User talk:Philip J. Rayment/Archive 9

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Kel's substanceless rants about me

I posted recently on HelpJazz' talk page that a person named Kels on another website had called both me and Creation Ministries liars. I said there:
That same accuser (Kels) also accused me and Creation Ministries International of lying, ("he won't hesitate to lie and twist at the slightest opportunity" and "He accepts every lie creationontheweb feeds him") yet offered no evidence of that whatsoever. I accept that many people don't accept my views and think that I'm mistaken, deluded, or even stupid, but I don't go around saying things that I know to be untrue (and nor does CMI). Accusations like that without solid supporting evidence are nothing short of libel (not that I could be bothered suing), and he is despicable for making the accusation, and should be censured by others there, but by their silence they are just as bad.

Since then, one person has challenged Kels on this (thanks Ajkgordon). And Kels has defended her claims—with more substanceless claims!

She said, "He accepts CreationOnTheWeb and AiG, who spread repeatedly refuted obvious lies..", yet still offers absolutely no evidence of such lies! She also says that I argue "...against things that are repeatedly cited to him and explained in minute detail.". Yeah? So what? Am I supposed to just say, "Oh, an evolutionist using typical evolutionist arguments; they must be right and I must be wrong"? Actually, many people repeatedly argue against things that I cite and explain in minute detail. Does that make those people wrong?

Remember the story of the bee that wasn't able to fly? PJR's like someone who still insists it's impossible after it's been proven to be possible...

This is obviously meant as an analogy of my close-mindedness rather than an actual argument that I use, but ironically, that's something that I used to believe, but no longer do, as can be seen by a recent edit I made here. And as Kels smears leading creationists along with me, I would also point out that Creation Ministries International (and AiG) have long published a list of arguments creationists should not use[3], which includes arguments that they themselves used to use! The facts are that CMI, AiG, and I are all prepared to change our minds when presented with convincing evidence. Meanwhile, I know of no anti-creationist publishing a similar list of arguments that evolutionists should not use. Arguments such as embryos having gills that have been repeatedly refuted are still often trotted out by anti-creationists.

So there you have it, an example of how he's either a liar (by deliberately spreading this falsehood about a spurious and incorrect definition of "information") or an idiot (by uncritically accepting the AiG/CotW version, and they definitely know it's false, so they're liars anyhow).

This "example" is nothing more than Kels saying that she is right so therefore I'm wrong, combined with a repeated-but-still-unsupported claim that AiG and CMI (CreationOnTheWeb) are liars. If it's so well established that they are liars, why does she not give any evidence of them publishing something that they know to be wrong with evidence that they know it to be wrong? No, without evidence, this is just hot air, and contemptible.

So you're saying that AiG are not liars? That they aren't deliberately peddling this "new information" nonsense, when it's obviously garbage and they've been told so frequently? That they don't have this sort of thing on their website, that's been refuted countless times? You're telling me that both sites don't spread this sort of misinformation that has been publicly refuted many times, and leave it there even after the refutations, because it's good at convincing people who don't know science? That's lying, and I'm sorry you don't see it.

So if Kels thinks that it's "obviously garbage", then it really must be and therefore AiG have to believe Kels, and therefore they are liars because they continue to publish it. Logic is totally absent from that claim. Just because an evolutionist tries refuting a creationist argument doesn't mean that the refutation is actually valid, nor that the creationists must necessarily be convinced by it so that continued use constitutes a lie. I could equally well claim that evolutionist arguments have been refuted by creationists countless times, and therefore evolutionists are liars for continuing to use those arguments! Of course what really matters is the evidence and which one has the better arguments, but that doesn't matter to Kels. The mere fact that evolutionists have tried to refute creationist arguments is absolute proof that creationists are liars! No, Kels, that absolutely does not constitute lying, and I'm sorry that your sad site has so few people willing to call you on that.

For the information of those who have not seen me explain this before, I will not go to that site to argue my case because of a lack of time. I spend too much time on Conservapedia as it is, and too much of that arguing the same points over and over again. In principle I could go there and argue just this point, but once having registered I would probably find myself arguing many other things said about me also, so not registering there makes it easier for me to resist the temptation to refute every false accusation.

But while I'm at it, I might as well try and extract an apology from another person there and see if he keeps his word.

You know, I'd accept [what another poster wrote] if A, he didn't hide behind Conservapedia to claim victory when he's afriad to debate in an uncontrolled environment. B, he didn't use Creationontheweb and AnswersinGensis for EVERY ARGUMENT EVER ...

You show me one site, outside of his control where he engages in open debate with someone and I'll happily apologize right now. I still think he's afraid to come over here because he knows that he doesn't have the power to revert and ban any uncomfortable statements.

Before I get to A I will respond to B: I only infrequently use AiG, and I don't always use either CMI or AiG, although I do use CMI a lot. It's also noteworthy that this person chooses to attack the source of my information rather than address the arguments themselves.

I have debated on at least three other discussion forums in the past (none of which I had any position of authority on), two quite extensively, but they were under a pseudonym that I still wish to keep secret, so I can't produce them as evidence. And another person on that site pointed out that I've had a number of e-mail discussions with various people. But apart from those, I can point to discussions I've been involved in here and here, which should satisfy this person's requirements for an apology.

Philip J. Rayment 08:30, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Firstly, you could just go to the other website that shall not be named, rather than using our friend Ken's red telephone method. As charming as his missives are, I think I speak for all when I say we have a deal more respect for you than for him.
As regards the other things you've said. Well, I'd heartily dispute this idea that AiG et al. are ready to change their minds. One has only to look as far as their statement of faith to see this is true. What is it about the bald statement "The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth, and the universe." that leads you to believe they are ready to accept evidence contrary to their worldview?
You say that the defenders of evolution use long discredited arguments using embryonic gill slits as an example. The problem with this is that is an example of a long discredited creationist argument. What defenders of evolution actually say is that embryos have pharyngeal pouches in common, suggesting a common ancestor. This is just one of many developmental features embryos share in common, something which simply can't be explained if we are to accept the premise that the world and everything in it was created by fiat.
The thing is, nobody can possibly take you seriously when you cite creationist websites as a source. These people have obvious axes to grind, and everything they write is coloured with that. You merely have to compare the output of so-called Answers Research Journal with a real scholarly publication to see how ridiculous they are. Now, if you can find real scientists that are conducting real research who conclude the world was created by fiat 6000 years ago, by all means cite them, but otherwise religion really needs to be kept out of the scientific arena. --Taciturn 18:33, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
I explained above why I don't go there to put my case. Did you not read that?
"... I'd heartily dispute this idea that AiG et al. are ready to change their minds.": Despite me providing evidence of them doing so? Is this a case of ignoring evidence that is contrary to your opinion?
"One has only to look as far as their statement of faith to see this is true. What is it about the bald statement ...that leads you to believe they are ready to accept evidence contrary to their worldview?": There's several point to make in response to this:
  • Given that the Genesis account is of events that occurred a long time ago and we don't have a time machine to go back and observe what happened, I wonder what possible evidence could indisputably refute that.
  • As the part you quoted says, the Genesis account provides a framework within which research is done. True, they are not willing to reject the framework, but that doesn't mean that they will never change their minds when there is contrary evidence.
  • Evolutionists also have a framework that they will not budge on. At root, it is naturalism. No matter what evidence is offered, they will remain naturalistic; they will not accept the possibility of a supernatural Creator being involved. And they will also not budge on evolution. They may change their minds on some of the details, even major ones (e.g. slow and gradual vs. punctuated equilibrium), just as creationists will, but they will stick with evolution itself, just as creationists will stick with creation itself. So isn't rather hypocritical to accuse just creationists of this?
"What defenders of evolution actually say is that embryos have pharyngeal pouches ...": No, some will say gill slits. See here for an example.
"...something which simply can't be explained if we are to accept the premise that the world and everything in it was created by fiat.": Oh? Why not? Why could not the Creator have created different creatures with similar embryonic development features?
"The thing is, nobody can possibly take you seriously when you cite creationist websites as a source. These people have obvious axes to grind, and everything they write is coloured with that.": Oh? So evolutionists writing about evolution are not colouring their writing with their views, but creationists writing about creation are? That sounds like bigotry to me.
"You merely have to compare the output of so-called Answers Research Journal with a real scholarly publication to see how ridiculous they are.": Substanceless rhetoric. Can you actually mount a real argument on this?
"Now, if you can find real scientists that are conducting real research who conclude the world was created by fiat 6000 years ago, by all means cite them...": How about Russell Humphreys[4], Raymond Damadian[5], John Baumgardner[6], Geoff Downes[7], Ian Macreadie[8], and John Hartnett[9], for examples. Admittedly, two of them are now retired, but they were doing "real research" in recent years and were YECs at the time. The rest still do research in secular institutions. In fact most of the people listed here would fulfill your requirements. Now let's see you try and worm out of that, probably by changing your stated requirements. Because there's a good chance that you will refuse to change your mind in the face of the evidence, just as you accuse creationists of doing.
"...otherwise religion really needs to be kept out of the scientific arena.": Atheism too? And Naturalism (the belief that nature is all there is, and there is no supernatural?
Philip J. Rayment 22:23, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Part 2

Well, Kels has seen this response, and guess what? There was not even an attempt to justify the claim of "liar". The nearest that she came was to try and worm out of it by claiming that she was "merely venting". And even this was only after Arizaphale and Ajkgordon had three times hauled her over the coals over the claims of lying!

Instead, she tried diverting attention by talking about other things. In one case she picked on the list of scientists above, fulfilling a prediction I made (although about Taciturn) that the response would be to change the requirements. Her criticism was that
...some of whom do "real research", presumably at "real universities". Damned peculiar not a single one of them seems to have come up with any, you know, evidence of a young earth during their research.

With one exception, all the scientists I listed work or worked for secular organisations. Seeing she apparently couldn't be bothered looking them up (even though I provided links), here's where:

  • Russell Humphreys: Was at Sandia National Laboratories (New Mexico) (now retired).
  • Raymond Damadian: Has his own company (actually, I don't know if he's still working or not; he's 72 now). But being one of the main developers of magnetic resonance imaging surely counts as "real research", does it not?
  • John Baumgardner: Los Alamos National Laboratory (now retired)
  • Geoff Downes: CSIRO (Australia).
  • Ian Macreadie: CSIRO (Australia).
  • John Hartnett: University of Western Australia

So the scare quotes around "real research" and "real universities" is shown to be typical anti-creationist put-down falsehood.

Working as they do for secular universities, they are not likely to get far trying to do research into a recent creation, nor with publishing those ideas. But despite that, it's not true that they haven't come up with evidence of a young Earth during their research. John Baumgardner has been acknowledged (by the secular scientific community) as having the best computer model of tectonic plate movement, and he says that his model works best in a young-Earth framework. John Hartnett's research includes a young-Earth cosmology. So that claim about no evidence of a young Earth from their research is simply false also. But then what do you expect when Kels has obviously done no real research into this? An unresearched claim of "no research" is rather hollow. She claims no evidence by creationists, but supplies none when challenged, instead diverting the discussion onto other criticisms.

The posts by Arizaphale and Ajkgordon are worth repeating, although I'll limit myself to just quoting one, by Ajkgordon.

Repeated accusations of lying are ultimately counter-productive. While it's an easy claim to make and loved by "anti-creationists (yes, I can see what they're doing by inventing that phrase)", it doesn't help to persuade anyone else that PJR and YEC are wrong. Indeed, in many cases, it may help to achieve the opposite. The most effective way of selling rationality is to argue rationally however frustrating that might be. To the non-scientist and college kids, PJR is beating you at your own game.

(Perhaps I should be thanking Kels for making me look good!)

Did I get the apology I wrote about in the section above? Nope. Despite the person who promised to do so posting there again discussing this section of my talk page, there was no mention of the promised apology whatsoever.

Another poster claimed that I would "never accept science", which is utter balderdash. I keep pointing out that science was founded on a biblical basis. Even if you don't believe that, why would I do that if I don't accept science? I often quote CMI, who have a number of scientists on staff. Even if you don't think that they are proper scientists, why would they claim to be if they don't accept science? I keep making a distinction between science and history, claiming that evolution (like creation) is more (claimed) history than science. Why would I bother distancing evolution from science if I didn't accept science? No, this is nothing more than fact-free anti-creationist rhetoric, ironically from people who consider themselves rational!

The rest of that person's post was about as devoid of facts as the claim that I don't accept science.

Yet another person said, "Also PJR, if you are watching, there are a series of youtube videos called "The 12 Falsehoods of Creationism" that you might enjoy. It rebuts many of your arguments.": My Internet connection is not fast enough to watch streaming video in real time, but I did have a look at the first one, and one thing that it didn't do is rebut creationist arguments. It was full of rhetoric, blatant falsehoods, ironically hypocritical claims, and mockery, but no actual rebuttals!

(One of several times that my irony meter shot up was when I heard the narrator say that "it's a whole other matter to willfully deceive others into believing things that are definitely not true, like creationism", against an image from the movie Inherit the Wind, a fictionalised version of the Scopes trial, with the character representing Bryan in an incoherent tirade in his closing argument, despite Bryan not giving a closing argument in the real trial!)

Philip J. Rayment 10:24, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Part 3

Well, well, well! Kels has actually retracted her "accusation" (singular, but perhaps that was just a typo) of lying. Thanks, Kels!

She then goes on to address the list of scientists I gave. I've been down this road before, where anti-creationists make sweeping claims about creationists and their science, only to be shown to be wrong, and then start changing the rules. In one particular case, now in one of my user talk page archives on Wikipedia, I was careful to get the question clarified before I replied. When I did reply, I showed them to be wrong (or answered their supposedly unanswerable question) and they slunk away. In this case I thought the question was clear enough that I didn't ask for clarification, so just went ahead and answered. The question had three requirements:

  • The people had to be "real" scientists.
  • The people had to be doing "real" research.
  • The people had to have concluded that the world was created 6,000 years ago.

What was not said, but rereading it now was perhaps meant, was that they had to come to this conclusion from their "real" research. However, I took it to be a question about whether "real" scientists, defined by doing "real" research (i.e. not just the academic qualification) could possibly believe that the world was created 6,000 years ago. So I supplied a list of such people.

