roman Catholic faith schools, I'm not sure that this is a good example of the effects of an atheistic education system. France, with its public policy of laïcité, would be a better example if it could be shown to have a similarly detrimental effect on children's behaviour. Ajkgordon 16:33, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
20% hardly very much, and most of those schools are atheistic in curriculum as they would buy the same textbooks, hire the same teachers, and follow the same practices of the government schools. The teen culture is dictated by the 80%.--Aschlafly 17:30, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

You are wrong in your assertion that British schools are 'atheistic'. All state schools (unless, of course, they are Muslim or Jewish schools) in the UK by law have to make some reference to God and Christianity in school assemblies and registrations. I attended a British state school (and no, it wasn't a faith school), and we prayed in every school assembly, and had religious education. Also, for reference, the word 'atheistic' implies schools are actively promoting the non-existence of any god. I've said this before and I'll say it again, get your facts straight Liberalnproud

I also went to a British state school and my experience was similar - obviously I can't speak for all schools here, but the law that Liberalnproud highlights was very definitely and visibly in force. Interestingly, a very large proportion of my teachers were active Christians. Personally, I think that what the US right percieves to be an "atheistic curriculum" (out of interest, why is the curriculum itself atheistic - I thought the issue mainly boiled down to an atheistic atmosphere in which the studying of a pretty much balanced curriculum took place, eg lack of classroom prayer etc) is not the cause of mass public atheism but rather a result of it, and I have the feeling that forcing Christian practice on what is now a largely non-believing public isn't going to bring about the change. Ajkgordon is also right to suggest that a more relevant example would be France, if such an example could be made of it. Laïcité over there is at a much more advanced stage than classroom secularism over here - in Britain there is no law requiring secularism in school; on the contrary, as Liberalnproud pointed out, we have laws requiring the opposite. PeteSC 20:13, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Bugler - goodness, I should be so lucky. The education system you describe (the one that "rewards bad behaviour" and "hands out qualifications like sweets") is very different to the one I was a part of up until almost exactly 12 months ago. I have no idea where you got the impression that the former was the case; as for the latter, there is annually a remarkable media hysteria (note, generally in the Mail and the Telegraph, the right wing press) about "easy exams". Note, I'm not accusing you personally of that hysteria (should you happen to have been offended). Of course, there really is no one in a position to comment, given that I have never seen, say, an A Level History paper from 20 years ago, and most people who have have not seen the A Level History paper that I took last June, with the result that very few people can know whether exams are easy these days. The only information we can gather is from the press - and we really can't take newspaper articles at face value, can we?PeteSC 20:00, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, I used myself as a vehicle to express a larger concept. What I am trying to communicate is that it is not religion, perse, that instills healthy choices into youth, it is rather familial support. Religion may or may not achieve the same thing, but for the sake of argument let us say it does. You argue that religion is the only way to instill healthy choices. I argue, instead, that it is only one of many equally effective ways. As far as I can tell, you are saying that religion, and Christianity specifically, are the only paths to healthy lifestyles. I argue that it is only one of many. --AndrasK 13:49, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

UPDATE: abortions among under-age girls rise by 10% in England and Wales in 2007. And still the Liberals cover their eyes and ears! Link: Bugler 14:44, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Assuming that your comment was direct at liberals on this sight, Bugler, I'd like to point out that I, for one, never denied that the content of the headline was correct. I know it's true - and it has been true, unfortunately, for some time. I was taking issue with other statements made about the education system which I found made generalisations perhaps more sweeping than was necessary. PeteSC 15:01, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

I'll second PeteSC. He took the words right out of my mouth Liberalnproud

That's nothing new to us Bugler. Anyone like me who lives in Britain and knows about the overcrowded council houses full of pregnant teenagers and how dangerously high the teen pregnancy rate is in the UK. I don't see what your point has to do with liberals, though. Kilmarnock 15:25, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
I don't see what your point has to do with liberals, though. I am almost lost for words. Whatever your own peculiar point of view, how can you not understand what normal members of this community believe? Bugler 18:07, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
I do understand what they believe. And if you do too, could you please explain how liberalism relates to your point? Thank you. Kilmarnock 18:31, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

'"I don't see what your point has to do with liberals, though". I am almost lost for words...' I thought mockery was a hallmark of Liberal Style, Bugler. According to the Conservative Style article, conservatives are supposed to treat their opponents with decency. Liberalnproud

'Hello! I bet you're all delighted to see me after such a long absense. Okay, so from what I gather, the argument here is that since British schools have stopped enforced religion, drunken and poor behaviour have increased amongst teenagers. Basically stated, Atheistic schools do not provide the discipline children and teenagers need. Firstly, in response to the question from Bugler 'can you give examples of schools that conduct classroom prayer or encourage students to pray at the start of a lesson?' I answer that no, I can't. However, my own school for a matter of fact was mainly Catholic. We had assemblies every couple of days, in which the non-Catholic members of the school community would sit out our prayer time. I personally rebelled against this enforced faith, which was the anti-thesis of everything I believed in an 'enlightened society'. So, from my personal experience, schools do still practice religion, though members of non-Christian faiths are permitted not to attend (this did not include those of us who did not have a stated religion).

'My second point, and perhaps the stronger objection to the idea as a whole, is that in the last 20 years - since state school religion was reduced - the grades teenagers acheive have actually gone up; a record 62% of teenagers achieved 5 GCSEs grades A-C last year compared with 44% a decade earlier and 26% ten years before that. Teenagers in Britain are actually more likely to do voluntary work than any other generation, and are 10 times more likely to volunteer in communities than be responsible for anti-social behaviour. More teenagers than ever stay at school after they're 16, and more still stay on to do further or higher education. Young people are far more likely to say England is a good place to grow up (90%) than adults (71%), and yet it is young people who are the most likely to be victims of crime. Finally, nearly two-thirds of 10-to-15-year-olds have helped raise money for charity and 175,000 under 18-year-olds are unpaid carers in the UK with some 13,000 providing more care than a full-time job (50+ hours). So, all in all, the young people of Britain are actually helpful, hardworking, kind, caring individuals in general. Will you still argue that the behaviour of young people has been changed because of Atheism? Because if it has, I can only see it as a good thing for the majority, who value their community strongly. Entheogenicorder

I was wondering if somebody could please remove the exclamation "Oh my gosh" from the Obama New Yorker article on the main page. I recommend this site to many people-many with small children-and I know a lot of them will feel very hurt by a site that claims to endorse God, but uses an exclamation that many see as a euphemism for taking God's name in vain. Since this is not quoted, I strongly recommend it be removed from the news story as soon as possible.--Ophiuchus 14:52, 18 July 2008 (EDT)

Failing exam scores in Scotland blamed on Wikipedia[edit]

The Scottish Parent Teacher Council (SPTC) said pupils are turning to websites and internet resources that contain inaccurate or deliberately misleading information before passing it off as their own work.

The group singled out online encyclopedia Wikipedia, which allows entries to be logged or updated by anyone and is not verified by researchers, as the main source of information.

You know. "Well, duh!" just doesn't quite say it all. Close, but not quite. Jinxmchue 23:56, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Weren't we blaming this on atheism just a few days/weeks ago?JPohl 08:21, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
Failure can have more than one cause. In the highly educational terminology of Wikipedia, "duh"!--Aschlafly 08:51, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Since when did wikipedia use the word 'duh'?

I would say that your conclusions are rather erroneous. It seems to me that the kids were failing because they couldn't be bothered to do their research. I can't see how they would fare any better relying on this site. Some of the entries are frankly laughable. Being Scottish, I was most interested in those articles that related to Scotland. Talk about funny. I particularly liked the entry about the Gadjy Tribe. Very funny. Pity it's gone. Still, the article on Edinburgh is a source of real belly laughs. --Doonhamer 20:24, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Proof of why Wikipedia just plain sucks[edit]

A follow-up to the above post about Scotland. I recently fought a major battle on Wikipedia involving a completely fake quote attributed to an Intelligent Design supporter, Phillip Johnson. According to Wikipedia's policies on living persons, such blatantly false information can be removed without discussion, so I did so with this quote. I quickly came under fire from the anti-ID crowd there that controls the articles about ID, evolution and Creationism. I prevailed, however, and the quote was clarified as being one person's paraphrase. Yet the damage has been done. This phony quote was posted on three separate articles (at least) on Wikipedia in April and June of 2005. 2005!!! And not until now has anyone ever questioned its validity (or if they did, they were viciously shouted down and didn't fight back like I did). So for over THREE YEARS, Wikipedia contained this false quote. Simply amazing. There's no way such a blatantly phony quote would've made it past the checks of a properly by experienced researchers. Jinxmchue 00:19, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for this all-too-typical example of bias and falsehoods on Wikipedia. If you would like to get the links to back this up, it would be a helpful addition to Examples of Bias in Wikipedia. Of course, there are plenty of examples in that entry already!--Aschlafly 08:51, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
Got the diffs and will post them over there on the talk page. Jinxmchue 11:53, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Lenski's response[edit]

Incredibly rude to Andy. Lenski is another liberal scientists who forgets that our taxes fund his research.--Goodman 23:14, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Goodman, How can you state Lenski is liberal without any supporting facts? I doubt he forgets how his research is funded since he has to write the grants and provide the updates to those who awarded the grants. I have to admit that his last reply was a bit colorful but it was no less rude than what Andy sent to him. I would have taken offense to what Andy had sent. At least Lenski was a big enough man to send a response that was informative instead of just vindictive.--Able806 10:01, 25 June 2008 (EDT)
You must not have read the same response. Lenski was mean and belittling toward Andy--Goodman 18:07, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
Others tried to edit Andy's response to the man, not censoring content but smoothing off his more incendiary language. Andy reverted back to his original words, saying his message had been watered down. In other words, that caliber of speech is what he sent, and receiving a similarly-phrased message is not surprising in the least. It's what you get when a conversation occurs in an environment where neither side wields the power to silence/edit/ban the other. Aziraphale 11:50, 27 June 2008 (EDT) <- o/~ We shall overcoooo-oo-oommmee... o/~
Compare the letters objectively. I did not insult Lenski's intelligence, although I certainly could have belittled both him and his work. In sharp contrast was Lenski's response to my inquiries, despite his use of tax dollars to fund his work. Meanwhile, further issues now surface about Lenski's project at Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog.--Aschlafly 12:08, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
I did not insult Lenski's intelligence, although I certainly could have belittled both him and his work. Perhaps the letter did not insult Lenski's intelligence, but it did call into question his integrity. And on what grounds specific could one "belittle both him and his work? Further issues now surface about Lenski's project... well - some people have said things on blogs (including this one) - that hardly qualifies as "issues," except in the minds of the bloggers themselves. Finally - Lenski's attitude is completely ireelevant- this is supposed to be a scientific debate, not a "nice guy" contest. AliceBG 12:14, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Lenski's attitude is completely ireelevant- this is supposed to be a scientific debate, not a "nice guy" contest. The measure of the man is how he behaves under such circumstances. Unable or unwilling to address Andy's points, he resorts to insult and mockery. Bugler 04:03, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

DC handgun ban unconstitutional![edit]

Just breaking on the news. The Constitution wins! Jinxmchue 10:51, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

As someone who believes fervently in the Constitution I am pleased on an intellectual level that the Supreme Court issued this ruling. Also, as someone who lives in the District of Columbia, I am personally elated that this ruling was issued! Tordenvaer 14:00, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Search plugin[edit]

Hi guys! I just made a neat little Conservapedia search add-on for Firefox. I put it here: User:Marty/Searchplugin If you use Firefox, you can put it in your searchplugins folder and it'll just start working right away! Fr/ex, on Linux, it's ~/.mozilla/firefox/h58fhd4s.default/searchplugins/conservapedia.xml. I hope you enjoy it. It has a cute 16x16 favicon for Conservapedia too. But maybe somebody can improve it? Marty 12:27, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Main Page Right[edit]

I would like to take a moment to point out that the notice on the front page is flat out incorrect. It currently reads:

Massachusetts Democrat vows to "rip apart" the victims of child rape in the courtroom: "I'm going to make sure that the rest of their life is ruined, that when they’re 8 years old, they throw up; when they’re 12 years old, they won’t sleep; when they’re 19 years old, they’ll have nightmares and they’ll never have a relationship with anybody.” [4]

However, this is a mischaracterization of what was said. The rep. did not personally say he would this. He said that as a defense lawyer, his first responsibility is to his client and as such, he's going to do everything he can to win the case and represent his client, meaning that by forcing children to sit in the courtroom, the law that aimed to protect them would end up exposing them to brutal attacks. His comments were meant as Hyperbole. I personally find his style over-the-top and offensive to some people, but they should at least be characterized correctly. On a side note, I do find humor that the front page, which has constantly complained about the supreme court, leaps to congratulate them when they approve of the ruling, but I suppose that's true of all people, red or blue. As another Ps, why do we have nothing on the ruling denying execution that came out yesterday? JDavidsonLeave a message ::BEEP:: 17:23, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

