User talk:Ed Poor/4

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Happy Easter!

Happy Easter to you, Ed!

The eleven disciples went to the hill in Galilee where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him, Jesus drew near and said to them, "I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth. Go, then, to all peoples everywhere and make them my disciples: baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and teach them to obey everything I have commanded you. And I will be with you always, to the end of the age." Matthew 28
Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right. You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. You know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached— how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him. “We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” —Acts 10:34-43 NIV

--~ TK MyTalk 04:40, 8 April 2007 (EDT)


Ed, Happy Easter.

I'm sad to say I'm a little disillusioned by Conservapedia already. I am extremely irritated by the liberal bias pervading every corner of Wikipedia, but I'm equally saddened when I look at the Evolution article here. I might just stop editting for a while until I see how things develop. Maybe I need to start my own "middlopedia"? Everwill 16:08, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Things take time. Try working on one of the 5,000 pages that aren't protected. Or follow me around and help me finish some of the articles which are related to a protected one. --Ed Poor 16:53, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Political spectrum

moved from User:Ed Poor

Ed Poor-- Nice job on the political spectrum page. Conciseness is next to godliness. I didnt appreciate being called a weasel... but your editing was good.

I still support separate pages for left/right/ and spectrum. The left/right pages are now very concise. But I think we should leave them open for people to expand on. --Redblue 07:55, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

LOL, the weaselly part I cut out was (I think) actually written by me. Lemme go check. --Ed Poor 07:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Nope. It was Mathematica: It has been commonly pointed out that ... [1]
Doesnt really matter who wrote it... the current version strikes me as clearer. --Redblue 07:59, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
As I expected, someone here has gone onto the Political Spectrum page and changed "Nazism" to nationalism -- but of course, has left the identification of Communism with leftism. It now reads: "In discussions of mid-twentieth century Eurpoean international politics, Communism is usually called "left-wing" and nationalism "right-wing". Folks here are making my points for me. --PF Fox 14:22, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, I support the removal of the bogey man, Nazi. Their style of government was Socialism. That is Left-Wing, in my book. There isn't a dime's worth of difference between their style of governing and the Communists. But maybe I am missing something? --~ TK MyTalk 14:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
No, the Nazis style of government was not "socialism" and was not regarded as socialism by either socialists or Nazis or any other observer. They were no more "Socialists" than Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard were members of the GOP. What you're missing, TK, are the facts of history. What exactly have you read about the Nazis? And I mean read IN BOOKS, not online. --PF Fox 14:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
  • I checked the membership list of the GOP, and I can agree that the Republican Guard were not members, although I did run across some suspect, Arab-sounding names, which I will have looked into.  :p --~ TK MyTalk 14:38, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
So in fact you've read nothing about the Third Reich. --PF Fox 15:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, Ed, there it goes, the section on Communism being associated with the left and Nazism associated with the right has been completely erased, courtesy of RobS. Better watch out. He might change the end of the Weimar Republic in the WR's article to 1939 yet...

Still "puzzled?" --PF Fox 16:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

One final suggestion Ed, since I don't plan to collaborate with you on anything in the future: Copy the article to your sandbox, tweak it there, and dump your awesome perfect version back into Conservapedia as a single edit, that way incrementalist eventualist editors like me won't be duped into chiselling away at an article only to have the dang thing protected so a sysop can lock in his version. Protection should only be to prevent edits with hostile intent. Teresita 09:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, I understood that my proposed sections of political spectrum were posted in the draft version so that people could edit them, and in particular so people could offer definitions. Several hours later nobody has objected in any way to my definition (and PF Fox has added a third reference supporting my def, namely Merriam-Webster). Was I wrong to expect a definition of political spectrum to end up on the political spectrum page? Were you just posting those categories in the talk page to get me off your back? And really, is there anything at all offensive about the criterion I offered?

The political spectrum page, as it stands, mentions some labels... who's called what. But it gives NO reason WHY. That's why I've been asking for (and offering) definitions ever since I started working on that page a couple of days ago. I really hope we could have some more civil and informed discussions on CP if there were some CRITERIA available for saying "that's rightist" or leftist or conservative or liberal etc etc etc. If the only thing the political spectrum page says is who's called what, then the only thing we can do when using political words in CP is... name calling. --Redblue 12:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Hi again-- in the vain hope that some day the political spectrum page might define the political spectrum, I added two more definitions I think you might like more (since they are based on your earlier comments on the Talk page). I don't understand why you say definition #2 is 'conservative-centric'... but annnyyyywayyyyyy...

I put in references to "Ed Poor's high school teacher" and "Somebody called Nolan?" I hope you find that amusing. I guess "Citation required" would be more correct. --Redblue 12:30, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Sarcasm bans?