Kels, by the use of scare quotes, questioned whether they really were "real" scientists, and really did work at "real" universities (although working at a university was never a requirement. She also claimed that none had come up with any evidence of a young Earth during their research.

So I listed who they worked for, to show that they really were "real" scientists doing "real" research. Kels' subsequent comments have not disputed those facts at all, showing that her questioning of their credentials was unwarranted. This is a typical example of false claims made by anti-creationists.

I also pointed out that they would not normally be doing research showing the Earth to be young, nor publishing any such research, whilst working for secular organisations. But that didn't stop her trying to criticise them on those grounds anyway. Yet the criticisms don't amount to much. Her criticism of Humphreys, even if all true (which I have my doubts about, but she provided no specifics), amounts to saying that a scientist doesn't meet the requirements because not all their research turned out to be correct. Isn't this par for the course in science? (By the way Kels, if you want to find out more about John Hartnett, look for him on his university's web-site.) And don't believe what anti-creationist sites tell you about these people: they have an agenda!

However, it does not follow, as she claims, that therefore they do no research into a young Earth. They do; they simply can't publish it in the secular journals, so instead use the peer-reviewed creationist journals.

On a different note, that person who promised to apologise if he saw evidence of me having discussions off Conservapedia has posted again, but has still not apologised. It seems that the promise was hollow.

And on a totally unrelated note, except that it was posted in the same place, a reply to TomMoore: The discussion seems to have stopped anyway.

Philip J. Rayment 10:18, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Just to clarify...

My disagreement with Kels on her accusations of lying doesn't mean I support YEC, Philip :) Ajkgordon 08:46, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Don't worry, I'm under no false illusion about that! Philip J. Rayment 20:54, 4 November 2008 (EST)


If you have the time, could you take a look at the Palestine article for me? I popped in to it via the random page button and thought it looked like it had some liberal bias. I was just looking at the recent changes log, and realized that all of the liberal-sounding stuff are recent editions to the page in this diff. It looks like vandalism that should be reverted, but as I am new here, I figured I would ask someone with more experience. TGeary 22:36, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm afraid that I don't know enough about that to do much either. There was at least one edit I saw that I would consider unacceptable, but it's hard to say for the rest. I'm not even sure who here would know much about it. Philip J. Rayment 01:48, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
I would but I'm a bit busy right now. Basically it's a charged issue and some of the things that were originally in the article were probably overboard, but some of the information removed now should not have been. Not everything he says though is out of bounds. On our site the final product will probably tilt towards the original version, but not completely. Learn together 02:00, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
Thanks guys. The current version looks a lot better, and is better than I could have done. TGeary 17:24, 31 October 2008 (EDT)


I had blocked him for this comment. "If the senior people at Cp would actually spend a bit of time at "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" doing the chores necessary to maintain it as an encyclopedia instead of indulging their petty ideologies this sort of thing wouldn't happen." is an insult in my book to all the senior editors. It's one thing to point out neglecting one's duties, it's another to insult senior editors' contributions as "petty" and "ideology". If he feels that way, he's probably better off somewhere else. -Foxtrot 14:14, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Generally you would be right, but we try to look beyond immediate statements to the larger picture. For us the overriding question is whether or not the the person is making positive contributions to the project. In the case of AlanE he has a long history of updating articles and so we honor that. He also writes from Australia, and does so at times when most others would rather be sleeping, so he has shown a dedication in that area as well. AlanE once had blocking rights, but left the project for an extended period of time, apparently with a medical condition. Apparently, that condition also sometimes causes him to be in pain. All things considered, we prefer to meet our contributors where they are at and choose encouragement and understanding over blocking where it is possible -- and this is one of those cases. Learn together 14:51, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for the support Learn together, and thank you Philip. AlanE 16:39, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
Apologies, then, Alan. I was not aware of your extended history here. -Foxtrot 17:01, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Foxtrot, your block comment was "Liberal namecalling: "petty ideologies" of senior editors", yet I see above that you've not mentioned him calling anybody names, which, of course, is because he didn't. Yes, he did criticise, but criticism in itself is not a valid block reason. And yes, the use of the word "petty" is an insult, but as Learn together has pointed out, AlanE has made considerable contributions over an extended period. No, I don't consider "ideologies" an insult; not only do we all have ideologies, but pretty well every senior editor here concentrates on their ideologies to the exclusion of all else. So apart from the opinionated word "petty", his criticism was essentially correct. How many senior editors can you name who spend much time "doing the chores necessary to maintain it as an encyclopedia"? As for his extended history, one only has to look at his contributions list. Philip J. Rayment 19:20, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Thanks again, Philip. I have accepted Foxtrot's apologies on his talk page. (And I will try and curb some of my more sarky comments in future.) AlanE 19:27, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
The "Liberal namecalling" part was only because that was the closest match out of the dropdown menu for blocking offenses. The "liberal" part was not accurate, but the "petty ideologies" part did rub me the wrong way that night, since it seemed to be trivializing many editors' work. I considered such flippant remarks to be closest to "namecalling" since "abusive behavior" is no longer an option and while "other reason" would have been okay, namecalling was close enough, especially once I provided the details. But this is nitpicking. I have stated the reason for the block (and did so in the blocking comments), Learn together even said it would normally be a suitable reason for a block (this was only for a month, remember), and now I have apologized for jumping on a longtime contributor and he has accepted my apology. It seems that the issue is now resolved. As for your question How many senior editors can you name who spend much time "doing the chores necessary to maintain it as an encyclopedia"?, I'm going to stay far away from opening that can of worms. -Foxtrot 02:48, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Your censorship of my criticism

is totally out of order. And why am I not one to speak of respect? I shall speak of respect, and to whomever I choose, and you are certainly not immune. Bugler 07:46, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Because you don't show it. It was your comment that was out of order, so I removed it, and you will not reinstate it. Clear? Philip J. Rayment 09:18, 3 November 2008 (EST)
Bugler, I've seen you remove talk page comments, as well. Corry 09:43, 3 November 2008 (EST)
Including ones with that show no disrespect whatsoever. HelpJazz 11:13, 3 November 2008 (EST)
My comment was accurate and well in order, Phil. Who are you to suppose that you are above criticism? You are not the Pope; you are not the Lord High Pooh-Bah, and when you behave badly, as you have been, I will take you to task. How dare you speak to Andy in the way you do? It is absolutely shameful. And your action in having the presumptuousness to censor his talk page - not yours, please take note - is breathtaking in its casual insolence. You are subject to criticism, whether you like it or not, and you might even benefit from it were you to show an iota of humility. Your bullying actions in censoring and threatening me and the tone of your last post here show that your mask is slipping. Clear? Bugler 11:33, 3 November 2008 (EST)
I suppose that there is no Pope, no Lord High Pooh-Bah, on Conservapedia at all - so Andy isn't exempt from critique, neither. That's why Philip J. Rayment could dare [to] speak to Andy in the way he did... --BRichtigen 12:52, 3 November 2008 (EST)
I'm sure a side-by-side comparison of every single bullying, threatening post of Philip's next to the same from Bugler would settle this matter. Expose Philip's deceit and such like. Aziraphale 16:05, 3 November 2008 (EST)
Bugler, no, your comment was not accurate and well in order. You said that his position has been made "abundantly clear", and yet he had not addressed some of the concerns raised. And I do not suppose that I'm above criticism, but you seem to think that Andy is, as most of the rest of your post was basically telling me that I shouldn't question Andy. Plus, as I pointed out and others here have concurred, to accuse me of a lack of respect given your track record of not having respect for others is hypocritical. Philip J. Rayment 18:43, 3 November 2008 (EST)
In recent weeks, months even, the tone you have adopted towards Andy has been increasingly hostile and insubordinate - you know that, I know that. You clearly have issues with his leadership: if that is so, bring them into the open. If not - and if I am wrong - then tell me I'm wrong but prove it also by dropping the hostility. Bugler 18:48, 3 November 2008 (EST)
There are a number of things that I disagree with Andy on, and yes, in more recent times I've been more up front with questioning him on those—I am "bring[ing] them into the open", as you want. But "hostile and insubordinate"? I believe that's taking it too far. I try and remain respectful and civil at all times. I also suspect that you mistake my dislike of some of his claims for dislike of the man himself. I always try and keep the focus on the issues, rather than on the person, although of course this can be difficult when the disagreement is about how the person approaches the issue. But I still maintain that you are not the person to lecture me on this, given your gross disrespect of many people here, including me, an administrator. Andy's quite capable of taking action against me if he chooses, so there's no need for you to defend him from me. Philip J. Rayment 19:20, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Gross disrespect ?? Harsh words, old chum. I prefer straight-talking. As for I try and remain respectful and civil at all times, well, yes and no. You're not out and out abusive, but - perhaps you do not realise this - a contemptuous and (moderatedly) aggressive note has been appearing in your posts more and more of late (and not just those aimed at me). And yes, Andy can take action, but if he has any fault it is that his good nature leads him to be indulgent of those who attempt to attack him, and leads to his friends becoming perhaps over protective. Bugler 14:27, 4 November 2008 (EST)

I've known for a long time that I can come over as being harsh without meaning to (even when I try not to), so I won't dispute you on that. As for Andy being indulgent, I'll just say that I think the reality is more complex than that simple analysis, but I'll add that I've no problem with you or anybody else defending his position; it's when you try and stop the debate that I object. Philip J. Rayment 20:50, 4 November 2008 (EST)
Don't fight, my brethren! I love you both. :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed Poor (talk)
Your timing could be a bit better Ed, I think this one is all but over! :-) Philip J. Rayment 20:57, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks for your quick attention

Many thanks for deleting that misspelt page so quickly - it was making me look rather foolish.--CPalmer 07:24, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks also for the tip re {{db}} - I'll know next time.--CPalmer 07:30, 4 November 2008 (EST)


You're a kindly soul Phillip, so could you explain this thing I keep seeing under the block reasons about not using one's initials? Will I have to recreate this account? Thanks in advance. --Wikinterpreter

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Are you referring to people being told to use their real name and initial? That is something that some administrators tell people who cause trouble. If you don't cause trouble, your existing name is fine. If you decide that you want to change it (some do), post a request on Andy's talk page and provide the name that you'd like to change it to. This avoids having to start a new account. Philip J. Rayment 20:08, 6 November 2008 (EST)


Not sure if you are the right person but you seem more down to earth xD How does one go about reminding users with ban rights to follow the rules or w/e? Or *shudders* do you sorta just do a handstand, quack like a duck and walk away, knowing your the more sane?? ¯\(0_o)/¯ Ema 21:43, 7 November 2008 (EST)

You can tell me the specifics so that I can follow it up.
Philip J. Rayment 22:17, 7 November 2008 (EST)
"w/e" is an abbreviation for "whatever" LiamG 22:24, 7 November 2008 (EST)
Ta. All I could think of was "weekend", which didn't make sense there. Philip J. Rayment 22:56, 7 November 2008 (EST)
Sorry sorry xP bad habits die hard. I snuggled with my kitty last night and fell asleep at the keyboard! :D I was referring to the discussion[10] where Conservative is trolling the talk page instead of addressing his ideological edits to the article... the stupid Hitler picture is still there, at the top of the article. D: his history of locking pages to end any opposition is purely his way of forcing opinion (and really bad style) into articles. Oh, plus!, there are blog articles like Life and Doctrine which have no encyclopeedic worth, they were edited by the blog owner (see the talk page!) and it gets deleted and remade so he can hide that little fact Ema 10:29, 8 November 2008 (EST) I'm new here and already run into high-ranking editors who keep breaking the rules!! sorry to bother you, its just annoying
Whilst Conservative may have failed to respond to all the points put on the Dawkins talk page, I'd hardly classify his comments as "trolling". I see that the Hitler picture has been moved, and I've now commented on that on the talk page. I agree that he locks pages too readily, but he's not breaking any rules in doing so, as you allege. The same applies to Life and Doctrine—no actual rules have been broken. Philip J. Rayment 00:40, 11 November 2008 (EST)


Thanks, Philip. That was the one thing I couldn't fix.--Frey 11:30, 8 November 2008 (EST)

I thought you might find this humorous and a similar thing happened at my university

At a university evolution vs. creation debate the following is reported to have occurred: "Another [evolutionist] professor asked another question and was refuted and after the audience again burst into thunderous applause and laughter, he left the auditorium in tears and never came back!"[1]

conservative 21:53, 8 November 2008 (EST)

I don't trust you.

You bollocked me blocked me for 5 long years!
You promised me I could discuss the block on your talk page.
I tried to discuss the block and I was blocked from editing your talk page.
You are a liar!