The video is right here: [6] Yes, he's going to do anything and everything to win the case for his client, and if it means further destroying the life of some little kid who got raped by his client so be it. What he said on the Massachusetts state house floor wasn't hyperbole; it was the destructive rant of another liberal Democrat who's got a legion of defenders excusing his disgusting drivel as hyperbole or maybe just a little joke that got misconstrued or spun or twisted by some "evil" conservative. Karajou 03:48, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
So wait, when Ann Coulter says we should bomb muslims and convert them to christianity, it's hyperbole and satire, and it's only the humorless liberals that take it seriously, same for Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity But everything a Democrat says is to be taken literally and used against them for defamation purposes... This is a horrible double standard. JDavidsonLeave a message ::BEEP:: 12:38, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
I cases like that I don't take Coulter's side at all, but when a Democrat or a liberal says what was said on the Massachusetts house floor, that's exactly what they intend to do. The above liberal clearly prefers child rapists walking about while their victims are cowering under the bed. If that is what you support, go elsewhere. Karajou 14:41, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
Sorry, Karajou, but I think you just made JDavidson's point. The above liberal never said or meant any such thing.--Frey 14:46, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
I don't feel that personal attacks and assumptions about my character are warranted in this case, and as a side note, when you resort to cheap pathos such as "The above liberal clearly prefers child rapists walking about while their victims are cowering under the bed. If that is what you support, go elsewhere." You reveal a very deep-seated fear of debating as an adult. I have no "love" of child rapists, nor do I wish their victims harm. As a Pysch major, specifically one who has entered public schools as an educator, I spend a good deal of time helping children work through problems... Now then, as to my original point. I was simply attempting to clarify what was actually said by the representative. Read my original post again, I said, quite clearly, I personally find his style over-the-top and offensive to some people. I only used Ann Coulter to point out that there is a horrible double standard (on both sides) of defending the side you agree with while attacking the side you disagree with. JDavidsonLeave a message ::BEEP:: 14:50, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
"he's going to do anything and everything to win the case for his client"
Wait, isn't that a lawyer's job? Liberal or conservative, a lawyer is charged with zealously defending his client. If you have more trials because of fewer opportunities for deals, you'll have more situations where a traumatized kid has to face a defense attorney who is obligated to impeach his testimony any way he can. Personally, I probably wouldn't have phrased it that way, nor do I agree with his position, but as I understand it, that was the point the man was trying to make.--Frey 14:47, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
If that particular individual never said or meant any such thing, then he wouldn't be on video saying it, it wouldn't make the news, the citation wouldn't be here, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Karajou 02:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
He said specifically that he "prefers child rapists walking about while their victims are cowering under the bed."? Must have have missed that part of the video. (I know, I know, too easy.)
I doubt he likes child rapists walking around free any more than any sane person does, it's just that in his opinion, the alternative would be worse.--Frey 23:28, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

<unindent> As the mother of four precious children the comments made by Rep Fagan were terrible to read (and hear) but hear them I must if I am to get beyond the words themselves and understand the point he was trying to make.
The Massachusetts legislature was debating an amendment to the so-called "Jessica's Law". The amendment in question dealt with mandatory minimum sentences for rapists whose victims are children. While that sounds like a good and wise thing to have on the books, Rep (and lawyer) Fagan was trying to show his colleagues what the practical upshot of mandatory minimum sentences would be: if a defendant is accused of raping a child, the District Attorney cannot offer a plea bargin since the (minimum) sentence is fixed. That means the accused will take his chances on a trial, meaning that the victim will now have to appear in court to tell what happened to them.
This is a traumatic event for an adult, even moreso for a child, (and note I'm only talking about the direct testimony here). Mr Fagan's remarks, as nasty as they are, are true! Any defense attorney worth his salt is going to defend his client to the utmost of his ability as he is ethically bound to do!
With this further trauma facing their child, many parents will, to save their offspring this pain, opt to have them not testify in the first place. Thus, the very law that would punish these monsters would, inadvertantly, allow more of them to walk scot to victimize another child or children.
Now, you may well disagree with this assessment, as is your right, but to denigrate the messenger for telling you that the well-meaning law will have the opposite effect it is intented to have seems as if we're relying too much on the viseral reactions of the messsage and not enough on the thoughts behind the message. Marge 01:09, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Abortion response videos online[edit] see season 2 episode 13 The abortion industry targets African-Americans and other minorities

Alveda King, the niece of Martin Luther King is interviewed

62% of Planned Parenthood locations are located in African-American neigborhoods, yet African-Americans make up 13% of the population, also 37% of abortions are done on African-Americans.

Since Roe vs Wade, 13 million abortions have been done on African-Americans.

also watch

-- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Watch 3:00 - 4:00

Could it possibly be that, rather than trying to target black people, they're putting clinics where they will the most successful? I will try to find the statistics, but African Americans are more likely to have an unwanted pregnancy, we're more likely to be in unstable relationships and more likely to be uninsured. To rephrase the situation, if statistics found that more sporting goods stores are in predominantly white areas, does that mean the store is targeting Caucasions for gun purchase? The problem here seems to be finding statistics that reaffirm your original view rather than interpreting the statistics as they come in JDavidsonLeave a message ::BEEP:: 17:58, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Margaret Sanger says in her own writings to target the African-American population through convincing their clergy to support her and her organization but to be careful to not let it get out that we want to exterminate them -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Billy Graham says in his own voice that he's an anti-semite, but we know that's not true of the organizations he has founded. It's a tricksy old world if we aren't careful. Aziraphale 11:46, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

I know this has been debated and debated over and over again, but I'll wade in again. While I don't argue that Sanger was incredibly racist and had underlying reasons for starting planned parenthood, however, we can't hold modern companies responsible for the outdated and incorrect beleifs of their founders. Shall we stop driving Fords because Henry Ford was anti-semetic and supported Hitler? Should we stop using electricity because Thomas Jefferson had interracial affairs with his slaves? Maybe we shouldn't vote Democrat or Republican because both parties have been endorsed by the KKK at one point in history. When you start making assumptions based on history that can't be veriified, you're leaving the world of observation and entering suspicion and justification JDavidsonLeave a message ::BEEP:: 12:47, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

You are missing the point the evidence shows that the multi-billion Abortion industry is still racist, actually watch the videos I listed -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

News: British judges attempt to bankrupt anti-Blasphemy campaigner[edit]

A British court has imposed punitive damages on Christian campaigner Stephen Green of Christian Voice, who attempted to sue the BBC Director-General and a production company boss for blasphemy over the screening of Jerry Springer - the Opera. Green commented: "It should be enough for Mark Thompson and Jonathan Thoday that they got away with blasphemy, insulting God and the Lord Jesus Christ, at least in this life. For these rich, powerful men to pursue me into the bankruptcy courts over money I don't have would be vindictive." Full story and petition link:

Bugler 08:38, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Doesn't seem especially harsh to me. He brought a court case, he lost, and so he has to pay costs. That's no different to any other legal case, as I understand it. Henry8th 18:56, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
This is somewhat different. It was a private criminal prosecution rather than a civil action and defence costs are typically not awarded against a private prosecutor unless they have acted improperly or vindictively. In this case Stephen Green was found to have acted improperly -- he had known that the prosecution had little chance of success but had pursued it as a publicity stunt. Jalapeno 23:17, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
Under English law, it's totally normal that Stephen Green was ordered to pay costs upon losing - English law has a well-established principle of "loser pays". (the damages weren't "punitive" in the legal sense either; he was simply told to pay the costs) He would surely have known that if his case was unsuccessful he would end up having to pay costs, and his legal advisors should have made that very clear to him. Whether or not he was being vindictive is irrelevant; it may be different in US law, but I know very little about that. Thus, I don't really see how the fact that the costs order was imposed is especially noteworthy. Henry8th 09:30, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
No only normal but fair. Let's say I sued Conservapedia for something, knowing that I was going to lose, and Conservapedia had to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in mounting a defence. Do you think it fair that I can do that, or that I should be made to pay Conservapedia's costs. Daphnea 11:15, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
If this were a civil case you would both be right, but this was a criminal case. Typically defence costs in failed private prosecutions are met from public funds; The bar for awarding costs against a private prosecutor is set higher since he is presumed to have no financial interest in the outcome. Jalapeno 12:00, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
The bigger issue is this: Why are people allowed to sue for... blasphemy? The case was ridiculous when it was brought, based on an old archaic law that should have been stricken from the books ages ago. The case was frivolous and without merit, in a free country, we cannot have blasphemy laws. In the west we don't have a theocracy anymore, so for someone to sue on old blasphemy (which last time I checked are still on the books in Michigan), is just plain stupid. I won't shed a tear for this fool. ---user:DLerner--- 23:57, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

So someone is a 'fool' for standing up for his faith against vile and vulgar abuse, and for expecting the law to be upheld? Maybe he is a 'fool' for expecting the law to be maintained by a blinkered, atheistic establishment - or maybe he is doing the right thing, attempting to apply the law where the state fails in its duty. Green should be lauded by all right-thinking men and women. Bugler 06:39, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

No, the proper way of doing it would have been to protest it, perhaps a boycott of the sponsors etc. What Green was doing was saying "they should be punished for making fun of my religion". Yes, the law was still on the books, but if you read carefully through the lawbooks you will find many silly, stupid or unfair laws that should not be practiced in a modern society. Blasphemy is a crime, but one against God not the state, (or in Christian terms "Caesar"). The state should not have blasphemy laws on the books, period. Did Green have the right to protest what he found offensive? Absolutely. Should he have challenged it in the courts? No. Is he now getting his just desserts? Yes. That's my take. ---user:DLerner--- 08:22, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
Blasphemy is a crime, but one against God not the state, (or in Christian terms "Caesar") That is one interpretation; but the state exists through the grace and protection of God, and the Godly role is recognised, for example, in the Coronation ceremony (in the UK) and in the official US motto 'In God We Trust'. To attack God is to attack humanity, God's creation, as well, which is why blasphemy laws have existed and ought, in my view, to be earnestly applied and not abolished. Bugler 08:35, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
Well, certain religions (and certain sects within Christianity [according to some Christians. As a Jew I haven't the slightest interest in the "Who are the real Christians" argument]) have prayers that would be interpreted by others as blasphemy. So, if we are to have state-sanctioned blasphemy laws, who gets to set what is blasphemous? Roman Catholics? Lutherans? Orthodox Judaism? I remember adding to the Blasphemy article a while back links to the general laws of Massachusetts and Michigan where they still have blasphemy laws on the books. Should I as someone who doesn't believe in Jesus -and is a former resident of both of those states- have my free speech impaired because it may offend? ---user:DLerner--- 08:44, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
And while you lived in Massachusetts and Michigan did you feel that your freedoms were impaired? You don't come across as the kind of person likely to go about the place hurling insults at God and outraging public feeling of what is decent, and thus falling within the remit of any such laws. And blasphemy laws do not preclude - indeed they may assist - mutual respect for religious feeling manifested in different ways. Bugler 08:51, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
No, but the law isn't only there for pleasant people like you and I. (and BTW, I'm an ordained Rabbi, so "hurling insults against God" is something most people in shul frown on...:), it's there for the a******es who do mouth off. That's what the First Amendment is all about. As an afterthought allow me to quote from "The Author's apology" preface to G.B. Shaw's "Mrs. Warren's Profession": All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current concepts, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently the first condition of progress is the removal of censorships. There is the whole case against censorships in a nutshell.
Oh, I agree that Stephen Green deserves little sympathy for for the fact that he has to pay the costs of those caught up in his publicity stunt -- any competent lawyer would have advised him this was the likely outcome. FWIW the act that abolishes the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel in England and Wales comes into effect in a fortnight's time. Jalapeno 01:53, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Atheistic British Schools[edit]

The Yorkshire Post article cited in the news segment on teen drunkenness in England, Scotland, and Wales makes no mention of religion in its analysis of teen behavior. The reference to the U.K.'s "atheistic" school system is therefore unneccesary and insinuates a correlation between religion and responsible behavior that is in no way supported by the article. --ConcernedModerate

Just because the article doesn't say it doesn't mean it isn't true. Aziraphale 11:40, 27 June 2008 (EDT) <-saving someone else the trouble...
Not only does the article not say it, it isn't true. Britain has some of the most religious schools in the whole of Europe. Many public schools are run by the Church of England. Christian education is common. Prayer in schools is permitted, and until only about ten years ago was compulsory. This compares with countries like France where public education is explicitly and by law secular. I already complained about this on the "In the News" talk page, but nobody responded. Being wrong is clearly not viewed as badly here as being liberal. Daphnea 11:12, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
I pointed this out four days ago but nobody has done anything about it. Daphnea 11:18, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
Daphnea, there is no need for your last two sentences, which were intemperate and ill-mannered. As for religion in UK schools, it is for the most part a fig leaf. The act of worship decreed by the 1944 Education Act is for the most part interpreted as a 'social studies' lecture, invariably from a left-of-centre political stance. As for 'prayer being permitted', can you give examples of schools that conduct classroom prayer or encourage students to pray at the start of a lesson? Bugler 11:21, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
I pointed this out four days ago but nobody has done anything about it. You appear to think that everyone on Conservapedia should drop what they are doing and rush to respond the moment you make one of your endless comments, complaints and questions. Bugler 11:24, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Bugler, I can give you two examples of state schools in the UK which conduct classroom prayer: my primary school, and my secondary school. I only left school three years ago, and my brother still attends the same school. Ofsted, the school inspectors, penalises schools which don't provide adequate religious instruction. Also, I wish Conservapedians would stop confusing 'atheistic' with 'secular'. They are not the same thingLiberalnproud

Hello! I bet you're all delighted to see me after such a long absense. Okay, so from what I gather, the argument here is that since British schools have stopped enforced religion, drunken and poor behaviour have increased amongst teenagers. Basically stated, Atheistic schools do not provide the discipline children and teenagers need. Firstly, in response to the question from Bugler 'can you give examples of schools that conduct classroom prayer or encourage students to pray at the start of a lesson?' I answer that no, I can't. However, my own school for a matter of fact was mainly Catholic. We had assemblies every couple of days, in which the non-Catholic members of the school community would sit out our prayer time. I personally rebelled against this enforced faith, which was the anti-thesis of everything I believed in an 'enlightened society'. So, from my personal experience, schools do still practice religion, though members of non-Christian faiths are permitted not to attend (this did not include those of us who did not have a stated religion).