If you are banning for sarcasm, could you look at this edit and this edit? --Mtur 19:48, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Which rule of rhetoric did Sid violate? --PalMDtalk 19:49, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Sarcasm bans? That's a GREAAAAAAAAT idea. /rolls eyes.-AmesGyo! 19:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
I hereby ban you for one blink of an eye. ;-)
Sweet! Do theoretical bans count to my ban counter? I think I'd be up to lucky #13 if so.-AmesGyo! 19:55, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Only theoretically. --Ed Poor 19:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Loving it.-AmesGyo! 20:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, I am sure many of you already have your socks laundered, as you will soon be needing them.  :p --~ TK MyTalk 20:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

That, TK, was one of the most amusing and clever comments left on this site, EVER.--PalMDtalk 20:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Oh Doctor! You'll turn my head! --~ TK MyTalk 20:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed!!! That was a FAIR mirror, not quite a parody. It points out the hypocricy of the article, and it contained an apologia. Please reinstate it.--PalMDtalk 20:45, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

You'll save time pointing out flaws in the article, by using the talk pages. Parody is a waste of time. --Ed Poor 20:54, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Ed, tho I dont think parody is a waste of time, when done correctly. I did pretty much mean what I said about consensus, but I could be wrong about whats best. Flawed being here.PalMDtalk 22:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

If I knew what was best, I'd run for mayor or something. --Flawed Being 22:52, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
you have just been overruled by the perfect being.PalMDtalk 22:54, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

And by the way, since he as a horse in the race, he shouldnt get a vote. IMHO Pete


It's me at #conservapedia, not an impostor. And I don't condone Richards edits, but he didn't really break any rules. --Hojimachongtalk 23:22, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

  • You feel not the slightest guilt discussing this place and policy, away from the glare of public notice, where the rest of us cannot defend ourselves or answer, eh? --~ TK MyTalk 23:25, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Terry, sign on any time, day or night,, #conservapedia.--PalMDtalk 23:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Been there, done that. I was there this morning. They moved to another channel, or the locked one that was created, to continue their plotting and dirty tricks campaign. --~ TK MyTalk 23:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm..ok, whatever you say, Mr. Nixon...--PalMDtalk 23:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

  • LOL...doesn't alter the fact it has happened several times. More than enough to wear out any benefit of the doubt on my part. --~ TK MyTalk 23:51, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

The non-page formerly known as Uniting Church in Australia

Ed, can you please help me find where to see non- or deleted pages? I know that I created Uniting Church in Australia about 2-3 weeks ago. Now, I go back to do some more on it, and it's gone, presumably deleted (as in AFDed.) Yes, I borrowed heavily from the Wikipedia entry; but, I was a significant author (but not 'establish'-er) of the content over there so it is 'mine' and I could borrow from it and 'spin' it a little for this context and be true to both. I will go back in and re-create it; but, that could also be removed if people think I am only 'borrowing' again. It has taught me to set the "Watch this page" for all situations. Advice, please. Peter Ellis 23:54, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

  • 12:16, 22 March 2007 CPAdmin1 (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Uniting Church in Australia" (copy from WP)

--~ TK MyTalk 00:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. I have put a message over at CPAdmin1's talk. Peter Ellis 00:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Ed, I thank you for returning the page to view within a short time of my first message first appearing here. (You can share the thanks if that is appropriate. --Peter Ellis 15:33, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

New Problem

Ed, help. User:Britinme, a good conservative, and me, not a good conservative, but a good doctor, are working on a very good breast cancer article, and Andy is getting a little feisty. Any help?--PalMDtalk 14:05, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, I know you have a life, but I could really use your help here.--PalMDtalk 14:27, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, was catching up with old chums at #wikipedia (the IRC channel). You missed a fascinating debate on Evolution vs. Creationism. --Ed Poor 15:51, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
I always miss the good stuff.--PalMDtalk 15:52, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I always thought of User:Britinme as fairly conservative, and we collaborated.--PalMDtalk 15:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

<grin> I was calling YOU the liberal. </grin> You don't mind, do you? I'd hate to have to block my account for name-calling. --Ed Poor 15:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
  • It, it would be a great help, if instead of going to IRC, you paid attention here, and responded to your emails. I don't think you starting even 200 pages, will be of help, if your intent is ramming agendas down our throats, and communicating only with those who agree with you. Did anyone on IRC disclose their changing channels rather than clear the air? Did anyone there disclose their going to a pass-worded channel to avoid people who disagree with them knowing their obstruction plans? This place will turn out to be a repeat of your Wikipedia experience if you insist on steamrolling. --~ TK MyTalk 15:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
    1. The #conservapedia channel has no password. There is, however, a password-protected SYSOP channel at #conservapedia-sysop (email me or hojimachong for the password)
    2. Sorry to be out of touch, but I do have life. I might even go out of town for a week at a time. Go easy on me, will ya? --Ed Poor 16:10, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Mine is a good one, Doctor, at Eisenhower Medical Center. Thanks anyway for your helpfulness.... Ed, you have been here, posting away, not out of town, or too busy to initiate dozens of new articles. I am trying to go easy, but I am disliking your agenda recently. And I dislike you emailing me one opinion about Maxwell, and stating another on the page. It is as if you are trying to marginalize me, hanging me out to dry. As for the password, I have emailed you, asked you on the phone, remember? It is never forthcoming. That doesn't alter the fact that those "elites" think they have no obligation to meet people half way. --~ TK MyTalk 16:14, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

My opinion is that Maxwell is a creationist. I don't care if he's categorized that way or not. I leave that decision to you, sir.
BTW, I just blocked Peter for 1 day.
Sorry about the delay on the password. Please check your email now. --Ed Poor 16:30, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Who is Peter? --~ TK MyTalk 16:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Darn those conflicts! Maybe we need a software update.... --~ TK MyTalk 16:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, we do. But feel free to override anything *I* write. I know how to recover from an edit conflict, so it doesn't bother me. --Ed Poor 16:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

No. I won't play those games with you. Making people look better than they are, backing down on a block because they are part of your "group" isn't something I do. I leave that to the master. ;-) --~ TK MyTalk 17:00, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, it's out of my hands now. See below re: credentials, complaints, and being called on the carpet. By the way, I ran out of those tough pills you gave me. Got any more? --Ed Poor 17:08, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Have Fun--from my talk page

Notice of blocking

"PalMD", I've reviewed your edits and am going to block your account. I'm skeptical that you're really an M.D. and we're not going to allow the Wikipedia-style fraud here. Regardless, your edits have been 90% complaints and less than 10% substance. Your edits have been counterproductive. You can explain yourself for the last time here. Thank you.--Aschlafly 17:00, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, well, well, your true colors show. How may I prove my creds to you. Want to review our little discussion in your archive and on my talk page? Want a copy of my CV?