I made no such promise. Perhaps you are confusing the standard instruction to discuss your block by e-mail with discussing it on my talk page? Philip J. Rayment 15:01, 9 November 2008 (EST)

Assistance needed

I am having problems with a sysop here, and not sure what to do about it. This was the comment left by Ed Poor on his edit about my own comments. I am trying to be respectful in disagreement. I am trying to remember that everyone comes at the world from differnet places, but nothing in Ed's tone suggests he is returning that favor. "(diff) (hist) . . Talk:Hate crime‎; 15:39 . . (+999) . . Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) (still trying to make contact with intelligent life form)" Since we were talking about disagreeing with how to read particular comments, and not with an article about aliens in space, I can only conclude that his comments are directed at me or other posters. Do you have a suggestion of how I should handle this? or should i just drop it and move on to some other area of interst? Thanks in advance. --JeanJacques 15:47, 10 November 2008 (EST)

I would take it as an attempt at humour—whether you think it not funny or in poor taste is up to you—and move on. Philip J. Rayment 20:17, 10 November 2008 (EST)
I sent an apology by private email. --Ed Poor Talk 13:48, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Reprieve of CompuHacker

I hope that you don't have cause to end up rueing your decision. Bugler 10:16, 11 November 2008 (EST)

So do I. But I'm not going to support a block on the basis of what might happen in the future, and we have a policy of not blocking for ideological edits. You provided no adequate justification of your block.
And talking of such things, I'm waiting on answers to two e-mails, and I know of two others who have protested blocks directly to you. How are you going on answering them?
Philip J. Rayment 06:51, 12 November 2008 (EST)
Dear Bugler, maybe Philip J. Rayment will have to rue his decision. The interesting thing is: When P. J. Rayment misplaces his trust, we all can see the consequences, and handle the outcome. When you, Bugler, misplace your mistrust the outcome is covered up, as a disappointed editor who got wrongly blocked for an eternity (and everything over a couple of months is an eternity on the web) has no voice at this site. How many are there whose enthusiasm was smashed by high-handed block comments? We don't know.
Therefore, P. J. Rayment's policy seems to be more sensible: we can revert the negative effects it may have sometimes, as we perceive those. The negative effects of your policy can't be encountered.
--BRichtigen 07:17, 12 November 2008 (EST)
On another note, Hiiiiii and thank you for your time. CompuHacker 14:22, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Time to go

In view of your treasonable remarks, your time to depart has come. I advocate the merciful option, the equivalent of the bottle of whisky and the service revolver, in recognition of your past service in debunking Evolutionism. Better that than being publicly stripped of adminship and blocked. But, after what you have said, go you must. Bugler 06:22, 12 November 2008 (EST)

What are you talking about? Philip J. Rayment 06:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)
He's talking about the purpose of this web-site is not to bother with the truth with which you emblazoned Andy's talk page. I've blocked your account, while you think over whether your purpose for being here is consonant with our purpose for existing. Do we have anything in common? --Ed Poor Talk 07:18, 12 November 2008 (EST)
I've unblocked myself because your reason for blocking me was incorrect. I did not call anybody (or anything) names. Instead, I made an accusation, and with good reason. And on what grounds do you accuse me of "liberal" namecalling? If you don't agree with what I said, the proper approach is to discuss it with me, not to use your blocking power to silence criticism. Philip J. Rayment 07:34, 12 November 2008 (EST)
That's clearly not why Bugler advocated that Philip commit wiki-suicide. Bugler has had repeated confrontations with editors who require such things as citations to back up facts, and he's tired of Philip's tireless crusade for the truth, even if the truth is not always something we like.
I think it's rather telling, here, that Philip, an editor who has contributed volumes in the area of creationism among many other conservative topics and a trusted and even-handed (almost to a fault) sysop of well over a year in good standing, was the one who was blocked, and not the relatively new and largely polemic editor who is the subject numerous vitriolic disputes, whos blocks are constantly question and overturned, and who advocated that Philip metaphorically get drunk and kill himself with a service revolver. HelpJazz 11:54, 12 November 2008 (EST)
It's rather telling that HelpJazz leaps in flat-footedly to betray an ignorance of the metaphor I was using, advocating that Philip do the decent thing rather than have to be prised away. My blocks - I presume that I am the relatively new and largely polemic editor - are constantly question and overturned because I am the subject of a campaign of harrassment and intimidation by a Liberal faction within Conservapedia who are aiming to destroy the project and who resent my energetic actions to enhance our conservative credentials. Philip has contributed much in the area of creatuionism. I specifically drew attention to this on Philip's behalf - which HelpJazz omits to mention - and it is the reason why I think he should be offered a dignified exit, which HelpJazz appears to decry. I would add that it has long been time for HelpJazz, too, to go. Bugler 12:04, 12 November 2008 (EST)
I'm a pretty avid fan of this show. I've been left with a cliff-hanger, episode after episode, wherein HelpJazz and Philip are called "liberal," "dishonest," and numerous other disparagements by Bugler, only to cut to the credits just when the evidence is about to be revealed that will condemn the traitorous scum.
It's brilliant writing, each time I'm left wanting more. Eventually, though, the audience will expect, you know... proof. Aziraphale 12:20, 12 November 2008 (EST) <-Hi, Bohdan...
Oh Az, your humorous response has edit conflicted away my truthful but overly sarcastic and likely-to-get-me-banned retort to Bugler's comment. Thank you, yet again. HelpJazz 12:28, 12 November 2008 (EST)
I don't doubt that it's overly-sarcastic, not so sure about the first bit. And if you're banned, you can just do like your protector and unban yourself. So let's have it, HelpJazz. Bugler 12:34, 12 November 2008 (EST)
Philip is my protector? I'd check that assumption. HelpJazz 12:56, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Hey, Az: lol + giggle! --Ed Poor Talk 12:41, 12 November 2008 (EST)

To quote my favorite movie - "Hey, is that [my] fan?" Aziraphale 13:17, 12 November 2008 (EST) <-It's 'That Thing You Do'...

I don't think I've ever had so many posts added to my page in such a short time (including ones below; 15 in the space of 161 minutes)! Responding to various people:

"That's clearly not why Bugler advocated that Philip commit wiki-suicide.": If you are referring to Ed Poor's answer of what Bugler's opening post of this section was about, I think Ed is probably right. At the time I asked Bugler what he was talking about, I hadn't seen his reply to that on Andy's talk page.

"It's rather telling that HelpJazz leaps in flat-footedly to betray an ignorance of the metaphor I was using,...": I don't see any ignorance here. HelpJazz refers to it as being metaphoric. If you are saying that it is a known metaphor, then I'm ignorant of it also. But then standard metaphors tend to be culture-specific, and we are both from different countries than you, so perhaps that explains it.

"...I am the subject of a campaign of harassment and intimidation by a Liberal faction within Conservapedia who are aiming to destroy the project and who resent my energetic actions to enhance our conservative credentials."": Why just (or especially) you? I'd say that it's not just because you want to "enhance our conservative credentials", as most of us want to do that. Rather, it's your (euphemistically-stated) "energetic actions". That is, you are not harassed by a "Liberal" faction (I hope you aren't including me in that category) simply because you are a conservative, but because of they manner by which you conduct yourself. Who on Conservapedia is the biggest threat to the "liberal" viewpoint? I guess that opinions on that differ, but at least one committed evolutionist elsewhere thinks I am (if I remember accurately), because I argue the case for creation so well (logically and accurately)! So why it is that you are the one getting harrassed if I'm the bigger threat? Because "A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger". What Conservapedia needs is more sensible argument and less power-tripping.

And finally Aziraphale, I'm also a fan of your comments.

Philip J. Rayment 21:09, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Philip J. Rayment is intelligent and fair and is the Sysop I most respect at this wiki. -- Taj 07:03, 13 November 2008 (EST)
Seconding this. Underscoreb 18:35, 2 December 2008 (EST)
Thanks Taj. I appreciate it. Philip J. Rayment 07:10, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Sorry for the Prosaic Question...

... but are you who I would coordinate with re: categories? I feel a burst coming on, what with uncategorized pages breaching 1000. Believe it or not, the last time I got the urge I was still guided by TK. Merci, Aziraphale 13:25, 12 November 2008 (EST)

I was about to ask the same thing. Category:Movies contains several subcategories that seemed misnamed. For instance, Category:Comedy should either be renamed Category:Comedy movies (to distinguish it from Category:Comedy books), or else it should be added under Category:Books as well.
Category renames take some work, I'm willing to do the work, but I want some community input before I go spamming RecentChanges, so that I don't have to make yet another change later.
Is this the best place to have these discussions? --Interiot 13:32, 12 November 2008 (EST)
Unfortunately, some categories were made that were not, as you see, labeled in a form that works in a multi-topic database structure. Philip may want this conversation moved, but proper upkeep of categories is an area of importance to our project. Learn together 13:40, 12 November 2008 (EST)
Interiot - are you kidding? Spamming RecentChanges is the only reason I categorize! Aziraphale 13:56, 12 November 2008 (EST) <-lookout folks, he's in a mood...

We could create Conservapedia:Categories for discussion to discuss category renames/merges/deletions. Any objections? --Interiot 14:35, 12 November 2008 (EST)

For some reason MediaWiki (at least as used here) won't let one move category pages, so deleting them and creating new ones is the only way to go. As for changing the categories on articles, EdBot can take all the hard work out of that.
I've no objections to creating Conservapedia:Categories for discussion (or would Conservapedia:Categories be better?). Personally, I've only slowly come kicking and screaming to understanding categories, and I'm probably not really one to offer much of an expert opinion on what should be and what shouldn't. But if you need help with administrator-only tasks like deleting the redundant category pages, I'm willing to help.
Philip J. Rayment 21:16, 12 November 2008 (EST)
I'm sorry to be obtuse, but I think maybe I didn't ask my question clearly. I just want to categorize the 1000 or so articles that are currently uncategorized. Occasionally a question will come up, should I ask it here or somewhere else? OR... does this Edbot thing automatically categorize things? That would be super-cool, but I'm unaware of this capability. Aziraphale 11:31, 13 November 2008 (EST) <-back to his old tricks...
I gather that EdBot is basically a string replacer. No, it's not a categoriser. I mentioned it in reference to Interiot's comment about category renamings taking some work, for which he gave the example of renaming Category:Comedy to Category:Comedy movies. Clearly, however, it's no good if you want to split a category into two separate categories (e.g. some to Category:Comedy books) or add a new category, but it can still help in many situations. As for where you ask about what category to assign, then no, I don't think my talk page is the place for that, and that's why a separate page for that would be appropriate. Philip J. Rayment 14:59, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Duplicate pages for deletion processes

There seem to be duplicate pages for each deletion process:

AFD: main page Conservapedia:Articles for deletion Conservapedia:Desk/afd
AFD: template {{Delete Notice}} {{Delete}}
AFD: category Category:Articles proposed for deletion Category:Deletion candidates
copyright Conservapedia:Copying Conservapedia:Desk/Copyright
speedy deletion Category:Speedy deletion candidates Conservapedia:Desk/speedy

I think the right ones should be merged into the left ones. I can't fix this myself because Conservapedia:Desk is protected, and the AFD categories and AFD templates are protected. --Interiot 14:35, 12 November 2008 (EST)

The deletion process is a quagmire that I've long been avoiding getting stuck in, although I agree that it needs sorting out. I think, however, that the ones in the right-hand column are mostly the newer ones, and therefore should be the ones kept. But that's ignoring the merits of each; it may in fact be better to go the way you suggest, I don't know. I'm not trying to get out of this, but perhaps we'll leave this here for a few days and see if anybody else wants to chip in their two cents' worth.
In the meantime, how are the fixes to the edit counter coming? :-)
Philip J. Rayment 21:22, 12 November 2008 (EST)
Okay, yeah. I've settled into my new apartment, but I'm probably going to be pretty busy this next week or two. I'll work on it right after that though. --Interiot 09:50, 14 November 2008 (EST)
In my opinion, while I like the idea of an AfD process, in practice it doesn't work very well. So, if we set down very specific rules and have a sysop willing to enforce them (I expect that will be you, Philip ;-) ) then I think we can narrow it down to {{speedy}} and {{delete}}. If we don't want to make more rules, then I say get rid of everything but {{speedy}} and perhaps {{db}} (which wasn't included in the list above, by the way; further proof that this is a bit of a mess). HelpJazz 00:19, 13 November 2008 (EST)
You don't need both {{db}} and {{speedy}} because they overlap - {{db}} is the same as {{speedy}}, except that it allows you to fill in a reason other than the ones listed. Ideally I think that {{speedy}} should therefore be scrapped and {{db}} kept; the only problem with that is that I've seen people using {{speedy}}, so they would have to be alerted to the change somehow.--CPalmer 07:23, 13 November 2008 (EST)
I think it makes more sense to keep {{speedy}} and add the reason parameter to it. Philip J. Rayment 07:35, 13 November 2008 (EST)
I agree if that's an option - certainly the name 'speedy' is more user-friendly.--CPalmer 08:06, 13 November 2008 (EST)


Thanks for the block just now. Didn't know if there was anyone on patrol.--CPalmer 08:52, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks for the unblock

I still haven't been able to find out why I was blocked in the first place.LowKey 09:01, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Requested edit

Category:Maintenance and Category:Articles proposed for deletion are protected. Could you either unprotect them, or make these edits?

Thanks. --Interiot 15:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

I've unprotected them. Philip J. Rayment 18:32, 14 November 2008 (EST)


If you don't want the announcement that User:BRichtigen is on parole to be on his user page, fine. But that doesn't change that I'm still paroling him for the month. Also, I have put parole announcements up before, with User:TerryH's permission. It's a job that should be done and I'm happy to fill those shoes. -Foxtrot 17:26, 15 November 2008 (EST)