My second point, and perhaps the stronger objection to the idea as a whole, is that in the last 20 years - since state school religion was reduced - the grades teenagers acheive have actually gone up; a record 62% of teenagers achieved 5 GCSEs grades A-C last year compared with 44% a decade earlier and 26% ten years before that. Teenagers in Britain are actually more likely to do voluntary work than any other generation, and are 10 times more likely to volunteer in communities than be responsible for anti-social behaviour. More teenagers than ever stay at school after they're 16, and more still stay on to do further or higher education. Young people are far more likely to say England is a good place to grow up (90%) than adults (71%), and yet it is young people who are the most likely to be victims of crime. Finally, nearly two-thirds of 10-to-15-year-olds have helped raise money for charity and 175,000 under 18-year-olds are unpaid carers in the UK with some 13,000 providing more care than a full-time job (50+ hours). So, all in all, the young people of Britain are actually helpful, hardworking, kind, caring individuals in general. Will you still argue that the behaviour of young people has been changed because of Atheism? Because if it has, I can only see it as a good thing for the majority, who value their community. Entheogenicorder

Dumbing Down of Public Schools[edit]

A headline on the front page reads: "And the dumbing-down continues in public schools, as the kids struggle to learn the math from teachers who can't teach it". This headline talks about a problem in public schools, but neglects to mention the obvious role that athiesm and lack of school prayer play in this and every other problem. This should be fixed immediately. --MichaelK 11:24, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

What is your proposed wording? --Ed Poor Talk 22:42, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
Our school continues to suffer poor grades in math and other subjects, even as prayer is allowed during a daily moment of silence. I can really see no correlation between a school's performance and the presence of school prayer, and unless you have evidence to support such a claim, then the headline should remain as it is. --ConcernedModerate

News: Socialism is crumbling in Britain[edit]

Socialism is crumbling in Britain. On Thursday, the ruling Labour Party candidate came fifth in a parliamentary bye-election - beaten even by the Green Party and the neo-Nazi British National Party (the Conservative Party candidate was a resounding victor) And today, the leader of the Labour Party in Scotland, Wendy Alexander, has been forced to resign after the exposure of 'irregularities' in party donations. Bugler 15:03, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Where was the by-election? -- Ferret Nice old chat 17:49, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
Henley on Thames Bugler 17:58, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
How would you describe Henley, politically? -- Ferret Nice old chat 18:03, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
I can see what you are getting at. Henley is 'true blue', and no-one would have expected a Labour victory. Of course. But for Labour to come not a poor third, or fourth, but fifth, behind sandal-wearing tree-huggers and foaming-at-the-mouth neo-Nazis does indicate strongly that the party is in a state of incipient electoral collapse. No wonder they are too cowardly to put up a candidate against David Davis. Bugler 18:07, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
Thanks. I don't disagree with you in regards to the current fortunes of the Labour Party, but a by-election in Henley is not a good litmus test and it was a bit mischievous to present it as such. The Scotland news is much more significant. If I was feeling argumentative I might disagree with your claim that socialism is crumbling - in my view it died a death in the UK after the 1992 general election. -- Ferret Nice old chat 18:15, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
By the way, it was heartening to see a Sysop senior editor describe the BNP as foaming-at-the-mouth neo-Nazis. They haven't always got such a bad press here. Please spread the word! -- Ferret Nice old chat 18:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
a by-election in Henley is not a good litmus test and it was a bit mischievous to present it as such Had they come even a poor third, I would agree with you - but FIFTH - behind the Greens and the BNP? Surely, by any standards, even in Henley, that is a disastrous showing. As for the BNP being foaming neo-Nazis, well, I was brought up to tell the truth. Bugler 18:26, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
Not really. At the Liverpool Walton by election in 1991, the Tories fell from 14.4% of the vote at the 1987 general election to 2.9% at the by-election, beating the Monster Raving Loony Party by 600 votes. Six out of seven Walton Tory voters in 1987 didn't vote for them in 1991. The following year the Conservatives won the general election, and were back up to 12.5% in Walton. -- Ferret Nice old chat 18:48, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

There the Tory came fourth, after Labour, Lib Dem and a credible local independent Labour candidate, not fifth after two fringe parties. Bugler 18:53, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

The only candidates the Tories beat in Walton were the Monster Raving Loony Party person and an independent who received 63 votes! That by-election was every bit as bad, on paper, as the Henley result. But it counted for nothing the following year. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that the Labour Party is staring down the barrel. -- Ferret Nice old chat 19:05, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
Well, as the '92 election showed, there are lies, damned lies, and psephology. But Gordo is doomed nonetheless. Anyway, it's a quarter past midnight here so I'm off for some sleep. Bugler 19:15, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
As Ferret said: there are plenty of reasons to think that the Labour party won't be in power for too much longer, but a poor showing in a bye-election for the incredibly safe Tory seat of Henley is far from the best example one could pick. Especially given that Harriet Harman (deputy Labour leader and "equality minister") decided to pick the day of the bye-election to announce new legislation that would permit positive discrimination towards women and ethnic minorities, thus alienating the few working class men in Henley who might traditionally vote Labour. Henry8th 19:47, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

I find it interesting you call this the crumbling of Socialism in Britain. Have a look at the political compass analysis of the parties. You have three with right-wing economic policies Labour, Lib-Democrates and Conservatives; and two with left-wing BNP and the Greens. If anything this says people are abandoning Labour for the two actual left-wing (economically) parties, spliting the vote and handing victory to the Conservatives. DanielB 19:58, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Hello, Quick note to say it's 'bi-election' not 'bye election'. Kacey G 20:51, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

The Henley by-election is significant not because of the poor showing by Labour -- it would be hard to find a seat less favourable for them -- but because of the Lib Dems failed to take advantage of the third-party squeeze. This is just as important to the Conservatives' electoral strategy as the decline in the Labour vote. Jalapeno 02:41, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

You do realise that Labour has a hugely unpopular leader and has been in power for three terms already? You think that maybe the constant fiascos (Iraq, pensions, Northern Rock...) have more to do with recent electoral difficulties than "the Fall of Socialism". KarlJaeger 15:45, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Lenski Comments in News Posting[edit]

In the interest of accuracy and fairness, the following section of the news posting on the Lenski issue needs to be revised or removed:

"Also, his defenders all but concede that no meaningful peer review of Lenski's paper occurred in the mere 14 days that his paper was supposedly being reviewed prior to publication."

There is no specific quote by anyone on that page agreeing with Andrew Schlafly on that point. The closest reference I can find is this one from user Argon:

"The paper is straightforward and the data clear. Lenski's work is well known within the microbiology community and therefore much of the preceding information is already generally understood (i.e. reviewers don't need to dig through all the references). I can see it sailing through review.--Argon 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)"

One person is not "his defenders", and no reasonable person would equate saying that the paper sailed through the review process because it contained clear, straightforward data as being the same as there being no meaningful peer review. Unless I've missed something on the Lenski Talk page, this main page News posting is an inaccurate distortion of someone's words, and needs to be corrected ASAP. If I'm wrong, I'll be the first to apologize on this page if presented with specific quotes from multiple Lenski defenders that support the News item. Thanks. --DinsdaleP 16:17, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Virtually all of Lenski's defenders here concede, expressly or tacitly, that the peer reviewers probably did not look at any of the underlying data, and as quoted above one of Lenski's leading defenders implies that Lenski's paper was accepted without much questioning or skepticism. No one has seriously argued that thorough, painstaking peer review likely occurred in a 14-day period that included time for communications (possibly postal mail) to and from reviewers, who of course likely have full time jobs of their own. All this amply supports the headline.--Aschlafly 16:42, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
With respect, your response does not adequately explain why the news comment is not a misrepresentation of the Lenski Talk page contents. Your specific use of words like "virtually", "tacitly", "probably", "implied", and so on are carefully chosen to create an impression that's different from what Lenski's defenders are actually stating. Several of the Lenski defenders have pointed out that the peer review process does not necessarily require deep-dives into lab notebooks, gene sequences and such to be meaningful, and you're twisting these statements into a non-existent agreement with your assertion that the peer review was inadequate or improperly performed.
I don't care if I get another 90/10 block like I did last week for speaking out against this kind of bias regarding Professor Lenski - I'm speaking about accuracy and fairness, and am standing on firm ground. If you want to cite support for your anti-Lenksi assertions from editors like Larry Farma, please do so since that's the truth. It reflects poorly on this site, though, to pretend that "his defenders all but concede that no meaningful peer review of Lenski's paper occurred", based on your use of wordplay instead of actual, specific quotes from the majority of his defenders which would support the News headline. --DinsdaleP 17:01, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
Peer review is not Replication. It's just a couple of other fellows taking a glance at your paper; it has nothing to do with saying that you are right. It's only a way of trying to keep obvious errors out of journals.
Liberals, however, are fond of trumpeting anything "peer reviewed" as being the latest and greatest. This is a superficial view, and is susceptible to abuse. It takes several months (at least) to be sure that a new discovery is valid. --Ed Poor Talk 16:48, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
Your point, Ed, would then support my assertion that the CP news headline is a misrepresentation of what Lenski's defenders stated on the talk page. If peer review is no big deal, then there's no problem with it taking place in a 14-day period while still being meaningful. None of the Lenski defenders ever stated that the review was not meaningful, only that they agree it took place with the disclosed timeframe. --DinsdaleP 17:06, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
(Interjecting) You have misconstrued my point; I said exactly the opposite: that the peer review was not meaningful. If you can't understand simple English, I don't trust you to understand complex scientific talk. Godspeed. --Ed Poor Talk 22:28, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
My apologies, Ed, for misconstruing your point. I mistook your statement that the Lenski peer review was not meaningful to mean that peer review in general is not generally meaningful in terms of the degree of scientific scrutiny applied. That was not the case, and I stand corrected - you are clearly in the group of individuals who believe that the review of Lenski's paper was not meaningful. I would have said so sooner, but you decided that I was somehow twisting your words inappropriately instead of simply misunderstanding them, and handed me a 3-day block without warning. I have no problem admitting my mistakes, and will always do so when they're pointed out, and will even do so when insulted and blocked over them. --DinsdaleP 22:42, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
The average length of peer review for PNAS, based on a sample, is over 120 days. Yet Lenski's paper was accepted after no more than 14 days in peer review. That sharp contrast speaks volumes about the bias in the so-called peer review process at PNAS.--Aschlafly 19:32, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
How do you know the paper was not reviewed by the Editor in Chief himself? Papers with such an important claim usually are. Watson and Crick's paper was handballed staight through peer review. Are you now going to go back and ask for the release of their data? DanielB 20:03, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
One of the reasons that peer review often takes a while is because the referees make numerous comments and suggestions, and the authors will then take their time to carefully address the issues raised (and then the work is returned to the referees to see if the modifications are acceptable, leading to further delay). However, if the original work is of sufficiently high quality that the referees ask for no modifications, the process becomes much faster. Also, there is typically a delay of months from when a paper is submitted to when it is sent for review, simply because journals have a significant number of papers to assess. If a paper is viewed as being especially important or significant, the editor may choose to move it to the head of the queue. I don't claim to be an expert on peer review, but I have co-authored a number of scientific papers that have gone through the peer review process, which I suspect is substantially more experience than many of the people commenting on peer review here have. Henry8th 20:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for trying to talk down to us, "Henry8th", but I've peer-reviewed many papers myself. Suffice it to say that you, DanielB and DinsdaleP are awfully naive if you don't think bias played a role in the absurdly quick "peer review" of Lenski's paper.--Aschlafly 20:34, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
So that is it? There is bias in the review process so you don't have to take the paper seriously. Well it is a neat little fix all to things that disagree with you. Peer review has many aspects to it. If this was for a confrence then the peer-review is very quick (The paper I have in confrence proceedings were reviewd in this time scale). As for journals if the paper was error free, the reviewers read it quickly (if I was a paper reviewer and I recieved a paper with such bold cliams I would sit down and read it straight way) and the editor was happy with it there is no reason it should take months. From my experience the longer a paper takes the more likly it is to get rejected. DanielB 20:41, 28 June 2008 (EDT)


Andy, you make two claims that require some qualifications. I would appreciate your response on these matters:

1. You call a 14-day review "absurdly quick". Let me tell you that is not the case. These days, author submit papers online, and are downloaded by the reviewers immediately. There is not snail mail involved. So the 14-day period is normal. Second, you yourself mention "The average length of peer review for PNAS, based on a sample, is over 120 days"; that is an average, meaning some papers are reviewed faster and some slower. Your claim that 14-day is too fast is like saying that, because the median income in the USA is 40,000, an income of 400,000 is absurdly high, hence likely a lie.

2. You also say "I've peer-reviewed many papers myself". I am surprised to hear that, given that all I found in your biography was "editor of the Harvard Law Review". Editor and academic involved in peer review are not the same thing. I'd be curious to see what venue you reviewed papers for: year, issue. Could you give us a list, or could you point to a section in your notarized CV, where you list your activities as a reviewer, not editor ? --EileenT


My point at the start of this thread had nothing to do with whether or not the length of the Lenski paper peer review was adequate or not. It was that the News summary made a false claim that "...his defenders all but concede that no meaningful peer review of Lenski's paper occurred in the mere 14 days that his paper was supposedly being reviewed prior to publication." There are no specific comments in the Lenski Talk page to support that statement, and I asked that it either be revised/removed, or supporting statements be provided. My point has yet to be addressed in a straightforward manner, and I'm not distracted by these tangents or ad hominem accusations of being naive.