My personal info has not changed:

Peter A. Lipson, M.D. Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine Wayne State University Teaching Physician William Beaumont Hospital Contact me any time.

Ed, FYI: (1) Enter Lipson at the WSU People Search and it turns up a person. (2) Dr Peter A Lipson at William Beaumont Hospitals. Peter Ellis 16:07, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Why are you removing content when you archive?

I thought the point was to keep it available--hence the archive. Flippin 17:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

If I've made a mistake, please point it out, so I can correct it. --Ed Poor 17:06, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
There were several comments made about PalMD, I think he user is, and none of them appear archived here. I made a comment on that page, but couldn't return to it fr some reason. Flippin 17:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Oh, those. Just being excessively nice. I'll undo my niceness now. --Ed Poor 17:10, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Civility and credentials

I judge people by how they present themselves. Scientists are generally polite and accurate. Enough said. --Ed Poor 17:31, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

What about lawyers? --Horace 18:27, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
  • I think we can all agree...too many of them! But Andy would be correct as to policy, even if an MD.  ;-) --~ TK MyTalk 18:53, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

BTW, Ed, I enjoyed talking to you. Hopefully something productive will come of it. It was my first time firing up the grill for the season, and it was delicious.--PalMDtalk 19:51, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, Ed, I offered Andy a figurative olive branch on his user page, he repayed it and my offer to help include abortion material that is well vetted into the article with an insulting tirade on the breast cancer talk page. Have fun here, because im through. --PalMDtalk 21:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Definition STILL needed

(Reposted from Talk:Political spectrum)

Ed Poor-- when you log on I hope you will finally be ready to put some definitions of 'political spectrum' on the political spectrum page. I have now written up three definitions of political spectrum, and provided three references supporting the one I think is most standard. RobS made some irrelevant criticisms of the three definitions, which I have rebutted. Nobody else has proposed any definition other than the ones I gave.

RobS seems to assume I am some sort of leftist, so let me just state for the record that I was born and raised and still consider myself a conservative American Catholic. I'm disappointed that I need to say that. I hoped making intelligent, helpful, respectful contributions, factual and with references, would suffice. Unfortunately this site is not living up to my initial expectations, and the biggest contributions I've made on this site (ie a lot of work on the political spectrum page) got reverted completely by Ed... I understand Teresita was pretty upset about losing her contributions too.

It seems I shouldn't need to explain why an encyclopedia page about the political spectrum should define the political spectrum. But notice that there have been hot debates here again and again about whether the Nazis etc etc are leftist or rightist. The page as it currently stands ONLY says who is CALLED leftist or rightist. It makes no attempt to explain why. Therefore any debate about where some group falls on the spectrum is just NAME CALLING, and nothing more. What we need is A DEFINITION (or some definitions) so that PF Fox and RobS can say "well Osama is a ---- because definition 1 says ----" or "no, Osama is a ---- because definition 2 ---- implies -----". They would probably still detest each other, but at least they would be having a real debate instead of just engaging in name calling.

One point RobS seems upset about is that he seems to think the political spectrum is supposed to classify every single political position. I don't think any political scientist uses it that way. SOME political positions can be classified on the left-right axis, not all. I added a preamble to the list of definitions to try to clarify that.

I have inserted the word 'theory', in the hope that it might help convince RobS. Personally I think it's silly to call the left-right spectrum a 'theory': it's just a definition used to classify something, like 'crunchy' versus 'mushy'. If I say a bowl of cereal is mushy, it seems silly to call that a 'theory'... I'm just classifying according to a definition. But if 'theory' makes Rob happier, I guess there is no harm in that.

Another thing that bothers RobS is that he seems to think calling somebody 'right' is slander. I don't understand that. According to the main definition I proposed, 'right' means standing up for traditional institutions and values, which sounds extremely respectable to me.

In particular, in Europe the words left and right are used without any sense of insult at all. I know, because several years ago my company sent me to live and work in Spain, and I speak Spanish, and read the local papers, and know many people here. Obviously, if you start calling somebody 'extreme right' or 'extreme left', you are looking for a fight. But if you just call them left or right, that's just like calling them liberal or conservative in the US. In fact, lots of people respectfully say left/right in the US too, it's just a little less common.

Also, I almost never use the word 'liberal' any more, because it is much too confusing. If I say it to an American, they think 'left'; but if I say it to a European, they think 'right' (and if I say it in a mixed group, well, nobody understands).

