User talk:Aschlafly/Archive44

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

New User

Aschlafly: I am a new and excited user to your sight, but I am a little lacking in direction. I would love to know where I could begin to help out Conservapedia. I would really appreciate your guidance in the beginning, because I feel that this is a great project and that your ideas for this encyclopedia are great. --RoyS 16:32, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

There's over 24,000 fascinating entries here. Start wherever you like! You can view "Recent changes" on the left-side menu to see where the most recent activity is.--Aschlafly 19:38, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
I am having a lot of problems with loading the website, and I don't think it is on my end because other websites still work fine. Is there a known problem with loading conservapedia, and if so, are there any solutions? Thanks, RoyS 10:30, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
We're looking into this. Thanks for your interest. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 11:25, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
Oddly, I have better response using CP with Internet Explorer than with Firefox. Jinxmchue 00:43, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
I've found Safari works nicely as well. God Bless! User:jOhN314
I have same problem as RoyS, several times an error message appears, and I have to refresh for the page to load properly -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk)

email me 01:34, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

Me too. I thought it was my computerBert Schlossberg 01:43, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

I also have the same problem, and as above Internet Explorer works better for me than Firefox, which is unfortunate because I perfer Firefox.
I think the culprit is the upgrade of the MediaWiki software. Maybe I can uninstall some of the extensions. Suggestions are welcome. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 09:05, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafly, I use IE as well as FF and have been having problems loading or saving pages with both. There have also been prolonged periods when I have been unable to access any pages. However, sometimes when I have been able to connect the site seemed quite fast to load. So I am not convinced that it is a browser related issue. However, regarding uninstalling MediaWiki extensions I would need to know what has been added. Certainly things worked fine before the upgrade. BrianCo 12:56, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
I am a firefox user, and while I hate IE, I am going to try it to see if there is a difference. -RoyS 13:02, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
There are a whole bunch of extensions. I just commented many out. Let's see if that helps. I also commented out another upgrade feature. Thanks for your efforts and suggestions, and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 13:08, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
References and tables are no longer displaying properly in articles. --Frieda 13:26, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

Maybe some extensions require that other extensions be installed with them, why not just install more extensions, just a guess? -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) email me 14:00, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

   * type mysql
   * when you get the mysql prompt type:
   * use <the database name>
   * then type:
   * show tables;
   * this will give you a list of all the tables on the database you need to do this for each table:
   * optimize table <table name>; WillieC 14:09, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

Further instructions see User:Tmtoulouse

Hi, I have been having difficulties at the site for a couple of weeks. I thought it might just be my computer, but today I am at another computer and still am having troubles. I am using Internet Explorer and get this messages often: "Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage", also the link to "my watchlist" doesn't seem to work. Thanks - Taj 15:41, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

An addendum to my above comment about IE, I've found that when an edit fails to load using IE, my edits are not retained when I click "back" to the edit page and I need to retype them. On Firefox, when that happens and I go back, the edits are usually retained and I can just immediately resubmit them (after checking if they actually did go through). Jinxmchue 20:44, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

I am still having difficulty too, I get a "page cannot be displayed" message when I click on links. I don't use Firefox browser but I do have better luck using Netscape instead of Internet Explorer, although Netscape is an old browser that no one uses anymore, lol. Hope this info helps isolate whatever issues the site is having. Taj 12:34, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Hi Andy! I'm sorry to post here, but glad to meet you! However, the cpwebmaster mailserver is not working (I immediately receive 550 error messages back). Also, this morning, as user FinalFrontier I pointed out the parochial/private school citation on the culture page and was blocked (infinitely!) by user Bugle. The reason he gave was "the final frontier is what's between your ears." I really support your site but was thrown off by his rudeness and disrespect. Why did this happen? Thanks, ParrWest 20:58 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Your sense of entitlement and placing blame on others suggest to me that you're a liberal. You're only welcome if you comply with our simple Conservapedia:Commandments, and contribute more than you complain. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 21:01, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
Oh sorry, I see now that I wasn't supposed to go to a talk page first; 90% rule, I should have just edited (which you did later today anyway). Thanks, I understand. Have fun!


COULD THE AUG. 31/Sept. 1, 25th year anniversary of shootdown of KAL 007 be noted in the Main page news? Also to note. At that date, there will be a government release of KAL 007 classified information and documents considered by the government as not presently harmful to national security.Bert Schlossberg 10:23, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Bert, please remind of this again closer to the anniversary. Thanks.--Aschlafly 00:34, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Andy, Here's the reminderBert Schlossberg 13:50, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

What about these?

Andy I am new to this site and new to anti-semitism (I don't believe I have ever met a Jewish person) but I do not believe that this site should support people who make of this type of edit. Valley of Horses (note that this is JinxMcHue because of this) [1]. Jinx was expelled from Wikipedia here for vandalism and sock puppets. [2]

He has also defended the edits of a person called ChristianityMeansFreedom as not being antisemetic here [3]which is where I first noticed JinxMcHue. I suggest he is not an appropriate person to have on this site.--DamianJohn 20:40, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Just FYI

I have had only one username on WP - "Jinxmchue" - which I deliberately locked myself out of in protest. I now only make infrequent edits under my IP address, which I have admitted there. I am not anti-Semitic by any stretch of the imagination. As far as the AFA article here is concerned, I have stated on the article's talk page that I have no problem with the inclusion of the information in question if certain reasonable stipulations are met (which should be easy enough to do). I'll refrain from cluttering up your talk page with squabbles anymore (I'll let you handle the accusations people make from now on), but if you have any questions or concerns, feel free to email me at jinxmchue[at]gmail[dot]com or jinxmchue[at]juno[dot]com. Jinxmchue 20:41, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Basic position question

Hello. Before I start contributing regularly to Conservapedia, I have a question on its basic position. I am strongly Christian, and do not wish to contribute here unless the encyclopedia is not only "politically conservative" but also "true to Christ", and none of this "separation of church and state" hogwash. A brief elaboration on this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Largehat 21:24, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm confident that most here would agree that "separation of church and state" is "hogwash", as you put it. How about "separation of school and state"? Now that's a slogan that has some merit!--Aschlafly 21:28, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
Seperation of church and state, regardless of how disagreeable it is to all right thinking christians, is in fact the law of the land -- not so much because it was written by the Guided Hand of our Blessed Founding Fathers, but because of those black-robed bandits in the Supreme Court and their heathenous decision (Roe v. Wade, anyone). What we really need to do is take the judicial system back from the activist judges and place it back in the hands of the righteous where it belongs! Let's not waste our time on liberal wastes of time like slogans and get this country back on the path of righteousness! (this is one subject that really boils my blood, but good!) GOD BLESS! User:jOhN314
Hold on a moment - I realise this isn't a Debate page, but if you're going to discard the separation of church and state, that means sparking a huge fracas about which church your state is going to align itself with: Christianity, Judaism, or Islam? Say we go with Christianity - Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox? Protestantism is predominant already, so now it's just a matter of which sect - Baptist, Anabaptist, Pentecostal, Methodist, Quaker... You end up with a deeply divisive policy which requires a whole population to fund or observe others' religious beliefs while denying the same privileges to non-sanctioned faiths. It seems to me a pretty simple thing to do what you think is right by God while allowing others to choose for themselves. As Jesus said himself, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Underscoreb 21:19, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
No one is suggest that the state "align itself" with a particular denomination. The state should not embrace atheism by insisting on censoring religion in public life.--Aschlafly 21:26, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
If you ask me, the state has already, and to great success, aligned itself with a particular religion, and moreover the right one. As much as the current administration has been criticized for its failings in military policy, the President has often cited an inspiration from a God, and not the false "God" of middle-east extremists. In much the same way, I see that Conservapedia has already chosen its alignment. See, for instance, our article on Jesus Christ - it wastes no time in declaring Jesus Christ as the only son of God. Largehat 17:05, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
Wow. Just, wow. Underscoreb 20:54, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
I'm not sure I follow - do you mean school children shouldn't recite the Pledge of Allegiance, for instance? Largehat 21:34, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
Well, first of all, as a homeschooled person I understand what Aschlafly is talking about. I know some people who are educated in public school, and well, none of the "advantages" of public school that wikipedia notes are valid. The local public school is disgusting, full of "bad" kids (to put it lightly) and most importantly, I don't feel that it instills the values I feel that I was able to get from homeschool. I am also a recent user to Conservapedia, and I love the idea of a wikipedia for homeschoolers. -RoyS 22:02, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
How can you speak so expertly about public school if you've never been? And to speak of "bad kids" is fundamentally problematic, in my opinion. So too is the disrespect you are paying to the thousands and thousands of men and women who work so hard as teachers.-Kroseman 07:02, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
We deal with public school kids all the time without being in public schools ourselves. Pardon this analogy, but don't tell me you think someone has to first be drug addict himself before criticizing drug addicts.--Aschlafly 21:26, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
Right. As to the Pledge issue, we don't need state schools to recite the Pledge.--Aschlafly 22:11, 26 July 2008 (EDT)