It's nice to have at least one who reads the stuff that I write! --BRichtigen 17:33, 15 November 2008 (EST)
I was unaware that you'd had TerryH's permission before to put someone on parole, but if that was a specific case, then doing it with an administrator's permission is not the same as doing it on your own volition. Blocking rights are supposed to be for taking vandals out quickly, not as a de-facto administrator, although I don't want to criticise you for that given that this rule is ignored even at the highest levels. Further, BRichtigen has been hounded lately, and deserves to be left alone to get on with his editing, which is another reason that I oppose him being put on parole (it's not just the notice on his user page that I disagree with). However, I will consider changing my mind if you give me good solid evidence of a good reason to do so, and something vague like "being disruptive" is not likely to cut it. Philip J. Rayment 17:56, 15 November 2008 (EST)
I had TerryH's permission to put User:Saxplayer on parole. After that, I also put User:JakobL on parole and he turned out to be a vandal, so it was important that we kept an eye on him. I apologize if I overstretched my authority, but with Geo.plrd unfortunately not as frequent an editor as he used to be, I think someone else needs to take up the reins of the parole system. And since many sysops seem to be overworked already, I volunteered myself for that duty.
As for BRichtigen, I don't believe he is being hounded. A respectful user does not get blocked six times by three different senior editors within only a month of being on the site. His disruptive edits:
*the second page he edited was the Desk\Abuse, stirring up old leaves about accusations of mistreated editors
*I did not appreciate his sarcastic edit comments on the Graz article, but kept silent at the time
*[11] "I don't know whether my points were so garbled - or only your renarration of them is.", a swipe at User:RSchlafly.
and this is what I hold him accountable for. I think there is already ample evidence of what Ed Poor has to say in this regard. Individually, these are not edits that I would block him for, but in sum, for a new editor, they draw attention and that is why he is on parole. -Foxtrot 07:23, 16 November 2008 (EST)
It would be dangerous to judge the conduct of new editors based on how many times they get blocked. It is really not clear what might get one blocked on CP. It certainly APPEARS clear, but if you look over the list of blocks & check some of the contributions that earned the blocks, the rules are applied in a similar manner to the way a hammer is applied for piano-tuning. The sysops themselves seem to have a lot of their time wasted on determining whether editors really should have been blocked, and unblocking those that should've have been.LowKey 07:33, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Foxtrot, I appreciate that you've taken the trouble to respond in detail, something that I find some others unwilling to do.
I would dispute your first contention; BRichtigen's case shows that respectful editors do get blocked six times by three different senior editors.
Further, rather than just looking superficially at the number of blocks, I'm taking into account whether the blocks were justified. And in fact the blocks are a large part of the "hounding" I referred to. So in effect your response is that "no he's not being hounded, as shown by the amount of hounding [blocking] he's had"!
I don't know which six of his seven blocks you are counting, but one of the blocks was an automatic one by Guard Dog, incurred for the vandalism-reversal he was doing. So if you discount this clearly-inappropriate block, there's only two people left blocking him.
Not only that, but apart from his first two short blocks, every single block was reverted by an administrator on the grounds that it was not justified. Where does that leave your case?
I don't see anything wrong with the other three examples you gave. In the case of Photoelectric effect, he was no more having a go at RSchafly (who, you will note, is one who lifted a block, so obviously doesn't hold it against BRichtigen) than at himself, as he makes the same speculation about himself.
Philip J. Rayment 08:30, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Maybe the reversions are in themselves a form of hounding, of the blocking editors. Such things happen. Bugler 08:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)
That's theoretically possible, but in that case you'd need to argue that two different editors were hounding two other different editors, which is less likely, plus that still ignores the facts of the individual cases and whether the blocks really were justified or not. Philip J. Rayment 08:46, 16 November 2008 (EST)
First of all, I want to thank all of you who took some time to argue for and against my case. Here's my reply to Foxtrot's points
  • A long block-log seems to serve as something like a lightning-rod, regardless of the quality of the entries
  • It irked me that governor Schwarzenegger was the only one to be mentioned in connection with Graz. Granted, he's a person of national importance and a celebrity for his movies. But he wasn't even born in Graz, and there are other outstanding historical figures (Kepler!, Nernst!, Boltzmann!, Schroedinger!, Fischer von Erlach) who were so much more connected to Graz than A. Schwarzenegger is.
  • I had lengthy discussions with R. Schlafly, which contributed - IMO - interesting points to the corresponding articles. We have somewhat different opinions about the contribution of various historical figures to the sciences, but I hope that we both enjoyed our debates. I did for sure!
  • I've been sensible to blocks from the very beginning - even before I became an editor. (I joint just to correct the spelling of Johann Strauss, it was a mistake which was painful to any German speaking reader - and got somewhat sucked in this wiki thereafter). I won't apologize for contributing to the Desk/Abuse section, I'll keep doing so in the future - even if the only reaction is that it is counted against me.
--BRichtigen 09:22, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Reply to Philip: I'll give you that the one block by the Guard Dog was not a legit block, but TerryH's unblock comment does not exactly sound apologetic. As for the remaining blocks, I'll note that except for one unblock by RSchlafly, all the remaining unblocks were done by you. They were not done by the original editors who blocked him, in fact Ed Poor re-blocked him shortly after you and RSchlafly undid the blocks. So it seems to be some senior editors' opinion versus another's on the justifications of those blocks. That's where this analysis leaves my case, so since it seems to be unresolved to everyone's satisfaction, that's why he's on parole. We'll see if he can be a good boy in that time.

Reply to BRichtigen: The names could have been added to the Graz article without the sarcasm. You had just created the article and I was helping out by adding my own nugget of information I know about that small city that I doubt many people outside of Europe have heard of. Wikis are places for people to appreciate other editor's contributions of factual content. -Foxtrot 02:42, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Sorry if my sarcasm annoyed you. But it's like coming from Baltimore to Europe and everyone tells you: Hey, Baltimore, isn't that the place were David Hasselhoff was born? --BRichtigen 07:19, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Has anyone else famous come from Baltimore? :-P -Foxtrot 23:43, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Foxtrot, TerryH's unblock comment was unfortunate, but it related to something that you couldn't know about (and was unfortunate because BRichtigen couldn't know about it either), and was not an indication that there was any mistrust there.
I never said that the unblocks were done by the original blocking editors. I said that they were reverted by administrators on the grounds that they were invalid. And that bit I've emphasised is the important point, and a point that you've not disputed. If you are going to take a position on this, you need to look deeper than just "editors' opinions" and see who is correct.
Your analysis still comes down to arguing that he's got to be watched because you don't understand whether he's done anything wrong or not. That is illogical. I said that you can't put him on parole and that stands. He is not on parole. Period.
Philip J. Rayment 09:09, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Philip, all these points were in addition to the discussions with Ed Poor that merited him at least some of his bans. But fine, since parole designation is officially a sysop capability and Geo.plrd is not around to weigh in, I'll accept that he is not officially on parole. I'm going to still keep an eye on him though. -Foxtrot 23:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)


Thanks for your advice with the dinosaur article. I would very much appreciate it if you could cast a quick glance over the other articles I've written and see if I've made any other elementary mistakes?--PhillipM 08:58, 16 November 2008 (EST)

See the changes I've made. Don't put more than one blank line above or below headings, or anywhere else unless you specifically want a bigger-than-normal space between paragraphs, use a spelling checker (and proofread your edits, as spelling checkers won't pick up everything), use a "References" heading or similar for references, and sign talk-page posts (type four tildes or there's a button on the edit box toolbar—oh hang on, you've remembered that this time!). And if you know what's appropriate (this is something I didn't do), add at least one category to each article. But otherwise, keep up the good work! Philip J. Rayment 09:17, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Thanks again. I was watching your edits and I've tried to put some of the advice into practice. For some reason I find it really hard to remember to sign things :) --PhillipM 09:19, 16 November 2008 (EST)

"if he's genuine"

Thanks so much, Philip, for calling me a liar on TK's talk page. I really appreciate being the recipient of unprovoked insults. I suppose I should be glad you didn't threaten me the way you did TK. Are you genuine, by the way? Not the genuine 'reasonable old PJR' you pose as, at any rate. Bugler 03:47, 17 November 2008 (EST)

I did not call you a liar nor insult you. Philip J. Rayment 09:14, 17 November 2008 (EST)
I'm (almost) speechless. "Hi Bugler, I think you may well not be a real editor but a parodist troll. But hey, don't take it to heart, I'm not insulting you or implying that you're mendacious in any way." Bugler 10:27, 17 November 2008 (EST)
It's clear that you have no case when you have to make up the evidence. Philip J. Rayment 19:30, 17 November 2008 (EST)
I have to paraphrase,because you ignore the evidence when it is placed in front of you. I thought it was emus that are native to Australia, not ostriches. Pay attention, friend Philip: you did make that accusation. And, in denying that you have been presented with the evidence, you are lying. You know that I am taking issue with what you said on TK's page; the quote is in the section header; you said, "Bugler, if he's genuine", impugning my good faith and truthfulness. How much clearer do you want it?Bugler 07:32, 18 November 2008 (EST)
I do not ignore evidence.
Saying "Bugler, if he's genuine" does suggest the possibility that you are not. It does not constitute calling you a liar.
Philip J. Rayment 07
46, 18 November 2008 (EST)
So if I were to write "User:PurposeofDebate, if he's not a bullying, closet-Liberal old fool", it wouldn't constitute an insult, right? You'd make a good political spin doctor, wuith your habit of snide little smears and your oily way of denying responsibility for them. Bugler 09:56, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Well being suspected of "not being genuine" is as bad or worse than being called a liar, with all due respect, Philip. I'm sure soon someone will suspect that my other edit was sarcastic instead of genuinely admiring and accordingly block me. Good intent should always be assumed! --Europeo 08:01, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Bugler, if you were genuine, then you could have ignored Philip's comment because you knew you were genuine. Causing a big deal out of it just make you seem even more suspicious. (I'm not saying you aren't genuine) ~BethTalk2ME 07:59, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Been busy

I seem to have been rather busy lately, and/or Conservapedia has been busy (both, I think), and I'm rather behind in responding to various matters here and in e-mails, sorry. Philip J. Rayment 09:19, 17 November 2008 (EST)


Please desist immediately from you unilateral and unapproved actions. Bugler 09:39, 18 November 2008 (EST)

My actions are not unilateral nor unapproved, as they have the support of five other senior administrators. Philip J. Rayment 09:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)
I no longer have any faith in your word, so name them. Bugler 09:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)
I for one. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 11:33, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Bugler, knock it off. If you can't discuss your differences of opinion with out personal remarks, maybe you better leave the subject of Barack Obama alone. Your other work is excellent. --Ed Poor Talk 11:35, 18 November 2008 (EST)

A partial list has been posted by another user on the Barack Obama talk page. If Andy wants the remaining names, I can supply them, although he has received copies of the e-mails with their comments, so in theory he already knows. I will also point out that although Andy tries to marginalise the relevance, he doesn't dispute that the claim is true. Philip J. Rayment 21:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)

You have admonished users, Philip, about continuing to argue their point, once you have made up your mind. In this case, since the site is Mr. Schlafly's, and he is a Bureaucrat, perhaps the better part of valor would be to leave the Obama article alone now. It is more than obvious you are not going to change his thinking on this, right? --₮K/Talk 21:35, 18 November 2008 (EST)
"You have admonished users, Philip, about continuing to argue their point, once you have made up your mind.": I have? Where?
I think the valorous thing would be to stick up for the truth, which is required by Commandment 1.
Philip J. Rayment 01:09, 19 November 2008 (EST)
Please, my Great Uncle is long dead, lol. --₮K/Talk 01:12, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Oh most patient and eloquent defender of YEC someone has ever encountered......

Oh most patient and eloquent defender of YEC someone has ever encountered......

When are you going to unleash your Human evolution article?  :) conservative 21:31, 18 November 2008 (EST)

EZine in Dance

Hi Philip. I seem to remember you knowing something about the spam filter. I was trying to fix up Dance, but it said the one reference that is currently split causes the spam filter. Is there something wrong with that site that I don't know about, or is there something I can do to fix it. (I know there are problems going on elsewhere, so obviously there's no rush to answer me. Shame about HelpJazz though.) LiamG 21:36, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I gather that this has now been fixed? Philip J. Rayment 01:13, 19 November 2008 (EST)
Actually, there just seems to be a jury-rigged workaround: ", Can You Appreciate the Art of Ballet?, by Jeffrey Meier http://ezinearticlesDOTcom/?Can-You-Appreciate-the-Art-of-Ballet?&id=294632" [emphasis and nowiki mine]. I haven't searched around the site, so I don't know if there's an established problem with that particular site, or if it's some weird glitch of the system. LiamG 13:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)
I did the work-around (at least the current version). It's not ideal. The spam filter says it doesn't like - I have no idea why this would be a trigger. --Hsmom 08:29, 20 November 2008 (EST)
I've left a message on CPWebmaster's talk page about this. Philip J. Rayment 08:42, 20 November 2008 (EST)


Before I get "busted" for defending myself with the 90/10 rule, or the "you don't agree" rule, whatever that rule is - do you know if Bharlan is a sysop? He's decided that since i opposed the word Negro on a page, he's making it his job to "out" me as a liberal, by simply pointing out when I disagree with others. Fine and dandy, but I'm concerned about defending myself if he can use it to justify a block. Thanks for any help. --JeanJacques 21:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

BHarlan is not a sysop and has not been granted any other rights. Philip J. Rayment 01:15, 19 November 2008 (EST)


I see that this user is on parole, but is active on CP. If you have evidence that he is a parodist, then he should be given a block of appropriate length. If, however, he is not a parodist, then you ought not to be making baseless remarks. Either way, I think that your excision of his remark from Andy's talk page is unjustifiable. Could you please explain your reasons for the reversion? Bugler 06:03, 19 November 2008 (EST)

I leave blocking of parolees to the administrator who put them on parole. My reasons for the deletion were in the edit comment. Philip J. Rayment 07:09, 19 November 2008 (EST)
It didn't strike me as substanceless therefore I propose to rstore it; besides, we should only delete edits from other peoples' talk pages if they are abusive, obscene or damaging. Bugler 07:55, 19 November 2008 (EST)
Okay, but don't restore it to the middle of someone else's post as it originally was. Philip J. Rayment 08:05, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Controversial template

TK has suggested I contact you about the {{Controversial}} template. I suggested on the Obama talk page that a template like it might help avoid some of the endless arguing that is going on there. However, there's a problem with the template's code and the page is locked, though it says on the talk page what needs doing.

