Talk:Main Page/archive8

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Reading through some articles I found more bias than in Wikipedia articles...And everyone here does realise that if this site were somehow to catch on it would be just as bad as Wikipedia...

The CP Main Page Is Protected

Welt article

Is it a good idea to link this kind of information about Conservapedia?! Welt article descibles Conservapedia: looks like "insane" and "amusing in craziness" but this kind of site founds more and more supporters in America... But this is same kind of information about Conservapedia as I earlier collected to my talk page.

Or is it so that "all publicity is good publicity"? Does this site try to look surrealistic (or naive or parodic) for getting more publicity to something? --Aulis Eskola 16:35, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

My guess is that no one's german was good enough to pick that out. I glanced over it and was able to pick enough words out to think it was the same type of article we've seen all along about Conservapedia, and didn't give it a second thought. Jrssr5 16:40, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
Uh oh. I can't read German! Is the article a complete "hatchet job" or does it have some balance?
By now people should realize that mockery doesn't bother us. In fact, present company aside, I'm amused by how liberals over-rely on mockery, see Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia. All great projects and people were mocked, and it doesn't mean anything more than the childish behavior by those impressed by it.--Aschlafly 16:45, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
My native language is German. There is no mockery on this site. It is just telling the facts. For example they write that the group of conservative christians is growing fast and that 40% of Americans (but 70% of Germans) believe in evolution. Due to the fact that "Die Welt" is maily read by very well educated people and that those people in Germany even have a higher percentage of believing in evolution, a high percentage of readers will think: "Oh my good, those American idiots." --Itsjustme 16:55, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

First of all, thank you for your analysis. I marvel at the power of this type of website: within minutes a native German-speaker gives us the answer!!!
Second of all, what you describe seems fair enough. I don't have a problem with it at all. I expect people who disagree with us to criticize us to some extent.--Aschlafly 16:58, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
Note, Die Welt is a conservative newspaper. User:Order 10 May.
You are wellcome. But you shoud change two small things on the Main Page: First, the "Welt" and its Website is not the top German newspaper or newspaper site. It is one of the importand (I would say within top 10 but not the top. Second, Conservapedia is not number one on that site. The link to the article is one of dozens on the Mainpage and not featured with any picture. --Itsjustme 17:07, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
Die Welt is really not the largerst newspaper. This article is one of about 20 in subarea "Webwelt" (about 30 subareas, with picture there). --Aulis Eskola 18:27, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
I think we are number one in its ranking of interest on that website. And I think Welt is the top newspaper in Germany. At least that is what I heard.--Aschlafly 17:53, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
Let's say number one for you and top for you as you have heard. But maybe not for many other people. Sorry, I can't think so "conservatively" in this kind of context despite of some conservative opinions of mine. --Aulis Eskola 19:13, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
Die Welt is the one of the main conservative quality newspapers in Germany, and the article is very critical of conservapedia. In its very first paragraph, for example, it tells the reader that the studies on the link between abortion and breast cancer quoted by conservapedia are nothing more than fabrications by right-wing chrstian conservative medical associations. I wouldn't call this an endorsement of conservapedia. Order 10 May.
No, this site does not directly have mockery - it descibes "the fact how this kind of site is seen". Despite it starts with this desciption other parts of articel are different, can we call it "balance"? They also list the most comical entries: --Aulis Eskola 17:33, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
I looked at the list. Those are not "comical" entries. Do liberals over-rely on mockery in criticizing them? Of course, and I don't mind the newspaper reporting that fact.--Aschlafly 17:53, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
One-sided articles knowing nothing about outer world are seen comical and naive - that's why they are talking about comical. --Aulis Eskola 18:30, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

"All great projects and people were mocked"

I strongly suspect that not all of them were. And since lots of stupid ideas and idiotic people have also been historically mocked, it's probably unwise to use how much something or someone is being mocked as an measure of their greatness; often it's just an indicator of their absurdity. --Jeremiah4-22 09:45, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

What about Lee?

Isn't Lee a better general than Stonewall, by near-universal agreement? And, Eisenhower, who helped D-Day? Not that Stonewall Jackson wasn't great.-Speaker 00:28, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I doubt military historians think that Lee and Eisenhower were better than Stonewall. I admit this is debatable and so I use the adjectives "arguably" and "perhaps". But I think the consensus is that Lee was not a great field commander or general, though obviously he was greatly admired and respected. Perhaps our resident expert, Karajou, will weigh in with his opinion.--Aschlafly 00:31, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Great military leaders usually have their tactics and strategies as part of school curiculum, and the Battle of Chancellorsville was where both Lee and Jackson were at their greatest. The tactics Lee employed, using a feint in the center, then dividing his army twice when he went for the flanks, are still used as a basis for current Army manuevers. The Desert Storm ground battle in 1991 was such a feint-and-flank manuever, as General Schwartzkopf used elements of the Marines to head straight into Kuwait, and as the Iraqis were retreating, they faced several tank divisions which had swung around their flank and caught them with their pants down, among other things! Karajou 00:47, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Fascinating stuff. I want to write an article about Hannibal; the Canae "double enclosure" tactic is simply astonishing, and kind of parallel to what Lee did, is it, Karajou?-Speaker 00:49, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Canae is also studied at West Point, and very seriously I might add! The site could benefit from a good article on Hannibal and Canae. Karajou 00:50, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

As an answer to the first question, I would assume that many generals are uniquely great in their own ways. Ike didn't have to act like Jackson, but he did just fine at Normandy. But I have to do an article about the absolute worst military commander we ever had: Ambrose Burnside. Karajou 00:52, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Good answer! And, Karajou, I have to admit - I'm a big fan of ancient Rome, but Hannibal makes me root for him every time I read about him.-Speaker 00:54, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks Karajou - that's a goal for tomorrow, after sleep, but you can count on it. Good night all!-Speaker 01:08, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I look forward to Karajou's entry about Burnside. I've wondered if he wasn't a scapegoat. After the War he accomplished a far amount, exhibiting lots of competence. There's a rumor that my family was somehow related to him, although that may be pure fiction. I find the whole Burnside travesty to be amusing.--Aschlafly 01:03, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

To his credit, Burside knew he was not competent to command anything larger than a brigade, and his failures largely rest on the bridge at Antietam; Fredericksburg; and the Crater at Petersburg. I don't think he was scapegoated for anything. Karajou 01:07, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Ugh, Antietam. The very name evokes sadness.-Speaker 01:08, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Yup. America's single bloodiest day. 19,000+ casualties, and over 4,000 dead. Karajou 01:10, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
But do you think that was Burnside's fault? Isn't war a zero-sum contest?--Aschlafly 01:12, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Antietam was won by the Union, of which Burnside was a prt; but he failed in this due to his trying to take the ground across a particular bridge. He wouldn't go anywhere else except across that narrow bridge, and his units were just cut down each one...and the creek itself was unguarded less than a half mile upstream, and only three feet deep. Karajou 01:19, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
As an example, look at the Six-Day War between Israel and Arab nations; There is no doubt who greatly benefited from that war. It certainly was not "zero-sum". --Hojimachongtalk 01:14, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
The tactics were different in both wars. The Israelis benefitted from studying, of all things, Germany's "blitzkrieg" tactics; and during the Civil War, you had armies massing Napolean-style, but being mowed down by modern weaponry. Karajou 01:16, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Regardless of military strategic/tactical prowess, I'm not sure calling Stonewall Jackson an "American" general is very accurate - he was a CSA general, and they were fighting America. What U.S. Army office did he hold prior to the secession? Human 12:02, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

