Archive: User talk:MountainDewarchive1
- 1 User:Conservator
- 2 Anarchocapitalism
- 3 God
- 4 User:Conservative
- 5 New User
- 6 =Judaism
- 7 Judaism -- the version you have protected is the wrong one
- 8 User names
- 9 CP:AID
- 10 Unlock
- 11 Spoon
- 12 Alien
- 13 confused
- 14 Dispute Resolution Process
- 15 Thanks for the quick block
- 16 Sockpuppet/Troll Stalker!
- 17 Blocked user
- 18 Please Stop Removing Page Protection
- 19 BillOReillyFan
- 20 Unblock
- 21 Scientology
- 22 Hitler, whatever...
- 23 Aschlafly's talk page
- 24 Ashens
- 25 Recent Blocks
- 26 Stub2 Deleted
- 27 McCain v. Reagan
- 28 Eric
- 29 Civil War, et al
- 30 DDT ban
- 31 Picture
- 32 Conservative
- 33 Nice chat with...
- 34 Answer
- 35 diamond
- 36 Antia Bryant
- 37 Pruning
- 38 Bleeding Kansas
- 39 Talk:18 USC § 1030
- 40 Question
- 41 Prog rock
- 42 Unblock
I can't tell what he's doing. He seems to be adding extra-huge amounts of content to articles, but every time I try and go there, it errors out. Just fyi. --Ymmotrojam 16:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
The user created a redirect to that page at Free Market, and it looked like a crank article.Geo. 02:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
- Sorry for any time that I wasted. Geo. 02:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
The debate over User:Conservative is going on at Talk:dinosaur, and the section above the one you just created at User Talk:Aschlafly. I must agree, it is somewhat disturbing that the notion "Conservative's worldview is the ONLY worldview" has gained acceptance. --Hojimachongtalk 18:37, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
The New User log has been installed. You can see new account creations now. Thanks for the tip! Conservapedia Webmaster 09:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
You have to revert that page to an older version, ASAP. There is slander in there I think you missed - like saying that the real Jews are white Europeans and that Jews descended from Satan.--Dave3172 12:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Judaism -- the version you have protected is the wrong one
Hi MountainDew -- a note to let you know that the version of Judaism which you protected is an innacurate one, filled to rants by someone who subscribes to the widely discredited Christian Identity school of racist thinking which goes so far as to reject the notion that the Jews of today even *are* Jews, and says they are descended from Satan. Please revert to an earlier accurate version if you are going to protect this entry!
Boethius 12:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for that block. If I were an admin, I'd have done the same. Keep up the good work! :-) --Ed Poor 14:48, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Hello, You recently expressed your opinion at CP:AID. After voting, it has become obvious that the first article to improve is Germany and any related articles. Details will be posted soon at CP:AID, check there tomorrow for details. Thanks! --Hojimachongtalk 15:36, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Now that the rash of vandalism seems to have passed, could you unlock my user page? I need to make some edits. Thanks. Palmd001 21:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
- Thanks, feel free to delete this little thread. Palmd001 21:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
why did you block him?? All he did was quote the Bible. If you don't think it belongs where it was put, delete it, but don't block the editor. --TimSvendsen 22:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
He was only posting verses that post the Bible in a bad light. I will unblock him, though. MountainDew 22:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
User Ilikebigbibles should be blocked. Are you going to be up a while? If not, then I'm inclined to block him now.--Aschlafly 02:36, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
- Thanks much. He's from Australia (near Sydney) based on his IP, and his edits and name highly suggest the need to block. Unless you see a reason not to, I'd recommend blocking before you sign off. Thanks much!--Aschlafly 02:40, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Tsumetai said to ask someone on the list and you had a cool name, so I'm asking you. What did i do that was vandalism? and what am I a not good parody at? I thought we were supposed to add true things here, not like at Wikipedia were you have to have npov and liberal bias. Gabriel 13:33, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Dispute Resolution Process
- OK, thanks for the quick response. I was getting worried for a minute. --Hojimachongtalk 22:48, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the quick block
Wow, you were really quick on that last block! Thanks!--Aschlafly 00:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
I know you are the same person as that hoji...you ain't fooling anyone, pinko liberal godless soul!