That's one of the things that disappoints me about Conservapedia. There are lots of contributors running around calling each other names, but many pages completely lack definitions. We need to DEFINE the words we use, so that we can have more civil and intelligent debates.---Redblue

I set up the subpages and templates with you specifically in mind, RB. (May I call you RB?) You are the best organized writer on the topic. I couldn't have an edit war, or take part in one, and I suddenly thought of a possible way out. I need to write this up at Conservapedia:Partial page protection.
Nobody should have to give their political credentials, but that's how it is in this country: everyone wants to label you and pigeonhole you ... which leads us right back to the topic! :-)
Sorry about my big reversion. I didn't actually delete anything, it's all in the page history, but I definitely got the message about how upsetting it was. I spent a lot of time setting it up so that we can get back on track and not have any more edit wars on the topic. I hope it works out.
I daresay a lot of politics is (as you suggest) simply name calling. Dukakis is "a Liberal". Bush is "an idiot". The Israeli prime minister is "a Nazi." The contras were "terrorists". Etc. Do these terms actually mean anything? Linguists make a distinction between the denotation and connotation of a word. Would you rather have a segment of muscle tissue from an immature castrated bull, or a "nice thick juicy steak"?
RobS is right: the political spectrum is supposed to classify every single political position. However, where everybody goes wrong is in thinking that this is actually possible. It's not the right tool for job, and you'll go crazy trying to make this square peg fit into the round hole. "I have to, but I can't," as Brian Tracy puts it.
I disagree with using the term theory in connection with the spectrum. There's no theory without an explanation (see theory and fact, an article which I recently started).
And now I come to the main point, which is that some people resist being called "right-wing" because it associates them with Adolf Hitler, the world's most universally despised man. I'd be better off calling you a 'mofo' or Obama a n****, because, "Son, them's fightin' words!"
Sure, we need a definition, but these political labels don't have any actual definitions, and we would be false to our readers to pretend (1) that they have definite meaning or (2) that any of us here are capable of saying what those meanings are.
The word Conservative implies standing up for traditional institutions and values; whether that is a noble of foolish thing to do is anyone's guess. To an opponent of slavery and racism, tearing down such institutions and values would be more respectable than preserving them. To an antebellum Southern gentleman, the opposite would hold.
Civility comes from within, but intelligence can be developed on the foundation of reliable and trustworthy knowledge.
I have replied to you at length, because you are a valuable contributor and this is but the easiest of a whole slew of really tough issues we are going to face. We need to stick together and help each other. --Ed Poor 10:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)


Ed, I think you are a dirty ****** and a ***** and a ***** and *********!!!!!! ScorpionStep on me and get stung 11:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I reblocked you before I saw this. Please spend the next three days thinking about whether you really have anything to offer this project. --Ed Poor 11:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Thought Police

So is the discussion dead or what? I didn't originate the question, but if it's not valid, then it should be removed from the list. Hehe, Johnathan Swift...remember to open your egg from the CORRECT end. Czolgolz 13:05, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh, I'm definitely a Little-endian. ;-) Just figure out a better place for the discussion (hint: see Debate topics).

Thank you, Ed

Thanks for unblocking the IP. It's much appreciated. Myk 15:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)


I know I'm possibly the worst person to ask this (since I'm a ban-magnet myself), but... what exactly should NousEpirrhytos apologize for? I do not see anything posted prior to the block that requires an apology, but I'll open my last can of GoodFaith and simply ask for a diff or two so here. --Sid 3050 17:21, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Email me or come to IRC. --Ed Poor 17:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
No, in the interest of openness, I want this here. Things are complicated enough already, no need to move things outside the realm of recorded wiki-history.
Unless this is about something that already happened behind the scenes, but then I'd like at least that admission here for the same reason. --Sid 3050 17:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Olly's Block

I am gonna sound like a total hypocrite here, but his block ought to be infinite, IMHO. His act of vandalism was purposeful and malicious. Flippin 17:31, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

whoops, got a little overzealous there. Flippin 17:33, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Hamlet and Macbeth are good for students.

"I feel that I am voicing the opinion of all of us... in saying that if Miss Millborough knew that this play—Macduff, or whatever it's called—contained such words as—well, such words as we're speaking about, she never ought to have given it to the children to read at all. To my mind it's a disgrace that schoolbooks can be printed with such words in them. I'm sure that if any of us had known that Shakespeare was that kind of stuff, we'd have put our foot down at the start. It surprises me, I must say. Only the other morning I was reading a piece in my News Chronicle about Shakespeare being the father of English Literature; well, if that's Literature, let's have a bit less Literature, say I! ... We're all of us decent God-fearing folk—some of us are Baptists and some of us are Methodists and there's even one or two Church of England amont us; but we can sink our differences when it coems to a case like this."
—A character in George Orwell's A Clergyman's Daughter

In high school, we did read Hamlet, of course. Our teacher was mildly subversive. She insisted on using her own copy of Hamlet, and referring to the actual line numbers in her edition. Needless to say, as we proceeded her line numbers got further and further off from ours. She never said anything about it, except to say she was using the "real" edition or something like that; left it to us to figure out what had been done to our copies. The odd thing is that we were never able to figure out why certain lines had been omitted, when fairly obvious double-entendres were left in... Dpbsmith 19:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

P. S. If you don't know A Clergyman's Daughter, which happens to be really good, and don't know what word was being referred to... well, as we always used to say at the end of our junior-high-school book reports, "And if you want to know what happened, you'll have to read the book." Dpbsmith 19:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

More than one man of the cloth has attempted to produce an expurgated version of Shakespeare "suitable for young ladies". The Mad Max version is a pretty good movie treatment, but Ethan Hawke and Julia Stiles are unmatched. But check out Hamlet for the Shakespeare-Impaired! --Ed Poor 19:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

P. P. S.

Archy Confesses
Coarse jocosity catches the crowd.
Shakespeare and I are often low browed.
The fishwife curse and the laugh of the horse.
Shakespeare and I are frequently coarse.
Aesthetic excuses in Bill's behalf
Are adduced to refine big Bill's coarse laugh.
But Bill he would chuckle to hear such guff.
He pulled rough stuff and he liked rough stuff.
Hoping you are the same.
—Archy the cockroach
—Don Marquis, The Lives and Times of Archy and Mehitabel

Dpbsmith 19:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

You accidentally left a message for Philip...