He held the rank of major in the United States Army before resigning his commission in the 1850's, so he could be an instructor at VMI. And yes, he is still an American. Everyone who fought in that war was an American, no matter which side they were on. Karajou 12:13, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Fifteenth Amendment made sure of that - that's the one that abrogated the debt (in addition to ensuring black suffrage) didn't it?-Speaker 12:27, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

It was the Fourteenth Amendment that did that. Further, the terms of Lee's surrender to Grant, approved by Lincoln, guaranteed no one would be charged with treason as long as they obeyed the laws in force where they lived. Karajou 13:33, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Nice work explaining, thank you. I stand corrected. Human 13:38, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

HPV Vaccinations

According to the American National Cancer Institute about 750 women will be diagnosed with HPV in Texas in 2007 [1] . With a survival rate of 67%, this means 248 women will die from HPV in Texas, each year.

Even if only 20% of the girls in Texas will not be vaccinated, each year 50 women will die needlessly, so forgive me for not celebrating this "victory"...


I am baffeld. Some women will die a needlessly. How on earth is that a "victory"? --1048247 10:11, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

There is only one solution for any STI problem: Less sex. Get people to stop with premarital sex, stop with extramarital sex. Oh, the STIs can be controled with vaccines and medicines and condoms, but what is the point of protecting the body while letting the soul rot? No, vaccination may be good for public health, but even if we could eliminate all sexually transmitted infections entirely all this would achieve would be to feed the fires of hell. So forget about contraception and vaccines, forget about treatment, forget about public health - public health isn't the issue here, spiritual health is. - BornAgainBrit

Honestly, I think non-married sex should be some form of criminal offense. Not a serious one. Misdemonor, perhaps. Just enough to make it very clear to people that they arn't allowed to do it, and will be punished if they do.

This type of cancer is caused by premarital sex. QED NothingVentured 10:47, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

So once you are married the sex is different and diseases can't spread? Riiiiight. Jrssr5 10:50, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Presumably a couple that remained chaste prior to marriage would not carry the virus that causes the cancer. NothingVentured 10:51, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
But it isn't caused by premarital sex, it's caused by careless sex. You can have safe sex before marraige.--Favor 10:57, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

So premarital sex deserves death!? I think it's time that America faced up to a fact. People are going to have premarital sex whether or not you tell them not to. Hands up who was told not to have premarital sex & did it anyways (blush). The simple fact is that "accidents" happen - not everyone can be perfect - so when these accidents happen, do we want our children to be protected? Or do we want to hold them up to an ideal standard, and not provide them a safety net when the fall? Not allowing HPV vaccines advocates the latter. I for one will raise my children, telling them to abstain from sex until marriage, but I won't be shocked if they don't abstain: as such, I will educate them so they can practice safe sex, just in case. It's the only responsible thing to do, unless you care more about ideology than children!-Speaker 10:58, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

  • The issue, though, is whether or not such a vaccine should be mandatory. Even as a parent who will get my girls vaccinated, I don't know that others should necessarily be forced to do so.--WJThomas 11:04, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Of course it must be mandatory. Giving the vaccine to only a subset of the population just encourages the virus to mutate, and the vaccine to quickly become ineffective. We've seen exactly this happen with TB in recent years. Vaccination programs must be universal. The aim is not only to prevent individual cases, but to wipe out the disease. No amount of rhetoric about not having sex before marriage is going to achieve that goal. --Abrown 11:26, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
In order to kill off a virus, one has to stop it spreading. Using a vaccine is one way. In the case of STDs, monogamy is another way. If, hypothetically, the vaccine was only given to those who were sexually active and non-monogamous, that would be just as effective, whilst reducing the incidence of any side effects. Now I'm not commenting on how realistic that is (e.g. would such a process actually get all the sexually-active, non-monogamous people), but in principle, it is incorrect to say that not having sex before marriage would not achieve the goal. Philip J. Rayment 09:29, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Compelling state interest in protecting health & preventing disease, anyone? If the state has an interst in your health, and fetal health, in stopping abortions (see Casey, accord Gonzales v. Carhart), how can the state not have a similar interest in fetal & mother's health in preventing HPV? Both regulations are slightly paternalistic, don't you agree? But I don't think they're distinguishable in any legal fashion.-Speaker 11:04, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

We all deserve death, due to sin. It's time that America (and other places) faced up to that fact. People are going to murder, rape, rob, cheat, lie, etc. whether you tell them to or not, but that's no reason to not try our darnedest to stop them. Premarital sex is not an "accident", but something done deliberately. Safe sex is not "safe". It will probably prevent transmission of disease, and will probably prevent pregnancy, (but neither are guaranteed), but it won't prevent guilt and its consequences. Actually, I agree that you should teach your children to have "safe" sex if they do have sex outside of marriage, as long as you can do it in such a way that doing so doesn't compromise the abstinence message. To encourage abstinence (outside marriage) is not caring more for ideology than children; this ideology has caring for children as one of its purposes, so caring about this ideology is caring for children. Philip J. Rayment 11:14, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
“People are going to murder, rape, rob, cheat, lie, etc. whether you tell them to or not, but that's no reason to not try our darnedest to stop them. Premarital sex is not an "accident", but something done deliberately.” Do you see the contradiction there? Women will get raped, but they deliberately have premarital sex? According to the FBI In 2005 “There were an estimated 93,934 forcible rapes reported to law enforcement” [2] this number does not include date rapes, statutory rape, and other non-consensual sexual encounters—nor does it include those rapes that the victim is too afraid to report. (In 2005 the total population of the United States was estimated by the Census Bureau to be 296,507,061 (see data available here [3] ) that works out to mean that just over 3% of the American public reported being forcibly raped in 2005—assuming an even 50/50 distribution of the population among the sexes (and discounting the relatively rare occurrence of the reporting of a forcible rape of a man) this would mean that in 2005 6% of the women in America were raped.). --Reginod 11:49, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
I do see the contradiction, but it's only a contradiction to the extent that women get raped and also contract the disease, and it's been said before elsewhere that basing policy on the rare exceptional cases is not a good basis for policy.
Having said that, however, on the basis of figures you supply (6% of the female population), then I would have a hard time arguing that we are in fact talking about "rare exceptional cases". If the changes of getting raped are indeed about one in 17, I would concede that this is probably a good enough reason to require that all females get the vaccine.
However, your figures are not correct. 93,934 is not 3% of 296,507,061, but 0.03%, i.e. only one-hundredth of the figure you gave.
Philip J. Rayment 09:29, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
You are quite right (I missed the “e-4” that appeared at the end of my calculator function) thank you for pointing my mistake out, and I apologize if it distracted from my main point.
My main point was that lots of women are raped each year. And every woman raped is a woman potentially exposed to HPV through no fault of her own—and that so long as this is the case it is disingenuous to treat HPV as the result of bad choices.--Reginod 10:15, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Yes, your main point was that "lots" of women are raped. But what constitutes "lots"? 6% is certainly "lots", in my opinion, but is 0.06%? Of course any is too many, but how many is enough to justify imposing this on all? I'd agree that 6% is, but I'm not convinced that 0.06% is. Philip J. Rayment 19:58, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
In human terms I’d say 1 woman raped is lots. In terms of absolute numbers, I’d say 1,000 maybe 10,000. In terms of percentages, I’d probably say 1%.
I’d say so long as the potential benefits outweigh the harms it is worth imposing it. Given that the available data show that there is little to no harm in imposing it on all—and given that public health is one of the few legitimate concerns of a government—I would say that it is worth imposing.--Reginod 10:53, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