- Sorry, Dan...I apologize. I thought you would realize the humor, the joke, being since you were posting on hoji's page too. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 03:17, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
I just got an e-mail from AmesG that he was blocked by conservative, he wanted me to ask another admin to look into it. I am not sure the surroundings but there is a decent chance it was pre-mature. Tmtoulouse 17:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
- Thank you all again!!!-AmesG 17:21, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
- I totally am. But getting banned by Conservative is good for the soul.-AmesG 18:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
- Bans need not be permanent. Does a user block here also stop the user from posting on their own user talk page? --Ed Poor 19:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
- If one is banned, they cannot sign into the site. They could, I guess, post as someone else on their banned page. Perhaps the Webmaster needs to remove the pages of banned users... --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 20:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Please Stop Removing Page Protection
It is especially rude for you to unprotect pages, without consultation with the Sysop who locked it. Is there some explanation for doing it, other than just your idea you know better? --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 01:32, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm not sure if this has surfaced in the discussion over User:BillOReillyFan yet, but this edit to Wikipedia by somebody who seems to be BillOReillyFan is quite incriminating. --Hojimachongtalk 03:01, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
- Can't we call him something else, some cool code name? BillOReillyFan...meh....Tmtoulouse 03:04, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
- I just say BORF. MountainDew 03:05, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
- Ha! Thats perfect actually. You are on a roll tonight! Tmtoulouse 03:06, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
- Have fun BORF hunting, I will see you tommorrow! Tmtoulouse 03:15, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
I think User:Pacman might be a BORF. Lots of good edits (esp. in knowledgeable areas) and then complete silliness. Anyway, he's blocked for a day now. I guess we'll see. ColinRtalk 04:41, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
- If nothing else, he likes the nickname you gave him. Myk 04:42, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the unblock, MountainDew. I had no idea how sneaky people were, what with the edits by "BORF". Thanks for redeeming me. Vossy 03:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Can you provide some justification for your edits on Scientology? I was fixing a rather overzealous edit by a user called Terryeo.
- I am he. Since the discussion seems to go on at Pacman's Page, I replied to him there. The data Pacman is introducing is already in the article. It is in the Contoversy Section of the article and has been there for some time. Tmloulouse introduced the data on 19 March at this editing difference. He and I worked out a compromise wording that we could both live with, but he introduced the idea and documented it pretty throughly. Pacman seems to want the data taken out of controversy and put into basic beliefs, which would be incorrect. That's why he and I are working that out. Terryeo 13:10, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
- Same problem here :( niandra 14:57, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
- I had to remove the underscores from his name and type the plus sign in myself. It took me several tries. MountainDew 14:57, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
- I'm not sure. I suspect that the names are being created by somebody who has an established account here already; I'm going to go run some checkuser inquiries. --Hojimachongtalk 15:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Aschlafly's talk page
I'll block him if he continues. Fred Phelps is a phsyco, and it's our job to paint him as such! I like your request to him, by the way... I'll go CheckUser him. --Hojimachongtalk 02:36, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
- He says he's going to "report us for hounding him". Shall I just block him now, and delete all traces of his existence? Yes? That sounds like an excellent idea! --Hojimachongtalk 03:15, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
- We should give him one warning for name calling first. Whether he's broken any rules seems borderline, even though he's here to cause trouble. MountainDew 03:16, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