...on my Talk page. Dpbsmith 06:52, 12 April 2007 (EDT)


Thanks. I used to live in Mexico and never saw a taco like those in the picture :) Czolgolz 08:45, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd rather see, for instance, the Basilica of Guadelupe, the ruins of Teotiucahan, the Mexico City stadium, or the beaches at Puerto Escondido. Czolgolz 08:50, 12 April 2007 (EDT)


Hi Ed - I initially misunderstood the instructions for creating a new template and created Template:User Murray mistakenly. Could you delete the page please? Thanks. Murray 12:45, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Ed. Murray 12:48, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Is there a place to view all templates?

Just wondering. Flippin 13:57, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

See List of all templates --Ed Poor 14:04, 12 April 2007 (EDT)


Hey, take a look at the North American UBX. I'm trying to work on them so we don't have a bunch with the same picture/look. ColinRtalk 14:02, 12 April 2007 (EDT)


we already have {{Delete Notice}} --CPAdmin1 14:18, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh, well one can redirect the other then. Templates can redirect, while categories cannot. --Ed Poor 14:19, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Just a "few" thousand tortured and murdered

So I guess you figure we Americans make an awful lot of silly fuss about the three thousand of us killed on September 11? --PF Fox 14:24, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

This could be one of the Debate topics. --Ed Poor 14:26, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
It already is a debate topic.
So what WAS your point? What conclusion do you expect us to draw when comparing 3,000 deaths to several million? Is the immorality of mass murder similar to the value of real estate in that it's measured by the square footage of the grave sites? --PF Fox 14:29, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

See Conservapedia:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right? --Ed Poor 14:30, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
That doesn't explain your comments about "keeping in perspective" a regime that had a policy of torturing and murdering the opposition. How is mentioning Victor Jara's death a violation of that "perspective?" --PF Fox 14:49, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
And your point is ... ? --Ed Poor 14:50, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
To get an answer to my question. Why did my bringing up Victor Jara prompt you to make that comment about "perspective?" --PF Fox 14:54, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Sysop Pledge

As my good deed of the day I am requesting that you place this template on your userpage. Participating sysops will earn my respect and gratitude. --BenjaminS 23:58, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Sysop Pledge
As a Conservapedia Sysop, I will NEVER ARBITRARILY block anyone who is not in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments or related CP Guidelines.

Proposed Block Policy

There has recently been some disagreement over blocks, so I have created a proposed block policy Tell me what you think. --CPAdmin1 09:33, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Excellent. --Ed Poor 09:38, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
I would apreciate a Vote --CPAdmin1 14:09, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

T-Rex Page

Hello Ed, could you help Jrssr5 and I out with the T-Rex page? CPAdmin and CPWebmaster are reverting the edits that we had place about the recent science publication about the molecular link between T-Rex and chickens. The links that we provided were Bird Family Ties T Rex Tissue

This information just came out yesterday and was published in today's science. I do not believe that either sysops have read the research to revert our edits. It is kinda hard to support articles with valid information if the cites are reverted all of the time.--TimS 12:12, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Given the position of the powers that be with respect to evolution, there's no way you'll get your statement in as it's currently phrased. You might have more luck with something along the lines of Philip's version. Tsumetai 12:14, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
I would have been fine with Philip's version except he said birds, it is a chicken not just a bird:). The other point is that the conclusion is not just evolution motivated. These scientists were just hoping to compare the proteins to modern animals, not establish the link that they did, that was secondary. It is not every day that soft tissue from a dino is found and can have the proteins extracted from it:). I guess it is the removal of the sources that bothers me, I could care less how it is phrased as long as it represents what was discovered.--TimS 12:19, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
I will answer either on User talk:Tims or on the talk page of the cute little critter in question. --Ed Poor 12:16, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Isn't science... good? The articles do not attack creation, and ignoring them is tantamount to willful blindness.-AmesGyo! 13:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Who ya calling blind? Wait till I find my glasses and get my hands on you . . . --Ed Poor 13:55, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

When you get a chance

Look at contribs from a user called Sb Flippin 13:49, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Ed!--TimS 12:19, 13 April 2007 (EDT)


You saw no improvements in the Science article? I thought it was doing very well. Flippin 14:08, 13 April 2007 (EDT)


Ed could you look at the page and see if my edits were out of line? Shortly after adding the edits Conservative went through and reverted the page and locked it. His talk page is locked as well preventing me to address the issue there. Thanks!--TimS 17:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Have you made the recommended changes to t-rex yet? --Ed Poor 18:02, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, they are the revisions from today before Conservative reverted them and locked the page.--TimS 18:25, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Sorry if I am slow to respond, I am making dinner for my wife and baby.--TimS 18:25, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, anything about the macro page?--TimS 21:17, 13 April 2007 (EDT)