So it sounds like we agree, Philip, that HPV & safe sex teaching are a good idea, but that the message of abstinence is still important? -Speaker 11:15, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I didn't mention HPV; I'm not convinced about it. Philip J. Rayment 11:21, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Thats just scary to hear Philip, as an atheist im not so sure that im comfortable with the fact that people who base their decisions on religion and think that i deserve death because of some "sin" are trying to push those views to politics... Timppeli 11:25, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Our religion is our "worldview", just as atheism is (or is part of) your worldview. Everyone bases their opinions on their worldviews. In that regard, I'm doing no different to you. I base my opinions on my belief in God, which view says that sex should be confined to marriage. You have a belief in no God, so your worldview says that sex is okay outside of marriage. Both of us are basing our opinions on our beliefs about God.
Furthermore, it is Christian beliefs that have formed the basis of much of the values of the West. For example, on what basis do you, as an atheist, claim that it is wrong to rape (for example, and assuming that you do)? I submit that you have no firm basis, i.e. anything more than your personal opinion. See also here.
Philip J. Rayment 09:29, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank God for the First Amendment.-Speaker 11:27, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I will admit to being very confused by the "If they don't have pre-marital sex, they will be safe" argument. Even if your daughter avoids pre-marital sex, there is no gaurantee that her husband will. He may say that he has, or he may well avoid pre-marital sex, but have an affair after marriage. Either of these can be accomplished without the wife's knowledge. So now, for no sin of her own, you are risking her health, all in the name of "abstinance". Boomcoach 13:45, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

To sum up: It's not a freakin' victory. Death is not a good thing, and needless death is worse. And if someone is going to start blathering about "mandatory vaccination", I want you to know this: the only reason that this is even an option is because vaccination is mandatory.

Of course, if you don't get vaccinated, then you've removed your bad genes from the gene pool, which only helps the rest of us :). j/k --Liπus the Turbohacker(contact me) 14:29, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Try not to be so venemous, Linus. It could be construed as an ad hominem attack. --Hojimachongtalk 14:30, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Could be construed? My goodness! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 14:38, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Well, it wasn't directed towards a specific editor, but rather those with a similar ideology. --Hojimachongtalk 14:38, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I believe some people forget that HPV is also transmitted by skin to skin contact. It does not have to be sex. Also a small percent of children are born with HPV by making contact with their mother who has HPV. Abrown is correct. A vaccine is not effective unless it is widespread. The smallpox removial from society is evidence of this.--TimS 14:51, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm not going to pretend I like this very much. I believe in the protectionists capacity of the state, and In my opinion it is the state's duty to take all appropriate and proportional means to keep us safe. In my opinion, making a simple vaccination mandatory is both appropriate and proportional, we already make mandatory other vaccines, so in my opinion this is an effort to restrict American freedom. What happens if they make a vaccine against AIDS, are we not gonna make THAT one mandatory?--Elamdri 14:56, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
A better example for this site would be a general cancer vaccine ... I guarantee someone will say AIDS can only be spread through pre-martial or extramarital sex whereas they can't make the same bogus claim for all cancer. Jrssr5 14:59, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Not true. HIV can be spread from mother to child during birth or by breast feeding, or transmitted in blood products or by sharing needles. Any direct blood to blood contact will do. Simplistic notions of how diseases are transmitted help no one. --Abrown 15:11, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
See I understand that, I was simplifying the argument to make a point. Jrssr5 15:18, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, HIV can be transmitted through other means, but an extremely small amount of transmission is other than sexual or sharing needles. In other words, do the right thing, and the chances of getting it are extremely small. Simplistic notions help no-one, granted, but making out that everyone is at risk because there are rare instances of people getting it other than by sexual or needle-sharing means is itself a simplistic notion on how it's spread. Philip J. Rayment 09:29, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Why shouldn't people practicing pre-marital sex be protected from cancer? Nematocyte 10:20, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Why shouldn't burglars breaking into your house be protected from gunshot wounds? --Ed Poor 10:23, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Ed, I have a partner, do we deserve death? Nematocyte 10:25, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Ed, that is a false analogy—pre-marital sex is (perhaps) immoral, but absolutely not illegal, burglary is clearly illegal.--Reginod 10:26, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
I, for one, am not arguing that people practising pre-marital sex should not be protected from cancer (although I would argue that abstinence outside marriage is a better method). But the problem with your last reply to Ed is that you presume legality to be the deciding factor. Rather, laws are designed to formalise morals (that's why burglary, for example, is illegal—because we consider it immoral), so morality should be the criterion, not legality. Philip J. Rayment 19:58, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
To be clear—I was simply pointing out an objection to his argument (I assumed he was making an argument by analogy, and I was pointing out a relevant distinction between the two things being compared—in order to show that it is reasonable to reject the argument as a false analogy).
I also tend to disagree that laws should be designed around morality—I think laws should be designed around rights, so long as my action violates the rights of no one else, it should be legal, but I think that is getting a bit off topic.--Reginod 00:15, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Look, nobody is saying that the vaccine should be illegal, just that it shouldn't be manditory. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 01:36, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
I realize that. Ed is, apparently, arguing (by analogy) that people who get cancer from pre-marital sex should not be protected just as people who get shot robbing a house should not be protected. I pointed out that this was a false analogy—the way one shows that an argument by analogy is a flawed argument is to point out a relevant difference between the two things being compared—in this case burglary and premarital sex were being compared and I pointed out one relevant difference, burglary is illegal and premarital sex is not. All I was doing was pointing out a logical flaw in an argument.--Reginod 10:44, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

HPV Vaccinations Part II

It seems like our ultra-conservative, far-right-fringe friends have found a new way to prevent lives being saved: deception.

Using clever phrasing they've made it look like an article says the HPV vaccine is only 17% effective (implying it doesn't work), while the original meaning was that the vaccine is almost 100% effective against two particular strains of the HPV-virus, these two strains make up 17% of all related cases.