Could you fix the code, and maybe make the wording a bit more diplomatic so as not to put off new users? I do think that if this template is ever going to be needed, the Obama page is a prime case. Many thanks.--CPalmer 16:34, 19 November 2008 (EST)

I've fixed the bug, although I'm not sure that I agree with putting the template on the Obama page. I also haven't changed the wording. What do you suggest? Philip J. Rayment 20:53, 19 November 2008 (EST)
Why not changing the headline Obama will likely be the first Muslim President into Will Obama be the first Muslim President?. No need for a template, and the pro & cons could be added thereafter. --BRichtigen 16:57, 19 November 2008 (EST)
Because Andy won't accept anything that doesn't make Obama look like a Muslim, at least up the top. Philip J. Rayment 20:53, 19 November 2008 (EST)
Philip, I slapped the "Controversial" template onto the talk page, as I know Andy doesn't like such on the article itself. Thanks for fixing it!. --₮K/Talk 23:38, 19 November 2008 (EST)
So where does the link in the template to "discussing" go? Philip J. Rayment 05:27, 20 November 2008 (EST)
It doesn't go anywhere. I propose creating a {{controversialtalk}} template that says:
This talk page is about a controversial topic, and many of the issues have already been discussed at length. Please read this page and the archive pages before contributing, to check that your concerns have not already been answered.
That ought to stop some of the circularity at least.--CPalmer 05:36, 20 November 2008 (EST)


I've been meaning to say for some time - I really appreciate the way you conduct yourself here. Calm, level-headed, and committed to the truth even if it doesn't further your view of things. You are honest and chivalrous. Don't let those who are not get you down - it's not worth it. --Hsmom 09:06, 20 November 2008 (EST)

An Apology

My apology for the sparring match we had some months ago. You probably don't remember, but I feel I was being confrontational for the sake of being confrontational, and wanted to apologise. KarlJaeger 13:37, 22 November 2008 (EST)

I don't particularly remember, but apology accepted anyway! Philip J. Rayment 07:28, 23 November 2008 (EST)

Barack Obama article

It's probably not a good idea to get into a revert war. Jallen 21:32, 23 November 2008 (EST)

Does that apply to Andy too? Philip J. Rayment 21:33, 23 November 2008 (EST)
Well the chain of authority seems to be that editors may not revert sysop/admin work, whilst sysop/admins may not revert higher (bureaucrat) positions. Jallen 21:36, 23 November 2008 (EST)
I have a note on my user page that my edits are not sacrosanct and can be altered by other editors. As administrators, we enforce the rules, we don't decide the truth. That is exceeding our authority. Philip J. Rayment 00:57, 24 November 2008 (EST)
Jallen raises an issue I have been discussing with other sysops. I do think it would be helpful if it was clearly stated if Sysops can revert Bureaucrats and if that is not the case, I think we should have an appeal process. Unless we state that bureaucrats are infallible, I do think an appeal process is necessary.  :) conservative 22:15, 25 November 2008 (EST)


The discussions on the Obama page are long and frequently venture off topic (you bieng a liberal). So I ask here: what exactly is it that you attempting to do in the article itself? Is there a line or section you want removed? HenryS 21:53, 25 November 2008 (EST)

I would imagine it's these sections that he'd like to see removed. LiamG 21:56, 25 November 2008 (EST)
Yes, those sections for starters. Philip J. Rayment 22:02, 25 November 2008 (EST)
Since discussion isn't really working, why don't you propose some sort of straw poll like at wikipedia [12]? To see how many established editors agree with you? HenryS 22:06, 25 November 2008 (EST)
The Barack Obama talk page already has a list of administrators who agree with me (in general terms at least), and I know of a couple of other senior administrators who agree with me. No administrator (barring Andy) has disagreed with me. Andy knows this, but that doesn't convince him either (which is why Conservative's last edit on this page is relevant), so a straw poll is not going to make any difference, except to encourage various socks, parodists, and sycophants to add their views and thereby muddy the waters. Philip J. Rayment 21:42, 26 November 2008 (EST)
Notice how I said established. Could we not limit it to administrators and users with a certain amount of edits? HenryS 22:11, 26 November 2008 (EST)
Hmmm, I did miss "established". I don't like judging things like this on the basis of numbers of edits, as that is affected not just by how "established" they are, but whether they use the preview button, whether they are writing a few long articles/talk page comments or lots of small ones, etc. Also, as I said, I doubt that any sort of straw poll will make any difference anyway. Philip J. Rayment 00:36, 27 November 2008 (EST)
  • Maybe one reason for not doing so is that Conservapedia has always rejected the idea of a "mobocracy", from the very start. Conservapedia has, from the very beginning as well, rejected the the byzantine, bureaucratic ways of Wikipedia. Boards, commissions, polls, are liberal-like in their reliance on opinion rather than common sense. --₮K/Talk 22:39, 25 November 2008 (EST)
TK, by Mobocracy you mean democracy right? Anyways I thought i'd draw PJR's attention to Alexander Downer being listed as a liberal on the professor values page. ASchafly seems to like him there so im not sure what you can do about it...--HanG 18:09, 26 November 2008 (EST)
One of the principle reasons the United States is the worlds oldest enduring democracy is that we aren't. We are a Representative Democracy. Pure democracy, a mobocracy, historically descend to chaos and disruption. Such as what you see daily, dozens of times daily, on Wikipedia. --₮K/Talk 18:14, 26 November 2008 (EST)
I guess the distinction that you are trying to make is between letting just anybody participate in the decision making and letting those that have some claim to be representative be involved. In that regard, I guess I agree with you, and that's why I am also posting above that a straw poll lets every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Sock have a say. (On the other hand, the idea of a straw poll is to discover what the people think, not to make a decision.)
However, the problem here is that we don't have even a representative democracy, but a dictatorship (even if you want to cell it a benevolent one), in that one person is making the decisions and those that would otherwise be considered the "representatives" are having their views ignored (in that they are not being taken into account).
Your first sentence of your last post is not clear: "we aren't" what? Aren't a "mobocracy"? Assuming that's what you mean, then you appear to be claiming that the U.S. is the world's oldest "enduring" democracy. I'm not sure either what "enduring" means in this context, but I take it to mean continuous and/or still operating.
That particular claim is very much disputed, and it appears that the definition of "democracy" is the key. I've long understood the Isle of Man to have the oldest continuous democracy, but although they have the oldest continuous parliament (dating back to 979), it seems that it doesn't count because not everyone always got a vote. Britannica lists Iceland as the oldest continuous democracy, although another source said that was the oldest parliament, starting in 930, but not continuous. Further claims are based on everyone, including women, getting a vote, which New Zealand claims to be the first (1893, vs. 1920 in the U.S.), but allegedly the Isle of Man got that in 1881! There are even more claimants that this, as can be seen here (or here if that didn't work as it didn't for me). One comment there was that "America frequently claims to be but this is because they define democracy so narrowly and in their own image such that on their criteria they're the worlds only democracy and on any other criteria they still aren't and never have been."
Philip J. Rayment 21:42, 26 November 2008 (EST)
Why not have a straw poll on a conservapedia page for the Obama issue that is Sysop only. I personally would like to know more precisely what the Sysops believe about the Obama article. I suggest having a Obama article straw poll with multiple questions. Let me know if you do it. I would participate. conservative 05:38, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Okay, let's meet at Conservapedia:Obama straw poll, a protected page but visible to all. Let everyone watch as we sysops discuss the issue (like a symposium, but with no interruptions from the audience. --Ed Poor Talk 06:53, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Duplicate Article

Hello Philip, I haven't been here in a while but I have a break now and can try and contribute. Anyway, there are duplicate articles for ice hockey (Ice hockey & Ice Hockey). The Ih one is better than the IH article and the IH should be deleted. However, I think that the main article should be titled Ice Hockey. I don't know how to do this change, could you help out? Thanks --Jaster 21:46, 26 November 2008 (EST)

As well as being the better article, Ice hockey is also the oldest one and with the largest history. It is also the one that conforms to our article-naming guidelines in our style manual. It should be the one retained, and Ice Hockey should be edited to be a redirect to Ice hockey. You are able to do that. Philip J. Rayment 00:55, 27 November 2008 (EST)


Dear friend

TK has accepted to be part of the team for Featured articles, I am sure you will be glad to have him with us. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 21:18, 1 December 2008 (EST)


Thanks for this edit. We need to know more about the Creationism. In particular, I'd like to understand what Old Earth and Young Earth creationists have in common, as well as where they part company. --Ed Poor Talk 21:47, 1 December 2008 (EST)

What do you need to know that is not already explained? Philip J. Rayment 21:54, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Your efforts don't go unnoticed

Hi Philip, I just wanted to stop by to commend you on your tireless work. (I've browsed around on this site for sometime now, only recently wrote a comment or two) I appreciate all your posts and understand that it's definitely hard doing what you do in this forum. Your views are often met with sarcasm and condescension (the shouts of Liberal! ring when you try to explain why Obama is likely not a Muslim or when you speak for Gun Control), and yet you continue on in a calm and collected manner that is too few and far between on the Internet in general. You present facts in rational dialogue in a place that's often void of it and I just wanted to say thanks. At the risk of sounding over the top here, I really do believe that your presence on Conservapedia helps greatly with its credibility.--SJames 15:00, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Agreed. --Hsmom 15:27, 2 December 2008 (EST)
I'm underscoreb and I approve of this message. Underscoreb 18:39, 2 December 2008 (EST)
Me, too, Philip. I don't think Senator Obama is a Muslim; I always thought of him as a nominal Christian. I mean, take me, for example, would anyone say I was a non-Christian solely on the grounds that I have a Jewish mother (the daughter of two Jewish parents)? Or that I've been known, on occasion, to wear a yarmulke? Or that I'm pro-Israel?
On the grounds that he looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, to a lot of people he is "an apparent Muslim" [13] but not to me. --Ed Poor Talk 16:21, 2 December 2008 (EST)
Hear, hear. And Ed, he doesn't even look like a duck! He knows a bit about ducks, that is all! -- Ferret Nice old chat 16:46, 2 December 2008 (EST)
I too stand behind you Philip. People like you will see Conservapedia to success, that is if they have the same intestinal fortitude you have.--IanG 10:18, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Thanks for all the nice comments. Philip J. Rayment 20:47, 2 December 2008 (EST)


In case you haven't yet noticed, I'm attempting to create a compromise regarding the Obama article on the talk page of the straw poll. If you get the chance to weigh in and help me, as the independent arbiter, to come to an agreement between your 'clique' and Andy/Bugler's 'posse' I'd really appreciate it. Thanks --Bolly 20:36, 2 December 2008 (EST)

I was just reading it. I will respond there. Philip J. Rayment 20:48, 2 December 2008 (EST)


# (Move log); 21:31 . . Philip J. Rayment (Talk | contribs | block) Category project moved to Conservapedia:Category project (Not appropriate for mainspace.)

Thanks for the above ... I was gonna do it, but I never got around to it. --Ed Poor Talk 21:59, 3 December 2008 (EST)

PJR, I think some Irish creationists' eyes are going to be smilin'

Top of the mornin' to you Irish atheists and evolutionists! Conservapedia is likely going to use a connection it has to Northern Ireland citizens to get its evolution article ranked higher at the search engines. In addition, do not be surprised if the atheism article ranks higher at Google Ireland in the coming weeks!

Andy, I think some Irish creationists' eyes are going to be smilin' :) conservative 23:30, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Article needs some TLC

Phillip, can you please take a look over Eureka_Stockade? It desperately needs some attention, but I am reluctant to make changes as I expect that to do so would be considered provocative.LowKey 00:01, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Done. I wonder if the Americans rebelling against the legitimate British authorities were also left-wing? Philip J. Rayment 01:04, 4 December 2008 (EST)
I went an expanded it a bit myself as well anyway.LowKey 07:48, 5 December 2008 (EST)
I noticed that. And co-incidentally, I was at a party tonight where the topic came up, and someone mentioned that the taxes that the miners were objecting to were the first (Australian, I gather) introduction of a form of income tax. Aren't "conservatives" (American one at least) opposed to that? Isn't that a "liberal" idea? Philip J. Rayment 07:57, 5 December 2008 (EST)

FA template

My friend;

I have noticed a bizarre quirk at Featured Article with the templates. For some reason, several do not show any votes. Do you have any ideas on how this can be fixed? Geoff PlourdeComplain! 01:41, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Geo, the problem is fixed. TK needs to use a simple signature. His fancy sig line was messing up the show function. I deleted all the fancy stuff in his prior sigs and now the template is working. --DeanStalk 01:50, 4 December 2008 (EST)


Philip, I noticed you unblocked AndyJM, saying "removing information from articles" is not a good block reason. I'm sorry, but removing factual information from articles IS one of our most common block reasons. Why did you not discuss this block with me before undoing it? Please clarify. -Foxtrot 14:52, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Foxtrot, there's more than one problem with your claim:
  • It supposedly being "one of our most common block reasons" does not mean that it's a valid reason. All it means is that there's a lot of improper blocking going on. I would doubt, however, that it is one of our most common reasons.
  • You blocked for "removing information from articles", and now excuse that by referring to "removing factual information from articles". So you've just switched reasons. "Factual" was not in the reason you gave.
  • Putting the word "factual" in your reason when the accuracy of the material is in dispute means that you are blocking to enforce your POV of what's factual and what's not. That's not a valid reason for a block.
  • Being factual is not in and of itself sufficient reason for information being in articles. It also has to be relevant.
AndyJM's edits do not appear to be vandalism (i.e. malicious) and you've not even suggested let alone claimed that they are. Neither were they part of an edit war or similar. From what I can tell, this case is nothing more than you blocking someone because you have a disagreement with them about content.
I've just blocked you for the same time that you blocked AndyJM, for the same reason. You removed content (and factual content I might add) here and here. If you agree that there is sometimes good reason to remove content—even factual content—then you have my permission to unblock yourself immediately. If you don't agree, then you should leave yourself blocked.
Philip J. Rayment 16:49, 5 December 2008 (EST)

(edit conflict)

If someone removes valid statements, it is of course a blockable offense. I reviewed AndyJM's edits, and I gave a partial review on Foxtrot's talk page. Here's the complete set:
  1. Axiom of Choice He removed the statement that the Axiom of Choice is equivalent to the existence of non-Lebesgue measurable subsets of the real line. The statement was false, so the removal was correct.
  2. Talk:Axiom of ChoiceHe explained his edit
  3. Irrational number He removed the statement that "an irrational number is formally defined to be the limit of a Cauchy sequence of rational numbers." This statement is at least misleading, as - loosely speaking - any real number can be defined as a limit of a Cauchy sequence of rational numbers, or, in other words, not every limit of a Cauchy sequence of rational numbers is an irrational number. Loosely speaking, as we talk about the set of equivalence classes of Cauchy sequences, etc.
  4. Irrational number Correcting a typo
  5. Irrational number He added "Moreover the decimal expansion of an irrational number never repeats. For a rational number this is not true. For example " Though I don't like this formulation very much, it's a valid point
  6. Continuum hypothesis He removed the statement "The cardinality of such a set would be denoted by the Hebrew letter ." Well, the cardinality of such a set, i.e., the continuum, is commonly abbreviated with c, so the continuum hypothesis can be phrased as: does c equal ? Only an with an index is used, so, yes, he removed an false statement.
  7. Continuum hypothesis The same as above, he cleared the difference between and . This was correct, too.
  8. Continuum hypothesis He removed the statement "The continuum is called so because it was the first (and most prominent) continuous set studied by mathematicians." That's the only point - in my opinion - where he perhaps shouldn't have erased the statement, but asked for a source, first. It would have turned out, that the term continuous set is at best obscure - The phrase "continuous set" is not used in the Western literature. and that this statement should be erased, so, yes, his edit comment "There is no such thing as a continuous set" was virtually correct...
  9. ContinuumHe erased "No additional numbers may be added to the continuum (real line) without losing its dense linear order. Since the complex numbers add the imaginary number, i, to the real line, this is one reason they have no natural linear order." This, he explained in his edit comment: "The statement removed is not true. One could add a number at either end of the real line, define the order in the obvious way and one would still have a continuum." Well, adding a point to the continuum would prevent it from being a continuous set, but that is a moot point, at least in western literature :-)
Foxtrot, which of the removed statements do you think to be correct? I'm of the opinion that the removal of false (1-7) or misleading (8-9) statements improves an article.