I am trying to work with TK and involve him in the development of my proposed block policy, but he doesn't seem to understand. Could you post on his talk page to try to get him to understand? --CPAdmin1 23:42, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I spent some time on the phone with him. Could you email him or use an instant messaging application? He doesn't like "public" stuff like wiki-messages as much as other ways of communicating. --Ed Poor 23:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Thanks, Ed, for trying, but CPAdmin1 is the reason I am leaving. He insults, diminishes/marginalizes and demeans other users. He has never once asked my opinion or explanation, except for the late-added notice of his proposed rules and template. I note he asked others for their "vote" but not me. Since that was before i had even seen his proposals, I don't think I am wrong as to his intent. Quite simply he believes he knows better than others. Tonight he blocked a user for formatting another users page, contrary to what Commandment? We didn't even have a policy here (proclaimed by Andy less than a week ago) that user pages are a "Castle". Why is it that no one else has taken him to task for constantly undoing my blocks without explanation, or asking me to explain? The first time he asked me about a block, yesterday in an insulting demand on my talk page, it was after, without his help, which i asked for, and he refused to give, clearing up the matter with Palm, and agreeing, mutually with him, for me to undo his block. --~ TK MyTalk 03:00, 14 April 2007 (EDT)


I have proudly posted a version of the "Pledge" on my user page, that I can acccept. It includes the Admin guidelines Andy approved, and does not ignore them. --~ TK MyTalk 08:00, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Sysop Pledge
As a Conservapedia Sysop, I will never arbitrarily block anyone who is not in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments, and related CP Guidelines.
That looks good. --Ed Poor 09:18, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I was going to add it to templates, got so confused, I gave up rather than have the peanut gallery chirp in. BTW, in a totally bogus vote on IRC (I am sure it was rigged!) Conservative beat me out for most hated. Mainly due to Ames, who refused me his vote. Or so I am reliably informed. --~ TK MyTalk 09:23, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Votes don't matter, except in democracies. "Opinion polls" can help a company president decide how to direct his employees (see market research). I don't know how volunteer groups (like Conservapedia) are organized; we seem to be making it up as we go along.
/join #conservapedia-sysop if you want to chat a few minutes before I go to church. --Ed Poor 09:30, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Impossible. Less of a sinner here, I attend the 7AM Mass. :p After I will sign in, await activity. --~ TK MyTalk 09:39, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
After I leave for church, I will be offline until 1:00 P.M. West Coast time. See you later, alligator. ;-) --Ed Poor 09:46, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Salvador Allende Again

As you know, this page has been "protected" by RobS and all references to Augusto Pinochet removed (a rather odd gesture, given that the article on Pinochet makes no bones about Pinochet's involvement in the overthrow of Allende.)

As per your comments via email I would like to restore of the earler version (which mentions the involvment of Pinochet) with these cites:

"The CIA's involvement in the coup was vigorously protested by US leftists, as were the appalling human rights violations committed during and after by the Pinochet regime, among them the murder of one of Allende's most ardent supporters, popular songwriter and musician Victor Jara.

Cites: In September 11 of 1973 the Chilean armed forces attacked La Moneda, the presidential palace in the center of Santiago. Within hours Chile's elected president, Salvador Allende, lay dead (this report concludes that he committed suicide), and a military junta presided by General Augusto Pinochet took power. (

Victor Lidio JARA MARTINEZ, 40, a popular singer and theater director who was a member of the Central Committee of Communist Youth. A statement by the Foreign Ministry dated March 27, 1974, in response to a note from the OAS (Organization of American States) Interamerican Human Rights Commission, said, "Victor Jara: Dead. He was killed by snipers who, I repeat, were firing indiscriminately on the armed forces and on the civilian population." This Commission received many credible reports refuting this official story and leading to the conclusion that what actually happened was quite different. Vicctor Jara was arrested on September 12 on the grounds of the State Technical University were he was working as a theater director. He was taken to the Chile Stadium, where he was separated from the other people with whom he had been arrested, and detained high up in the stands together with other people considered to be dangerous. Between September 12-15, he was interrogated by army personnel. The the last day Victor Jara was seen alive was September 15. During the afternoon he was taken out of a line of prisoners who were being transferred to the National Stadium. In the early morning of the next day, September 16, shantytown dwellers found his body, along with five others, including that of Litti Quiroga Carvajal, near the Metropolitan Cemetery. As the autopsy report states, Victor Jara died as a result of multiple bullet wounds (44 entry wounds and 32 exit wounds).â€The Commission came to the conviction that he was executed without due process of law by government agents, and hence in violation of his fundamental human rights. The grounds for that conviction are that he is known to have been arrested and to have been in the Chile Stadium, that it is attested that he died as a result of many bullet wounds, thus indicating that he was executed together with the other prisoners whose bodies appeared alongside his. The overview to this period provides an account of the various kinds of torture to which Víctor Jara was subjected while under arrest.

I look forward to adding this information, as you advised yesterday. Please let me know when you have unprotected the page. --PF Fox 14:29, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Shouldn't you be asking the locking Sysop? Ed cannot unlock something RobS locked. --~ TK MyTalk 07:11, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, it was Ed who told me to add these cites. And it's interesting to note that RobS protected the page AFTER telling me to go ahead and put in precisely what I put in. --PF Fox 11:46, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Shouldn't all of this be on Ed's talk page? Tsumetai 11:49, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Why not? I'll move it. If anyone else wishes to erase this conversation from Ed's user page, they are welcome to. I don't want to get blocked -- again -- for doing precisely what someone here has told me to do. --PF Fox 12:06, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

You might want to take a look at Wikipedia's treatment of the subject. It's more balanced than the version you propose. I'd hate to have a one-sided, "Allende good, Pinochet bad" article.