For some reason the <ref> and <references/> are not working on articles -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) email me 13:58, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

That was a temporary and I think it was quickly fixed. Thanks for letting me know. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 21:23, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia... running very smoothly again. Thanks for doing whatever it was you did to fix it! Bugler 13:12, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

And thanks to you, Bugler, for your perseverance! In fact, I think I'll add that to a conservative trait somewhere. Or maybe we need an entry, conservative traits.--Aschlafly 13:22, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
Yay, it's working very well again! Thanks! :) Taj 01:08, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Note to Andy, it may not be Biblical, but no doubt you've heard that you get more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. Not that you want to attract flies, but it's a useful saying. In any case, I am admittedly less conservative than you are. I would think that a website named Conservapedia would present factual information with a conservative angle. It's very easy, for instance, to legitimately criticize Barack Obama. I would like to have come to this website to see what the conservative viewpoint was on a topic from time to time. But I found your webpage on Barack Obama to be pretty darn close to hateful. I would think that Condoleeza Rice, George Bush, Dick Cheney and even John McCain would be considered conservatives. I doubt they would agree with the "facts" presented on the Barack page. I am certain, for instance, that George Bush wouldn't dispute Barack Obama's claim to be a Christian. And I think stating that Barack Obama would be the first Affirmative Action President would be considered hateful by Condoleeza Rice, another African-American you might someday be calling an Affirmative Action President. I guess it's up to you what you want to with this website. But I am certain that there's a legitimate reason for a website that is like wikipedia but right of center. This is not that website, despite your original intentions. LonJohnson 10:51, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Liberal Myths pruning

Your reversion of my edits was accompanied by a request to add cites instead of removing items. The point of my edits was that these items shouldn't have been on the list at all, so trying to find cites for them is irrelevant. What I had done was to list all of the items I was planning on removing on the Talk page, each accompanied by an explanation of why they should be removed. I then waited a day for feedback, and when none was received, proceeded with the deletion. As I pointed out to Jpatt, I did not remove every item, and even left several which were uncited because there was no obvious reason to remove them. This is now the second time in 24 hours that these changes were reverted, with no specific justification why any belong there. I'm simply asking that the Conservapedia Commandments be followed, and in this case they're not. --DinsdaleP 09:58, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

We don't allow ideological censorship here. Please use Wikipedia for that. You deleted the liberal myth of a population explosion despite easy-to-find citations for it on this site and elsewhere. Look for cites and add them before deleting material.--Aschlafly 10:24, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
Fair point on population, then, although I was removing that because the rate of population growth is not a myth; whether one considers the planet overpopulated or not is an opinion. My overall point is that I tried to follow good editing protocol by discussing proposed changes first, and then applying them after waiting for feedback.
The suggestion of liberals generally believing that "The claim that the 9/11 terrorists attacks were an inside job by the USA" is not justifiable without a valid source, though, and shouldn't have been added in the first place without one. This is as unencyclopedic as suggesting that cannabis was involved in Bruce Lee's death when the coroner's reports stated otherwise. This is not "putting out useful information for readers to evaluate"; it's using unsubstantiated rumors and innuendo to make an ideological point, and putting the burden of proof on others to invalidate them. I wouldn't have applied any edits if this was posted as an essay, but since this was an encyclopedia article I was attempting to ground it in facts and improve the quality accordingly.
I'm not going to restore any of my deletions since you've stated your opposition to them, but I'd appreciate an explanation of why Conservapedia Commandments #1 and #2 only have to apply to non-conservative edits. Facts are ideologically neutral, after all. -DinsdaleP 10:43, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Error in article title

Andy, I misnamed the article AUstralian_dollar, could you change it please? (The U needs to be de-capitalised.)

Thanks, -- Ferret Nice old chat 18:47, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Asking again

  • I figure it's worth a shot. I can accomplish nothing really useful here. Ban me. (Oh, and I fixed the centering issue) - CSGuy 22:19, 2 August 2008 (EDT)
You're incoherent. "Asking again" about what? I can't read minds and don't have time to try to figure out what you're trying to say.--Aschlafly 22:52, 2 August 2008 (EDT)
I asked to be banned once before. You asked me not to post Parthian shots on user talk pages (which I assumed was a no). -CSGuy 22:57, 2 August 2008 (EDT)
You have made a number of good technical edits that have helped the site. Perhaps you would like to reconsider and just take some time away? Your contributions have been appreciated. Learn together 23:11, 2 August 2008 (EDT)
I don't ban people simply because they request to be banned. Request is not a criterion for being banned. If someone requested to be imprisoned, would you imprison him? I wouldn't.--Aschlafly 23:15, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Bob Jones University

Just because the Democrats allowed slavery doesn't mean BJU wasn't racist MUCH after civil rights laws were passed, (they only changed their interracial dating policy in the last decade).

If you feel that the Democratic Party article needs to have the slavery issue inserted (as it well should), by all means put it in. Removing true and referenced information from an article isn't very productive. ---user:DLerner--- 20:51, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