--BRichtigen 16:57, 5 December 2008 (EST)

"If someone removes valid statements, it is of course a blockable offense.": I disagree. If someone removes valid statements in the genuine belief that they are invalid, why should they be blocked? If they repeatedly remove valid statements after being warned not to, that's a different matter. Philip J. Rayment 00:36, 6 December 2008 (EST)
Thanks for unblocking me. Yes, I didn't take into account honest mistakes, my fault. And if one is not sure about whether to erase information, one should first use the corresponding talk page.
In this special case, however, I'm afraid that Foxtrot (re)inserted factual false information - as shown above - but, of course, he did so in good faith.
I hope that he has now seen where his mathematical reasoning went wrong
--BRichtigen 08:06, 6 December 2008 (EST)
Philip, blocking me was completely uncalled for and you have completely overstepped your authority. This subject had been discussed, and Andy's voiced himself on the matter and now you are ignoring all that and taking sides for a novice editor whose intent is to cause trouble. You do not know mathematics so leave it to those who do. Do not disrespect the heirarchy here by placing the endless complaints of one editor over my and especially Andy's wisdom on the subject. -Foxtrot 16:58, 5 December 2008 (EST)
You claim that blocking you was uncalled for, yet I blocked you for the same reason that you said you blocked AndyJM. So is that an admission that his block was uncalled for? I've already explained this to you, and you've not answered this key point, which suggests that you have no answer. Until you answer this key point, don't bother discussing this any further. And I'll only answer your new claims once we deal with that one (if you still want me to). Philip J. Rayment 00:36, 6 December 2008 (EST)
I support Foxtrot's statement 100 per cent. Philip has completely overstepped and abused his authority, and Foxtrot was completely within his rights to ignore a block issued under such circumstances. Philip has problems accepting discipline and collective responsibility; he has a record of indiscipline and defiance towards legitimate authority; and is notorious for supporting and protecting vandals, saboteurs and infiltrators. Meanwhile, he is not shy of playing the 'I'm an admin' card when its suits hhis purposes. Bugler 17:28, 5 December 2008 (EST)
There's the pot calling the kettle black. Philip J. Rayment 00:36, 6 December 2008 (EST)

FoxTrot & Bugler, give it a rest. Philip is a senior admin. If he says someone should be blocked or unblocked, I always listen to him. I trust his judgment, and I don't have to know "all the reasons". I wish you both would concentrate more on adding important, reliable information to articles. --Ed Poor Talk 11:37, 10 December 2008 (EST)

User may need some attention.

See this [[14]]. As you were the most recent sysop to unblock the user, I thought it appropriate to bring this to your attention. Despite all the other claims flying around about users, it looks like this one actually is a troublemaker. I reverted the edits. I know it's a talk page, but they were blasphemous as far as I am concerned.LowKey 00:29, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Thanks for this. He appears to have been trying to make a point by analogy, rather than to be blasphemous. In any case, it has been reverted, and he has a short block give him pause to think about his actions. Philip J. Rayment 09:03, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Answering my telephone which is not red

I direct interested inhabitants of the sock draw to information, particularly the section on Measuring information. See also this article (referenced in the Measuring information section) and this article. However, I don't intend to have a long discussion on this by red telephone. Philip J. Rayment 09:03, 10 December 2008 (EST)

You ought not to be having one at all. Bugler 10:07, 10 December 2008 (EST)
Hey, they rang me! If I want to answer the call, that's my business, not yours. Philip J. Rayment 20:23, 10 December 2008 (EST)
Tell that to Conservative. FernoKlumpMr. Schlafly! Look at this petition! 10:29, 10 December 2008 (EST)
Well, quite. But we don't want this sort of thing spreading or being seen as acceptable. The next thing you know, there will be an epidemic of it. Bugler 11:26, 10 December 2008 (EST)
So you didn't see my comment above about not making this a long call? Philip J. Rayment 20:23, 10 December 2008 (EST)
Not red? All done with just the one edit? What have we here? As you well know, someone who certain people think is rational and intelligent. Look, the information debate is interesting, very. There is also a dearth of creationists who are willing and able to debate the issue properly. Yes, there are plenty of irrational idiots on the evolutionist side, however there are many who want to discuss the issues and we need someone to dicuss them with. We can’t discuss them properly here so please come and debate it somewhere that we can.SteveH 16:11, 10 December 2008 (EST)
I've answered this a couple of times before. Search the "Kel's substanceless rants about me" section above for the phrase "For the information of". Philip J. Rayment 20:23, 10 December 2008 (EST)

It's not blue either

It actually looks like this (although that's only one of a few in the house).

When I was conceived, the information in my DNA was a combination of a subset of each of my parents' DNA. That is, all the information for skin, nerves, marrow, toes, etc. already existed. Nothing new was added when I was conceived (although I wouldn't have minded if I gained the ability to fly, for example!).

As the information article says, "Information is transmitted by means of symbols which are usually arbitrary and only carry information because the receiver of the information understands the conventions of the symbols". DNA is such a code of arbitrary symbols. River beds and moraines are not.

In another call, I'm considered unreasonable simply for ideological reasons: I'm a YEC, so by definition I'm unreasonable, because the people who consider YEC unreasonable have their own view they'd rather believe. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Philip J. Rayment 07:57, 11 December 2008 (EST)

obama talk page is damaged

could you look at this . I posted to aschlaflys talk page too, several versions seem bad. Markr 20:41, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Duane Gish Monthly Conservapedia award - awarded monthly to the Conservapedia editor who is the most prodigious editor when it comes to refutation of evolutionary nonsense

Dr. Duane Gish is likely to soon have an Conservapedia Award named in his honor.[2] If the award is instituted, it will be awarded monthly to the Conservapedia editor who is the most prodigious editor when it comes to refutation of evolutionary nonsense.

I am rooting for you to win in January PJR.  :) conservative 16:28, 14 December 2008 (EST)


Hey Phillip, just saying hello. Looking forward to working with you again in the greater service of truth, wherever it is found.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 21:56, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Good news from creation scientist Dr. Duane Gish

Today I received Dr. Duane Gish's approval to have a monthly award named in his honor to the Conservapedia editor who is the most prodigious editor when it comes to refutation of evolutionary nonsense. I think it may be likely for Conservapedia to have such an award. conservative 19:26, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Merry Christmas

and thank you for being here at Conservapedia! --BRichtigen 18:18, 23 December 2008 (EST)


You seem to be one of the best speakers here when it comes to questions about the Bible and Christianity

One of the reasons that I consider myself an agnostic is because I have a great believe in personal responsibility (if I screw up it is on me and no one else) and in some places the Bible seems to agree with that such as Ezekiel 18:20:

The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

But then you have the entire concept of original sin in which ALL of Adam's descendants (not just has sons but his greatgreatgreatgreat.....grandsons) are punished until and unless they are willing to let someone else be punished for a crime they had nothing to do with (this is my understanding that Jesus's crucifixion served as a way of wiping away the sin of Adam in those who have accepted him).

I see personal responsibility as a very important and conservative trait and I have never heard a good explanation as to first why I should be held accountable for something an distant ancestor of mine did and second why someone else would be able to take the punishment for me if I was accountable (most of the time I just get something along the lines of "mysterious ways")

Thanks in advance. --WillB 18:39, 23 December 2008 (EST)

If you don't mind my injecting myself here I will give part of an answer. When Adam was created, he was by nature pure, without sin. When he sinned, mankind fell. Human nature is now fallen. When you are born, you already have the sinful nature. However, that is not what condemns you. It is the sin that you commit. Because of Adam's sin, his offspring are born with a fallen nature. Because of the fallen nature, they commit sins of their own, which is why they deserve hell. sorry if my answer is kinda hard to understand. I am just trying to give a quick answer because I don't have time to give a long one. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 18:48, 23 December 2008 (EST)
WillB, as Tim said, as well as inheriting a sin nature, we have all sinned, so we are all personally responsible.
We live in a world in which people suffer the consequences of others' actions. If a mugger stabs you, you are injured (and might die), through no fault of your own. That's simply the way things are, because we were designed to live in a society, interacting with others. If your king/emperor/president/prime minister declares war, then you are at war also, because the country's leader speaks on behalf of all his citizens. If you employer makes a bad business decision that means that the business fails, you lose your job because of his decision. Adam was the "federal head" of the human race; his decision affects all of us. But we are also personally responsible, because we have all sinned.
If your young child throws a rock and breaks a neighbour's window, do you insist on him paying for it to be fixed, or pay it yourself? Sure, you might punish him yourself, perhaps by withholding his pocket money for a while, but chances are you will pay for the repair of the window yourself, partly because you love him, and partly because paying for it is beyond his means.
If your brother incurs a fine and can't pay, but you can, would you pay it for him? Would the authorities care if you did? No. Paying someone else's penalty is a well-accepted principle.
I heard a story once about a judge in a small town, who had brought before him a person charged with a crime. The person was a friend, and the judge was faced with a dilemma: If he let the friend of lightly, he could accused of going soft on a friend. But if he imposed the highest possible fine, he knew that his friend would be unable to pay. No other judge was available, so he couldn't pass the case on to someone else. His solution was to impose the highest possible fine, and pay the fine himself. That's similar to what God has done. He has imposed the highest possible penalty, and paid it himself.
Philip J. Rayment 22:37, 26 December 2008 (EST)

Sorry to bother you....

Not quite sure how one gets the attention of an admin; so sorry if this isn't the done thing. The article on Bromine is currently a total farce that has somehow slipped through the net. When I tried to correct it, my corrections were reverted. Obviously, I don't want to get drawn into an edit war, but the article as it stands is a fairly unbelievable and embarrasing page.. Is there a policy for what to do in these situations? My apologies again; I'm relatively new to the site. Many thanks, PeterWinchester 12:31, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Clamscrubbification? Yeah, it was reverted by a parodist. - Rod Weathers 12:35, 28 December 2008 (EST)

On the move and I hope you win the Dr. Duane Gish award in January

PJR, I just wanted you to know that the creation science supporters are definitely on the move when it comes to their efforts on the internet and they are ready to make some kills! By the way, I certainly hope you win the Dr. Duane Gish award in January. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Conservative (talk)

You might want to tell your evolutionists friends that......

PJR, you might want to tell your evolutionists friends that Operation Afterburner and Operation Flying Fortresses are soon coming to the internet and it is not going to be pretty for the evolutionary paradigm on the internet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Conservative (talk)

PJR, did you know that......

PJR, did you know that creationists and creation scientists are going to be coming after the false paradigm or evolution on the internet and in much bigger ways than in the past? I can hardly wait because it is going to be exciting. You probably know that it was probably the creationist Edward Blythe who posited the idea of natural selection before Darwin. I have a feeling it may be very hard for the evolutionary paradigm to compete on the internet in the future as it is a rather unfit paradigm. conservative 02:00, 29 December 2008 (EST)

Happy New Year, PJR!

Glory to God in highest heaven,
Who unto man His Son hath given;
While angels sing with tender mirth,
A glad new year to all the earth.
~Martin Luther
--₮K/Talk! 23:44, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Thanks! :P

yay!!! You're the best! xD ♥♥♥Ema♥♥♥ 18:52, 10 January 2009 (EST)

...Twas all I could salvage

I tried to get the actual essay back too, but it wasn't saved up in my cookies or anything. I did manage to save the talk page if you have any interest or inclination in continuing the discourse:

It seems to me a common problem with this debate (the origin debate) is that so few are actually qualified enough (on either side) to actually speak accurately on the subject. I for one am no scientist: I am at best a sub-par philosopher with trivial knowledge of the sciences. I can, however, based on my experiences both in classrooms; internet chatrooms dedicated to the subject; witty banter amongst those whose interest is the subject, and finally with what common sense I am able to scrounge up, say that a little bit of knowledge goes a long long way.

I do not mean knowledge of biology, chemistry, geology, astronomy, or any of the other specific hard science; I speak of science itself.

Science is simply the pursuit of knowledge; discovering how things work (why is not a question science can answer, and it is perhaps a question not meant for science to answer) within the larger whole. This is why we no longer are married to the idea of the interstellar firmament, or why we no longer view the idea of a vacuum as ludicrous, or why we no longer laugh at the idea of infinity. If it was the case, that science need be so rigid that any change or apparent contradiction destroyed science, then science would have been extinct thousands of years ago.

This is why the notions of Big Science is so inane: nigh on every scientist is pursuing knowledge, pure knowledge. When something is conjectured it is ruthlessly investigated; often filleted before the very eyes of the person who first asserted it; if there is truth to be found this is absorbed into the greater whole of science, and anything not able to stand within the eye of scrutiny is discarded. This is not a process, however, akin to ordering a pizza; it can take decades before scientists have discovered the truth or falsity of an idea. Just see Newtonian Physics: despite two centuries of constant verification, Newton's ideas were found less than adequate as our knowledge base expanded. This did not suddenly undermine the idea of gravity, the idea of F=MA, or the idea of inertia; on the contrary these ideas remained and will remain for some time, but the details of their functions and nature have changed over the years.

The tree of life is a primitive idea Darwin devised to make his theory more sensible; it does no good to have an idea (there is such a thing as the supernatural, things change over time) if you lack a framework for making your idea understood. How is it anyone can fault science for the things it does not yet know? How is it science can be faulted for growing out of the shackles of fallacy and ignorance when the time is apt?

When it comes to the origins debate, it is important to realize that science is no meager creature: there are many many many many branches of science that all come together to form as complete a picture of our universe as is possible. That Science has discovered an aspect of itself that needs tweaking is as it should be; do we really want to go back to the age of Humors? That Darwin's sketch has proven to be less than adequate should then not be surprising. It should also not be surprising to find out in 300 years that everything we currently know is inadequate: this has been the case for as long as humanity has had the capacity to write.

The same goes for religion that the ignorant on the other side so virulently attack: how often have you seen a single verse taken from the Bible, out of context from the greater whole, so that (if you had not known better) the entire Christian religion could be nothing more than a sham? In as much as the ignorant ought not make sweeping generalizations about religion; speak of it with authority that they do not have, or lead others into the abyss of ignorance with their pronouncements, nor ought anyone speak of science with authority that is not a scientist.