- This is what I mean. Do either of you understand what other Sysops think when reading these kind of posts? --~ TerryK MyTalk 03:43, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
- The whole communication thing, right? MountainDew 03:45, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
- In order for a page to be on a sysops watch list, one has to enable watch manually, or have auto watch enabled so, if a sysop hasnt posted on your page, mine, or hoji's, they dont know the convo is happening = exclusionary. I have had other Sysops express the same frustration. We just can's assume they will see the topic on their watch lists. --~ TerryK MyTalk 03:57, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm confused about some of these. Kiowa and Tmtoulouse mainly. I know there's probably good reasons, but I never saw anything against the rules in any of their entries that I saw.Nsmyth 04:03, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
- Most of it was on Andrews page. I wasn't a party to, nor do I agree that Tmtoulouse should have been blocked, and until I saw your post, didn't know he had been....yet. His feelings were hurt, and he lashed out. That isn't the way to handle such things. --~ TerryK MyTalk 04:08, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
- He did actually suggest being blocked. That said, I do disagree with the blocking, but it's not my call. ColinRtalk 04:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
- If he asks for a second chance (he has my IM), I wouldn't oppose giving it to him. MountainDew 04:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
- Kiowa was placed on a short block for subtle vandalism of Americium and a couple of other articles
The webmaster deleted the stub2 template and now we have a ton of pages siting around with a broken template. I have been fixing them, but I'm tired and need sleep, could you help when you log on. All the pages with broken links can be found here: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Template:Stub2
- (Issue has been fixed via Template Redirect.) --Sid 3050 08:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
- I appreciate you letting me know about the problem, sid....I sent email to webmaster, didnt get an answer, but main thing its fixed. --~ TerryK MyTalk 08:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
- Main praise goes to Elamdri for actually spotting it. (The initial alert didn't come from me, it's an unsigned entry by Elamdri.) --Sid 3050 09:01, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
- That was sarcasm. None of these guys answer their email, so I don't know why I bothered. And of course, you messaged that the problem was being worked on, but not to me. ;-) --~ TerryK MyTalk 09:03, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
- I tracked down the people Elamdri alerted and left the "No worries, it's been fixed" notes underneath Elamdri's posts to avoid the alerted people from going all "OH NOES!". Not much use to leave a message on ALL sysops' pages going all "There was some problem, but it's not there anymore, so this message is fairly pointless.". ;) If you check Elamdri's contributions, you'll notice that only a few people have been alerted.
- Besides, you showed that you keep your eyes open by checking other User Talk pages. That definitely speaks for you. :) --Sid 3050 09:10, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
- No worries, I'm on a tear about communication...I should have it worked out of my system by this evening, lol. :p --~ TerryK MyTalk 09:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
McCain v. Reagan
Hey MD- Just a heads up.
- Ronald Reagan, born 2/6/11, took office 1/20/81. 69 years 11.5 mos.
- John McCain, born 8/29/36, would take office ~1/15/2009. 72 years 3.5 mos.
I've had to fix that a couple of times and mentioned it on the talk page. Jus ta heads up. (Personally, I think the entire section about "electability" has got to go but someone disagrees with me. Myk 11:31, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
No, just a friend of his. You must admit, however, that he has his fair share of Google hits (and an interesting biography that you can read here .
Anyway, he wouldn't be enough of a loser to put his own name on somebody's wiki. ColemanFrancis 15:16, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Civil War, et al
It used to be a stub...now it's filling out. Slowly, but it's filling out. The subheadings that are there already (before 1861) are going to be filled with detail before I add the rest. What do you think so far? Karajou 17:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
it seems the name of the picture can only be 4-5 characters long and can only contain alphabetical letters.Jaques 03:14, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
I'd consider it a badge of honor to be on your list of conservatives.
Nice chat with...