This isn't Wikipedia, and one-sided smears of conservative types are not allowed here. If someone wants to put in how an organization was racist decades ago, then start with the Democratic Party. After he completes that in a thorough manner, then he can move on to other organizations. By the way, the Democratic Party supported (not just allowed) slavery, and promoted racism long after slavery ended.--Aschlafly 21:03, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
What does Wikipedia have to do with the price of rice? Yes the Democratic Party was racist much after the end of the civil war, HOWEVER, it was the Democrats who pushed through the civil rights laws. All the southern Democrats/Dixiecrats opposed to civil rights (e.g. Strom Thurmond) switched parties and became Republicans. Once again I will say that YES the Dems were opposed to the abolishment of slavery but that has nothing to do with Bob Jones University! Regarding BJU: they weren't racist just decades ago, they were racist after the civil rights act passed, it wasn't 'til a Supreme Court ruling that required private colleges to accept all races did they allow African-Americans. They mantained an interracial dating ban until approx. 2000! The user I think you are referring to wasn't the first to add these facts about BJU, I added them months ago, he merely expanded what I wrote, why all of a sudden is it a "smear"? Every bit of information added there was 100% true. ---user:DLerner--- 21:15, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
DLearner, Strom Thurmond was condemned as a racist by the Democrats only after he left that party to join the Republicans...and never before. Since you are repeating the mantra that the Republicans harbored the racists that were known as the Dixiecrats, your task now is to A) name every single Dixiecrat who lived during the 1940s-1960s; B) name every single Dixiecrat that left the Dems to join the Republicans; and C) name every single Dixiecrat within the Republican Party that refused to drop his racist views (like the current Democrat/KKK member Senator Robert Byrd). Because right now you're charging us conservatives with being racists with little to no historical sources to back that up and I'm not going to tolerate that in the least. Karajou 15:28, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Karajou: A) Please learn how to spell my name. B) MYOB I'm not having a conversation with you, I'm having a discussion with Andy about the logic of pulling valid and true information from the Bob Jones University article, I have not called all conservatives racists, I said that the Republican Party has a history of race issues as do most Americans, And yes I'm aware that Byrd was/perhaps-still-is a KKK member. Why should I have to name every Dixiecrat, but if you really want to know take a look here. Godspeed ---user:DLerner--- 20:58, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
You made an assertion of racism connected with the Republicans and conservatives, and you still didn't follow through on B and C. By making that racism allegation you are backhandedly calling all of us racists, which makes this my business now. Karajou 21:23, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
I'll admit that writing "all" Dixiecrats became Republicans was hyperbolas, but it still is completely superfluous to the entire discussion! ---user:DLerner--- 21:52, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Aschlafly, do you actually believe that the Democratic Party of 150 years ago, and the modern version, are the same exact thing? Both major parties have undergone dramatic transformations, first during the Gilded Age, then during the New Deal, then again in the 1960s. To compare today's Democrats with those of the 1850s is highly problematic (the same is true for the Republicans).--KRoseman 22:03, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
Well, your comment just proves my point about the absurdity of dragging up past history to try to smear a conservative organization today.--Aschlafly 13:35, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
Andy, nobody is trying to smear BJU. To be truly "trustworthy" one must write the truth even if it shows a misguided past. Based on your argument I could argue against writing about Watergate or any other scandals of the Nixon administration, but I won't. And Andy, Ten years ago hardly qualifies as "past history" ---user:DLerner--- 20:02, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
Your analogy is illogical, and the obvious motivation for the BJU edit is to smear it. You lose credibility to claim otherwise. First smear the Democratic Party with a complete explanation of its support for slavery and racial discrimination, if you're as fair as you suggest, and then let's see what you have for BJU.--Aschlafly 20:15, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
Why is it illogical? Using your argument, I could write in the edit summary while deleting the information about Watergate: "removed liberal smear, first write about all the times JFK lied". And EVEN if it was added for the purpose of smear, (it wasn't I was the one who added it originally; while I may not agree with some of their policies [they don't allow Jazz...], I have no quarrel with them), it does not mean it isn't TRUE! And to be honest, it's probably the only notable thing about BJU. (Honestly, they weren't even accredited until a few years ago, (though most places would recognize their diplomas). ---user:DLerner--- 20:40, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
I don't like the fact that during diagreements it's always your word and your opinion that must be followed. While wikipedia may be flawed and imperfect, they at least have a set of checks and balances. If Jimbo Wales were to start acting in the way you do, their would be a mass boycott at WP. You keep an American flag as your logo, but through your smug adminstration you desecrate the flag and all it stands for. America is democratic, this site is George Orwell's "Airstrip one". Godspeed.
DLerner 09:27, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
DLerner, we have a 90/10 rule against incessant ranting like yours. Admit that the obvious: the edit to the BJU entry was an attempt to smear it about its past, in a way that is not done to the Democratic Party.
Please contribute in an educational way here, or leave. Thank you and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 09:45, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
I'm well within the "guidelines" of the 90/10 rule thank you very much, (intresting how it's always brought up when you're losing an argument...) If you want to add it the Democratic Party page do it yourself, stop deluding yourself with false piety about removing so called "smear" DLerner 09:53, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) DLerner is right. This is censorship of a well-sourced fact, in that you, having some authority over this website, have repeatedly removed a provable fact from it. Just because something is politically or morally inconvenient to you doesn't make it untrue. Corry 20:20, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm not going to waste more time on talk, talk, talk about this. As I said, if there is a genuine concern about historical support of racism by an organization, then start with the Democratic Party. Otherwise, go somewhere else to post biased smears.--Aschlafly 20:31, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
Well then, here's your dirt on the Democratic Party. From the existing Conservapedia page on the Democratic Party:
  • "Andrew Jackson, who defeated Adams in the 1828 election and signed into law the Indian Removal Act of 1830, according to the Democratic National Committee's website is "considered — along with Jefferson — one of the founding fathers of the Democratic Party". Annual Jefferson-Jackson Day celebrations nationwide by local chapters of the Democratic Party commemorate the two founders of the Democratic Party. The Indian Removal Act, enforced through a series of dishonest dealings with native people such as the Treaty of Dancing Rabitt Creek and the Treaty of New Echota, resulted in the wholesale deportation of Native Americans from the Southeastern states to Indian Territory (present day Oklahoma)."
  • "During and after the period of the Civil War, the Democratic party was noted for being heavily supportive of the institution of slavery. In fact, its views were in direct opposite of the newer Republican party, which opposed slavery and believed that the vile institution should be eliminated. It would be many years before the Democrats recognized that they needed to hide their views about slavery in order to attract support and become more in line with the mainstream Republican Party."
And from the existing Conservapedia page on the Republican Party:
  • "...the election of Lincoln in 1860, ending 60 years of dominance by the slavery-supporting Democrats..."
  • "From the Reconstruction era up to the turn of the century, the Republicans benefited from the Democrats' racist origin and their association with the Confederate States of America."
This webpage already discusses racial problems in the history of the Democratic Party. I am now restoring the section about racial issues on the Bob Jones University page. Corry 10:11, 16 August 2008 (EDT)


Aschlafly, I see that PZ Myers is going to debate Ray Comfort soon. I think it would be a great idea if you debated PZ Myers. He has been harshly critical of Conservapedia, and it would be a great way for more people to learn about your wonderful site--Mantle 22:22, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

I'd be happy to debate any evolutionist and/or atheist and/or liberal, including PZ Myers. But beware: liberals often are not willing to debate conservatives, because often the liberals lose.--Aschlafly 23:57, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
And often, the conservatives declare victory, regardless of who actually won. See this page for an example. --KRoseman 12:01, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Yes, and at the last liberal-conservative debate on a big issue in New York City (re: global warming) conservatives like Michael Crichton won. Maybe it's the adherence to fact over ideology that does it? --Ed Poor Talk 08:26, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
It is interesting that anyone who believes in creation over evolution could talk about adherence to fact over ideology. I'm not saying that you're right or wrong on the issue, but the fact is that creation is ideologically-based, evolution is factually-based. --KRoseman 12:01, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Andy, this is Ames. I accept your challenge. Where should we debate?-StaCW5 16:23, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

That Myers-Comfort debate has been canceled. Supposedly it was the radio station's idea, but I suspect PZ had a hand in it. Now Comfort and Myers will be featured on two separate days. You can listen live here: Jinxmchue 17:47, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
As I noted, liberals often avoid, refuse, or back out of debating conservatives. The reason is obvious: liberals lose ground in a substantive debate that includes the other side. Liberals do better by trying to censor or demonize conservatives. It's rare that a liberal actually picks up support due to a debate with a conservative.--Aschlafly 19:56, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Nice. A good, formal debate would be good for all parties.