Conservapedia cannot be considered trustworthy if its leadership is not willing to correct misleading statements when presented with factual evidence to the contrary. I presented my objection professionally, and asked that the News statement be corrected or specific evidence to show it was not misleading be provided. No quotes of Lenski supporters conceding that the peer review process was not meaningful were provided, because none exist. This makes the News statement a falsehood, and it needs to be revised or removed ASAP. If I am wrong, please show me the specific quotes and I'll promptly apologize on this thread. --DinsdaleP 21:08, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

DinsdaleP is correct. As one of Lenski's defenders I say the paper was meaningfully peer reviewed. DanielB 21:21, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
I wasn't attempting to talk down to anybody, "Aschlafly", but if you wish to feel talked down to that's your prerogative. Do you deny that the majority of people here (or, indeed, the majority of people in any community) don't have first-hand experience of the peer review process? I was trying to shed a little light on it for those without experience. Also, perhaps the details of how peer review is carried out vary from field to field, and from journal to journal. I'll join the list: I also believe that Lenski's paper was meaningfully peer reviewed. Henry8th 06:06, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
Adopting such an aggressive tone will do you no favours here, Henry8th. Place your arguments like a civilised person, if possible. Bugler 06:29, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
Bulger isn't this a fundamental problem though, he might not be writting aggressive tones, but you might be reading aggressive tones? DanielB 06:45, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
I certainly hadn't intended to be aggressive, and I apologise if anyone interpreted what I said as being aggressive. Perhaps you can tell me what you found to be aggressive, so I know for future reference. Henry8th 06:54, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

The3 first sentence of your response to, and your sarcastic use of inverted commas around the name of ASchlafly. It is he to whom you should be apologising, though. Bugler 07:00, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

How is me pointing out that Andy might have misinterpreted my original message aggressive? And, sarcastic use? I didn't see any sarcastic use. I was merely responding to him in the same manner he responded to me. Is it another written rule that Andy can put inverted commas around someone's name but no-one else can? Henry8th 07:09, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
So you admit that your use of inverted commas was aggressive, because you perceived Mr Schlafly's use of them in that light. And your use was 'tit for tat', according to your view of the situation. So your denial of intended aggression is worthless, really, isn't it? Bugler 07:16, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
Please point out where I claimed that Andy was being aggressive. I said I responded in the same manner, but nowhere have I said he was being aggressive. Being very hypothetical here, me saying "if you come near me I'll smash your face in" is aggressive. Me saying "Aschlafly" isn't aggressive. Can you see the difference there? Henry8th 07:18, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
Frankly, if I were you, I'd stop digging. And one can be aggressive - through tone of voice, through sarcastic use of inverted commas, etc - without making threats of physical violence. Bugler 07:50, 29 June 2008 (EDT)


EileenT asked a couple of questions a little further up the page. They appear to have been missed as a result of the conversation becoming side-tracked somewhat. I would also be interested in the answers. In particular I would be interested in knowing for whom/which journal Aschlafly was undertaking the peer review role. --DenningMR 23:19, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

I would too. To add something else I would like to know the specifics of your peer reviewing Mr. Schlafly. How long did it take on average? How long did the fastest paper you peer reviewed take? Please respond. Rellik 14:41, 30 June 2008 (EDT)


I'm mostly a passerby, but I have to say that the news item is misleading. "Lenski's defenders concede" made me think that several of the scientists at the journal in question conceded that their review process was flawed: a major boost to your case. The grandiose claim turned out to be that you feel you got the better of them on an Internet debate? That's hardly newsworthy— it's actually rather petty! Fishal 10:35, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

I can see your argument here, but I don't think you should be so snide with your remarks. I think you could have expressed your sentiment without words like "grandiose" and petty. --Humble 19:36, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Fishal, the term "Lenski's defenders" is clear enough, and does not imply a co-author on the paper.--Aschlafly 19:39, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Not a co-author; it sounded like one of the reviewers. I had just assumed that the news section was for newsworthy events, not the internal news from the site... or for declaring victory in ongoing discussions. Fishal 20:35, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Who on the boards conceded? And what did they concede? Apologies, but the Lenski debate has grown to the point that I just don't have the time or desire to comb through it daily. --RobinGoodfellow 15:14, 1 July 2008 (EDT)


Just came across this, which might be newsworthy for the main page. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has signed the "Louisiana Science Education Act" which seems to allow local school boards to approve supplemental classroom materials specifically for the critique of scientific theories. --JessicaTOhayo gozaimasu! 21:17, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

This bill is just fluff... it doesn't really do much. Bibles obviously will still not be allowed in classrooms, and as the article quotes "Someone who uses materials to inject religion into the classroom is not only violating the Constitution, they are violating the bill." I wouldn't get too excited about this. Homeschooling is still the best option for Louisiana kids. --Humble 19:47, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Wesley Clark[edit]

Should there be something in the news section about Clark's attacks on McCain's military service? Link --WillH 13:51, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

I added some more to the Wesley Clark article about this. Perhaps that article should be expanded? I don't know whether this really belongs on the main page considering that neither Obama (obviously!) nor McCain are conservatives, so no need to defend McCain here (I fully respect his patriotic military service though, of course). --Humble 19:34, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

To both of you: When adding claims to an article, also cite sources, please! It should be easy for you (since you must have had the source at hand when editing the article) while people like me have to hunt around for evidence of unsourced claims. --KevinM 19:38, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Based on my understanding were not an attack on McCain's military service, rather they said they don't automatically make him qualified to be President. in fact he clearly said at the time "I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war." ---user:DLerner--- 00:15, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Completely inappropriate entry on the news template[edit]

Since when is public denunciation an acceptable practice? The main page should not be a substitute for stocks.GlenW 20:00, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Sometimes responses have been properly placed on the front page, as in this instance. By the way, your reference to "stocks" is bizarre.--Aschlafly 20:03, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
Is there a link or a reference for the item on the main page? Usually there's a link to follow for more information, but this one seems somewhat out-of-the-blue. --Jareddr 20:05, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
I could post his entire emails, but I doubt that is necessary and they do not add much to what is already posted.--Aschlafly 20:07, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
Thank you, that's the information I was looking for---this happened via private e-mail. Wasn't sure if this was on a talk page or an article, etc. --Jareddr 20:21, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafly, it is completely unprofessional to have that on the main page. Is this what you teach your students? Honestly.... Also: Stocks: (n.) a former instrument of punishment consisting of a framework with holes for securing the ankles and, sometimes, the wrists, used to expose an offender to public derision. Compare pillory (def. 1).GlenW 20:09, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
Without taking sides: It does look quite petty and absolutely misplaced in the section "In the News". Also, I suggested to get rid of the table because the page slowly evolved into a debate, and the side-by-side table isn't the most fortunate style for such a format. See the Lenski talk page. --KevinM 20:10, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
Well, the section is called "In the News", not "The News" so I don't think a reader's expectation is to get purely news items there. Lenski is certainly "in the news" so I think an item related to him, if important enough, is fine being on the main page. --Humble 20:50, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
So you're basically saying that, because the guy whose CP article contains a certain table is "In the News", a private mail about the table from somebody apparently not actually related to Lenski's work... qualifies as "In the News"? --KevinM 21:07, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
Yes, because it's all related and show how liberals are trying to suppress any criticism of evolution (Lenski, in this case) in any way they can. They couldn't accomplish their goal via civilized debate, so now they're trying to take down Conservapedia pages under any pretext they can. It's important to show what they're doing, and not just stand idly by. --Humble 22:19, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
Whoah, hey there, there's a pretty big difference between removing a template (which others have already said is the wrong kind for what is intended) and taking down an entire page. ZTak 22:21, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
Ok, so perhaps I got a little carried away there (I apologize), but I think you know what I'm getting at... it starts with one thing (demand to remove a template), and if successful, would undoubtedly proceed to the next level. A good analogy here is gun control. Liberals claim to "only" want to pass some gun control legislation, but once they pass one restrictive law, they then proceed to try passing another, and so on, with their ultimate goal being the abolishment of the 2nd amendment. --Humble 22:53, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Hollywood values, really?[edit]

Good lord! Imagine that! A woman getting pregnant who is only three years over the age of consent! And unwed too! That never, ever happened before Hollywood. No, sir! I bet no one not a celebrity or reality show reject pseudo-celebrity has ever become pregnant before their 20th birthday. --Taciturn 20:59, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly[edit]

You appear to have overlooked the questions posted above by EileenT, Rellik and me. --DenningMR 21:01, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

If I were ASchlafly I would ignore your flamewar-baiting questions too. Asking things about Mr. Schlafly's peer reviewing and about irrelevant details like "How long did the fastest paper you peer reviewed take?" is not productive. It's not Mr. Schafly that's under scrutiny here - it's Lenski. --Humble 22:12, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
Humble is indeed right. Aschlafly is not obligated to respond to trolling. HenryS 22:21, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for your input Humble and HenryS. I must respectfully disagree, however. My post had nothing to do with "flamewar-baiting" (whatever that is) or with trolling. Aschlafly has challenged the peer review of Lenski's work and, as a part of that challenge, has cited his own experience in peer reviewing. It is not disrespectful or even surprising that several editors then ask for details of what that experience was. I am sorry that you have taken it the wrong way. The question remains on the table. --DenningMR 22:26, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
I answered on my talk page. In my experience an article having the extraordinary claims of Lenski's paper takes many weeks, if not months, of peer review to do a thorough job. I've been involved in quicker peer reviews for less significant claims, but that is hardly relevant.--Aschlafly 22:30, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
You didn't answer on your talk page. You said that Rellik had not provided a link so you didn't know what he was referencing. He, along with EileenT and myself were referring to this claim. We would all like to know what your peer reviewing experience is. We mean no disrespect, but you are using your peer reviewing experience (repeatedly) to butress your position that the review of Lenski's work was deficient. In that light it seems a reasonable request. --DenningMR 22:50, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
P.S. Upon rereading the above I see where there might be a misunderstanding. We were not asking whether your experience indicated to you that the peer review of Lenski's work was too quick. We were asking for details of what you had peer reviewed and for whom. --DenningMR 23:08, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
We can only be taken seriously if we can substantiate our claims and acknowledge our mistakes. In fact, commandment #1 reads "Everything you post must be true and verifiable". That is why I posted some clarifications myself, and asked Andy to provide more info on his reviewing activities, so we leave readers the impression we are serious. Andy's comment was, and I quote "Thanks for trying to talk down to us, "Henry8th", but I've peer-reviewed many papers myself. Suffice it to say that you, DanielB and DinsdaleP are awfully naive if you don't think bias played a role in the absurdly quick "peer review" of Lenski's paper.--Aschlafly 20:34, 28 June 2008 (EDT)". Andy, your cooperation is appreciated, and would help strengthen Conservapedia's credibility. EileenT 23:37, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
Folks, you're barking up the wrong tree. I refuted an attempt to talk down to us. I never asked anyone to believe me based on my experience and your obsession has taken on an inappropriate life of its own. I have participated in blind peer review and that implies not bragging about the specific name of the publication(s). Now run along and contribute something substantive.--Aschlafly 23:18, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
I've been wondering this for a while. Are you a closet liberal? Because right now you are a perfect example of liberal style numbers 10, 11, 17, 18, 19, 21, 27, 30, and 42. Are you going to answer the question or not? SugarCup 00:00, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
Aschlafly, I can understand your reluctance to brag about your experience. However, as I pointed out above, you have repeatedly used youe peer reviewing experience to support your claim that the peer review of Lenski's work was deficient because it was "absurdly quick". Surely this site owes it to those whom it criticises, to properly support such assertions. I do not see why you cannot name the publication, so long as you do not name the specific work that you reviewed. Certainly you could reveal the research area of the work reviewed (molecular biology, quantum physics, inorganic chemistry etc). And surely there could be no objection to revealing the number of peer reviews that you have undertaken (if it is in the hundreds, no doubt a rough estimate would suffice). As EileenT pointed out, this is a matter of strengthening Conservapedia's credibility. Please set aside your understandable reluctance to brag for the good of this project. --DenningMR 00:14, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
I made no claim based on personal experience or credential. Liberals argue that way, not conservatives. Lenski's peer review was absurdly quick based on a review of PNAS average peer review times, which anyone can do, and also common sense. I know you'll insist, as all liberals do, on last wordism here, but don't misrepresent my position and don't beat a dead horse.--Aschlafly 00:19, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps you could silence the peanut gallery by giving the dogs a link to the source for average PNAS peer review times. SSpade 00:21, 2 July 2008 (EDT)


Aschlafly, you are mistaken. You did make claims based on personal experience. They were as follows:

...I've peer-reviewed many papers myself. ...--Aschlafly 20:34, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
...In my experience an article having the extraordinary claims of Lenski's paper takes many weeks, if not months, of peer review to do a thorough job. I've been involved in quicker peer reviews for less significant claims, but that is hardly relevant.--Aschlafly 22:30, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
...I've served as a blind peer reviewer also over the years.--Aschlafly 18:56, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I am not saying that you cannot make such claims, but, having made them and having criticised Lenski based on them, are you not duty bound, when asked, to reveal what your experience is? You are behaving as if I am trying to badger you or criticise you. Nothing could be further from the truth. I want to protect the credibility of this project by ensuring that the basis for criticisms levelled at third parties is clear for all to see.

This horse isn't dead yet. The best and easiest way to kill it would be to answer the question. --DenningMR 00:45, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Your posts are becoming disruptive. See your talk page. Bugler 05:31, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
Bugler let Mr. Schlafly give specifics for once. In all my time on conservapedia I have never seen him answer a question with anything more than general statements, and trying to end the debate by either claiming the other person is guilty of liberal deceit or saying last wordism. I am interested in knowing, as are many others, what Mr. Schlafly peer reviewed. Mr. Schlafly this is aimed at you. What exactly did you peer review? Rellik 15:17, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
I expressly stated in the quotes above that the peer reviews done by me are "hardly relevant," so obviously I'm not going to continue to encourage the senseless comments about it. Put your spare time to better use: explain why Lenski won't make public the taxpayer-funded data that underlie his public claims. Liberal attempts at last wordism that divert attention from the main issue are disfavored.--Aschlafly 15:40, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
It's obvious: if he conceals data and/or methods, no one can prove him wrong. We just have to take his word for it all, as with global warming's hockey stick graph. It was used by Michael Mann to argue that the Medieval Warm Period didn't exist and that 1999 was the "warmest year on record". When Mann was finally compelled to reveal his data and methods, it turned out that his computer program ALWAYS produced a "hockey stick" shaped graph. What a cheater!
But thank God for Replication of results, or where would science be now? Still in the dark ages, where doctors would bleed a sick patient - which never cured you but just made you weaker. --Ed Poor Talk 15:46, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
Ed, are you being intentionally ironic here? MarieB 16:22, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
You are encouraging these "senseless comments" by not giving a straight answer. Oh yes last wordism your effort to stifle debate by both painting the dissenting contributor as a juvenile debater and as a liberal. You know nothing about me so I encourage you to keep your last wordism to yourself. Back on topic though. To end this you have two options either block me and everyone else who is asking about your peer reviewing experience, or give an honest answer. I would prefer if you went with the easier route. Rellik 16:16, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
I have blocked 'killer': this hysterical rant was the last straw. Bugler 16:26, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
Good riddance! --Humble 17:11, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
yes, thank you for turning the volume down on the hysteria. Now it's easier for simple requests for information to be answered - like the specifics of aschlafly's peer review participation. This is straight-forward information that should take next to no time to provide and will put the braying liberals in their place. Given the energy spent doing exactly that, this seems like a great ROI opportunity! Aziraphale 18:00, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
Ugh... another wise guy. You people just won't give up huh? You didn't even bother reading what was already said - Aschlafly explained that "I have participated in blind peer review and that implies not bragging about the specific name of the publication(s)." --Humble 19:08, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
I'm not sure about the other members of "you people," but this people read everything and notes that aschlafly's motivation (bragging, explanation, self-censure, you name it) may be interesting but is in no way an answer to a request for specifics about the peer reviews (blind or otherwise) that he has participated in. The next time I'm asked something I consider pointless or inappropriate... say, my stance on a tangentially-related political issue, will it be sufficient in Aschlafly's eyes for me to say "I didn't mean for the conversation to go there, so let's move on?"
For the new folks joining in, let me help: no, it won't. Dodging like this would earn scorn and ridicule from him, and everything I tried to say afterward would be met with

"you still haven't answered my questions about [chimps in church or whatever]. Until you are prepared to answer that question, this conversation is a waste of my time."