I had a nice chat with a certain someone, and I pointed out that the problem was not only with Richard, but with those people here who gave him a pat on the back for what I saw was an attempted destruction of Conservapedia. Should they get booted? Karajou 22:10, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- I'm not sure. On the one hand, I think we should keep all the troublemakers who have no intention of positive contributions out On the other, some of these people have made contributions, and I don't want us to get accused of ideological banning any more than we already have on blogs. MountainDew 22:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
You have raised a very valid point, Karajou. If one's actions are disingenius, like Richard's, lacking honor, yes, they should be booted as well. The rub is in the proof. I posted for several days about his actions, and yet no one in authority acknowledged what I was saying. I emailed a certain someone about his actions, never received a response. :S --~ TerryK MyTalk 22:15, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
There are a couple people here who have approved of what Richard had attempted to do, and they enjoyed it. I'm for removal for at least six months. What say you? Karajou 22:18, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- About the SYSOP status I just sent Andy a letter reminding him that Richard is still on it. Karajou 22:26, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Karajou, are you referring to what people have said in the "Vote: Keep Richard?" page? MountainDew 22:28, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- He's (Andy) been posting, within the last hour on the board, he is aware. And what is the vote page? --~ TerryK MyTalk 22:29, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
It's not a vote page, I referred to it wrong. I mean the discussion on Andy's talk page that AmesG branched off to this page: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Keep_Richard_Around%3F MountainDew 22:30, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- Picture someone who's just desperate to force a rules change to an article, like the evolution article, and then picture him as being gleeful when someone else comes along and does something to destroy Conservapedia's reputation. That kind of individual. Karajou 22:44, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- Richard is gone from the SYSOP list at this time. Karajou 22:47, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- Sorry for the lack of response, TK; I thought it was a one-liner. And who's a she? Karajou 23:02, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- I'm just not sure, to be honest, if somebody doesn't actually do anything malicious with editing (or publicly exposing the site as Richard did). I think that really sets us up for accusations of ideological bias. They must certainly never be considered for sysop status. That being said, I'd think those users should be warned and receive an infinite ban upon any infraction. Ultimately, it's up to you/Andy.
Also, thank you for checking with Andy on the SYSOP list. MountainDew 22:50, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- I messaged you on both Yahoo and AIM the other day, love. Maybe you had finished posting, and left. --~ TerryK MyTalk 23:03, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
It's interesting how tweaked you all are over what Richard did and none of you are even the least bit concerned that he exposed the single biggest flaw on Conservapedia - the willingness to overlook problems if someone professes to be a conservative. Anyone could have read what he wrote and realized he was goofing. But since he said all the right things, he was SysOped. If you worried more about that and less about the fact that some of us found it funny, this site would be the better for it.--Dave3172 23:13, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- I also ask you how American it is to ban people who stand up for people who did something wrong. The poor Federal Defender's office... someone should tell them.-AmesGyo! 23:16, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- Sorry, I do appreciate that. It's just that I'm defensive because it sounds like you are trying to get me banned for standing up for Richard. Tell me I'm mistaken?-AmesGyo! 23:21, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- I didn't think that you were one of the people referred to, Ames. I wouldn't support banning you, in any event. MountainDew 23:24, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Here is the deal with me: I don't try, I do. If I thought that way, you would be gone already. I don't sneak or pussyfoot around, as you can tell from my public messages even to Andrew. ;-) --~ TerryK MyTalk 23:35, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- Well, I'm comforted by that, thanks. I think my contributions are valuable, even (especially) the controversial ones, so I appreciate it. I also hope you won't ban my friends, like Dave3172. And MountainDew, I knew you wouldn't, thanks :-). If the tables were turned (which they won't be - Andy'd die before seeing me as a sysop) I'd be behind you 100%.-AmesGyo! 23:37, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- "He who voteth toward the left shalt not edit Conservapedia?" MountainDew 23:40, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- I've seen that passage - it's in Hypocrafly, Book I, verses 9-27. But I've been called Satan a lot, actually. I only expect it to go up after I pass the bar. "New Republic" got hold of one of my editorials for the Rice newspaper and called me a bunch of names. My girlfriend & I laughed for days. -AmesGyo! 23:43, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- LOL! If I've ever made fun of you, MountainDew, you have my deepest apologies! But I seriously doubt I have!-AmesGyo! 23:46, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- You haven't, but the commenters on the blog my userpage links to have. MountainDew 23:47, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- Good times. Back to ConLaw, I've spent too much time here today.-AmesGyo! 23:49, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