8 questions for these people:

1) If one of your daughter were to die from HPV, would you still choose not to vaccinate any of your other daughters?

No, I'd redouble the superior ways to prevent against the disease.--Aschlafly 20:29, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

2) Isn't saving 17% better than saving no one?

Not at an astronomical cost per disease prevented, and a message that gives people a false sense of security, and thus causes an overall higher disease rate.--Aschlafly 20:29, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

3) Are you aware that abstinence until marriage, reduces the risk, but in no way guarantees protection against STD's?

It does guarantee protection if you also marry someone with the same values as yourself.--Aschlafly 20:29, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

4) Are you aware that women get raped?

Yes. Murder happens also, unfortunately.--Aschlafly 20:29, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

5) Are you aware that premarital sex is not considered universally immoral, because no one gets hurt in the process, unlike a burglary or a murder?

There's the deceit: people are hurt in many ways, including disease.--Aschlafly 20:29, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

6) Are you aware of the Hippocrates Oath?

Yes, I certainly am.--Aschlafly 20:29, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

7) Does being "pro-life" mean "pro-life-under-the-age-of-12"?

Obviously not. Remember Terri Schiavo? She was over age 12.--Aschlafly 20:29, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

8) Did Jesus ask any questions when he healed the lepers?

So ... now you're saying it's wrong to ask questions????--Aschlafly 20:29, 14 May 2007 (EDT)


Bravo - it's like saying that medicine is a liberal fallacy because it doesn't always work!--WikinterpreterLiaise with the cabal?

I'm beginning to think that this stems from the whole "vaccines are EVOL!" inanity. --Liπus the Turbohacker(contact me) 13:36, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Why are the conservatives so quiet? Are they just waiting until someone adds something here, so they can respond to that post, instead of having to answer my uneasy questions? (1)


The question that should be asked is this: who authorized all three of you to push a liberal agenda on this website? Karajou 20:10, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

(1) See! MiddleMan

Hey, they're just asking some good questions. I bet if liberals were trying to WITHHOLD the HPV vaccine, they'd be vilified here. Czolgolz 20:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Even Jesus was asked questions by his critics in many attempts to bait him into saying the wrong thing; the same thing is being done here. Karajou 20:34, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Czolgolz, if you think the above are good questions by liberals, then I'd hate see what you think are bad questions! The above questions completely ignore the cheaper and superior ways of protecting against the disease; ignore the false promise of the vaccine; ignore the lack of choice given families; and ignore how top scientists and organizations themselves criticized making this mandatory.--Aschlafly 20:42, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

1) And if she got raped?

2) $360 isn't really astronomical, now is it? Since when do we put a pricetag on a human life anyway?

3) No, it doesn't, not really an intellectual answer, but the disease has to come from somewhere: the world's first HPV patient didn't get the disease through sexual intercourse. HPV can be transferred by skin contact as well. Are women supposed to pay with their lives when their husbands cheat on them?

4) Don't we call ambulances when someone has been attacked by a murderer? Do we let raped women die, as if it's their own fault they got raped?

5) A multi billion dollar porn industry and the fact that there 6.5 billion people on Earth, would lead me to believe most people enjoy sex a lot!

6) Really? Do you know that it obliges doctors to treat everyone regardless of how they live their lives, even convicted fellons or enemy soldiers.

7) Her machines cost a lot more than $360, and why was her life worth more than that of a teenage girl?

8) Jesus healed, the lepers, not asking any questions. Because it is the right thing to do! When there's a car crash you don't ask a victim whether he's ever stolen something, before you call 911, do you?


Answer my question now, MiddleMan: who authorized you to push a liberal agenda on this website? Karajou 21:09, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

We both live in free countries... MiddleMan

Answer the question Karajou 21:15, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Whoever wrote the conservapedia commandments, I guess. So long as they don't break them, they should be allowed to discuss and question. Czolgolz 22:15, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Not neccesarily a Liberal Agenda so much as giving the other side of the argument and clarifying misinformation.Prof0705 21:48, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Don't let the ultracons get to you, MiddleMan! The Cabal's rooting for you! --Liπus the Turbohacker(contact me) 22:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
And who is in the cabal? Karajou 22:34, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Er, did I say something about a cabal? Well, there is no cabal! --Liπus the Turbohacker(contact me) 22:47, 14 May 2007 (EDT)


This "Christian Wiki" has a very long article on Homosexuality, including 50 references. It has no article on charity, one of the most important of Christian values. What's up with that?Livingston 20:32, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps you would like to create the article? Karajou 20:39, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Honestly, I don't feel well enough qualified, especially in theology. There must be better-qualified editors than me here for the article. I do feel it is an important point that, given the stated values here, the positive values of Christianity weren't the first issues tackled. Of course it's important to identify societal problems, but to leave out the core values of Christianity??Livingston 20:42, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
We don't have an entry on gift either. I'm not sure charity is a particularly theological concept. But, at your request, I'll do an entry on charity now.--Aschlafly 20:44, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Charity is not necessarily a Christian concept, but, at least in Catholic theology, it is the most important of the 3 primary Christian virtues. Thanks much for adding an article.Livingston 20:46, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
I think the meaning of the word is a bit different in Catholic theology from general usage. But please feel free to add your understanding of the term at charity.--Aschlafly 20:49, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Thank you for the invitation. I'll try to put something together, although I'm not an expert.Livingston 20:50, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
I have a vague idea that the word "charity," as in "faith, hope and charity," is caritas, and means something more along the lines of "caring," in the sense of "I really do care," rather than what would once have been called "almsgiving." Dpbsmith 21:29, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
In other translations of the bible its "faith, hope and love" which indicates to me, like Dpbsmith said, that charity is more than almsgiving. Jrssr5 22:54, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Ok, a Charity article is started, but needs a lot of work from knowledgeable people. Andy's little comment on the end needs further explanation. I'm still shocked that a "Christian" wiki hasn't got around to this sooner, and has spent so much time attacking sins rather then praising virtues. Just my opinion.Livingston 15:49, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps it's not so much a case of concentrating on attacking sins vs. praising virtues, but of concentrating on things that are points of disagreement vs. things that we all agree on. That's what I think anyway. Philip J. Rayment 20:01, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
I don't buy that. It isn't consistent with what goes on here. I think there is truly a focus on the punititve, negative, etc, and the usual optimism of Christianity is left out. I don't think this is a conscious decision, just a reflection of the tone of many of the contributors.Livingston 23:01, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Jihad and the (il)Legals

A question for all those supporting the 12 million-plus individuals illegally in this country: Which one is the terrorist?''