How is this Lenski situation now not similarly a waste of everyone's time, since the key participant won't actually engage in a genuine conversation? Aziraphale 10:55, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
Goodness gracious! I am not sure why people are becoming quite so aggressive. Humble and Bugler, you appear to have misconstrued my purpose. I seek to ensure that this site remains a credible resource. It cannot be so if claims used here to criticise others are not properly substantiated. I did not set out to cause unrest and angst. You both appear to have gotten the wrong end of the stick. And as for blocking Rellik for asking that a question be answered, well, that seems quite extraordinary to me. I agree that he got a bit overexcited in his language but, I have to admit, it has been a seemingly unnecessarily lengthy process and some allowance should be made for his frustration.
I would like to make a brief response to a couple of matters raised above. Firstly, I note that Humble repeated Aschlafly's quote about not bragging. Humble, you should read my response to that above. There is no reason that the publication cannot be named. I agree, however, that the particular work should not be named. Secondly, Aschlafly, you referred to a part of one of the quotes that I reproduced above. You said that you had stated that the peer reviews done by you were hardly relevant. That is not so. The sentence (in full) was: "I've been involved in quicker peer reviews for less significant claims, but that is hardly relevant". Are you now saying that all of the peer reviews in which you have been involved were "quicker peer reviews for less significant claims"? I did not take that to be your meaning.
Now, Aschlafy, I am sure that you must fully understand my original request (and that of EileenT and Rellik) by this point in time. I am also sure that it would be a very easy matter for you to set the record straight and restore credibility to the debate on this site in relation to the "peer review" (your inverted commas) of Lenski's work. I apologise if anything I have said above has been misconstrued as any sort of attack on you. I had no such intention.
I eagerly await your response. --DenningMR 22:49, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
I find it hard to believe that you so eagerly "seek to ensure that this site remains a credible resource." It seems your only contributions thus far have been regarding the Lenski dialog, and mostly just on these talk pages! Being a brand new member of Conservapedia, your supposed efforts to protect this site's reputation are questionable. --Humble 23:08, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
I see that the term "blind peer review" is misunderstood and, regrettably, misused. Since this is an encyclopedia, let us set the record straight on how the blind peer review process works, and why Andy's and Humble's non-disclosure arguments do not hold water.
Here we go: Author A submits a paper to a venue (journal/conference). The chair of that venue selects reviewers X, Y, Z to review the paper submitted by A. If this is a blind review, A does not know who has reviewed the paper. If this is a double-blind review, X, Y, and Z do not know this is a paper by A. If this is an open-process, both the author and the referees know each other's names. Now, being one of X, Y, Z is quite prestigious, especially for selective venues. So academics list this fact on their CVs. Moreover, venues publish their pool of reviewers (sometimes called reviewer board, sometimes called editorial board, sometimes called program committee). Venues publish the reviewers list to ensure the authors that highly-qualified scientists are going to review their work, and also to keep up the reputation of that venue. There is no secrecy as to who has reviewed papers for a certain issue/conference, etc. The only thing kept secret is, as I said, who exactly has been in charge of what paper.
So there you have it. I think this helps shed some light on the process. To conclude,
1) I see absolutely no reason why Andy would keep secret the list of venues he's been a reviewer for. Quite the opposite.
2) As per commandments 1 and 3: Stop spreading false rumors and gossip about things you have no knowledge about. EileenT 23:28, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Hollywood Values strikes again[edit]

Hi there. I've been a long time lurker here, but I had to sign up just for this. There's a children's movie out called WALL-E. Like most Hollywood movies, it takes a "Bad America" perspective, by showing an undue concern for the enviroment and a frankly paganistic worship of it. The movie also shows disrespect for set authority, glorifying rebellion and spiritualism by giving its practitioners items of the color that is red-- Obvious Communist symbolism, as well.

As I'm sure you all know, this is standard fare for the cesspit that is Hollywood, but what makes this remarkable is that they are targetting this vulgar slop to children. Children! 22:28, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

If you have watched WALL-E, you can write an article about it. I heard it had some redeeming qualities, to say the least.
Perhaps you want to write about Hollywood values in general, rather than trashing this one movie because it has an environmental theme. Or could you expound upon paganistic worship of nature as part of radical environmentalism? --Ed Poor Talk 22:36, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
What possible qualuties could such a piece of degenerate trash have? SSpade 22:54, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
This guy seems like a parodist to me... while there may be environmentalist themes in WALL-E, it has nothing against "America" specifically, and the implied link between the color red and communism is really stretching it here. --Humble 22:50, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
It is no coincidence that the color red makes up most of the Soviet flag and the Chinese flag, and is still present in this movie. This is merely a piece of propaganda designed to indoctrinate American children and Christians into believing in enviromentalist claptrap. SSpade
I'm fine with criticizing the wacky environmentalist themes in the movie, but seriously, making a link to the "Soviet flag" here is quite a stretch. Making those kinds of statements is what makes it so easy for liberals to ridicule us. --Humble 23:10, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
Why should we censor the truth, our views, to appease their Liberal Hatred? SSpade 00:02, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
I saw WALL-E. It was a good movie. And disrespect for the authority? They shut down a robot that was preventing them from going back to earth. That sounds like a parodist to me. SugarCup 00:04, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
Denial and denigration. Those really are the two most predictable human reactions, aren't they? SSpade 00:08, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
I am sorry if you feel "denigrated." Perhaps you should clarify what you mean by disrespect to authority. SugarCup 00:36, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
Disobedience of and rebellion against the same. Why do you persist in defending this work of pagans and Hollywood degenerates? SSpade 00:40, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
Don't bother trying to continue this nonsense. The user is no longer with us. Jinxmchue 00:44, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Great breaking news![edit]

Former Colombian presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt, three US contractors, and eleven other hostages - Colombian troops and police - have been freed from captivity by Colombian special forces. The communist FARC terrorists who had been holding them captive gave up without a fight. Link: (Liberal terminology caution): Bugler 17:18, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Great news! Thank God they were rescued safely. I don't understand though how we let Americans be held hostage there for so long - we should have sent in some covert troops or CIA etc. to rescue them long ago. --Humble 17:31, 2 July 2008 (EDT)


I have an interesting suggestion for Conservapedia. In one word: editorials. I feel like this is a great venue to publish editiorials on conservative topics that the main stream media would shun. As an example of what I am talking about, I wrote a brief one about oil drilling and put it on this subpage. Constructive criticism is of course welcome! Perhaps we can have a special page or section on Conservapedia for others to be able to contribute such editorials. --Humble 19:25, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Black National Anthem[edit]

I'm gonna guess most users won't know about the Black National Anthem.

Here are the Lyrics:

Lift ev'ry voice and sing,
'Til earth and heaven ring,
Ring with the harmonies of Liberty;
Let our rejoicing rise
High as the listening skies,
Let it resound loud as the rolling sea.
Sing a song full of the faith that the dark past has taught us,
Sing a song full of the hope that the present has brought us;
Facing the rising sun of our new day begun,
Let us march on 'til victory is won.
Stony the road we trod,
Bitter the chast'ning rod,
Felt in the days when hope unborn had died;
Yet with a steady beat,
Have not our weary feet
Come to the place for which our fathers sighed?
We have come over a way that with tears has been watered,
We have come, treading our path through the blood of the slaughtered,
Out from the gloomy past,
'Til now we stand at last
Where the white gleam of our bright star is cast.
God of our weary years,
God of our silent tears,
Thou who has brought us thus far on the way;
Thou who has by Thy might
Led us into the light,
Keep us forever in the path, we pray.
Lest our feet stray from the places, our God, where we met Thee,
Lest, our hearts drunk with the wine of the world, we forget Thee;
Shadowed beneath Thy hand,
May we forever stand,
True to our God,
True to our native land.

this song was written by James Weldon Johnson and his brother J. Rosamond Johnson in 1900 for the celebration of Abraham Lincoln's birthday. It was originally performed by children at its premiere in Jacksonville, Florida. James W. Johnson was a notable poet who later went on to become one of the founders of the National Association for Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Rosamond Johnson was a successful composer of music for Broadway.

Youtube link to video

---user:DLerner--- 00:10, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Very nice DLerner. Now if you convert this post into an article, I will link it to the Main Page. --DeanStalk 00:14, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Legal means to get Lenski's data[edit]

How about if someone gets a doctorate in microbiology from an decent university, publishes some wiz bang research and then request the data?

Or how about if we actually find someone with these qualifications that we trust and get them to request the data?

Do I win the contest?

MAnderson 10:23, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Legal means to get Lenski's data[edit]

How about if someone gets a doctorate in microbiology from an decent university, publishes some wiz bang research and then request the data?

Or how about if we actually find someone with these qualifications that we trust and get them to request the data?

Do I win the contest?

MAnderson 10:23, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

No, you obviously don't win, because your approach is unlikely to succeed, and even if it did, it would not obtain "public disclosure" for public scrutiny as the simple challenge expressly states.--Aschlafly 10:33, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
What if a qualified creationist scientist, as proposed by MAnderson, receives the data? Can he then make them available to the general public, or is there some provision that tax funded research data must be kept secret and safe from public scrutiny? SilvioB 11:09, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
I think the problem is Lenski's refusal to allow public scrutiny of his underlying data. Even if he allowed an independent scientist to see the data, which I find highly doubtful, it seems likely to me that Lenski would prohibit that scientist from allowing public scrutiny of the data, even though the public paid for it.--Aschlafly 11:15, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
Lesnki stated that the data, in the most literal of senses , were in the organisms. I take it that you do not accept this? Do you think you could tell us why not - as this might clarify issues.--British_cons (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
Read the table of undisclosed data in Richard Lenski. I'm not going to duplicate it here. The PNAS paper itself, by the way, says that Lenski (but not all the co-authors) analyzed data.--Aschlafly 11:43, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
I have. As I say below, it doesn't seem very meaningful to me without a lot of expansion. But that's not my question. My question is - Do you agree that, at the most fundamental level the data are in the organisms and, if not, why not? I'm not trying to be awkward, I'm just trying to establish if that vital point is accepted or not. (And if not, why not)--British_cons (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Lenski's data[edit]

Could some one please specify, what data are we looking for? what exactly would we want to get from him? While i think that the data he has allready published is more than enough, it should atleast be enough for you others to specify more accuratly what it is you want to get from him. HeikkiL 10:39, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Did you read the links in the headline? Try reading Richard Lenski and you'll see specifically identified data that have not been publicly disclosed.--Aschlafly 10:45, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
Actually the questions on that page could be expanded a little. at the moment they are pretty meaningless. Such expansion might include: Exactly what data is wanted (Lab notes, computer discs, photographs, videos, organisms, work time sheets, staff holidays.)? In what format is the data expected? (print out, CD's video, organisms)? Why this data is felt to be significant,(what might be conceivably hidden in the data) What would be done with this data if were provided? Who will carry out the analysis of the data?--British_cons (talk) 11:05, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
I suppose the best outcome would be if he: 1) Released all the data (although I think specific requests were made already). 2) In any format. 3) Because it is necessary to see if the research support what the researcher says it supports. 4) The public, or an expert chosen by the public (however, the answer to this question doesn't matter if the data isn't released at all). WilliamH 14:55, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
Response to William:
Question 1.Exactly what data is wanted (Lab notes, computer discs, photographs, videos, organisms, work time sheets, staff holidays.)? Your response: 1) Released all the data (although I think specific requests were made already). So you want staff holidays? You want organisms? One is absurd and the other suggests that you have not read the correspondence.
Question 2.In what format is the data expected? (print out, CD's video, organisms)? 2) Your response: In any format. Organisms again. This is a vital issue. I again suggest you read the correspondence.
Question 3. Why is this data felt to be significant,(what might be conceivably hidden in the data) Your response: 3) Because it is necessary to see if the research support what the researcher says it supports. (Organisms again) and what do you feel might be hidden in this data? Why explicitly is this significant? (I'm not saying it's not, I'm just asking why you think it is.)
Question 4 What would be done with this data if were provided? Your answer: No answer.
Question 5.Who will carry out the analysis of the data? Your answer 4) The public, or an expert chosen by the public (however, the answer to this question doesn't matter if the data isn't released at all). What do mean "The public"? Who? Apparently "Some expert" Who? Where? When? How? What is the plan?--British_cons (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Unclear Summary[edit]

In the story about feminists and Obama, it says "Feminists have failed women, but the least of which is Michelle Obama." This is a very poorly-constructed sentence, both unclear and unworthy of being on the main page. It seems to imply that Michelle Obama is "the least of women," which I don't think was the intent. Could this be rewritten in a clearer and more grammatically sound fashion? --Benp 12:52, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Thanks! --Benp 13:52, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Happy 4th July[edit]