Should a Muslim instruct Christians? Should a Biologist instruct Chemists? Certainly on these points, you would agree that speaking outside the realm of your expertise under the presumption of authority is a folly that makes fools of us all.

As it is topical to forestry, it seems now we will have a web of life framework to work with instead of a tree, but within a few centuries (if the web idea proves to be more valid than a tree within the immediate future) this may again change. This has not effected the main idea.

Things change over time. This is the central tenet of evolution. The tree is nothing more than a frame of reference in which to view and investigate these changes. As the article points out, biology is far less ordered (tree like) than we initially believed; genetic material flies everywhere between taxa without rhyme or reason. Had Darwin been aware of this, no doubt he would have drawn a web instead, and this entire discussion would be moot.

"After considering the evidence, we have discovered our prior held assumptions to be flawed. With what we have recently learned, we now have a new understanding; an understanding we shall investigate with more vigor than the last!" Says the Scientist.

What do /you/ say in response to the Scientists self-criticism and open mindedness? Does it not border on: "You were wrong, so I must be right. You have looked into yourself and found a speck disfiguring your eye, and what a speck it is! Had you only listened to me, that you would have never found a speck to begin with."

Science is a continuous process of self-correction. The tree is an example of such. That there is even less order does not destroy evolution in as much as God eluding the eyes of the Astronomer does not make Jesus any less real. Science ought not be damned for admitting its fallibility and trying to correct itself. Is this not the proper path for all Christians? the admittance of inadequacy before God, and pursuing a path of self improvement not only for the good of the one but for the good of the whole?

For now I believe I have said all I can as it pertains to the criticism of science and evolution.

Insofar as it pertains to design:

If design was so self-evident does it not follow that Science would follow that path? If the truth of God's creation was written about every surface of this world would it not have already been discovered and accepted by all who cast their gaze upon it? Intelligent Design can be labeled as a valid theory, initially. At the start both it and evolution may stand on equal ground. They both utilize the same method for external investigation, so here to may they be equal: a new particle is a testament to the complexity and perfection of God's creation for the Designer; to the evolutionist it is a testament to the complexity and perfection of the understanding. Where then do we find difference?

The evolutionist owns a mirror, the designer does not.

There is no aspect of science beyond questioning; if it is possible to to subject something in science to inquiry, then it is. Things that are not questionable are not suddenly locked up in some ivory tower, protected from the spear of truth: the perfection of what it thought perfect is as questioned as the subject is, burning in the back of the scientists mind. If it were the case that evolution is false, then science will find the requisite evidence; it will not be because the ignorant said that evolution was wrong, it will be because science has proven evolution wrong.

It is in this instance we discover where Intelligent Design falls short of actual science: the fact that there is a designer is not questionable. The designer is so central to intelligent design, that without it you are left with nothing more than a methodology of inquiry distinct from proper science in name and in name only.

Whereas science seeks to maximize the scope of its knowledge in all possible venues, Intelligent Design imposes a limit on itself. One seeks as complete an understanding as is within our capacity to know it, the other does not dare reach that far. There is an aspect of design that is never investigated, that can never be investigated, so that understanding in that aspect is limited to the whims of the arbitrary.

If science is the pursuit of knowledge, then between evolution and intelligent design, the one being more complete than the other, which one ought our reason guide us to? Jirby 13:50, 24 January 2009 (EST)

I don't have any real disagreement with your first three paragraphs, but will add that there are very few people who are qualified to speak accurately on the origins debate. This is simply because it covers such a broad range of disciplines, covering, as it does, the origins of "life, the universe, and everything", to borrow from Hitchhiker's Guide. Scientists usually specialise in very narrow subjects, and are often as ignorant of the rest of science as the average layman. It has appeared to me and others that the vast majority of scientists who believe evolution do so on faith, because their own area of expertise either has no bearing on it or doesn't support it. This was apparent in many of the debates which Duane Gish took part in, as many of his opponents argued for evolution from areas of science other than their own, suggesting that they realised that their own area did not provide support for evolution, but (truly) believed that other areas of science did.
Your argument against the idea of "Big Science" doesn't really stack up, however. For one thing, the picture you paint of scientists being totally objective in their pursuit of pure knowledge regardless of where it leads is simply not true. Scientists are human too, and have their own subjective opinions, fallibilities, motives of making money or gaining fame, and so on, including being subject to peer pressure. Secondly, that science might eventually overturn or update an incorrect or inadequate idea doesn't mean that in the meantime there is no pressure to conform, and there's not a "ruling paradigm" into which scientific explanations must fit.
"How is it anyone can fault science for the things it does not yet know?": Nobody is doing that. I for one am not faulting "science". I'm faulting evolution, which I don't consider to be good science anyway. Secondly, I'm not faulting scientists for not knowing, but for claiming that they do know.
"...nor ought anyone speak of science with authority that is not a scientist.": My first response is that one can be an authority without having a formal qualification to say so. I believe that I can speak with some authority on the subject, as I have been (informally) studying it for over 30 years. My second response to this is that many creationists are scientists, so can speak with the authority that you say should be required. My third response is question how far you take this. Can a creationary scientist speak with authority about evolution? Can an evolutionary scientist speak with authority about creation?
"Things change over time. This is the central tenet of evolution.": No, that is not the central tenet of evolution. Even creationists accept that things change over time. The disagreement is over things like how much change. A central tenet of evolution is that everything has descended from a universal common ancestor, for example. I might add that this is one of the points in the Definition of evolution article that I linked to, that adequate definitions are crucial, yet here you are giving a definition of evolution that is so broad that it becomes meaningless.
Much of the rest of your response ignores my essay. For example, I question whether the mantra of "it's only a minor change" is really correct, and give reasons why it is not, but your response does not argue that it is minor; instead, it simply repeats the mantra. You also falsely put words in my mouth. Nowhere did I even hint at science itself being damned, or even criticised for trying to correct itself. This is a straw-man argument you are making.
"If design was so self-evident does it not follow that Science would follow that path?": Your first problem is again that you believe that scientists are totally objective, infallible, researchers, with no religious or philosophical motives. Your second problem is that you ignore that design is so self-evident that scientists routinely speak of the "design" of living things, and you have people such as Richard Dawkins writing books to explain why this "apparent" design isn't really design. So yes, it is self-evident, but scientists with religious motives (i.e. opposed to God) reject it anyway.
"There is no aspect of science beyond questioning...": Except evolution, it seems. The hypothesis as a whole, that is, although individual aspects are questioned, as long as they don't risk discarding evolution itself.
"If it were the case that evolution is false, then science will find the requisite evidence; it will not be because the ignorant said that evolution was wrong, it will be because science has proven evolution wrong.": This is another example of something I mentioned in my essay: refusing to admit that creationists can also be scientists. You are implicitly calling creationary scientists "ignorant", and excluding them from science.
"...Intelligent Design falls short of actual science: the fact that there is a designer is not questionable.": No, you misrepresent ID. ID (as distinct from creationism) does not start with an unquestionable designer. It concludes that there is a designer, from the evidence.
"...Intelligent Design imposes a limit on itself.": I've just answered that, and you overlook that evolutionary science imposes the sort of limit that you accuse ID of. As I showed in my essay, many (evolutionary) scientists exclude God a priori, and indeed you basically argue that it should. That is a clear case of imposing a limit that you overlook and then accuse others of doing. A case of the pot calling the kettle black.
"If science is the pursuit of knowledge, then between evolution and intelligent design, the one being more complete than the other, which one ought our reason guide us to? ": The one that doesn't impose an arbitrary limit: Intelligent Design. ID doesn't say that everything was designed. It says that the evidence shows that some things were. Evolution, on the other hand, says that nothing was designed, thus imposing an arbitrary limit. To put it another way, if science is the pursuit of knowledge, and if God really did create the world and life, why shouldn't science acknowledge that? Why arbitrarily exclude it from consideration?
Thanks for your thoughtful and civil reply, but I hope you now see that things were not completely as you made them out to be.
Philip J. Rayment 17:48, 24 January 2009 (EST)
The essay itself was in my cache, so I'll repost both tonight. Philip J. Rayment 15:05, 29 January 2009 (EST)
Well, it wasn't that night, but they are reposted now. Philip J. Rayment 23:35, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Noah's Ark

Thanks for unlocking! I've got some really good info in response to criticisms. God bless :) CherylE 15:02, 29 January 2009 (EST)

You're welcome. Don't disappoint me! Philip J. Rayment 15:03, 29 January 2009 (EST)

Permission to upload/skip captcha

I'm writing to you because you responded to my question on the Help Index talk page. I noticed you're a sysop so you might be able to help me. I'm trying to get the appropriate account permissions so that I can upload images and skip the captchas when editing (it's really annoying). I know you guys are skeptical about giving out rights, but I hope it's obvious I'm not here to cause trouble. NotALiberal 22:56, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Sorry it's taken a while to respond, but my page has been unreadable for a while. I'm afraid, though, that it's a bit soon for me to be supporting you on this. Keep up the good work, though. Philip J. Rayment 07:34, 3 February 2009 (EST)



I hope all is well with you and yours at this terrible time.

-- Ferret Nice old chat 17:14, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Are you anywhere near the fires? Jallen 17:15, 9 February 2009 (EST)
See here: [15] At least his editing the information there indicates Philip is personally unscathed, so far. --₮K/Admin/Talk 17:46, 9 February 2009 (EST)
Glad to see you're alright, mate. --Hsmom 18:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)

My lack of recent editing is due to my computer breaking down. It's working again now, but the modem still isn't. I'm typing this at work.

The fires in the Bunyip State Forest in Gippsland, particularly those at Tonimbuk[16], are only about 25 minutes from where I live. We've smelt the smoke in the air. Smaller fires at Narre Warren (outer Melbourne suburb) were only about 15 minutes away (in the opposite direction). On the weekend, police closed all roads east of where I live because of the fires in Gippsland[17]. But where I live has not been and is not under threat.

However, the fires have also brought back memories of the Ash Wednesday fires in 1983 in which I lost virtually everything I owned. Nevertheless, the thing that upset me the most then were those that lost loved ones (which fortunately was not the case with our family), and that is again what is most upsetting. A family friend's brother is missing, probably dead[18], at Kinglake.

I'm happy to discuss the situation more, if anyone would like.

Philip J. Rayment 18:49, 9 February 2009 (EST)


I hope you are quiet far from the fire. --Joaquín Martínez 21:24, 10 February 2009 (EST)

See section above. Philip J. Rayment 21:28, 10 February 2009 (EST)
I am sure all of us are glad you and your family are fine. God bless you. --Joaquín Martínez 21:12, 11 February 2009 (EST)
Likewise, I am glad to see that you are well. You and yours have been in my thoughts, watching the horrific visuals on TV. --KotomiTnandeyanen? 04:11, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Favor (Could you Block a User)

Hey Philip! Glad to see you on; would you mind doing e a quick favor and block User:LarryKrikston for his vandalism (diff) on the Conservapedia article? Thanks so much mate.--IDuan 16:45, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Nevermind- it's been taken care of - thanks anyway--IDuan 16:47, 12 February 2009 (EST)


Please stop Conservativedude, who just vandalized an essay. ReneeStJ 21:24, 12 February 2009 (EST)

I don't consider that vandalism, but I've given him a warning. Let's see how he goes from here. Philip J. Rayment 21:32, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Use of Categories

Can you comment on the use of Categories, in relation to the discussion on this talk page? --Eric2009 10:07, 15 February 2009 (EST)


Petroleum "vandal work"

Could you please explain this edit and edit comment?

Seems to be a mistake. --Joaquín Martínez 09:22, 19 February 2009 (EST)


Hi Philip, since you've been a sysop so long, I want to include you in the Conservapedia article's "Influential Users." How would you summarize your contributions for that? Thanks! AddisonDM 23:02, 20 February 2009 (EST)

I'd rather leave it to others to do that, rather than toot my own horn. You could have a look at my user page's list of articles to get an idea of what I've done including what I've initiated. You could also ask some of the other administrators, as well as some non-administrators who have been or were around a long time (and who deserve mentions in the article also) such as HelpJazz, BrianCo, Iduan, and Arizaphale (sorry to any I've overlooked). If you have any specific questions that you think I'd be the best one to answer, please feel free to ask. Philip J. Rayment 03:29, 21 February 2009 (EST)
Good idea AddisonDM; He deserves to be there! --Joaquín Martínez 07:50, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Hell question

Hi Philip - I'm not sure if this would be more appropriate to ask on the 'Where is Hell' page, but there's quite a mix of voices there at the moment and so I thought I'd avoid confusing things. Happy to move back there if you'd prefer.

I have quite a short hell-related question. Regardless of whether the punishment in hell is 'seperation from God' or active torture, presumably it is something deeply unpleasant that is much worse than anything on Earth, and is eternal. How can it be just for there to be infinite punishment for sins committed in a finite space of time? Sam99foster 09:43, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Some have said that it's because sin is against an infinitely-good God, so therefore it's appropriate for the punishment to be infinite. J. P. Holding takes a different view, which you read about here.
Even where we can't find answers that convince us to questions like this, we need to keep in mind that God will do the right thing: "Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Genesis 18:25). This does not mean that we should not question and try to understand. But it does mean that we are not in a position to judge the righteousness of God, when God is the source of righteousness. Whatever God does will be the right and fair and just thing, even if we have trouble understanding it now.
Philip J. Rayment 21:12, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Answering that annoying telephone

I see that the sock drawer's butler is trying to call me. Okay, time for some responses.

I'm confident I'm on good ground when the sock drawer "rebuttals" to my comments concentrate on almost everything except the arguments themselves. And when the "rebuttals" are self-contradictory.

For example, I'm chastised for not accepting what an "actual historian" says and for "quote min[ing]", and told to "think for [my]self". In other words, rather than counter an "actual historian" with quotes from other experts, I'm supposed to argue with one hand tied behind my back, and only argue with my own opinion!

Then there's the whole attack-the-source-rather-than-the-argument fallacy regarding my use of quotes from CreationOnTheWeb. Again, a "rebuttal" when there is no rebuttal. Further, I've already answered this accusation in my response to Kels at the top of this page.

And to suggest, without any evidence whatsoever, that CreationOnTheWeb is not intellectually honest, is nothing more that throwing mud and hoping some sticks.