An Answer: I haven't asked all of them, but I'll hazard a guess that it's not one of the LEGAL individuals mentioned in the linked article. Nicely done, Conservapaedia...stallthedigger 21:00, 11 May 2007 (EDT) hahahahaah. And how many more white terrorists like McVeigh are there in this country? Show me how many illegal Mexican immigrants have blown up a building recently.Prof0705 21:52, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Well said. Czolgolz 22:17, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Liberal falsehood of the day, Conservative Victory

How does this ridiculous 'encyclopedia' claim to be "one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind." when it has this relentless bias and propoganda. What about the conservative falsehoods and the liberal victories?? If Wikipedia is "6 times more liberal than the American public" then this farce of a website is atleast 12 times as conservative as the American public. How do you even calculate how liberal/conservative the American public is let alone how many times more liberal Wikipedia is?? What is Conservapedia's definition of one unit of 'liberalness'?? plqgnmv

Sir, that's spelled "propaganda". Please correct any "conservative falsehoods" that you think exist here. You've been here for several weeks but have only suggested an update on a New Zealand unemployment figure, which is not a political fact anyway. By the way, liberal quotient is fully explained, as is the basis for the "six times" figure in Bias in Wikipedia. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 00:17, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Again, not meaning to bicker, but I believe the figure is closer to 2.23:1, as has been stated on Talk:Bias in Wikipedia... GofG ||| Talk 01:41, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Shouldn't we mention on the front page that Blair will be stepping down at the end of June, both from his PMship and as leader of the Labour Party? --Hojimachongtalk 01:59, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Bout frickin time, I seriously thought that the man was gonna pull a Margaret Thatcher.--Elamdri 03:04, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
The problem with the liberal quotient is that it is a confusing article, that doesn't explain how you got the numbers. And there are good reason not to explain the numbers in detail, because they are fudged. User:Order May 13.
  • At least he is being replaced by someone who might possibly be another in her footsteps! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 03:18, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Ug, I dunno Thatcher's popularity was a day by day thing. The only reason that she stayed in so long was stuff like the Falklands. --Elamdri 05:13, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
  • "Stuff" like that made legends of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill. I was there at the time, she was surprisingly popular until the whole Poll Tax issue towards the end. With leaders, it isn't the popularity polls, but how long they last.  ;-) --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 05:19, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
I was there too, she was controversial and I am not sure it can be said that time has helped her reputation stevendavy
  • Well, always a matter of controversy, discussing a Conservative politician, eh? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 05:40, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Suggested news for Main Page

In Rome, Capital of Italy, great success today for the 'conservative'/catholic Family Day. Half a million participants. The main issue is opposition to a bill that would give more rights to non-married couples, including same-sex couples. Leopeo 09:57, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Done, but I couldn't find the "half a million" statistic. Thanks.--Aschlafly 10:48, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Unfortunately, I can't help you with english news. According to the two most read Italian newspapers, [|La Repubblica] and [|Corriere della Sera], organizers claim that there already are over 500 thousand people and growing. Leopeo 10:59, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Wow, looks like we stumbled into some severe bias here in news reporting. See how I changed it. Thanks for your tip!--Aschlafly 11:12, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
And now, according to both italian links, the organizers claim more than a million people. In the meanwhile an opposite rally, Coraggio Laico (more or less 'Secular courage'), has only 10 thousand attending people.

More News

  • A University of Colorado committee has recommended that a controversial professor accused of faulty research (Ward Churchill) be suspended for one year rather than fired. Lawyer: Suspension Recommended for Prof

Crocoite Talk 02:19, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Hundreds of thousands

Isn't hundreds of thousands just another way of saying up to a million? I agree that up to a million sounds more though. The liberals are truly devious. Auld Nick 13:28, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

It has to be noted that since most protesters brought their families, many of these "protesters" are children who have no idea why their parents dragged them some square on a Saturday afternoon. Oh, and Italy is known for its Macho society, even though statistically speaking at least 10000 (2%) of those 500,000 protesters have (hidden) homosexual/lesbian/bisexual tendencies...


It was more than a million, at least according to the organizers. Macho society in Italy? Please...
And how can you statistically infer how many have hidden tendencies but still participate in that kind of protest, while there was another pro-gay-rights protest a couple of blocks away, which incidentally numbered more or less your 10000..? Leopeo 06:20, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
From what I remember of gatherings at the Mall in Washington (and others), isn't it journalistic practice to either cite an "official" number, or both the estimates by the group and the target of their protest? I know in WDC the Park Service stopped offering estimates because all it did was trigger angry reactions from both sides. Human 13:24, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

The "what will people think" factor that keeps them in the closet, or the "I have sinful thoughts: I'm going to hell, unless I show God I can change" factor keeps a significant percentage of these people pretending (see Ted Haggart.) MiddleMan

Is it worth changing the main page news item to reflect the fact that the bill that sparked the protest gives rights in law to any couple living in sin? It's not just about homosexuality but any unmarried couple. Incidentally, the organisers of the Family Day estimate attendance at 250 000. Exclaimer

Wikipedia now criticizes entries that do not take "a worldwide view."

To me, this seems entirely proper. The United States covers less than 16% of the worlds surface, and makes up less than 5% of the worlds population. It is far less significant than its inhabitants (most of whom have never even set foot in another country) generally think.

There is no obvious mention of a bias towards American content on Conservapedia, yet this statement on the front page, and the arbitrary deletion or abbreviation recently of many non-American articles recently, notably of British and Scottish articles, makes it plain that such a bias exists.

Steps should be taken to correct this situation. Properly Conservapedia should do the right thing itself, and explicitly take a worldwide view itself (and stop criticising Wikipedia for doing so). Failing which it should at least clearly state its American bias. (Being neither American, nor particularly interested in America, nor having any special knowledge of American matters, I would have far less interest in contributing to a project with such a bias.) --Jeremiah4-22 06:06, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

  • God bless you, and I hope you have a good life, Jereniah4-22! America has literally freed millions of people who would otherwise have not lived the rich, full lives they have. American Citizens donate more money to charities outside of the United States than the entire European Community gives, governments included. So forgive us our American-centric point of view, and you will be missed. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 07:00, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
I hope you get everything you deserve too, TK. --Jeremiah4-22 07:50, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
If you're basing that on the Hudson Institute's "Study of Global Philanthropy"[1], then you need "American residents" rather than "American Citizens"; for 2004 (the most recent year with data available, as far as I can find), the Hudson Institute tallies $71.2billion in US private assistance to developing countries, but $47billion of that is "individual remittances" -- money immigrants send to family and friends in their country of origin. Some percentage (not studied, as far as I see) is from non-citizens. The $24.2billion without the individual remittances is lower than the 2004 EU member country's $42.8billion government contributions[2], and that's without factoring in private European contributions. --Jtl 07:41, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

I think it's only natural that Conservapedia mostly deals with issues important to US citicens, as thats what most of the users here are. Im sure there is no reason why people from other countryes couldn't add information about their countryes actually i think it's encouraged. On other hand, you sound like you had something against America? LydiaK 07:24, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Nothing against America. But I don't like bias). I'd prefer to see all parts of the world dealt with on an equal basis. And a primarily American audience doesn't need an encyclopaedia to see what's all around them, but would benefit as much as anyone else from articles on other places that aren't close at hand. --Jeremiah4-22 07:50, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
If you don't like bias, then why do you insist on showing your own bias against this site? Karajou 11:47, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

I would not measure a nation's significance based merely on its land mass or size of its population. Many people do not like America's freedom, Rule of Law and Christianity, and the prosperity that creates. Conservapedia was founded in part to counter the anti-American bias that exists on Wikipedia, and is getting worse there.--Aschlafly 07:37, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

If this site does have a pro-American bias, I think this should be stated explicitly somewhere prominent. --Jeremiah4-22 07:50, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Somehow you missed the CP logo, with the American Flag proudly included? Stating the facts is not "pro-American bias", Jeremiah4-22. As Andy posted above, we really would rather not be like WP. And we pride ourselves on that fact. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 07:54, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
Our critics seem to equate pro-Americanism with "bias". This probably stems from one of the nihilistic philosophies, such as moral relativism, moral equivalence or the particularist branch of multiculturalism. Recall that Wikipedia's official philosophy or policy involves "neutrality".
America is not neutral, and American Conservatism, which obviously is the philosophy motivated this project, takes a number of positive stands on several subjects. In coming weeks, I expect to see more of these stands delineated: conservative politics, conservative economics, and conservative religion.