Wishing all the American colleagues on here a happy Independence Day. --JessicaTOhayo gozaimasu! 09:38, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Thank you, Jessica!!!--Aschlafly 10:37, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
Thank you, Jessica! --DeanStalk 14:08, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

I also extend congratulations on joyous day!!!!--TrTran 14:12, 4 July 2008 (EDT)


I would like to make pages in វិគីភីឌាភាសាខ្មែរ Pheasa Khmer for Conservapedia project. Is to help because of good goals. I have made many articles on other wiki, as you can see here: Is it okay if I do here too?--TrTran 14:12, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Here is good example at សមីការឌីផេរ៉ង់ស្យែល.--TrTran 14:39, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Please say back to me about this. Or should I to ahead now?--TrTran 21:16, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Go ahead, TrTran! That sounds like a really cool idea! Martin 17:32, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
Thank you. I have also made កុំផ្លិចឆ្លាស and កំពុងកែប្រែ: ចំនួនកុំផ្លិច for Khmer maths.--TrTran 17:05, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
I wish to make Khmer portal maths and Khmer portal generals. Please say back to me.--TrTran 15:48, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
I apologize that happened Khmer characters are not usually supported by american internet browsers as such khmer characters showed up as squares on our computers, one of the admins believed that you were typing up nothing but squares -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Why Is America The Greatest Country On Earth?[edit]

Is this not a little arrogant: "Why America Is The Greatest Country On Earth"? I understand that this is a pro-US encyclopedia, but I feel that openly proclaiming that you're better than everybody else might be taking it a bit far. KarlJaeger 14:20, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

USA is a very big country of land. Communism was bigger country, but they are gone now.--TrTran 14:26, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

If that was a satire of the typical Conservapedia user, you are very funny :). If not, you are very ignorant. The size of a country is no bearing to its "greatest". Communism is a political ideology based on Maxian Socialism, not a country. And finally, Russia is probably still larger than the Holy US of A. KarlJaeger 14:31, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

English is not my best language forgive me. I speak of United Socialism. It is gone now.--TrTran 14:39, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Check out this [7]--Lamb12 20:00, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

You've still presented no evidence for why America is the "greatest country" on Earth. That link puts it an 12th place. KarlJaeger 13:03, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Breaking news: British school punishes children who refuse to 'pray to Allah'[edit]

More from the maelstrom of politically-correct insanity that is the British state education system: two 11-12 year old boys are punished by a religious education teacher for refusing to pray to Allah in a religious studies lesson. Neither the boys, nor the teacher, nor the school were Moslem! Link:'refusing-to-pray-to-Allah'.html Bugler 07:04, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the suggestion Bugler. This item is has been posted on the Main Page. --DeanStalk 13:11, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
Aren't you guys for prayer in schools?GlenW 13:09, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

I believe the general position here is actually against the prohibition of school prayer - i.e. prayer should be allowed for all voluntary participants in a school. While this case could be considered indicative of a double stardard, in this situation the primary issue is that the kids were forced to pray (i.e. punished if they didn't). That would not be acceptable with any kind of prayer, even Christian - and I don't think anyone is trying to say it should be.

At best, this incident reflects incompetence on the part of the teacher for failing to fully explain the activity as just "role-playing", and even then the punishment does not seem justified. Feebasfactor 14:21, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for grabbing that link Bugler. It is a complete travesty! I'll pray that Britain, once a great country under God, finds its way once more. JJacob 20:58, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Apartheid Apologism on Conservapedia[edit]

Separate Development It seems that apartheid apologism to be a recurring problem on Conservapedia. Is there any particular reason that apartheid apologists seem to think that an online encyclopedia for American Christian conservatives is an appropriate place for their rhetoric? AliceBG 13:20, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

That entry is by only one editor who has been warned about his editing pattern. I have not yet had a chance to review it. If you see problems in an entry, then (as with any wiki) change it. Your attempt to smear all of Conservapedia based on one entry by one editor is obviously inappropriate and misplaced.--Aschlafly 13:45, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
My apologies if you read my edit as an attempt to "smear all of Conservapedia": that was not my intent - rather, I was wondering aloud about people like the editor in question and their motivations, though I see how my edit was phrased poorly and could be read as you read it. Anyway, if someone could delete the "development" page - and its not-too-subtle subtext that America is an apartheid state, all the better. AliceBG 13:56, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

We've had a problem with several racist users (possibly the same user) who made attempts to soften the view that apartheid was. We'll give them the boot. Karajou 14:32, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Mistake on main page[edit]

Perhaps I am wrong but a sentance on the main page sounds funny. "being hungover and said she felt like getting sick during a Denver, Colorado radio interview." Should it not say being sick? JJacob 21:09, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

I assumed this was American English usage rather than British English. Perhaps an American colleague could confirm this? Bugler 05:59, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
Here's a link to a similar discussion: [8]. In this context, "feeling" sick would be similar to "getting" sick. --DeanStalk 06:39, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Its my mistake, I see from following the link that it is the term used by the woman herself. Sorry about that! JJacob 07:15, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Another Mistake?[edit]

There is an article about website that lets students post tests to the Internet. The front page contains a quote that is not in the actual article sourced next to it.

Sorry! The above note is mine, I forgot to sign it, I'm still new to wiki encyclopedias. --Countryforchrist 13:48, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Masterpiece of the Week[edit]

I just wanted to say thanks to the person or persons responsible for selecting the Masterpiece of the Week. The recent selections have been excellent, and have exposed me to some wonderful artists whose work I had never seen until now. --DinsdaleP 21:03, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree! If I may make a suggestion for a masterpiece? I have always been partial to the work of M.C Escher and it would be great to see one his amazing, deeply mathematical pieces on the front page.

JJacob 21:09, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

I'll look into it!! ~BCSTalk2ME 19:26, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

That would be fantastic! Thanks! JJacob 19:28, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I found one!! see here! ~BCSTalk2ME 19:31, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Oh, it says I dont have permission for that. Which one is it? JJacob 19:34, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

one's being slow... ;-( ~BCSTalk2ME 19:35, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

see here! ~BCSTalk2ME 19:38, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Cool! Thats one of my fav's too! Thanks so much, God bless! JJacob 19:43, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Potential News Story?[edit]

This article in the Washington Post nicely summarizes what should be the most interesting topic of discussion among conservatives between now and the Republican convention. While many have been focused on the differences between Obama and McCain, the more defining conflict is going to be over the Republican Party Platform, and the differences between McCain and the "core" platform positions on immigration, stem cell research, global warming and campaign finance. --DinsdaleP 09:56, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

So much for "ugly Americans"...[edit] appears that it's the French people really dislike. --Benp 10:50, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Now if only we could stop being so rude and critical. It's a good thing that we at least tip big. --RobinGoodfellow 18:20, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Yukky Oversensitivity in England[edit],-say-report.html The National Children's Bureau in the U.K. has declared that a child who calls foreign food yukky is being racist. --Countryforchrist 18:14, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

"Shocking election news!! "[edit]

OK. First of all, it's not shocking, it's the way the electoral college (and the primaries) work, second, it's not news, it was posted on her site June 4th, more then a month ago. In essence this headline is saying, "We have an electoral college, outrageous! ---user:DLerner--- 04:02, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree. Calling the fact we have an electoral college "shocking" basically makes Conservapedia look dumb. --Humble 10:41, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

United States to cut emissions to 50% by 2050[edit]

G8 summit results in action against climate change [9] Could someone please add this to the frontpage?--Lamb12 05:26, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Looks like they took your suggestion, without much spin, either.--Frey 22:06, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Provincetown, Mass., beaches a mecca for public gay sex acts[edit]

Complaints have included whale-watchers sailing past large groups of nude men, and families stumbling upon people engaged in sex acts on the pristine national shore that attracts tens of thousands of vacationers from throughout the world each year.

One complaint, issued in 2007, was from a New Jersey family walking in the dunes who encountered couples and a large group of men having “sex in the nude, including oral and a nal sex right out in the open,” the Cape Cod Times reported last week.

“The majority is gay, but we’ve had issues with hetero sex as well. Families are upset and outraged,” Price said.

Anyone else surprised that this is happening in the state that unequivocally authorized same sex marriage? Jinxmchue 11:49, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm not surprised at all although I believe you mix the cause and effect. Provincetown has been a well-known gay community since the 1970's. In fact, I'm surprised so many families vacation there as opposed to one of the other Cape towns. In '78, the Provincetown Business Guild was formed to promote gay tourism, and P-town is, according to WP, "the best-known gay summer resort on the East Coast."--Jareddr 12:14, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
I didn't say that gay marriage caused this. It's unsurprising that this is happening in a state that has long legitimized homosexuality. I was simply using a recent example of that legitimization. Undoubtedly, though, enacting gay marriage has emboldened gays, which has led to an increase in these activities. Jinxmchue 18:35, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Wouldn't this be a legal issue regardless of the sexual preference of the individuals engaging in public intercourse? I really don't see how the homosexuality aspect of the lewd conduct is even a factor. Young people having sex in public places, regardless of concern for others, is hardly new. According to the article you posted the gay community is just as concerned about this as the straight community. Making the contention that the increase in activity is a direct result of the state's support of gay marriage is extremely paradoxical to the claims presented on this website. Such a stance assumes that marriage would increase the sexual activity of a homosexual, which undermines the claims of homosexual promiscuity. It would be illogical to claim that marriage would likely increase homosexual promiscuity; if anything marriage would be more likely to reduce it. --RobinGoodfellow 16:24, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Not at all; sham 'marriages' were common fodder in the 'molly houses' of eighteenth century London, the greatest stews in the history of the planet. Bugler 17:08, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
Yes, it would be, but unsurprisingly, that's a red herring. No one's complaining about the massive increase in heterosexuals engaging in public sex. And marriage will have no impact on the promiscuity of homosexuals. Jinxmchue 18:38, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Interesting news[edit]

Did anyone else see this/find this interesting? JJacob 17:22, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes. I found it interesting that liberal theologians think that their radical interpretations of ancient texts will be taken seriously by Christians. Jinxmchue 18:39, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

I read that much into it myself! Just an interesting news item as far as I was concerned! Perhaps you're right though.... JJacob 18:43, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

First, this is an article by a single theologian (not "theologians"). I'm not saying he is, or isn't, liberal, but when I go to his home page I can't tell one way or the other (I'm not competent authority for determining by his writings whether they are works of a liberal or conservative nature). I, too, found the article interesting, worth discussing, and not entirely compelling or supportive of his contention without access to his data(!), but it seemed fairly typical of the "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" kind of scholarship typical of certain schools of theologians in general. -- AdmiralNelson 14:40, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

PZ Myers' professor values[edit]

Paul Zachary Myers, a professor at the University of Minnesota Morris, has pledged to desecrate the Eucharist. He is responding to what happened recently at the University of Central Florida when a student walked out of Mass with the Host, holding it hostage for several days. Myers was angry at the Catholic League for criticizing the student. His post can be accessed from his faculty page on the university’s website.

Here is an excerpt of his July 8 post, “It’s a Frackin’ Cracker!”:

“Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers?” Myers continued by saying, “if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I’ll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won’t be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope [removed lewd comment], which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a [removed profanity] cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web.”

Nice. ****. Jinxmchue 13:50, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

So are sarcasm and hyperbole professor values now too?JPohl 15:10, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
Sorry about the profanities, folks. I guess I didn't read it too closely (and didn't think the Catholic source would've reproduced profanities uncensored). Jinxmchue 12:32, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
So you should be. -- Ferret Nice old chat 19:24, 11 July 2008 (EDT)


Does anyone want to join a wikiproject about religion-- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

What a joke![edit]

Did anyone else think this is an utter waste of time?. Mindless equality at its best/worst. JJacob 17:20, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Iranian missile test[edit]

Apparently Iran is so desperate to look tough that they're state-run media photoshopped an extra missile into the picture they released of the test. Unsurprisingly, as they have in the past, the liberal media didn't even notice and printed it without question [10]. Might make a decent news story for the front page. RWilson 21:45, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Animated gif?[edit]

Is an animated gif really necessary? Animations in webpages are terrible usability.

Logo Question[edit]

It has been mentioned to me that the CP logo may be in violation of the United States Flag Code. Specifically these provisions: The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. and The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.--British_cons (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac bailout[edit]

The Bush adminstration may intervene to avoid a collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac [11]

This is a an interesting balancing act between wanting small government, and supporting the economy. Might make a good front page story. -- Ferret Nice old chat 19:41, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Tony Snow[edit]

Given his influence and accomplishments, surely his passing merits a front-page story? --Benp 11:58, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

Done. I was working on this article after I updated the Tony Snow article. Thanks for the suggestion. --DeanStalk 12:22, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

Return of the grammar police... shouldn't there be a little something between "losing" and "long bout"? "A" or "his" for example? Thank you! I do what I can. Rockthecasbah 13:51, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

Fixed. Thanks. --DeanStalk 14:01, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

Hollywood values - AGAIN![edit]

Is this a good story for the front page? JJacob 21:12, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

I think it's interesting when a director claims that he's not going to bash President Bush, but instead present "a fair, true portrait of the man"...and then immediately follows it up with "How did Bush go from being an alcoholic bum to the most powerful figure in the world?" Right. Sounds very balanced and unbiased to me. --Benp 12:14, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

Obama cartoon[edit]

What's with the ridiculous sarcasm in the comment on the main page?JPohl 13:34, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

It reflects very poorly on this site, which should be above such things. --DinsdaleP 14:09, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
Well, a lot of liberals are saying exactly what the headline said, and not meaning it sarcastically at all. The response to the obviously satirical cover is an excellent case of too much PC. C'mon, people, it's the New Yorker!--Frey 16:03, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
Come on, its funny. It's taking the piss out of that "terrorist fist jab" comment.--DamianJohn 16:04, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
The image is okay - that's just poking fun at all the over-the-top stereotypes about Obama, and the PC outrage over the image has been overdone too. I was referring to the sarcasm in the accompanying comments, but it's been stated here before that the selective use of mockery is endorsed by the leadership when they consider the subject appropriate. --DinsdaleP 18:27, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
The next issue will have a similar image of McCain. I have a copy of it on my hard drive but do not know how to upload it. If someone could direct me, I will gladly upload the JPEG. --Countryforchrist 20:54, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

Please Don't Vote For A Democrat[edit]

Here's a funny song, I hope this a good place to put it. <a href="">link</a> Kajillion 21:48, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Pope in Sydney[edit]

Good to see the headline referencing the Pope's visit to Sydney and his welcome speech. As well as abortion he spoke about a whole raft of other important issues, including violence, consumerism, environmentalism, aboriginal rights, and so on. Here is the full text if you want to reference it on the front page. -- Ferret Nice old chat 20:53, 18 July 2008 (EDT)

Re. Moon's helicopter accident[edit]

I think the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's helicopter crash today should be Front Page news, and we should take this opportunity to send him our good wishes. RobCross 15:45, 19 July 2008 (EDT)


Excellent choice! Human 22:43, 19 July 2008 (EDT)

"Global warming" consensus myth comes crashing down[edit]

Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."