Andy, are you going to accept my debate offer? You said you'd debate any liberal, right? Let's go!-WCats 18:30, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
I'm a liberal, and I'm willing to debate you, too! --KRoseman 19:15, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
I am Spartacus.DanielB 19:27, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
I am Spartacus! -CSGuy 19:40, 4 August 2008 (EDT

Reply to Ames and others: I welcome debating liberals and look forward to it. But because I know how often liberals avoid and duck such debates, some assurances against cancellation would be needed. Perhaps a security deposit to guard against the liberal backing out?--Aschlafly 20:04, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Are you going to put up a security deposit, too? --KRoseman 12:55, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Hi Andy, it's Ames again,
I'm glad you intend to carry through on your promise of a debate. I'm excited. However, I frankly consider your request for a "down payment" to be ridiculous, and either an attempt at grandstanding, or a polite way of backing out without looking like a coward (since no-one will actually want to pay).

Just so, I won't pay you money for the privilege to debate you. If you want to erect a financial barrier to allow you to duck the confrontation, please carry on. However, I'm willing to grant you multiple other assurances that I won't back out of any debate.

  1. I'm a man of integrity, and I never back down on a promise of this nature.
  2. My viewership is large enough that, if I backed out and that fact was made known on my site, I'd be laughed out of the blogosphere.
  3. I'd be drummed/laughed out of RW if I backed out.

In short, you needn't worry that I'll back out. Since I can meet your soft criterion without the promise of money, I'm sure you'll agree to a debate.

Here's what I imagine. Since an actual face-to-face is unlikely given lack of venue/money, I think we have two choices. You could unblock my user name & IP, for the limited purpose of debating you, and promise not to block me for debating you, unless I, say, use profanity or something. Or you could register at my site and I'll create an open post thread, and we could debate in the comments section. I'd verify your IP address to make sure that no-one is posing as you, and I'd approve all of your comments unedited. Please let me know what you think is the best option. You can also e-mail me, or comment on the blog. Thanks!-DParker 17:26, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

In response to KRoseman, conservatives don't back out of debates as liberals do, but I'm happy to put up a deposit if there is any doubt.
In response to the alleged Ames (DParker), we've already debated online many times and I doubt that is interesting to anyone. I thought you had a live debate in mind, with time limits, questions and answers, rebuttals, etc. Yes, that does cost a little money and I'm not interested in having another liberal turn tail and run away from it. Hence a security deposit is advisable, and I'm sure you can afford it.--Aschlafly 17:59, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
Andy, why say "alleged"? I gave you my e-mail address to verify if you want to. Go ahead. As to the rest, I can't afford a "live debate" - I'm a third-year law student mired in debt from a fantastic, albeit pricey, law school. A few years of clerkship bonus/associate salary and maybe I can foot the bill for a venue. But, if you're interested in a live venue, feel free to foot the bill yourself. Lord knows you have the money. If you're actually going to put money into the debate, as in, by hiring a venue, I'd be happy to put down a deposit or otherwise contribute, keeping in mind my limited means. However, that seems like a lot of bother.
Now, we've never had a "real" debate, in the sense that you could end any debate we've ever been in by banning me. Which you... have done. Frequently. As I've said on my site, my record against you is unblemished by failure, since all of my debates with you ended with either you ignoring my response, or you blocking me to avoid my inevitable response. I think a real internet debate, as in, back-and-forth with a promise that neither user would block the other, would be a first, and would be interesting. That's a minimal-cost, minimal-time investment way for you to prove that you'll beat a liberal in any debate. The question, then, is - why not?
I thank you in advance for not blocking me while we negotiate this.-DParker 18:32, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
If you can afford the "albeit pricey" college you're in, you can afford the deposit. And yes, Ames, you're banned again, for lying. As usual. Karajou 18:52, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
Moving on, Andy, I had an idea. Perhaps the next time you give a "Conservapedia Conference," here in the city, or somewhere reasonably on NJT/MetroNorth/LIRR access, I could be a guest speaker, and have you debate me afterwards. That way no-one's paying for a new venue, because it's already booked & in use for something extra, and I'll cover my transit. Seems fair to me, and I'm obviously fine speaking to a hostile audience. It's what us lawyers do :-). Also, I'm sure you'll find me a kind soul in person. I hope you take this idea into consideration. As always, you know where to reach me.-Acg322 21:10, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
Better yet, Ames, you organize a crowd of 150 and invite me to speak to it and take questions. Once the crowd is confirmed, I'll get over there ASAP.
By the way, if you can't afford a security deposit to guarantee your attendance at an event you've suggested I arrange, then how do you afford going to law school, or even going out to dinner?--Aschlafly 13:38, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
Just out of curiosity, approximately what amount are we looking at for this deposit, and who would hold it? Jaguar 17:25, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
I would have thought that an internet debate would garner a far wider audience. I for one would be very interested in observing. As I do not live in the US I would be unable to attend in person. Is there some reason you do not want to debate this person online?
I should also point out that blocking this fellow whilst he is trying to set up this debate makes the conservative side look a little afraid. --DenningMR 17:26, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

I was reading the Wikipedia entry on Conservapedia the other night when I noticed a section about this exchange that accused Schlafly of attempted extortion. However, the section was promoptly deleted, and I have added a page to Conservapedia about the conservative presence on Wikipedia. --IlTrovatore 22:23, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh, you gotta add this to the Obama article. It's priceless!

At a recent campaign event in Springfield, Missouri, Senator Obama (D-Illinois) once again made it clear that offshore oil drilling is not included in his energy plan. "There are things that you can do individually though to save energy – making sure your tires are properly inflated," said Obama. "Simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much," he contends.

Just another reason to keep this guy from getting anywhere near the Oval Office. (I'd add it myself, but I can't since the article is locked.) Jinxmchue 19:29, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