America stands for freedom, which is something Wikipedia does not support. Wikipedia is a bureacracy which thrives on collaboration but has numerous restrictions. It is not a free speech zone, although it allows obscene words like f*** all over the place. It is not even true to its stated idea of neutrality, because it suppresses ideas such as the existence of the soul setting apart human beings from animals; it gives prominence to ideas based on strawpolls of its own contributors rather than on the general population; it says it supports science but is filled to the rafters with junk science and politicized science.
I could go on and on about what's wrong with Wikipedia. Maybe I should put my observations into the article. --Ed Poor 08:08, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
I must refer you here to Luke 6:41 --Jeremiah4-22 08:46, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Goodness! Lots since I last checked here. Many opinions, and that is good. God's speed, Jeremiah4-22 in your other endeavors. Check back in from time to time to keep appraised of our progress. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 09:08, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
I thought CP took a "worldwide" view, too? At least, when the facts are offered. For instance, a wrote a little thing about house wiring, where it was pointed out to me by a British editor that it was US-centric. Hopefully he will be adding some of the differences, at least in the EU. Which could develop into a very useful list of information for travellers, like which personal appliances will work where. I don't think a pro-American political bias eliminates facts about the rest of the world at all. Human 13:32, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Human, take a look at the "World View" topic on Andy's talk page, and the link I provided. But take some headache tablets first....--Sysop-TK /MyTalk 14:28, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the tip TK... I actually read that a couple of years ago, it hasn't changed very much. I'd say that, ignoring non-English versions, this site does pretty well by statistical comparison - its small number of editors represent several continents already, from what I can tell, and a wide swath across the political and religious spectra, despite the site's "perspective". By the way, I didn't need aspirin, but thanks for the warning! Human 17:49, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Lincoln Quote

Why is that quote on the front page? If you read the rest of the speech, it is not exactly a ringing endorsement of conservatism. Oh, I forgot. This is "Stupidpedia."--443276 12:43, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

It's called 'quote mining', but this must have been posted by some wicked liberal, because we're often told that only liberals do things like that. Somebody must be trying to make us look bad.--Britinme 13:05, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Folks, you have to explain your point better than that. The first comment resorts to name-calling; the second invokes the silly evolutionists' term quote-mining, which I've never heard outside of evolutionists complaining about using their own quotes against them. In every other field, quotes are used against people all the time. That's what trials are, for example.--Aschlafly 17:35, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Two points:
    1. If all of the individuals in every electrical engineering took meth every day, would that make it right? No.
    2. Regardless of the validity of the term "quote mining", a matter of debate, judging from the linked Google search, the principle behind the objections is still sound.

--Liπus the Turbohacker(contact me) 17:50, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

No matter how often you repeat that quote mining isn't real, you won't change the fact that's exactly what is being done in numerous places on CP. Yes, quotes are used all the time against people, but it's easy to have them blown back in your face when you use them incorrectly! Jrssr5 18:44, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
The term "quote mining" is not in the dictionary, and shows up on only 34,500 Google pages (less than one-tenth the number of pages returned when "Conservapedia" is searched, by comparison). At least five out of the first six of those returned pages on Google for "quote mining" were written by evolutionists.--Aschlafly 18:57, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
That still doesn't diminish the meaning of the phrase. And can you prove that 5 of the 6 were evolutionists not just someone who witnessed what was happening and wrote that? And Conservapedia isn't in the dictionary either, but it obviously exists as I'm writing on it right now (unless I'm about to have my mind blown by some huge cosmic blackhole). Jrssr5 19:02, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
And I thought google had a very liberal bias, so why would more pages on Conservapedia show up that the liberal thought of quote mining? Jrssr5 19:03, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Rather, than arguing about the expression "quote mining", which afaik can be translated to "cherry picking", I'd like to know what is disingenuous about the Lincoln quote on the front page.User:Order May 15.

Obviously, the Cooper Union Speech by Lincoln in general, and the specific paragraph within where Lincoln clearly supports conservatism, is something that's very upsetting to certain liberals here as it runs counter to their beliefs, which is why they want it removed. Karajou 20:15, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Right. I couldn't see anything wrong with the quote either, and a dozen or so edits above shed no light on any problem with the quote.--Aschlafly 20:19, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

The statement itself really doesn't do anything but define conservatism. I don't see what the issue is here.--Elamdri 20:20, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
The quote is also mentioned in John Dean's book on conservatives, and I guess his complaint is that the Republican party moved away from Lincons definition, and startet to act increasingly "revolutionary". Maybe "revolutionary" isn't the right word, but I will look it up. User:Order May 15 12:12 pm (AEST)

Interesting Story,2933,271116,00.html

Court ordered a sperm donor to pay child support for a lesbian couple who used his sperm. Its not as clear cut as that sentence makes it sound, but its still rather interesting. Breaking news worthy?--Elamdri 20:13, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Fascinating story, but a bit confused and a bit inconsistent with our rules to qualify for front page treatment, I'm afraid. But I did send the story on to others by email, and thanks for alerting me to it.--Aschlafly 20:21, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Just bringing it to light. Wasn't sure about the content, didn't think it was too bad, Fox does a decent job of hiding the gory details, but whatever works. From a legal perspective it fascinates me.--Elamdri 20:23, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

News story about the teacher prank in school

"Gun prank by public school elementary teachers terrify students on a field trip", which took place at Scales Elementary, which is about mile from where I live. Karajou 20:32, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