This is not so easy to answer as I suggested, but I will give you some key points to help you understand. The Bible is my rock on this Earth, so I take everything in it very seriously, and I also take very seriously when people try to put things in it that aren't there. I think all Biblical literalists should be Conservative Democrats for the following two main reasons:
1. Democrats are compassionate and moral people when it comes to those who are less fortunate. Republicans do not believe it is worth giving these people anything. This is a valid point of view, but distinctly counter to the Bible's teaching. To cite a few of my favorite passages:
And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God. (Leviticus 19:10)
And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not make clean riddance of the corners of thy field when thou reapest, neither shalt thou gather any gleaning of thy harvest: thou shalt leave them unto the poor, and to the stranger: I am the LORD your God. (Leviticus 23:22)
And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him: yea, though he be a stranger, or a sojourner; that he may live with thee. Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee. (Leviticus 25:35-36)
I was just reading Leviticus, so these are still fresh in my mind. I will spare you the dozens more I can think of, but simply give you one of my favorites of Jesus' sermons, found in Matthew 25:
"When I, the Messiah, shall come in glory, and all the angels with me, then I shall sit upon my throne of glory. And all the nations shall be gathered before me. And I will separate the people as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and place the sheep at my right hand, and the goats at my left. Then I, the King, shall say to those at my right, "Come, blessed of my Father, into the Kingdom prepared for you from the founding of the world. For I was hungry and you fed me; I was thirsty and you gave me water; I was a stranger and you invited me into your homes; naked and you clothed me; sick and in prison, and you visited me." Then these righteous ones will reply, "Sir, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you anything to drink? Or a stranger, and help you? Or naked, and clothe you? When did we ever see you sick or in prison, and visit you?" And I, the King, will tell them, "When you did it to these my brothers you were doing it to me!" Then I will turn to those on my left and say, "Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his demons. For I was hungry and you wouldn't feed me; thirsty, and you wouldn't give me anything to drink; a stranger, and you refused me hospitality; naked, and you wouldn't clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn't visit me." Then they will reply, "Lord, when did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and not help you?" And I will answer, "When you refused to help the least of these my brothers, you were refusing help to me." And they shall go away into eternal punishment; but the righteous into everlasting life." (Matthew 25)
Republicans place their emphasis on aquiring wealth, but they do not ever seem to recall Matthew 19:24-- "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." Democrats on the other hand focus on community health and well-being.
2. I am sorry this is so long. My second reason is that those who walk under the banner of the "pro-life" movement are Biblical revisionists, and have no support for what they are saying. The Bible does not talk at all about such things. They have made it up. The truth of the matter is that for about 2000 years or more the theological concensus was that the soul entered the body at "quickening" or at about three months into pregnancy. Sometime in the 1800s clergy changed their mind, ignoring not only thousands of years of precedent, but the conditions during the times of Jesus Christ. The Bible is not only dismissive of the value of fetuses in any stage, but also infants of less than one month. The Biblical point of view is that the value of life is not some false scientific distinction of egg and sperm as pro-lifers say. There is much interesting material on abortion in the Bible. I am sorry this is long. I will site a few, and then you can delete all this if you want. Exodus 21:22-23 says that even an abortive act done by a third party is permissable as long as the woman does not die, although punished. Presumebly the husbund can do this without punishment:
"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life." (Exodus 21:22-23)
Therefore, all this nonsense about cells in dishes deserving respect is nonsense. It was completely fabricated. Even St. Augustine thought abortion of unformed fetuses was not bad. "But who is not rather disposed to think that unformed fetuses perish like seeds which have not fructified?" (Augustine, Enchiridion) So I'm fairly pro-choice, and I think if science wants to use "stem cells" to help people I don't understand it but I'm fine with it.
Sorry for the long post. If I may ask you--are you a Democrat or a Republican? If you are a Republican I did not mean to offend.--CWilson 04:34, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- I'm going to point out some historical facts, Mr. Wilson that run counter to what you think Democrats are.
- It was Democrats that caused a split in the country that led directly to the Civil War.
- It was Democrats that fought to defend slavery.
- It was Democrats that put in, defended, and enforced the Jim Crow laws against blacks.
- It was Democrats who created the Ku Klux Klan
- It was Democrats that tried keeping black children out of public schools and colleges in the South.
- It was Democrats that killed Emmitt Till
- It was Democrats that tried forcing Rosa Parks in the back of the bus.
- It was Democrats that caused and ran the Vietnam War, and ensuring that 53,000 Americans came home in body bags.
- It is Democrats now that are trying to make America lose in the same manner as they did in Vietnam.