So you don't save gas by having fully inflated tires? --Jareddr 20:02, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Psst, Jinx: that may be a tough question, so here's a hint. Of course, it's hyperbole on Obama's part, but that's hardly new to politics or potential presidents...Wandering 20:10, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Here's a recent LAT article talking about a Schwarzenegger and Crist publicity event, "Both governors appealed to those with the real power to make change -- average citizens -- to drive slower, keep engines tuned and tires properly inflated, to buy hybrids and lower overall consumption." [4] Oh, and here's another liberal organization's take on the idea, "With escalating fuel prices, the time is now for drivers to focus on simple things like proper tire pressure to maximize tire performance and increase fuel economy." Thanks, NASCAR! --Jareddr 20:17, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Before anyone mocks this stuff, it's worth scanning the math for this claim. The EPA suggests that there's a 1% loss in fuel efficiency for every 2psi a tire is under-inflated, and a Carnegie Mellon study suggests proper tire inflation could save each driver about 144 gallons a year. Nationally, there's about 135 million cars. That's a saving of nearly 20 billion gallons of gasoline per year, in the USA alone. And that's for autos only, and ignores trucks, SUV's, etc. So whether you agree with Obama or not, the numbers gained from simply running the country more efficiently are not to be sniffed at. EngelUmpocker 20:34, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps liberals can propose a fine for people who don't have recommended tire inflation??? How about random road blocks on freeways to pull over cars that don't have government-specified psi???--Aschlafly 20:42, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Actually, that's not a bad idea, since "the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration tells us that 660 fatalities and 33,000 injuries occur every year as a result of low tire pressure-related crashes". I wouldn't be surprised if at some point in the future such legislation is brought in. EngelUmpocker 21:31, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Reply to Andy's comment - I would actually propose that any location that sells gasoline be required to install an air compressor and let people use it for free. Human 21:39, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
I don't much like Obama, but I find it hard to fault him for suggesting that individuals take responsibility for saving gas, rather than looking to the government to fix the problem. I'm all for solutions that avoid Big Government intervention. Of course, that also means I'd like to see domestic energy sources utilized. (That's not just offshore drilling, either...what about the natural gas reserves sitting under the Great Lakes? Canada's tapping them, and has been for years. Why aren't we?) --Benp 20:45, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Unfortunately, suggesting people take responsibility for saving gas is NOT what Obama's comment was about. Jinxmchue 21:06, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Your math is perfect, but unfortunately you are assuming that every single one of those 135 million cars has improperly inflated tires, which is simply a ludicrous assumption to make. Once you can prove to me how many of those cars don't have properly inflated tires, then you've got something of a case. Jinxmchue 20:52, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Gas is saved, yes, but not to the point Obama is trying to portray. To believe Obama's numbers, you'd have to believe that every driver in America is a dumb clod who doesn't regularly check tire pressure. Jinxmchue 20:55, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Err, what's wrong with believing that? I know I don't know how to check my gas pressure... :) ---user:DLerner--- 21:00, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Well, if you've got problems with gas pressure, there's always Gas-X and Beano. Jinxmchue 21:08, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
HEY! NO PERSONAL ATTACKS! ---user:DLerner--- 21:15, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Fair point, Jinx. Then again, I'm not sure any of us should be surprised when a politician exaggerates. I'm not sure why it has to be an either/or. In fact, I think that if the country's ever going to achieve energy independence, it can't be an either/or proposition--there's no one magic bullet that's going to accomplish that. --Benp 21:01, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
The problem with Obama's latest wackiness is:
it's elitist in claiming that frequent drivers don't check tire pressure (in poor neighborhoods, many go further and remove pollution control devices)
Obama is running for public office, not to sermonize about good behavior about something he knows nothing about
Obama is exaggerating the potential benefit in order to continue to prevent drilling for more oil, the free market solution--Aschlafly 21:06, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

I agree that offering routine maintenance as an alternative to energy exploration is foolish at best and disingenuous at worst, Andy. Is it elitist? Probably, but I've heard worse. Certainly, suggesting that lots of drivers could take better care of their cars is a lot less offensive than suggesting that the Army is a place for high-school dropouts. I don't really think there are politicians at that level who aren't elitist; it's just that some of them are better at concealing it than others. --Benp 21:18, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Jinx and Andy - If you read the Carnegie Mellon student study I posted above, you'll see that in their sample of 81 cars, only one had tire pressure within 20% of correct pressure. And according to AAA, over 80% of cars have at least one tire severely under-inflated. Whether you support Obama or not seems irrelevant, it's a damn good idea that can save anyone money and shave a little off our gas needs. With 200 million+ vehicles on the roads of America, if we all did it, we could indeed save a vast reservoir of gas. I can't see why you wouldn't do this anyway, regardless of political affiliation? I just checked my tires and they were indeed under spec. How's about you go check yours and report back?EngelUmpocker 21:12, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Is a sample population of 81 cars really large enough to be both representative and statistically valid? How were the cars selected? (If the methodology is included at the link you offered, just say so, and I'll take a look a little later.) --Benp 21:18, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Yes, it's all in the document. And I agree - 81 cars is a VERY small sample size, barely better than anecdotal. However, their figures (1 in 81) are much, much lower than AAA's, who claim that 1 in 3 cars has a significantly underinflated tire. So the Carnegie Mellon student study looks more than solid by comparison. EngelUmpocker 21:27, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Amazing how liberals think they are smarter than the free market, isn't it? I've got it: new mandatory classes in public school about how to put air in tires!!!--Aschlafly 22:24, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Actually, that's a good idea, Andy. Like teaching them how to balance their checkbook. It could be part of driver's ed, in schools that offer it. Human 22:38, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
I learned how to write a check in elementary school. (I just felt I had to contribute something to the discussion; Human stole the last thing I was going to say a little while ago.) -CSGuy 22:41, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Andy, I'm confused by your flippant responses to this - are you suggesting it's NOT a good idea to take simple measures to save gas? It's not a "liberal" idea, it's just a "sensible" idea. It seems the age-old quality of thrift is being lost in the modern world and everyone is a selfish glutton now. EngelUmpocker 22:45, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Gas-saving measures are actually very conservative. Careless waste is liberal. Any dictionary will tell you that. CogitoErgoSum 11:58, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh, I don't know, Andy. Probably not a mandatory class, but I'd be glad to see our school offer an elective course on home and auto maintenance...just as I'd like to see them offer much more extensive classes on responsible money management. Those are skills everyone needs, regardless of their eventual career. --Benp 22:52, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

TIME OUT! (Please?) A lot of people are missing the point. It's not that Obama was saying this because it's a good idea, saves money and keeps roads safer. He said it because of the issue of drilling for oil in new places (not just reserves). Tire pressure will not bring down the price of gas. Jinxmchue 22:55, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Why do you want to see an end to a perfectly reasonable debate? A number of you have mocked the suggestion, but not one of you are able to deny that, while it's NEVER going to save us from the eventual disappearance of carbon-based fuels, it would without a shadow of a doubt HELP a little. And with a little help here, a little drilling there, you might be amazed at what could be accomplished. Jinx - do you deny it is a useful idea to save gas? And why is everyone so against a little thrifty conservation? The elephant in the room is - why on Earth no-one is proposing raising national fuel economy standards by a much more significant amount, when our cars are anything but fuel misers? EngelUmpocker 23:04, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Regulations can't do better than the free market. That's what liberals can't grasp. Many drivers, especially women, are not comfortable or inclined to spend their time putting air in tires. It's foolhardy to think that will solve the problem any more than telling people to stop eating outside of the home would. People already maximize their marginal benefit and spend their time the way they want. Government would waste more money trying to change that than would be saved in benefits.--Aschlafly 23:24, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Things that happened because the free market was left unregulated: monopolies, the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire, the Stock Market crash of 1929, Enron, WorldCom, child labor, DDT and the resulting birth defects, unsafe milk, etc. Yeah, you're absolutely right, Aschlafly. Things like the Pure Food and Drug Act, child labor laws, bank regulations, and workplace safety laws are horrible ideas. The free market surely worked great in all of those cases. --KRoseman 12:52, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
Who said anything about the Government - the salvation of all public crises lies ultimately with the people. Like I said, it seems the once-respected personal discipline of thrift and a respect for the limited resources God gave us - and our children, who will live with the results of our gluttony - have been thrown out the window. EngelUmpocker 23:27, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
How about a private campaign (well, you know, public, of course) to get the major gas companies to install "free air" at their stations, and also to publicize that their employees will help those who cannot help themselves? By the way, Andy, why don't women specifically want to take care of their air pressure? Pretty much everyone these days pumps their own gasoline, and that's a lot ickier. Human 23:32, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

There appears to be an amazing amount of ignorance about what opening up offshore drilling would do to the price of gas. The benefits of US offshore drilling would not be felt for many years and in the meantime global demand for oil will have increased, pushing the price higher. In a free market the prices charged for domestic oil will not be significantly less than the international market price. Firstly not all of the available regions would be opened up at once as this would dilute the net return of license fees to the US government. So a period of appraisal would be required to identify the most likely areas, after which there would be a licensing round in which oil companies would tender for offshore acreage. It could take up to 2 years before oil majors could even acquire any blocks. Once the oil company has a block then an exploration plan would have to be drawn up. This would normally require a period of 2-D exploration requiring the contracting of a seismic exploration vessel followed by processing of the acquired data and geological interpretation, currently there is a shortage of seismic vessels as many were scrapped after the last downturn in the market. More vessels are being built but it takes about two years to design, build and outfit a vessel from scratch. There is also a shortage of experienced personnel. Oil companies typically demand that the vessels be staffed by key-people with a minimum of 5-7 years experience. Offshore exploration also tends to be seasonal - once a platform is in production it can withstand rough weather but reasonably calm conditions are required for the exploration work.