No kidding?! Wow, it really is a small world. You can give some on-the-scene reporting on the parental outrage!--Aschlafly 22:03, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
To make an irrelevant comment, if we had gun control, none of this would have happened. --Liπus the Turbohacker(contact me) 22:18, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
WRONG. If we didn't have had a few liberal teachers pulling this stunt, then there wouldn't be a school full of scared-to-death kids. Karajou 22:41, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
I agree it was wrong, but why did you slap the liberal label on the teacher? Czolgolz 23:40, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Because most teachers in the public schools are. Geo.Talk 00:08, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
That makes sense. Being chariman of the College Republican National Committee doesn't mean you're a conservative; being a long-time associate of Grover Norquist doesn't mean you're a conservative; heck, even being a front-runner for the Republican nomination for President doesn't mean you're a conservative; but being a public school teacher means you're a liberal.--Jtl 00:56, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
Geo said most public school teachers are liberal; I just finished five semesters of college at MTSU, and out of the 24 teachers I had, 22 were liberal and they showed it. If you want to come down to Murfreesboro and challenge it, I'll gladly let you explain your position in front of the angry parents first. I'm sure they'll understand. Karajou 01:37, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm sure that's representative of the whole nation, too, without need for further research?-Speaker 01:38, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Why does it seem like most teachers are liberal? I never got that. What is it about being a teacher that makes one more inclined to be liberal. I see it a lot with my college professors.--Elamdri 02:18, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
Or why do so few conservatives go into education? Czolgolz 09:30, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
I think if research is done as to the ratio of liberals to conservatives in public schools, it will vary from state to state, and from city to city, perhaps from neighborhood to neighborhood as well. But the school involved with this topic is a mile from my house, and one has to consider the feelings of the parents as each and every kid walked out of there scared out of their wits for absolutely nothing. These are kids younger than ten! They got no concern at all as to who's conservative and who's liberal; all they knew was some monster was in the school's halls with a gun, and this monster turned out to be a very idiotic teacher. Go figure. Karajou 01:49, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I wouldn't protest that the teacher is CRAZY, and flat-out wrong and evil. But a liberal doesn't necessarily follow from that.-Speaker 01:51, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Karajou, you said these teachers were liberal, based on...well, your & Geo's perceptions of national teacher demographics, I guess. I don't think anybody here is defending the teachers or the assistant principal, just questioning the jumping to conclusions about their political leanings. (and it's not terribly important, except that accuracy is always good -- it wasn't "in the school's halls"; it was in a state park. And are you sure the kids were younger than 10? The news stories I've seen have said 6th grade, which would normally be 10 and 11 year olds.) --Jtl 02:02, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
On the field trip, I stand corrected; it took place while in a state park. The local news reports that I saw on TV left the impression that it took place within the school itself, so possibly even those reporters may have got it wrong as well when the news started coming out. Karajou 17:53, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
On that point I can agree with you...I have a few liberal friends; in fact, my best friend is liberal (and I'm trying to change her!) Karajou 01:57, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I think it's down to whole recruitment process. It's biased towards liberals because most school boards insist teachers have liberal qualifications in their subjects and refuse to recognize Conservative conviction as a qualification in itself. The whole system perpetuates itself in a liberal image. --Commandment9 19:43, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

You know, if the students were allowed to carry guns, as some here would advocate, the silly-but-ultimately-harmless teacher might have ended up with a fatal case of lead poisoning. Philip J. Rayment 08:12, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Teaching, like law enforcement, medicine, politics, etc, is one of those professions that usually only gets noticed when someone screws up. There were no national news stories about teachers working long hours, budget cuts, dropout prevention, etc. Just remember, that for every bad teacher (and there are bad teachers), there are dozens of good ones. Czolgolz 09:30, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Another news suggestion

[Washington Post article] about the closing of the most popular Venezuelan television network RCTV - by personal order from Chavez. The network has been critical of him. Leopeo 07:56, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Jerry Falwell taken ill

I hope this can be mentioned in Breaking News along with a call for prayer for his recovery. Exclaimer

Get me a good link and I'll post it right way. Thanks.--Aschlafly 13:41, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
He Passed. --TimS 13:42, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

That's so sad, he was a good man.

I put it on the front page. May he rest in peace with the Lord.--Aschlafly 14:07, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
You beat me to putting it on the front page by several seconds. This is very sad news, but he's in a better place now. DanH 14:13, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
Yes indeed. I consider Jerry Falwell to have been one of the greatest men of our times. Please feel free to improve his entry here, and that of the tremendous university he built, Liberty University.--Aschlafly 14:19, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Death is sad, and I wish Mr Falwell had lived to have time to recant his philosophy of hate. But he was a very hateful man. I hope that he's been forgiven for that.-Speaker 14:18, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

What exactly makes you describe him as a "very hateful man"? --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 16:21, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
Yknow, you're entitled to your beliefs, but this is not the best site for trollbaiting...--Elamdri 15:08, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Through Jesus Christ, and his death, we are all forgiven. Jerry Falwell, with his unbounded generosity and vision, has given to thouands a decent and rigorous Christian education through his beloved university. From absolutely nothing, he created a movement that has changed America for the better. More than anything else, Jerry Falwell loved his students, and the future they represent. Liberty University will be his enduring legacy. Walking with him there, I was always amazed at just how many of the students he knew by name, and the obvious love they showed him. That told me more about who and what he was than anything else. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 16:17, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

South Africa Issue

Already some enemies of Jerry Falwell are attacking him for going "to South Africa in support of the white minority govt.," in an obvious attempt to smear him as a racist. The motivation for this smear is probably something else.

Regardless, Jerry Falwell was never a racist, never made a racist remark, and provided more opportunities to African Americans at Liberty University than most liberal colleges have. See, e.g., [4]. Shall we describe John Kerry as someone who graduated from "an all-white college" or Donna Shalala as having run the nearly all-white University of Wisconsin-Madison? Or how about Hillary Clinton as someone who supported the "racist" Don Imus?

It is true that Jerry Falwell criticized Bishop Desmond Tutu, but it was not because Tutu is an African.--Aschlafly 16:58, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Uhumm, African Am..., well just African I guess. MiddleMan

That he went to South Africa is a fact. He did so to support the government there at a time when the world was trying to isolate them and force them to change. My assertion that he was a supporter of apartheid was incorrect and I asked that the locked page be edited to be more factual. I hardly think that warrants a claim that it was "an obvious attempt to smear him". Stompum

Are you also going to blame Kerry for going to an all-white college, Shalala for running a nearly all-white college, and Hillary Clinton for supporting someone fired for a racist comment? If not, then I suggest you be fairer to Jerry Falwell and attempt to understand why he opposed Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela.--Aschlafly 17:28, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

In the Nashville Tennessean there is the "remarks" section where people leave whatever comments they please on any given story; at this time there are 76 such comments for Jerry Falwell, and these comments are mostly hatred of the venomous kind. [5] Sad state of affairs for a lot of people in this country. Karajou 17:47, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Hatred? well, I guess "As you sow so shall you reap" seems to apply here... MiddleMan

At first I didn't see who wrote that and was going to say "how ironic" and risk my metaphoric neck. But now I realize you meant it. I do have to say, "liberals" have not suddenly waited until Mr. Falwell died to criticize him. I, at least (can't speak for a group) have been appalled at most of his career as it unfolded. Human 18:36, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I wonder, do you refer to a "Mr." Martin Luther King also?