Please take a glance at Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy. --Ed Poor 16:58, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll certainly keep in in mind -- also keeping in mind, of course, that I saw few objections from any of the sysops about it being an "Allende bad, Allende bad article."
I consider mass murder and political repression bad. How about you? --PF Fox 18:46, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
The former is much worse. I can live with the second (no pun intended). --Ed Poor 19:31, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Allende was guilty of neither. Pinochet was guilty of both. --PF Fox 19:34, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Request to revert post-panel-approval edit on ToE

I'd like edit to be reverted. The exact text is:

*Charles Darwin. The Origin of Species. (Free online version)

in the Recommended Reading list. The edit was made after the Panel approved the article as it was. This link was the only recommended reading which pointed to a resource which wasn't explicitely devoted to rebutting the theory. --Jtl 19:51, 15 April 2007 (EDT)


I direct you to my latest edits which appear to be completely ideologically neutral. I thought that about breast cancer as well but I was wrong, so we will see what happens.

--PalMDtalk 17:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm flattered that you would come to me with these. I have made teensy weensy edits to both. Thanks for your contributions, and please give us many more like these! --Ed Poor 19:01, 16 April 2007 (EDT)


Could it be the same person as TrueFaith, whom I blocked earlier today? Has anybody checked the IPs? DanH 18:53, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't like to exclude anyone who might turn out to be a helpful contributor, but if someone is more trouble than they are worth then after a while you just have to cut them loose.
Mentoring kids who want to learn is fine. I was a Mentor at ABC and helped a kid get into college. --Ed Poor 18:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)


Did you have to delete the whole Neturei Karta article?Bohdan

Too hasty, must apologize. I need to spend more time with Treebeard. --Ed Poor 20:06, 16 April 2007 (EDT)


I wonder whether I've drawn myself into spending half an hour working on an article that's going to end up being deleted. And getting my username associated with it. Oh, well. I have no idea where on the political spectrum people think breastfeeding falls. It does have feminist overtones, of course. Dpbsmith 20:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

It's controversial, so try writing about breastfeeding or hide it under lactation or methods of infant nutrition. --Ed Poor 20:12, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Well that's sorta-kinda what I did. I want to put back the sentence about men having breasts. It's important for several reasons. First, it's accurate. The idea that only women have breasts is just another aspect of over-sexualizing the breast. Second, men can get breast cancer, and, although it's rare, and when they do it is likely to be very dangerous, moreso than in women. I know someone who was recently diagnosed with it and says he is now on a personal campaign to convince men that they need to do regular breast self-examination. Dpbsmith 20:16, 16 April 2007 (EDT)


Ed, If I may inquire about Reginod, I feel somewhat involved as it occurred on my talk page, and he was asking about an issue that is very important regarding our rationale for blocking. Was this a misunderstanding, or is there some previous history we're all not aware of? RobS 20:10, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

  1. You may.
  2. A bit of both.
  3. We're discussing the matter by email with Mr. Schlafly. --Ed Poor 20:12, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Iraq Body count

Here's a selection from a page from the IBC databse. Tell us again how they "They deliberately do not collect or even care about terrorist murders."

"The count includes civilian deaths caused by coalition military action and by military or paramilitary responses to the coalition presence (e.g. insurgent and terrorist attacks). It also includes excess civilian deaths caused by criminal action resulting from the breakdown in law and order which followed the coalition invasion." (see:

Next time, take the time to read before making a false claim Jacobin 20:18, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

The method they use is incidental to this debate; the first step is to properly qualify the source as to why we should spend any time whatsoever even examining their methodology. RobS 20:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

ummmmm...because they make substantive claims with important political ramifications? Does that not count? Jacobin 20:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

The question is, who is this group? Guidestar, the website of Philanthropic Research, Inc., [2] never heard of them. RobS 20:28, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Looks like they blame the "terrorist" deaths on the US as a "response" to the "invaders". Do you think this means they regard the terrorist murders as bad, or was my recollection correct? --Ed Poor 20:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Good, bad, dead is still dead. And it's even worse since they're mostly dead Muslims, which means they're now burning in hell, having missed their slim chance to accept Jesus. --BobD 20:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
  • I think you have it right Ed, IMO. Which is why it is suspect in my mind. --~ TK MyTalk 20:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't understand - do you believe that there is no relation between the invasion and the terrorist attacks which began immediately in its aftermath? Jacobin 20:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

No fair, I asked first! :-)
The point is that the IBC blames the deaths caused by suicide bombers and the like on the US. --CPAdmin1 21:55, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, it all America's fault - to hear them tell it. Reminds me of Noam Chomsky. --Ed Poor 21:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
We still don't have the vaguest idea who this organization is, and the lack of any qualifying particulars makes it suspect. RobS 22:06, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
It's fairly obvious that the group's main purpose is to protest the US-led invasion of Iraq and to lobby for an early withdrawal - preferably before Iraq becomes a pro-US democracy. I maintain (purely as personal opinion at this point) that they don't actually care about anybody, least of all the casualties or their families - but are only exploting the issue the way John Kerry exploited the "atrocities" of US forces in Viet Nam.
I know quite a bit about the US conduct of the Viet Nam War; the My Lai incident was a special study of mine, particularly when I found it described in an army training manual on military ethics. --Ed Poor 22:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

annoyed you to leaving IRC?