Following evaluation of the broad geological structures an exploratory well will be drilled at a suitable location (at a minimum this would be 2 years after obtaining a licence). Again there is a shortage of offshore drilling rigs and there is a long lead-time in constructing new ones. One might think that smaller companies would leap at the chance of discovering offshore oil but there is a considerable financial barrier to entry in the market. Joe motorist might think that the oil companies are making huge profits but it is a highly capital intensive industry. If hydrocarbons are discovered then wells need to be cased, cemented and logged and the information correlated with the seismic structural data. Offshore oil-fields are generally more complex than on-shore owing to the amount of faulting and slumping on the continental margins and salt diapirs. To develop a field would then require a 3-D survey with planning, government and partner approval, acquisition, interpretation, petrophysical analysis and reservoir modelling something that could take about 2-3 years to complete. This would then be followed by more wells to enable efficient extraction and permit water injection. There would also be a need to establish infrastructure to deliver the oil to shore. This could easily take another two years, so in total it might be 8-10 years before any oil flows and that would only be for successful blocks, four or five years would also be wasted on unsuccessful blocks. The amount of oil discovered would also only be a very small fraction of the global market so it is unlikely to have a significant effect on the price.

I should also point out that the whole process of interpreting the geological structures, including depositional sequences, erosion, unconformities, orogeny, faulting, salt diapirism, petrophysical properties (which are the accumulated result of millions of years of variations in pressure and temperature and can be read much like tree rings) and the formation of hydrocarbon from buried algal deposits is achieved entirely through the application of long time-period, secular geologic models. No oil-field has ever been discovered and developed using a 6000-year old creationist, flood-geology model.

Market forces can determine the price of a commodity but the supply of hydrocarbons is relatively inelastic because of the long lead time involved in developing new reserves. If you want to drive down the price of gasoline you need to address the demand side of the equation by cutting consumption. Efficient use of gasoline such as utilising correct tire pressures can play a small part in reducing overall consumption, only a complete idiot would assume that a call for people to use the right tire pressures was supposed to bring down the price of gas. It is a move to reduce overall cost of motoring along with eliminating unnecessary journeys and using more fuel-efficient engines. If people don't want to drive economically then they pay for the luxury of underinflated tires. Government legislation to mandate air-compressors at gas-stations is unnecessary as increased awareness about using them will create a customer demand for them. Suggesting that women are unable to check tire pressures is insulting and derogatory. A conservative mom who cares about her household budget will take the trouble to learn how to check her tire pressure, the same way she learns to check for bargains at the supermarket. In general, women with a family are more concerned about costs than men are as they have to manage the household on the fixed budget that their husband often supplies. Explorationist 07:43, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

I have a suggestion - can we move this discussion, or continue it, at a debate page? It's very interesting, but we are cluttering up Andy's talk page (making endless orange "message" boxes for him when no one is actually "talking to Andy"), and soon it will get archived as part of his regular housekeeping. I would start it (the debate page) but I don't want to step on any toes if that sort of thing isn't done around here. Oh, and if someone does start it up, please leave a link to it here so we can all find it. Thanks! Human 19:31, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
The long-winded comment above leaves much to object to. But all I have time for now is to point out that even the increased possibility of offshore drilling can help reduce the hype and speculation over oil, and its expected future availability. This can indeed bring down the price now. In fact, we may be seeing this effect already.--Aschlafly 20:12, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
Aschlafly, I apologize for what you deem to be a long-winded comment but I sought to educate your young students rather than indulge in the petty political posturing of some earlier contributors to the discussion. If you think that the recent drop in the price of oil is the result of the possibility of permitting exploration in previously prohibited areas then I am sure that you will concede that the increase in prices was purely the product of short-term sentiment caused by market speculators. As speculation in the financial markets rarely exceeds a period of a few months then it can be concluded that the price was bound to come down any way. Whatever happens, (excluding the random noise of financial markets) any long-term benefit resulting from the exploration and drilling of those areas will not be felt for almost a decade and by then global demand will have increased significantly unless there is either a considerable improvement in the energy-efficiency of western economies or the economies of India and China have somehow self-destructed. Most large oil-fields are at or near peak-production and constrained from increasing output by efficiency considerations. I would. however, be interested in hearing your objections to my comments above as I have been involved in oil exploration for over 35 years and would be intrigued to learn what insights you can shed on the matter. Explorationist 16:18, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
The price of oil today is not merely a function its availability today, but due to speculation it can also be a function of its future availability. A Picasso painting is worth more if there are fewer in existence. But if the Getty Museum is sitting on a top of Picasso paintings, that will effect an auction price even if the Getty Museum is not likely to flood the market with those paintings for a long time.--Aschlafly 17:22, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
As I pointed out above, price fluctuations caused by speculation are short-term as no speculator wishes to sit on an open position for a long period. Speculators wish to make a profit and move on to the next opportunity or they cut their losses and reallocate reources. Have you never traded options? Prices revert to a mean very quickly. I fail to understand what point you are trying to make with your analogy of Picasso paintings as de Beers sits on a mountain of diamonds and maintains a high price. Investors are comfortable with de Beers not flooding the market and with no need to make a profit the Getty Museum is unlikely to dispose of any of its acquisitions. Explorationist 18:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
Aschlafly, you still haven't provided a credible refutation for your accusation that my explanation of why new offshore drilling is unlikely to have an effect on the price of oil for almost a decade "leaves much to object to". When the coffee harvest in Brazil fails, does the price of coffee on the world market go down because the farmers say there will be another crop for next year? No, of course it doesn't! The price stays high until the crop reaches the market. Can you not admit that promises to allow drilling on the US continental margins are purely political posturing designed to deceive uninformed voters that their gas bills are going to be slashed? If you intend to teach economics to schoolchildren then you must divorce yourself from partisan politics and address the realities. Explorationist 11:12, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
All agree that the high price of oil is due in part to the speculators, and offshore drilling would influence them immediately. So far the speculators are betting on the Democrats blocking offshore drilling for the foreseeable future. If that bet is proven wrong, the price would likely fall because of it.--Aschlafly 11:15, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
Only part of the high price of oil is influenced by speculators, the rest is demand/supply related. As I pointed out above, speculation is a short-term activity so that any price moves quickly revert to the mean. Therefore, speculation-induced price rises will self-correct without resorting to politics. There may be a case for opening up more acreage to ensure long-term supplies but current prices are unlikely to unwind just because a politician promises something that will not bear fruit for many years. Explorationist 12:13, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Howard Stern

Thanks for the edit. I think this language is a good compromise.--BarbaraBui 23:09, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Thanks.--Aschlafly 23:20, 4 August 2008 (EDT)


(This is being communicated to ASchlafly, CPAdmin1, and Ed Poor)

Andy, Tim, and Ed:

As you may be aware, there was an enormous blowup about a month ago, relating to educational articles about math and science. A considerable amount of damage was done to CP's educational offerings in these areas, and a number of people (including me) were blocked for various periods of time. You might want to look at my user page (and feel free to comment there if you wish.) SamHB 20:04, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

What's your point? Please state it concisely and directly. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 20:08, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Well, as concisely as I can, I'd like you to intervene positively in the matter of math and science articles. I'd like you to promulgate a policy of discussion and consensus-reaching, rather than just blocking, when a sysop has a problem (other than vandalism, of course) with an article. For more detail, read the user page, when you have time. This really is important. SamHB 20:15, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Don't know what you're requesting. You can obviously edit and I suggest you proceed to do so, while obviously respecting our Conservapedia:Commandments and others. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 20:46, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

(removed inappropriate, endless debate from my talk page)--Aschlafly 10:21, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Classroom prayer article

I added the paragraphs about the examples of students, didn't I, when the material was in a different article? Or is my mind playing tricks on me at this late hour? Jinxmchue 23:58, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

More on Debates

Thanks to Jaguar and other posters who gave their accounts for me.

Andy, first, please do call off your dogs while we negotiate this. Keep Jinx and Karajou in line so that we can talk. Your negligence in controlling them suggests either your indifference to this subject - which really suggests that your challenge to all lib'ruls everywhere was perhaps not made in earnest - or your glee in intentionally frustrating my attempt to speak with you, which is just sadistic.

Is the "Conservapedia Conference" option is still on the table? I thought you had dismissed that possibility sarcastically with your 150 people comment, but since conservatives don't use sarcasm, I have to assume you've neither accepted nor rejected that yet. If the CP Conference is off the table, as to the live debate, based on this discussion, I don't think that's going to happen. For one, your last question was more than a little insulting. A hundred-to-a-thousand dollar venue deposit is obviously more than a dinner out, obviously not something I budgeted for, and obviously the law school money is already allocated. Have you used a budget before? So, I reiterate the "CP Conference" compromise, but apart from that, let's forget face-to-face until I have a little more cash.

I reiterate my suggestion of an internet debate, either on CP or on my blog, or perhaps on neutral ground (we could work that out). We've never had a debate that hasn't ended in me getting blocked, so it would be a first. It would prove that liberals are more than happy to stand toe-to-toe with you, and that you're not afraid to stand toe-to-toe with liberals, without a banhammer behind your back. I urge you to consider that option.

However, if you're only willing to debate face to face and on my dime, then you might have to retract your statement that liberals are too cowardly to debate you, and change it to reflect that, rather, you're too cheap to debate us.

If you continue to let your sysops block me while I'm trying to have a serious conversation with you - and if you refuse to consider a web debate, which seems to be what the masses want - I will consider you to have forfeited.-JamesCC 18:37, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Ames, frankly, you seem to want attention more than anything. You can "consider" whatever you like, but I've agreed to debate you as already outlined. If you won't come up with an audience or a security deposit, then I suggest you try other proven ways of satisfying your human need for attention. Try marriage, for example, which has worked for billions of people. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 19:40, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
Andy, you would be sad to see what the economic principles this personal blog of yours supports have done to working families and marriages. To think that in this country there is such a thing as working poor is unacceptable. I love America and the rights it gives me so much. I benefited, perhaps more than even you, from its wonderful opportunities; but with great power comes great responsibility. And I would argue, great compassion. Delete this comment when you wish, but please consider how few words you devote to Jesus Christ compared to how many you devote to homosexuality. In Christ, our savior. --RolandBrass 20:35, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
Your comments are incoherent, and wildly incorrect in many ways. Millions of poor people do everything they can to enter this country. The same cannot be said about countries that have other economic systems.--Aschlafly 20:39, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Someone attempted to hack my account

I got a change-of-password email tonight. The request was made from IP, which I'm going to guess will turn out to be some kind of proxy/anonymous internet server. Probably would be a good idea to block that IP from CP. Jinxmchue 23:59, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Thanks.--Aschlafly 00:00, 7 August 2008 (EDT) to Fox
show details 3:34 PM (13 hours ago) Reply
Someone (probably you, from IP address
requested that we send you a new password for Conservapedia (
The password for user "Fox" is now xxxxxxxxx
You should log in and change your password now.
If someone else made this request or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may ignore this message and continue using your old password.
10px שועל (talk|contribs) 00:02, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
Wonder how many they tried. Jinxmchue 00:05, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
Pretty amateur and negligible if they thought they would somehow get passwords sent to their email address rather than to the addresses linked to the user accounts lol. 10px שועל (talk|contribs) 00:11, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
"" *snort* Hahahaha! Jinxmchue 00:30, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
Someone tried the same thing with my account as well. I just noticed a New temporary password for Conservapedia message in my in-box. BrianCo 10:30, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

And again, from Jinxmchue 10:44, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

That one tracks back to Sprint. Might want to contact their abuse center: Jinxmchue 15:29, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Debates, Round 3

Hi Andy,

After you turned my acceptance of your debate challenge into a chance to indulge in ad hominem attacks - something I thought only liberals did! - and continued to up the expense of our debate to the point where I couldn't participate, I was happy to write the potential for real debate off, since it appeared clear to me that your challenge to the liberal community was not made in good faith.

However, since, I've found no small amount of support for carrying through with this from The Other Place: namely, it seems that a good deal of them would be happy to put some money towards a debate, meaning that I might indeed be able to meet your "down payment" on a face-to-face debate venue. What kind of venue do you have in mind? And how much money are we talking about? I may indeed be able to meet it.

Is insistence on face-to-face debate an attempt to dilute your challenge to all liberals? I continue to think that, if you really cared about an honest exchange of ideas, you'd be more interested in lowering transaction costs for serious debate, and thus would more readily submit to an internet debate, especially since 99% of the interested audience is best reached by the internet. But since face-to-face seems possible now, let's discuss.

Unless I see some attempt to be serious, though, this'll be the last you hear from me.-CDax 14:41, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Fleeing suspects

Hi, Andy. I'm back from vacation with a legal question.

Are cops allowed to shoot a fleeing suspect in the back? If so, under what circumstances?

(The context of this question is the two border patrol men who got 11 and 12 years in jail after the smuggler they shot was granted immunity in exchange for testimony ... and still kept smuggling!) --Ed Poor Talk 14:23, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

Ah, the Compean and Ramos case! In answer to your question, I think it depends on the circumstances. Just watch Court TV and you'll see cops giving high speed chase, and even shooting, fleeing suspects.--Aschlafly 14:29, 9 August 2008 (EDT)
Well, of course. We all know cops do that, but the question is whether it's legal or not. And the other question is whether the female judge in question was engaging in judicial activism to stop the practice, or what?
Are we Americans asking our police to do things which we don't back them up for after they do them? --Ed Poor Talk 14:32, 9 August 2008 (EDT)
Not everything that police officers do is right, Ed Poor. --Krogers 18:29, 9 August 2008 (EDT)
True, but stopping criminals using whatever means necessary is right. Despite popular myths, cops are not on-the-edge psychopaths who are just itching to draw their weapons and fire for the slightest provocation. They are highly trained with their weapons because their weapons can and do kill. They know their weapons can and do kill and taking someone else's life is not something any cop wants to live with. Even if they're faced with a murderous psycho murderer, killing is the absolute last thing a cop wants to do. But if they are forced to do it, they will do it. And afterwards, it's not like in the movies where Bruce Willis or Mel Gibson just "walk it off" and tomorrow is just another day. In real life, cops are affected permanently by such events. It stays with them forever. Jinxmchue 22:47, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

Request Unlock

Hi, would like to add Christianity information from talk page to George Washington. Please unlock temporarily, thanks in advance.--jp 11:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the suggestion. It was time to unlock that page anyway.--Aschlafly 11:03, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

At this stage?