Al Gore could not be reached for comment as his head has exploded. Jinxmchue 19:10, 20 July 2008 (EDT)

10 seconds simple research blows that article out of the water. Just because someone says a group thinks something, doesn't necessarily mean they do. When it's as simple as this to confirm, it's worth being sure. Raggs 09:52, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
The American Physical Society has not changed their stance on climate change. In the society's own words, An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed [12]. Their statement affirming human activities are responsible for climate change is here [13]. Your humor concerning Al Gore is noted. --Jimmy 11:07, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

On a related note, has anyone here read Lord Monckton's article in the newsletter?--Frey 17:56, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

Alternate views on climate are again swept under the carpet[edit]

The Ofcom in the UK has censured Channel 4's brave documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" - this silencing of non-IPCC opinion is typical liberal media bias and should be Main Page news. RobCross 13:02, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

Not airing bad science is evidence of liberal media bias? Interesting.--Frey 17:58, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

Obama "Gaffe"?[edit]

So the man slipped and said "bomb" instead of "bombs" - how is that an unpatriotic misinterpretation of history versus a slip of the tongue? If that's going to be the Conservapedia standard for holding people to account, then equal billing should be given to John McCain's inability to tell Sunni from Shia, or the innumerable Bush-isms of the past eight years. If not, then it should be pulled as a news item from the main page. --DinsdaleP 10:48, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

It's not a gaffe, it's intentional. Powerful public speakers commonly distill powerful events to the singular, since the poetic license of Ralph Waldo Emerson's famous line, "the shot heard around the world" (it's clearly impossible to imagine that "the embattled farmers" would only fire one shot). A point is more powerfully made if it's reduced to the singular rather than the many, and clearly that's what Obama was doing. EngelUmpocker 12:54, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
Maybe, but it seems more likely that he meant to say "bombs" and it just came out wrong. Either way, the spin being put on this in the News section is out of line - "unpatriotic"? --DinsdaleP 12:58, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
What about the grammatical gaffe made by the person who added the entry? They wrote "no American schoolchildren," when the grammatically correct wording would the singular form, "no American schoolchild." This from a site that purports to be an educational resource. --BCissell 13:40, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
Come on Bcissell, he made a mistake, no big deal. I don't think we should be criticizing Andy for a minor grammatical error--DamianJohn 14:04, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
Exactly, everyone makes a typo once in awhile! --Jareddr 14:09, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
Except Obama. Every minor mistake he makes is actually a well-calculated stab to the heart of America.+TonyD 14:21, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
(removed talk pollution)--Aschlafly 16:40, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
Nice attempts at trying to rehabilitate Obama, but his gaffe is plainly not simply a matter of singular or plural form. It's doubtful Obama has a slightest clue about -- or interest in -- American history.--Aschlafly 16:40, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
With respect, how can you arrive at the conclusion that Obama has no clue or interest in American history because he got the tense of one word wrong in a single speech? As I pointed out above, John McCain showed as recently as March that he can't even keep the roles of the Sunnis and Shias straight when referring to conflict in Iraq, and made such a gaffe in claiming that Iran was sponsoring Al-Qaeda in Iraq that Joe Lieberman had to step up from behind and correct him on stage. Considering that McCain claims to be superior to Obama in foreign policy and specifically with the Iraq conflict, would you approve of me adding a cited reference to that incident to the McCain article? If you want to take shots at Obama feel free, but they should be meaningful ones, and not over-spins on minor speech errors like this one.--DinsdaleP 17:15, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
In the midst of all this analysis of Obama's history skills, has anyone considered that the offending passage might be a simple error in the transcript? --AKjeldsen 17:27, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
Hey Andy, when are going to correct the grammar error YOU made on the mainpage. After all, BCissell pointed it out to you four hours ago. By the way, how is that FBI thing going?--MBishop 17:32, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
Come on, guys, give Andy more credit! Can't you see this "Obama gaffe" news item is simply satirizing how trivial this election has become--focusing on misspeakings and innocent errors rather than issues that matter! The way Andy painted a missing s as evidence of ignorance and freedom-hating-ness–as if any rational person would actually believe Obama thinks only one bomb was dropped on Pearl Harbor–is simply poking fun at the rantings of people on both sides of the political spectrum who don't want to talk about things that matter!
Very clever, Andy! Cheesehead 18:20, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
The defense above of Obama's gaffe is almost as revealing as the gaffe itself. As I already said, converting to the plural form does fully not resolve the gaffe, as the "the" would then be inappropriate. Rather, it's clear that Obama is clueless about what really happened at Pearl Harbor, and about much of American history. Of course many of his supporters won't care, but many others do want a president who has enough respect for the nation to learn about its history.--Aschlafly 18:56, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
Sorry, what? What would be remotely inappropriate about the use of the definite article in the phrase "the bombs that fell on Pearl Harbor"? I'm not sure what your point is? EngelUmpocker 19:26, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

I admire you Andy for standing up to the above but, really, I dont know why you/we/conservapedia even bother arguing with such people. Nothing, ever, will bring down the Grand Exulted and Infallible Obama in these peoples minds, no matter how much Obama shows himself to totally incapable. JJacob 19:06, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

BTW, if you follow the links back to the original site - - the transcript clearly begins with the statement "THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED." It may be hasty to rush to any judgement over such grammatical nuances if it wasn't what he actually said. EngelUmpocker 19:29, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

A little more research reveals that the Washington Post's transcript has "bombs", as does the American Sentinel (though they don't quote their sources) and Fox. I think this is a storm in a teacup over a mistake in the transcription. As such I suggest it should be removed from the Main Page. EngelUmpocker 19:39, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

EngelUmpocker, do you also jump up and down and demand removal like this when you see a George W Bush gaff printed somewhere? I thought not. JJacob 19:48, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

Only because you were correcting your spelling errors elsewhere, I'll point out that you spelled "gaffe" wrong, coincidentally in a section about gaffes titled, "Obama's 'Gaffe'?" --Jareddr 20:07, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
Ehm, JJacob, this isn't an Obama gaffe - it's a typo in a transcript gaffe, and as such hardly merits being considered newsworthy. It took me mere seconds to google up lots of other references to this mistake in the transcript - and to plenty of other transcripts that contained the different reading - it would be more encyclopedic if editors fact-checked a little before making a Main Page fuss over a story that is a figment. EngelUmpocker 19:55, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

Its a moot point though "EngelUmpocker"(?) as you (nor I for that matter) decide what is newsworthy here and what isnt. JJacob 19:59, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

On this point, we are in 100% agreement, JJ. EngelUmpocker 20:04, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
To avoid 90/10 trouble I'll make this my last post on the subject. It's clear from the last couple of posts from EngelUmpocker that this was simply a misquote by CNN, and the honest thing to do is to remove the News posting even if it means passing up on a cheap shot at Obama. It's up to the people with Admin rights to decide what Conservapedia's standards are in this regard, but this is supposed to be a site where the truth matters. --DinsdaleP 19:52, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
Of course, it could also be that the liberal media is simply attempting to whitewash the gaffe by altering the transcripts. --Benp 20:28, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

I take it back - he did say "bomb", as per this YouTube video. It seems the right-wing media (American Sentinel & Fox) is as likely to make typos as the left wing W Post. And it seems CNN did get it right. However the video makes me even more certain he intended it as a singular. But more importantly, it is absurdly naive to suggest that he wouldn't know what happened in Pearl Harbor, and somewhat akin to namecalling him "Skinny Malinky" or "Blacky Blackman" in terms of a sophisticated political dialogue. I still suggest this storm in a teacup be not considered as Main Page news. EngelUmpocker 20:38, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

EngelUmpocker, I appreciate your concession that the headline here is correct after all, but how did you go from there to a some racial epithets? There's nothing racial about pointing out a lack of knowledge about America and its military history.--Aschlafly 21:50, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
My point, clearly, is that it is as astoundingly silly to misinterpret this intended verbal emphasis / slip of the tongue (delete to match your belief) as reflecting anything about the man's knowledge of US history, as it would be to make playground jokes about his height or skin color as a measure of the man's intelligence. You are familiar, I take it, with "the shot heard around the world", a phrase applied to a number history-making events? In the case of the opening of the American Revolutionary War, it was the first shot of many. In the case of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, it was the first shot of two. In the case of JFK's death, it was the first of three shots. You've heard of 'The Bomb', that fabled weapon the US dropped on Japan? Well, there were actually two Bombs. But one bomb always has to be first, and if one bomb is dropped anywhere in history, you can be sure another swiftly followed it. Obama, a man who if nothing else, is known as a fine orator, is clearly using the term quite deliberately to dramatize his speech. EngelUmpocker 22:17, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

B. Hussein Obama didn't "accidentally" say the bomb, He's so clueless he probably thinks Japan dropped an atomic bomb on Pearl Harbor! Kajillion 21:22, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

(Deleted pointless rant. Someone ban HankJ please.) JJacob 22:49, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

Wow, Parthian Shot much? Are you saying his middle name isn't Hussein? If you you're(try using that word next time) going to try to debate anyone and want to be taken seriously, try to use proper English next time, ok? Kajillion 22:42, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm sorry, but I don't see the big deal - not when I've seen videos of Mccain talking about Czechoslovakia [as in - it still exists] and the Iraq-Pakistan border. In light of what you have just said about Obama's statement - whether accidental or not - what do you have to say about Mccain's similarly mistaken statements? -FromNZ

Speaking as someone who is admittedly "clueless" (a word which appears to feature prominently in the vocabulary of this site) about US politics, it really does appear (from a purely linguistic point of view) that Obama was merely using a familiar rhetorical device. Anyway, purely out of interest, why does his failure to pluralise a word indicate a "cluelessness" about American history? Evidence supporting this assertion has completely failed to appear in this discussion. And, Kajillion, what's wrong with Hussein as a middle name? (I feel I may be opening a can of worms here.) The word means "handsome", not "follower of Allah" or anything remotely Islamic. Ostensibly, the only "problem" is that it's a word taken from a foreign language. Pete 08:51, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Item removed

The difference between "bomb" and "bombs" is not the gaffe that the external link points to. It definitely was a bombing attack: USS California was hit by two bombs and two torpedoes. Only a small portion of the damage was caused by strafing.

  • Obama's political correctness prevents him from noting someone actually dropped "the bomb" and it didn't just fall.

Let's put the item back in, but without the Weekly Standard reference. They are just quibbling about the failure to mention that it was Japanese forces which did the dropping.

We should also clarify whether we feel 'the bomb' implies one large nuclear bomb instead of hundreds of conventional ones. --Ed Poor Talk 08:54, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Will Conservapedia also make a point of pointing out McCain's "gaffes", such as confusing Sunni/Shiite, forgetting that Czechoslovakia has been gone for 20 years now (managed that one twice recently) and now has Iraq and Pakistan bordering each other? It doesn't sound good coming from the candidate who is supposedly stronger on Foreign Affairs. Boomcoach 13:33, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
You can add those to the John McCain article if you want, but I'm more interested in his actual positions - not sound bites.
Did he accidentally say Iraq and Pakistan share a border (possibly confusing Iraq with Afganistan in the heat of the rhetorical moment)? And is your objection (or more importantly, the objection of your bloc of voters) that he doesn't know geography very well?
Perhaps what people are really concerned about is not "strength" of qualifications, but how much a candidate's policy's makes sense. And that varies with what the voter wants. Those who desire peace and stability in the world, based on free people voluntarily cooperating for their mutual benefit, will vote one way. Those with other desires will vote another.
This reflects a basic conservative-liberal split. When liberals say we are interfering too much in foreign countries, they might really think that U.S. policies are having the effect of reducing freedom and prosperity overseas. Whether their beliefs are sincerely held doesn't matter as much as whether they simply are right or wrong.
By and large, American intervention abroad has been to stop dictatorships and promote freedom. (Not perfectly in every case, and writers like Noam Chomsky point out in endless detail.) We stopped Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, because nations of people ought to be able to choose whether (and how) to relate to other nations - not forced into empires as colonies. Liberals love to rant about US "imperialism" (as in the banana states of Central America), but where are their protests over the Soviet Union, or the Iron Curtain? --Ed Poor Talk 17:32, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Hey Ed, good to see you back editing again. I know we've not gotten on brilliantly in the past, and in making this comment I hope you understand it is possible to be a conservative and yet disagree with your appraisal of US foreign policy. I don't think it's true that US interventionist policy has been for "stopping dictatorships and promoting freedom", rather I think it has been to either to advance the interests of or to protect the US from potential harm. Now I don't think there is anything wrong with such a policy,(far from it, it's the duty of a govt to do exactly that) but I think the spin you put on it is a little misleading. It is revisionist history for example to say you entered WWII for such idealogical reasons (not that we in NZ aren't grateful that you helped us out). Ditto for practically every intervention since (including Korea and Vietnam - the Domino theory). In fact, I would be uncomfortable about my country unilaterally sacrificing soldiers for the freedom of other countries, if it's anyone's job, I believe that is the job of the UN. So whilst I agree that with you that US interventionism has for the most been positive on the world, I do not agree that much of it has been done for any particular noble purpose.
Now I could be wrong on this, but I think liberal and conservative opinion actually tends to agree that one's country should primarily look after itself, the difference is more in the application of that principle. I think at the moment liberals overemphasize the short term effects of ending the current war, and perhaps conservatives are guilty of overemphasizing the long term benefits of winning it. I don't think liberals are at heart really worried about reducing freedom and prosperity overseas, nor are conservatives and I don't blame either of them for thinking thus. I believe liberals think that America's actions overseas reduce the safety of America, Conservatives that the current US policy promotes its safety. It's just not helpful, IMHO to state the distinction in lofty terms. Flame away.--DamianJohn 18:13, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

LOL, as a conservationist, I would say that flames bring more heat than light. Thank you for expressing your opinions. If you can back them up with facts, so much the better.