What is striking is how some liberals are incapable of showing even minimal restraint in respect of someone who did an enormous amount of good for tens of thousands of students and others. How much many tens of thousands has Hillary Clinton taught from charity that she raised, as Rev. Jerry Falwell did? Ah, but Rev. Falwell taught the Christian message, and hence the hatred for him.--Aschlafly 18:51, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Restraint didn't seem to be an issue when it came to Virginia Tech students grieving lost friends. [6] Auld Nick 06:42, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Oh, I'm sorry, he's a Rev. I didn't realize, duh. Consider the comment abode to read "Rev.". And, no, I'd refer to MLK as the Reverend Doctor (or Rev. Dr. King), right? I always remember to refer to Condi as Dr. Rice, at least... Human 19:31, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

No, mother Teresa, William Booth and John Paul II thought the Christian message, but this man didn't even know what being a Christian is about (love & peace & tolerance & forgiveness), all he did was spread hatred towards women, Jews, Homosexuals, liberals and Teletubbies. I believe Jesus would be horrified by this man's intolerant views. MiddleMan

The Christian message is not about being "tolerant". If you think "all he did was spread hated" you are either very ignorant, or just incredibly liberal. BTW, Jesus' opinions are not based on your views. You say your not a Christian, so who are you to say what its about?Bohdan
I think we're still waiting for a single example of the alleged hatred by Jerry Falwell. Please, Middleman, be honest this time: people hate Jerry Falwell because he stood up for what is in the Bible. Yes, the Bible can be harsh on all of us. And don't think for a moment that Jesus can't also be harsh towards those who reject His message. He often was.--Aschlafly 19:07, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I've read the New Testament, I'm not a true expert (then again the New Testament was written for everyone, not just scholars), but it seems to me Jesus was a nice guy (loving & peaceful & tolerant & forgiving), he was tolerant towards a hated tax collector, a (alleged) prostitute and foreigners, and others unwanted by society. For hateful men like Falwell to even refer to Jesus, seems incredibly disrespectful towards one of history's greatest moral teachers.

Yes, some of the things he said were condoned by the Old Testament, but I don't really respect the old prophets: Abraham (raped a slave girl, banned one of his sons and nearly killed another) or Moses (guilty of genocide).

That's just the way I see it. MiddleMan|Nasty Sock

Here's a story I think we should run

Rupert Murdoch's green conversion. [7] (Britinme)

See, Britinme, we're not biased! Done as requested.--Aschlafly 17:47, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Thank you Andy :-)--Britinme 19:44, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
He probably realized he can make tons of money by selling green products.Jaques 17:51, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
That was rather what I thought - not necessarily by selling green products but by adopting energy efficiency. I heard an interesting talk about it on the radio today from Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute - you can read it here: [8]--Britinme 22:08, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Also, apparently ecotourism is bad for the environment:;_ylt=AiosIIJhmBeD9OM.Ofniz8HMWM0F DanH 21:52, 16 May 2007 (EDT)


Why are we complaining about a blind man not getting a gun ... I think that being blind might be enough of a reason to not have a long-range weapon that can take someone's life.Iduan 22:55, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

It's discriminatory and borne of prejudicial attitudes. Blind persons are probably more responsible with firearms than those who can see. There's no evidence to the contrary, and this person holds a gun permit in two other states.
What's next - denying gun permits based on the color of one's skin?--Aschlafly 22:57, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Why does a blind man need a gun, if he cannot see who he is shooting? --Hojimachongtalk 23:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Next thing you know, they won't let him drive. Czolgolz 00:54, 17 May 2007 (EDT

Blind people can do more than you think. Also, he might just be legally blind and still have some vision. DanH 00:55, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

9,700 articles

Are these all articles, or are you counting user pages and discussion pages as well? Czolgolz 00:29, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

I am also confused about where you get the 9,700 articles from. By looking at the statistics page I get this:
There are 22,122 total pages in the database. This includes "talk" pages, pages about Conservapedia, minimal "stub" pages, redirects, and others that probably don't qualify as content pages. Excluding those, there are 8,644 pages that are probably legitimate content pages.
So from this I would assume that there are only 8,644 articles and not the 9,700 you claim. So I was just wondering where you get the other 1000 articles from. --AdrianP 22:38, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
You are citing a rough estimate. Note the words "probably". A flaw in the Wiki software is to favor quantity of words over quality, and this has led to Wikipedia's virtual uselessness as a true encyclopedic resource. Articles are too long, filled with trivia, gossip, and useless information. Two sentence explanations that would be helpful are replaced by a 1000 words that are not helpful.
We do a precise count of entries here for our totals. We value the quality of each entry, not the quantity of words in it. A study of the "Random page" on our site versus Wikipedia's revealed that we have a higher percentage of quality, useful entries.--Aschlafly 23:17, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for clearing that up for me, Andy.--AdrianP 01:48, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Clarification of "Today in History"

I think that clarification should be made that the uprising was in the ghetto of Warsaw, not the whole city.Bohdan

Good point. Rob fixed it for you. Now that you're a Sysop, Bohdan, please feel free to improve the main page by going to Editing main page and choosing one of the sections.--Aschlafly 22:04, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Thompson response is outstanding

LOL, thanks for putting it up. HeartOfGold 20:37, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Er... I love how he doesn't answer the question, but instead responds with unrelated ad hominem remarks against Moore. And to think that he wants to run for president.... --Hojimachongtalk 21:19, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
You seem to be operating under the misguided assumption that Moore earned the right to be responded to. The guy lives to be nothing but a royal pain. --TBeecher 21:21, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
The "asker" of a question does not affect the validity of the question. The refusal to give a good answer, while taking the time to engage in ad hominem slander, infers that he does not actually have a good response. --Hojimachongtalk 21:22, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
With all due respect, I think you are completely wrong. Moore enjoys being an instigator. When he tries to make a point, he bullies people around and simply acts like a jerk. It was refreshing to see someone that wasn't going to stand for his asinine behavior. --TBeecher 21:28, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
Though he still failed to demonstrate that his cigars don't violate the trade embargo. I agree that Moore is a complete idiot, but it's still a valid question. If Thompson thinks he is "above the law", then he is sadly mistaken. --Hojimachongtalk 21:29, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
I've got a different take on the situation. While Thompson is definitely not above the law, he doesn't have to account to just anybody for all of his actions. If Moore demanded to know where Thompson bought his car, I don't think Thompson is obligated to respond. Why does the scenario change because a cigar is involved? Ultimately - if Moore were a federal agent in charge with investigating violations of the embargo, we would be having a different conversation. But you're right - Moore is just a complete idiot - he isn't entitled to receieve everything that he wants. --TBeecher 21:36, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
Well, now that the question is out there, it will gain interest from more legitimate "askers". What a terrible way for a career to end, if that was the case; "Prez hopeful lighting up Cubans"! --Hojimachongtalk 21:51, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
No need to be negative about it. Maybe, instead of ruining Thompson's career - this will lead to serious discussion about lifting the embargo and saving the Cubans that are starving as a result. --TBeecher 21:57, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
Hopefully the Castro family will be embraced by incapacitation soon, when we can peacefully install capitalist jobs for those starving Cubans. --Hojimachongtalk 23:13, 17 May 2007 (EDT)