Andy, will this mess-up be righted at this stage?

[edit] Mess up at bottom The Soviet Action section got removed from its place and now is at bottom with references attached to it wrongly. Can someone untangle and restore?Bert Schlossberg 10:57, 6 August 2008 (EDT)I had tried to do it. The "edit page" has the Soviet Action in the right place even though page itself has it in the wrong place. How can that be? When I click on to the "edit section" itself for Soviet Action, what comes up is the "Flight" section.Bert Schlossberg 09:37, 7 August 2008 (EDT)Bert Schlossberg 08:51, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Bert (and others), I have taken care of this. BrianCo 20:58, 15 August 2008 (EDT)


Hello, Mr. Schlafly, I've been a casual observer of Conservapedia for a little while but I never started an account until now. I am a bit intrigued about this offer of a debate with any liberal/evolutionist (I suppose a qualify as the former, and no doubt the latter). I'm in Grad School, studying biology. I'm currently taking a course in Neurobiology on Cape Cod, but I will be back at NYU before too long and think a live debate about evolution could be an interesting an informative endeavor. I was captain of my debate team in high school, but have since given it up, though I do miss it. I notice you have requested a security deposit. While I know many could probably not afford one, I am from a relatively well-off family and for me it is not out of the question, depending on the amount specified (I am still a student, and hardly rich). How much did you have in mind? If funds are needed for a venue I wouldn't mind contributing a small amount. If debating a grad school student is beneath you, there is always a remote chance I could convince one of my professors to throw their hat in the ring, but I will need to know the specifics. Thanks for your consideration. CFredB 19:44, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Andy, Ames again - hi CFredB, I'm at NYU as well. If you manage to stage this, may I participate as well, on your side? I'm also pleased to announce that I'll be able to secure funding from friends and comrades at a site... whose name I can't get past the spam filter. CFredB, please keep me apprised of how this goes and keep me in mind. You can contact me through my website,, where you'll also find an article about my failed attempt to get Andy to debate me, alone.
Andy, if you're worried about being ganged up on, you could bring Ed Poor.-Expectopatronum 20:17, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
You guys are tilting at windmills. We've all agreed to meet Andy's terms, and we hear nothing but silence from him. He clearly will not debate. I guess it's not the liberals that back out, after all. (Incidentally, I was banned for three days the last time I posted a message on this matter. Wonder what the ban will be this time?) -KRoseman 4:17, 13 August 2008 (EDT)


In the article on "Gender differences", I removed some strong and seemingly arrogant essayism from the page. You restored the opinion-editorial material, with no explanation. Why did you do so? CogitoErgoSum 11:28, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Block request for usernames created in the last few minutes

User:000JesusWasGay and User:JesusWasGay

Barclay 10:26, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

(removed rants)


Andy, I propose moving this invitation

Conservative editors - Sign up to work on the news wikiproject here 

to Template:Mainpageleft, after the Courses section. I would like to give the Wikiproject:News invitation a permanent home instead of disappearing in the News archives. Seven editors have already signed up and two editors are currently contributing news items and creating corresponding Conservapedia [[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions|articles]]. --DeanStalk 12:27, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Sounds great. Thanks much for your efforts. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 12:30, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
I came up with an even better idea. I put it at the top of the news section, just below the heading. Now it's similar to the Template:Mainpageleft and in a more prominent place. --DeanStalk 12:34, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Technical issue

Mr. Schlafly, there appears to be a problem with the SVG (scalable vector graphics) rendering engine. I uploaded an image from Wikimedia Commons but it doesn't show properly here. I have converted the image to PNG but I would like to upload other SVG images. I believe that different SVG rendering engines are available for the Mediawiki software. BrianCo 08:35, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Further Hacking Attempts

Someone's still up to the "request new password" game--according to the mail sent to me, from Just a FYI. --Benp 11:15, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

I also got the "phishing" mail, from And I'm not a sysop or VIP or anything like that. So someone is phishing. This happens all over the web, as I'm sure you know.

I would suggest putting up a very visible notice on the login page (and the new account page as well) saying something like "We will never reset or ask for your password. If you get email that says your password has been reset, or asking for your password, it is not from us and you should ignore it." Banks routinely send out notices of this sort ("we will never send you email asking you to verify your account information"). SamHB 23:38, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

What I was talking about...

I found the links that have to do with what I was trying to explain last night.

These links were mentioned in a YouTube video by Chris Pirillo. In the video, he talks about the recent breaches in DNS.
Hope this helps. o.O Natebecause people listen to what I say? 12:28, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Fascinating stuff. Thanks.--Aschlafly 12:29, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

More hacking attempts

From and

On this subject, I think perhaps we should start reporting these privately so as not to give the people doing it the attention they crave. Jinxmchue 23:24, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

parodist reponse

i posted my response on my talk page.. sorry about the confusion :( --Qprime

New template

I just created this. Let me know what you think:


I think it'll help with keeping tabs on and correcting this stuff. Jinxmchue 00:45, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Looks good. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 09:38, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Hasty Block

I was browsing the recent changes and saw this block. After looking through his contributions, I came to the conclusion that it must have been a mistake. Just thought you ought to know. ChristopherH 10:28, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

You're right. I apologize ... I confused his edits with that of another user. I'll unblock him now.--Aschlafly 11:19, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Yet another reason for using real names, or at least memorable handles. --Ed Poor Talk 19:02, 17 August 2008 (EDT)


Mr. Schlalfy, through an edit conflict I accidentally recreated a page that you just deleted. Please delete it again. BrianCo 12:28, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

On the password "hacking"

Seems like it's just someone being a jerk. There's no harm being done as the reset password doesn't go anywhere except the user's own email and the temporary passwords just expire if not used. Perhaps some sort of security/anti-bot feature (I suspect someone's set up an automatic program that goes through the list of usernames and requests a new password for each of them - amazing what these people do with all the spare time they have) can be put in place to slow them down and maybe have them lose interest in this foolishness. Jinxmchue 13:15, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

What kind of academic that atheist guy is

Andy, I think we've settled on an approach to Richard Dawkins. He "holds a chair", but that doesn't make him a "real professor".

To make an analogy, George W. Bush might decide to appoint me attorney general, so I can go after all those kids trashing our website - but that wouldn't make me a lawyer. --Ed Poor Talk 19:01, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Ayn Rand

Hi Andy, I was wondering if you've ever read anything by Ayn Rand, and if so, what is your opinion of her work? --IlTrovatore 22:26, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Ayn Rand misleads many young people, particularly males. They are misled into being anti-marriage and pro hurtful behavior. It takes years for some to see through the superficial appeal of her atheistic and misguided philosophy.--Aschlafly 23:17, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

In what sense to you believe that Rand is opposed to marriage or supports hurtful behavior? Why exactly do you say that her philosophy has "superficial appeal"? --IlTrovatore 23:20, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Rand pushed the standard libertarian philosophy, which is inherently hostile to marriage. The libertarian philosophy and marriage are inherently contradictory.
There is a superficial logical appeal to the libertarian philosophy that appeals more to young males than to anyone else who realizes that life is not a set of individual islands.--Aschlafly 23:51, 17 August 2008 (EDT)