But what I'd really like to ask is for a writer of your obvious thoughtfulness (and careful attention to fact) to help me write a serious and comprehensive on U.S. foreign policy. Better yet, a series of articles on how liberals and conservatives see things; what do they hold in common? where do they see things differently? --Ed Poor Talk 18:50, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Absolutely, That sounds like a very interesting project. I think that most people (absolute radicals like Chomsky aside), conservative or liberal tends to view their history with rose coloured glasses. I have always been fascinated with modern world history and I think at least part of the reason is that there are very few times when a country can be called evil, and another good. I tend to think that such distinctions are largely meaningless in world affairs.
I'll whip up an essay on my thoughts on the why I think the actual philosophy of Conservatives and Liberals are not that different it in the next few days.--DamianJohn 19:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

McCain and the New York Times[edit]

I was initially disappointed with the N. Y. Times' decision to ask the McCain campaign for a revised Op-Ed piece instead of accepting his original. When I read more about the background, including the statement on the matter put out by the NYT itself, I understood the nature of the decision more clearly.

The text of the original McCain piece is a recap of his recent talking points on Iraq, and his criticisms of Senator Obama's general views on Iraq. This is not insignificant, but it had already been covered and offered the readers no fresh insights. David Shipley, editor of the Op-Ed page, was not rejecting Senator McCain outright - he was looking for new comments from McCain that would offer the readers a more specific, point-by-point piece that would more clearly contrast his positions with Obama's.

As Mr. Shipley said in his response to McCain, "It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the senator’s Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan."

This is not forcing McCain to alter his position - if he believes in no timetables (which President Bush now refers to as "horizons"), then he can state that. What Mr. Shipley was saying to McCain is basically, "We want to publish your views, but please give us specifics instead of generalities since Obama did. That's not an unreasonable request, since McCain's original piece simply said that he would "continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan", which doesn't offer much detail to compare with Obama's Op-Ed piece.

In the interest of fairness, I'd like to see the NYT statement added to the News headline with a caption like "The N.Y. Times issued its own statement on the matter", and let the readers of Conservapedia decide if the rejection of the initial McCain piece was justified or not. - DinsdaleP 21:08, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

So much for the truth setting anyone free in this case... --DinsdaleP 09:26, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
For "truth", please read "truthiness" for greater clarity. --AKjeldsen 09:35, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

New McCain Ad[edit]

This is unfortunate, because I like John McCain the person, but John McCain the presidential candidate is increasingly disappointing. Obama's on a global trip getting major press attention because he's continually sharing plans and initiatives that define himself, whether one agrees with them or not. McCain's response? Put out an attack ad implying that Obama is the "one man" responsible for gas prices staying high. This is already backfiring on many levels - the ad is being slammed as "misleading on nearly every substantive point", it makes him appear clueless about economic drivers, which was a liability he was working to overcome, and it tells the voters nothing about what McCain would do that would have a short term impact. When his campaign was struggling last summer he jettisoned the advisers that weren't helping - it looks like it's time for another purge. --DinsdaleP 10:42, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

To be honest, though I am totally neutral in this campaign, I think the result is pretty clear even at this early stage. McCain can't shake off his connection with Bush and it will cripple him. It is similar, I think, to the situation in 1968 when LBJ was hugely unpopular, Humphrey took a shellacking. Ditto 1976 when Nixon (and Ford) was unpopular and Carter won. McCain's not silly and I guess he can see the writing on the wall and he's trying any desperate measure to win. I agree with you that it portrays McCain badly but hey, its worth a shot.
Neither 1968 or 1976 can be described as a "shellacking" for either losing candidate. Nixon defeated Humphrey in the popular vote by less than one percent. In 1976 Carter defeated Ford 50.1% to 48%. Both Nixon and Carter had been ahead in the polls by wide margins, only to see those margins shrink drastically as the election neared. It is possible that some people may have second thoughts about Obama. After all, this is July, not November!--JBoley 11:05, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
Fair enough, I was looking at the electoral college results - 1968 Nixon 56%, Humphrey 35%; 1976 55%, 44%. I'll let Americans talk about American politics.--DamianJohn 11:28, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
Agreed - the race has a long way to go, and we haven't even seen the full tickets for either party, only their presumptive Presidential nominees. My point in putting this post up is that McCain's biggest challenge is to define in positive, specific terms what he stands for, so he can shake the "McSame" handle that he's just a third term of the Bush policies. When he takes lame shots at Obama like this new ad does, it just makes him look desperate, and lacking in any better plans himself. --DinsdaleP 11:13, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

New Vanity Fair cover[edit]

Not to be outdone, Vanity Fair has created a spoof of the New Yorker cover showing Obama as a terrorist. Interestingly enough, while the New Yorker cover made fun of people's perceptions of Obama, rather than Obama himself, the Vanity Fair cover seems to be firmly directed at making fun of McCain...specifically, his age. Another case of media double standards? --Benp 12:31, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Quick correction--the "spoof" is not the actual cover of Vanity Fair, to my knowledge. Politico posted the cover the other day, and then added a note from a spokesperson or editor for the magazine stating it wasn't their actual August cover. Second, I believe the perception of McCain is that he is too old for the presidency, and therefore the cover is a spoof of those perceptions. So I would classify it under the same category of satire as the New Yorker cover.--Jareddr 12:56, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
You're right, Jared. It was apparently just an image posted to the VF website "in solidarity for their sister publication". Now that both candidates have been through the satire-o-matic, with all the ridiculous stereotypes thrown in for effect, we can hopefully resume the normal nonsense that is an election year. --DinsdaleP 13:00, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

There are significant differences between the two. The main issue with the original Obama cover was that it lacked context, or any sort of caption. If you were to replace the title "New Yorker" with "KKK Quarterly" you'd have exactly the same image, but an opposite and quite offensive message. Anyone who knows anything about the New Yorker knew it was satire, and it was mocking the extremists who think Obama is in league with Al Quaeda, but there are plenty of people who aren't so familiar with the New Yorker, and didn't get the joke. With so much coverage of the original cover, it's very clear that the Vanity Fair cover is a parody of that one. On top of that, the satire is substantially more tame. The "McCain is old" joke is about as old as McCain is; you can't watch Jay Leno for more than 5 minutes without him making some joke about it, and eve McCain has done so. Likewise compare the burning constitution on the VF cover with the burning flag on the NY. Being accused of disrespecting elements of the constitution isn't uncommon for either party, and is much more a political criticism than an emotional attack. A burning flag is a much more highly charged image. Imagine a guy who uses the N-word to describe Obama and then calls McCain a "cracker" and thinks it's no big deal because he treated them the same, as if both words carry the same stigma. Or someone who calls Kerry a traitor, then makes fun of Bush's big ears, and pretends he's being even-handed. It simply isn't the case. Personally, I have no problem with the Obama cover, though I do think it needed the context it lacked in order not to be taken the wrong way, as it was by some. I'm uncertain about the McCain cover. What is it making fun of? McCain? McCain's critics? Or the New Yorker cover itself, or the reactions to it? In any case, I think the presence of a walker is hardly going to be highly offensive to anyone. I think the only potentially offensive part of it is the prescription drugs in his wife's hand. That might be a bit much. Jaguar 13:15, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
I think it's better to let good satire stand on its own than to have to dumb it down with explanations or captions so everyone can get it (Family Guy had a scene where Peter stood at a newsstand for a couple of days before he got the joke in a New Yorker cartoon). --DinsdaleP 13:36, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
I generally agree, but this is sort of a special case. Maybe it should have been inside the issue, where only people familiar with the New Yorker and their method of satire would be likely to see it. It's also a slightly bigger deal than their usual satire, as misconstrued images in a case such as this can impact who the leader of the free world is for 4 years (we're not just talking about a famous person being insulted or offended). Not that something like this is likely to directly impact the election exactly, but it's something to think about. I know what they were doing with the cover, I'm just not sure it didn't misfire. Jaguar 14:47, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
"Maybe it should have been inside the issue, where only people familiar with the New Yorker and their method of satire would be likely to see it." Steve Brodner, a fellow political cartoonist, made a great remark related to the quoted. He said, in essence, that readers of the New Yorker did understand the satire, and that, more importantly, it wasn't the New Yorker that twisted this into a big controversy. In fact, I guarantee 90% of the nation wouldn't have even seen the cover if it wasn't plastered all over the news. How many "Middle Americans" read the New Yorker? I think, even if it were on the inside of the issue, the media would've still made a big deal about it. The need for "news" content in the media drove this story. I agree with Brodner--this cover was made for the New Yorker just got seen by everyone else as well. Heck, it was probably a savvy move on the part of The New Yorker :-). --Jareddr 16:25, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Animal Escape[edit]

Hey, here is an interesting and relevent news topic [14]--Lamb12 21:03, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Front pager? Godless elite has brutalised Britain and is to blame for curerent knife-crime epidemic[edit]

Government ministers are "clueless" about the current wave of fatal stabbings, and these crimes are brought about by government programmes which attack and undermine families, says Stephen Green, head of conservative group Christian Voice. "Britain is becoming daily more brutal because for the last forty years, a godless elite have been destroying the Christian foundations of our society", adds Green. Full story: Bugler 06:24, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

NYT Revenue[edit]

Regarding the NYT revenue article, I don't think the ideological conclusions are necessarily appropriate or accurate. The article posted draws some pretty predictable conclusions, which are different from those shown alongside the posted link. The Times is caught up in the same problems as every newspaper: trying to adapt to the Internet age, trying to make money when more and more people get their news online, and running an ad driven business in a recession. This is a problem that just about every newspaper in the US is having, and it's been going on for quite a while. It's much more complicated and widespread than simply dissatisfaction with any liberalism on the part of the paper. Corry 10:11, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Agreed. The ideological conclusions are invalid unless backed up by examples of peer-level print newspapers with a conservative orientation, whose revenues and circulation have grown during the same period. What's happening is that the NYT is losing market share to other outlets like cable news and the internet, which has nothing to do with its ideology. --DinsdaleP 11:09, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Young Republicans Worry About McCain's Appeal[edit]

I don't expect anyone to post this as a News story, but the topic should be addressed instead of avoided. McCain's having real problems connecting with young republicans, and while they may not vote for Obama in November, they may be too discouraged to vote for McCain either. I'd like to use this article to prompt an online discussion on CP as to how McCain can better connect with young voters, and I'd like most of the input to come from CP contributors who are 25 or younger. It doesn't seem to fit the article, essay, or debate formats, so I was thinking of a series of pages called "Conservapedia Forum: xxxxx", where the contributors here can add their candid, constructive thoughts on issues in an Op-Ed context. I'll set this one up as a pilot, and let's see how it goes. --DinsdaleP 11:19, 24 July 2008 (EDT)


Professor Randy Pausch has died after his battle with pancreatic cancer. (Story) If you've never heard of him, he became famous after delivering a "Last Lecture" at Carnegie Mellon University last year after being diagnosed with a terminal illness and only having a few months to live. He delivered a wonderful, inspiring talk, not on cancer, but on life, and did it as a record for his young children so they could look back and see him in the teaching environment he so loved. After an attendee wrote about the talk, the video and written transcripts became an internet sensation last year, and led to a bestselling book where Professor Pausch collected these and other thoughts. This is a remarkable story about an even more remarkable man, who did more in the last few months of his life than most do with the decades they are privileged to have. --DinsdaleP 12:40, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Agreed. Professor Pausch's willingness to celebrate life rather than brood about death was both uplifting and inspiring. --Benp 13:28, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
What a pity that gossip about John Edwards was considered more newsworthy. --DinsdaleP 14:33, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
"Enquiring minds want to know"??? I thought Wikipedia was "the National Enquirer of the Internet", and CP refrains from gossip. Jaguar 15:56, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
It is a pity. I was going to add Professor Pausch to "Professor Values," but a check of the history shows that several individuals have already done this, only to be reverted. As for the Edward's story, it appears there is not much there. All you have is the National Enquirer, which is hardly a reliable source, and then Fox News repeating the story without doing their own research to to see if it is true. Says a lot about Fox News--JBoley 11:36, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Focus on the Family to be inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame[edit]

Homosexual activists are, of course, boiling in their own angrily spewed spittle. Jinxmchue 16:12, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

No Gossip?[edit]

What else can this be called? --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 12:38, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

You beat me to this in an edit-conflict, Tim :-) Given Conservapedia's own stance on Gossip, there is no justification for this still being in the "News" section --DinsdaleP 12:41, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

News: Liberal cesspit San Francisco refuses to deport illegal immigrant gangster, who subsequently murders three US citizens[edit]

Edwin Ramos was an illegal immigrant from El Salvador, and a Salvadorean gangster. Although the SF authorities knew this, they declined to deport him under their Liberal sanctuary law. Ramos subsequently murdered Anthony Bologna (49) and his two sons, Michael (20) and Matthew (16) in a road-rage attack. Story: Bugler 15:22, 26 July 2008 (EDT)