Then there's the attempt to characterise my use of CreationOnTheWeb as "one source", despite that source quoting numerous sources. And the claim is that they are intellectually dishonest! And why should I want to limit myself to only listening to the most qualified person on Conservapedia, when I can also listen to other—in some cases more—qualified people?

Think of it this way. If I had, instead of obtaining those quotes all from the one website, looked up the original sources and cited them instead of the creationist website, would it have affected the strength of my argument? Not at all. I would still be quoting the same people and making the same argument; only my direct source has changed.

After again misrepresenting my quotes as being all "from a creationist website", the butler then "quotemines" one of my four quotes, ignoring the others. (He perhaps seems to be saying that he's just started with the first one, but in fact he's picked on the second one.) And what's his argument against this quote? Merely that he can't find out much about the author of it! He even tries to make a big deal about whether Hickman's name is Robert or Richard, despite the only reference I can find to a "Robert Hickman" being one reference on a discussion forum! Every other reference is to "R" or "Richard", so that hardly seems to be an issue. True, he does make the point that without knowing anything about the author it's hard to assess the value of his comments, but then again, Hickman was quoted by a respectable researcher.

In other criticism of me by a few others (including Kels, who I responded to at the top of this page but who refused to admit her errors beyond retracting a claim of me lying; yet I'm accused of being unwilling to admit when I'm wrong!), my comments (to quote one person who nicely summed up the comments of several), "... are well thought out, articulate and sensible... until someone mention YEC, than he becomes like the hulk (but instead of transforming into an awesome green monster, he becomes a creationist retard)." (second ellipsis in original). Yet my critics offer absolutely no evidence of this! It seems rather, that I'm a good bloke when I'm challenging others on things that the inhabitants of the sock draw agree with me on, but a retard when I'm defending creation. So what is it really? Do I somehow change my style of argument when I'm defending creation? Am I no longer articulate? Are my arguments no longer well thought out? Do I become uncivil when I'm defending creation? Do I block rather than discuss when I'm defending creation? Or is it really a case of me being a "retard", a "first-class-moron", a "hatemonger" (coming from someone obviously hates creationists!), a "profoundly stupid man", simply because I believe something that they strongly disagree with! No, it's not that I demonstrate stupidity. It's that I'm defending something that they hate with a passion. That's all. This shows a total lack of ability to make a sane judgment on, for example, my intelligence. It's not really my intelligence (for example) that they have a problem with. It's my views. Yet they impugn my intelligence because they disagree with my views.

And Kels shows that she's into making things up about me. "So long as it's his denomination, of course." I have been involved with churches of a number of different denominations, as well as taken part in services of several more. I am most definitely not a single-denomination person, and I know that I've written about this elsewhere. Whilst Kels may not have seen me say that before, the point is that nowhere have I ever given any indication whatsoever that I have any exclusive loyalty to a particular denomination. So Kels' comment is nothing more than an invention. But of course it's okay for anti-creationists/anti-Christians to simply invent false accusations, isn't it? So I won't hold my breath waiting for a retraction and apology.

Philip J. Rayment 01:10, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Reading these comments without understanding much of the context is confusing, but I do feel that the following statement bears closer analysis:
"Think of it this way. If I had, instead of obtaining those quotes all from the one website, looked up the original sources and cited them instead of the creationist website, would it have affected the strength of my argument? Not at all. I would still be quoting the same people and making the same argument; only my direct source has changed."
I would argue that it does affect the strength of your argument. Analysis based on original sources is always better than analysis based on secondhand reports. Perhaps the quotes that you gave are accurate, and are true representations of the opinions of the writers. Or perhaps they are frankly inaccurate or have been taken out of context in a way which totally alters their meaning. Perhaps the sentences before and after the quoted ones refer to the authors' having gotten their information directly from space aliens or through drug-induced astral projection. I have seen examples on this website of frankly fictional information from 'trusted' sources being repeated as historical truth by nonvandals, and I have seen other examples of scientific results dismissed based on second-or third-hand press reports rather than a critical reading of the papers themselves. Nobody expects a PhD thesis-level amount of historical research before drawing a conclusion, but in the era of the Internet and easy access to primary sources, it amounts to intellectual laziness to simply parrot the arguments of others without some minimum of 'due diligence'.--Brossa 14:22, 22 February 2009 (EST)
Sorry for the lack of context, but if you don't realise, part of the context is a discussion on the main talk page, primarily with RJJensen.
There was no "analysis based on secondhand reports". I was simply providing a verbatim quote that came from a secondary source rather than the primary one. This is a quite-acceptable thing to do, especially if it's clear that the source is secondary. Further, the readily-available (online and linked) secondary source referenced the primary sources. So the only room for doubt is whether the secondary source quoted the original authors accurately and fairly
However, the argument actually carries more weight by me quoting the secondary source. Which of the following would you be more likely to trust?
  1. An academic in a peer-reviewed journal?
  2. Me, a non-academic writing on a Wiki talk page?
As I provided a direct link to the on-line secondary source, then you don't have to rely on No. 2 (me), but instead on No. 1. If I'd directly quoted the original, then you would be relying on No. 2.
Philip J. Rayment 09:36, 23 February 2009 (EST)

With one exception which I'll briefly discuss below, the denizens of the sock drawer essentially ignored the arguments I provided above and threw around a whole stack of new allegations, including describing me in such a way that I wouldn't have recognised me if they hadn't said who they were talking about. There was more of that invention that I talked about above (which the inventor of didn't even have the decency to admit she was wrong about). Further, the same inventor is a liar herself. But unlike her, I can and will provide evidence. She had previously accused me and Creation Ministries of being liars, but despite me challenging her to back up the accusation, she totally failed to do so (see section at the top of this page. Only when some others on that site chastised her for lying (e.g. "Repeated accusations of lying are ultimately counter-productive.") did she retract the claim (clearly showing that she had no evidence). But that retraction is now exposed as a lie itself, because she has again made the accusation! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Hypocrisy, thy name is Kels!

The one half-decent response to my comments above were from the butler (sorry, gentleman's gentleman). Unfortunately, I don't really have the time to answer it in detail and this is not the best place to do so, but I'll give a brief response to some points. (P.S. oops... and an extended response to one.)

  • My reply to Brossa above partly answers the butler (sorry, but that's shorter than "gentleman's gentleman").
  • He seems to think that creationists have an axe to grind (in knocking evolution), but that evolutionists don't (in defending evolution).
  • He criticises the Wilder-Smith quote by throwing mud at the source, but the mud doesn't stick. (He said, "The third is perhaps even worse, it cites the autobiography of the wife of the creationist who perpetuated the Paluxy tracks hoax.".) Here's the information that he didn't tell you or got wrong by relying on biased resources:
    • Beate Wilder-Smith was not just the wife of a creationist. She was someone who lived in Nazi Germany, so is writing from first-hand experience.
    • Her husband is most definitely not "the creationist who perpetuated" the Paluxy tracks claims. The butler appears to have gotten his information from Wikipedia, which is flatly wrong in what it says. Wikipedia says of Arthur Wilder-Smith (AWS): "In 1965 he visited and promoted the false claims that dinosaur and human footprints existed at Paluxy River in Dinosaur Valley State Park. These supposed tracks were later discovered to have been forged by creationists who tried to claim humans and dinosaurs lived together."
      • According to Wikipedia's source (the hardly-reliable Talk.Origins), AWS "hailed the claim" of a supposedly-human tooth found there. Perhaps he did visit, but WP's source doesn't say that. Perhaps he briefly "promoted" the claim also, but even that's drawing a bow from WP's source.
      • That the claims of dinosaur and human footprints existed together has never been proved wrong. WP is promoting a POV, despite its policy. (I'll add that neither are the claims themselves proved, and creationists now say that the claims should not be made. So it's an open question, not a settled one as WP puts it.)
      • WP's source doesn't discuss the footprints, but a separate claim of a tooth.
      • WP is simply wrong to claim that the footprints were forged, let alone by creationists, and it's source reference doesn't claim that either. The issue is one of identification (are some of the footprints human or not), not one of forgery. In fact the forgery claim has been unequivocally proved to be incorrect.
    • There are no grounds whatsoever for claiming that AWS "perpetuated" the claims.
    • It is simply wrong to claim that AWS was the creationist who perpetuated the claims.
    • Per my comments about WP, it is wrong to refer to the claims of human tracks as a hoax.
    • AWS was actually a highly-respected and popular triple-doctorate scientist with a very impressive list of achievements. (WP's article on him is nothing more than a disgraceful smear job.)

Some of that is irrelevant to the main discussion, but the butler obviously thought it relevant to mention, which just goes to show how irrelevant his criticisms are.

The butler expressed an interest in further conversation. If he wishes to do so by e-mail, he can post a request for my e-mail address, as there are several others there who have my address, and I hereby give them permission to pass it on to him (by e-mail or etc., not by posting it publicly).

Philip J. Rayment 09:36, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Conservapedia Article

Philip, HelpJazz was a vandal, we know that. I'm going to remove him from the list. I believe he was at the "other website" too. AddisonDM 22:38, 22 February 2009 (EST)

AddisonDM, what is your evidence that he was a vandal? As for being at the other website, so have others from here, including former and current administrators, including TK. That in itself is hardly a reason. Philip J. Rayment 08:10, 23 February 2009 (EST)
Have some self respect. The owner of this site disagrees with you, very obviously. What a petty little bully you have become, stomping your foot and telling the rest of us we are wrong. Time to wake up and smell the coffee. --₮K/Admin/Talk 08:28, 23 February 2009 (EST)
I'm new around here. I probably shouldn't be stepping on people's toes. Maybe I should MMOB. I feel compelled to say, however, that the etiquette guideline about avoiding personal remarks has been utterly disregarded here. FranL 13:29, 23 February 2009 (EST)
I see that TK had the last word by blocking you for having the last word. As for his comments, he's wrong, but I know from experience that it's useless to point out how. Philip J. Rayment 20:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)
I too would like to see the evidence that HelpJazz was a vandal. Addison, you can send via email if you don't want it in public. I have an account on RW as well. CPWebmasterTalk 20:57, 23 February 2009 (EST)

"Beavis & Butt-head" article stuck

I just created(?) an article called "Beavis & Butt-head"

The article is inaccessible and redirects to a nonexistent "Beavis"

Let me know if the article exists, if I should replace the ampersand with "and" etc. Thanks danq 21:26, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Sorry to "butt" in, but the problem lies in the '&' in the title. It causes fits with the wiki formatting. If you can, copy and paste the article into Beavis and Butt-head, and have a sysop delte the bad page. That should fix the problem. I'd do it myself, but then you wouldn't get credit for creating the article. WesleySHello! 21:28, 26 February 2009 (EST)
Don't create a new one; I'll move it. Philip J. Rayment 21:31, 26 February 2009 (EST)
Done. I thought that we had solve this problem, though. It looks like it has returned.  !!!!

Biblical Question

I will be blocked soon because of my edits at The Other Site, but I just have a question for you. Believe it or not, I *am* a Christian who just happens to disagree with 90% of CP's views. I never vandalized CP, but only spoke up against what I found to be unfair and more importantly, un-Christian behavior. I was blocked for posting on that site but I have never done anything to harm CP's Christian views. I do admire and respect everything you stand for and therefore I know if there's someone who can/willing to answer me on this, it's you.

With that out of the way, my question is this: When defending the literal interpretation of Christianity (usually, Creation and afterlife), the issue always finds itself back to the consistency of said literal interpretation. For example, people will bring up the verse in the Bible that tells us not to wear clothes with two different materials mixed together. As you can probably see, they will then go on to challenge: If that's not literal, and definitely not allegorical, who's to say what we accept and what we don't? Perhaps that's merely a product of those times and a custom inapplicable to today. But then those critics will also contend the same could apply for things such as pre-martial sex, etc. Please respond to this, even if I will be blocked very soon if not now. Thank you. AShore 00:03, 6 March 2009 (EST)

Hmmm, it looks like your powers of prediction are not in working order. Here I am, over a week later (I've been away for a holiday (Mornington Peninsula)), and you are still not blocked!
You appear to be confusing a number of different concepts and have a simplistic idea of what Christians believe, in line with bibliosceptical claims. Perhaps you should find out more about what Christians believe before concluding some of the things that you have. On the other hand, you were asking, so I guess in a small way you were doing that.
Christians (including creationists) who believe in the inerrancy and historical accuracy of the Bible are not "literalists" in the sense of believing that everything in the Bible is to be taken as literally true. Rather, what they believe to be literally true are the historical claims that were meant to be understood literally. So parables, metaphors, and euphemisms are taken as parables, metaphors, and euphemisms, not as literal events.
So that raises the question, which you refer to, of how does one decide what is literal and what is not. The answer is that such things are determinable from the language and context. If someone says to you that it's "raining cats and dogs", do you ask who's to say what we accept (as literal) and what we don't? How do you determine whether that is to be taken literally or not?
So for the Bible. By way of example, as explained in Creation week, the experts (in Hebrew and the Old Testament) agree that the historical accounts of the early chapters of Genesis were meant to be understood literally. This is not because they want them to be literally true (the cited expert, like most of the others, doesn't believe it to be literally true), but because they can tell from the language and context that it was meant to be understood as literally true.
Your other point of confusion is in conflating historical claims with instructions (laws, rules, commandments, regulations, etc.). Historical claims are either true or false, but they don't change (e.g. it can't be the case 2000 years ago that God created the world but not true in 2009). But instructions can change (laws can be rescinded).
However, even though instructions can change, the reason for the instructions don't. So if a prohibition of pre-marital is based on the way we were designed, then that reason never changes.
Philip J. Rayment 04:38, 14 March 2009 (EDT)


Hello! About two weeks ago you said that you would rename the article that is currently titled Pangea to Pangaea, which seems to be the universally preferred spelling. You noted that I should remind you if you forgot. I'm not sure if you did, but here's a brief reminder just in case... Anyway, thanks for the help! -Ilikecake 01:17, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Done. Philip J. Rayment 04:42, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Wikipedia bias I've just come across

I'm kinda new to all this, but I thought this was something you guys should know about...

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Logofreetv (talk)

Can I suggest that you post this on the Examples of Bias in Wikipedia talk page if nobody else has already? Thanks. Philip J. Rayment 04:48, 14 March 2009 (EDT)