- It is Democrats now that are fighting any law stopping abortion and putting prayer back in public schools.
Mr Wilson, those are facts, and you can heap all the praise you want on the Democratic Party, but don't you ever call that organization Christian. Karajou 07:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- Don't forget that Lyndon Johnson depended on Republicans to pass the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 because of fierce opposition by his fellow Democrats.
- The Republican Party also played a leading role in securing women the right to vote. In 1896, Republicans were the first major party to favor women's suffrage. When the 19th Amendment finally was added to the Constitution, 26 of 36 state legislatures that had voted to ratify it were under Republican control. The first woman elected to Congress was a Republican, Jeanette Rankin from Montana in 1917.
- Twelve states, all Republican, had given women full suffrage before the federal amendment was finally ratified.
- And, in 1869, the first blacks entered Congress as members of the Republican Party, establishing a trend that was not broken until 1935 when the first black Democrat finally was elected to Congress. --~ TerryK MyTalk 08:17, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- When I was studying English last year at MTSU, the topic was on Civil Rights, and it went to Rosa Parks. My question was "Just who was in charge?" Someone wanted her in the back of the bus, as it was the law to do so, which means the people at large put in the lawmakers to craft those laws in the first place. When I looked at a listing by affiliation of all the governors of the state of Mississippi, I found five Repubilcan governors during the military occupation and Reconstruction just after the Civil War, and a few Republicans after Reagan's election. The rest were Democrats. They were in charge during the entire slavery period, during the entire Jim Crow period, and well beyond, because that's what the people wanted. Karajou 09:03, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Good heavens -- yes, an attack on Anita Bryant! How that tenth-rate cackler and hate-monger, an embarassment both aesthetically and morally, ever became a conservative cause celebre is a mystery to me. The greatest joke ever is that she recorded a version of radical leftist Phil Ochs' "The Power and the Glory" without realizing who he was!
But in any case, clearly, I am opposed, in every way that a human being can be, to the goals of this deeply, wretchedly, anti-Christian website of hateful bile. Better ban me soon, or I will vandalize again, and again, and again!!! Boethius
- Spoken with all the indignation Youth can muster! LMAO! Odd how people who weren't even born, or just, see things so clearly, reading magazine accounts....--~ TerryK MyTalk 01:19, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
I added a bit more information to this subject in the Civil War article...which one can call "part 1" with some justification... Karajou 22:28, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Talk:18 USC § 1030
I understand that Talk:18 USC § 1030 had to be protected due to vandalism, but it has been nearly two weeks, and I believe that, except in extreme circumstances, talk pages ought not be locked. Therefore, I am requesting that you unprotect that page.--Reginod 13:18, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Can one SYSOP by himself declare that I can't edit certain stuff? I thank you for your kind words, but Karajou seems to want to make it difficult for me to stay. Now I sorta do want to put a section in the abortion article about the Bible and what it says, but I'm worrried about getting banned.--CWilson 18:19, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
- As much as I hate to say it, I think that what Andy says is generally what goes on this site, after he specifically said that he supported Karajou in this instance. MountainDew 18:21, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
- So you're saying I can't edit the Bible or abortion and that is going to be enforced?--CWilson 18:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
- I'm not saying I would enforce it, I'm just saying that realistically, that Karajou would enforce it and that Andy would probably back him up. MountainDew 18:37, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
- Just because Karajou is a sysop? Like Richard, I guess.--CWilson 18:47, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
- SOLUTION: Find something else to write about for a month or two. Why is everyone so stinking mean to the dead horse, to keep beating on it? Do I need to message PETA? --~ TerryK MyTalk 19:03, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Dream Theater fan, eh? Scriabin 18:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
How do I unblock a user? --Ed Poor 19:11, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
- You go to the blocked user list, and click the link that says "unblock". Make sure you are not unblocking someone blocked by another Sysop. --~ TerryK MyTalk 19:18, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
- Think it's that one: Special:Ipblocklist --Sid 3050 19:20, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
- Thank you both. The block expired, anyway (!) --Ed Poor 19:22, 30 March 2007 (EDT)