I hope what I said right before you left didn't annoy you into leaving. If so, I'd like to understand why; the off-taste bit sadly wasn't a joke, but also wasn't aimed at CP or anybody in the room. The bit that was a joke, I don't see why would be offensive. --Jtl 21:47, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

You used a phrase which had an emotional trigger for me. Don't worry about it. --Ed Poor 21:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Media Bias

Congrats on your new look media bias page. It used to be just one long anti-liberal tirade, and although the links are still a bit like that, it's a major step forward. Well done! Wikinterpretertalk?

See also talk:media bias. --Ed Poor 09:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)


Can we please resolve this, via email? Today. --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 09:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)


It's not the Dawkins book I care about; I'll remove that one. The books I care about are Darwin's and Futuyma's. They are the most relevant books which exist. --Hojimachongtalk 23:50, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Try writing an article about (1) What the thinker believes and (2) Why he believes it. --Ed Poor 23:53, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't think I should be writing the "big picture" articles about science here. But I won't lose this battle; they are the single two most relevant books that exist, period. That cannot be disputed, can it? --Hojimachongtalk 23:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

You could write a summary of the Futuyama book. --Ed Poor 00:03, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

"Blocked" template

Why does the template you created say "blocked by"? That suggests that it should be followed by the name of the blocking sysop, but you haven't used it that way. And wouldn't it be a good idea to include the name of the blocking sysop? Philip J. Rayment 08:27, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

It could say "blocked" instead. It refers to the block log. A user can do a block or be blocked. Maybe it should say "was blocked".
When they click on "blocked" or "was blocked", the link will serve as a shortcut to the Block Log and show them each instance of a sysop blocking them or unblocking them. The intent is to reduce the number of talk page inquiries: "Why was he blocked? Who blocked him?" It will all be there, one click away. --Ed Poor 08:34, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks. I've changed it some more, so that it says "<username> has been blocked". Philip J. Rayment 09:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
I tweaked it so contribs come second. --Ed Poor 10:47, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
I noticed, and I think that's good. Philip J. Rayment 10:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Can you take a look at this comment doesn't seem very "family friendly" to me. Flippin 09:05, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, Jeremiah's comment at the bottom of the page, please. Thanks Flippin 09:06, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

A few questions

Ed, could I have a few words regarding your recent message on the talk page? Firstly, the Sysop involved is TerryH, not TK, but I think that's a minor point. My bone of contention is that literally nowhere in the two Bible passages cited does it claim the "the only Kingdom not of this Earth is Heaven". Now, this may very well be true, but the fact remains that the passages don't claim this, and we should either reword the passage or find a passage that does state this. This matter relates directly to the state of the article, should not we be using the talk page to discuss the matter? I would appreciate your insight on the matter. Nematocyte 10:37, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

This is a matter of theology, so it's not "cut and dried". Can we talk via instant messaging? I have AIM, Yahoo and IRC. --Ed Poor 10:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Minor? When finally there is something someone admits I haven't done? LOL! --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 10:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm afraid I don't message, but I think a small number of talk page edits would settle the matter. To me it appears to be a matter of citations, not theology. Am I missing a key part of TerryH's logic on the matter? If I am, then it appears the other denizens of the talk page are missing it as well. Casual readers of Conservapedia may well be left confused as well. I think it would be best to reword the sentence in question, because at present we are putting words into the Bible's mouth (so to speack). Nematocyte 10:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, TK, I had trouble keeping track of the Two Terrys :P
N, all references to biblical exegesis should give (1) the quotation (like "Be ye therefore perfect" Matt. 5:48) and (2) an explanation (if available) of why the person using the quotation feels that it supports whatever point they are making. We should be respectful and considerate of all religious views. See Origins debate for a example of quoting Genesis to support Creationism. --Ed Poor 11:05, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
The quoting of Genesis to support Creationism is quite obvious from a plain reading of the Bible. I do not wish to be insulting as I say this, but there does not appear to be any rational reasoning to suppose that the two passages given can in any way be interprated to mean what TerryH is saying (I invite you to read over his essay on the matter).
If you feel that Terry's reasoning is valid, could you please explain it clearly so I can accept it. Alternatively, if you feel that in theory a Bible verse can be used to justify any claim provided a rationale is given, even if it appears to not make sense, I accept that as a Conservapedia rule (although I strongly warn that that leaves us wide open to difficult to detect parody, and ridicule). Nematocyte 11:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

'A few words' - right ;-) This is going to be a long discussion and will probably set a precedent, so ...

If someone quotes Hezekiah 3:16 to support their point, I would probably raise an objection. If I can't find the scripture in my Bible, it's going to be hard for me to read it for myself.

On the other hand, if someone wanted to refute the notions that we should never pray or that Jesus never cried, it would be interesting to our readers to present their exegesis of verses like "Pray constantly" (1 Thess 5:17) or "Jesus wept" (John 11:35). --Ed Poor 11:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

"If someone quotes Hezekiah 3:16 to support their point...". Who would do such a silly thing?  :-) Philip J. Rayment 11:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Someone whose dad is a minister, maybe? ;-)

No thanks

But thanks for looking out for me :-) Flippin 12:05, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

My pleasure. And please check your user talk page for a heartfelt message on article quality. --Ed Poor 12:12, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Need A Favor

Please block my account for two days. I need to get a project done and am too caught up in this to stop. Totally serious. I appreciate it. Flippin 14:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Lol:)--TimS 14:54, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Done. "Be happy in your work." --Ed Poor 14:59, 18 April 2007 (EDT)