User talk:RSchlafly/Archive1

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

good edit to Einstein article.--Aschlafly 00:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks Roger. Whatever I can do to help, let me know. Are there any plans for coordinated projects similiar to like they have over in, you know, that other place? RobS 12:48, 9 March 2007 (EST)


Roger, here's some material you may wish to review regarding "expansion of due process", [1]

it can be argued that the legislative intent of the Amendment was especially to grow with the times, which it certainly has done. RobS 11:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Gospel of Thomas

It is true that the Gospel of Thomas is not part of the Bible, and not recognized outside the Coptic Christian church; I simply wanted to clarify that it nevertheless is a valuable source of information about early Christian beliefs, and that many Christians today do find great value in it. Boethius 15:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

It is my understanding that Christians have historically regarded these apocryphal gospels as being tainted with heresy. Yes, fascinating, but fascinating in the way that heresy is fascinating. I didn't want the Thomas entry to imply that Thomas is a good source of Christian beliefs. RSchlafly 23:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for your reply. I have amended the entry, both on the Gospels and the Gospel of Thomas, to make this more explicitly clear.
Boethius 17:42, 15 March 2007 (EDT)


I banned him because 3 times in row he posted to my userpage the same cross examination type garbage much of which (if not all) was unrelated to the article in question. I warned him to stop though and he ignored me. Three strikes and your out.

Secondly, are you related to Aschlafly? Conservative 17:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Yes, Aschlafly is my brother. I had nothing to do with creating Conservapedia; I first learned about it from reading blogs. RSchlafly 17:56, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

That is wrong! your own brother didnt tell you! Mr. Schlafly! how could you! j/k :) welcome aboard. --Will N. 17:58, 15 March 2007 (EDT)


Hello RSchlafly. In your recent modification to the article, [2], you introduced that "not everyone considers it to be a religion". But that would be true of any religion that can be named, some people, somewhere, will consider it to not be a 'true' religion. Are we really trying to present such value judgements to our readers? Can't we simply be brief and to the point and inform readers, then let readers do as they like with their information? If we remain conservative and steadfast and present good, clean information, clear of bias and potential confusions or criticsm, our readers are better served, don't you think ?
Yes, there are controversial issues the Church of Scientology has involved itself in but are those actually necessary to a brief, clear description of the religion? Can we discuss, please ? Terryeo 14:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I was understating the controversy. I think that it is fair to say that most people do not consider Scientology a religion. IRS did not, until just a few years ago. RSchlafly 14:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Okay. How does one explain news items like this one [3] ("Scientology Religion") in the Kansas City Star ? Or the 7000+ hits a person gets by googling "Scientology" (its religous locations) at google maps? Or the many website pages about the Scientology Religion? There is nothing like that for a "Scientology Cult" search, with the exception of thousands of pages of criticsm. If an organization presents itself as a religion, is accepted by most governments as a religion, is presented in newspapers as a religion, then shouldn't we present it as a religion, too ? On the other hand, if an article is to be large, then other points of view could be presented ? But if small, then why not as direct and simple as possible ? Terryeo 17:14, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
I did your test, and I found 113,000 google hits for "scientology religion", and 168,000 hit for "scientology cult". This does indeed suggest that more people call it a cult than a religion. But that is just one controversy. Care to say anything about psychotherapy? The Xenu story? Battles over leaks of the OT documents? RSchlafly 17:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Sure, I'll talk with you about anything you like. psychotherapy sucks, no one who knows the myth talks, the Church defends itself vigorously in court. The critics are loud, the critics can publish cheaply. A simplicity of the situation exists, but how can a person view the simplicity, there's the question, would you say? Terryeo 09:39, 24 April 2007 (EDT)


Much of the material User:PF Fox is "obsolete and deprecated", as per WP's new WP:ATTFAQ' I fought for this along time ago. Plus there is evidence of trolling on the talk page, as I forecasted. [4] I would propose a roll back to my version, with whatever material you may wish to save from the recent editing, and then Page Protection. RobS 15:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

My inclination is to start a section titled, "Criticism of McCarthy's methods", and start it by saying: "It is often alleged that McCarthy's methods were irresponsible, inhumane, and reckless. Here are some examples of where his committee supposedly ruined lives." Then let PF Fox put in his most egregious examples, as long as they are factual. You want to do it? RSchlafly 16:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
I've protected the page. That sounds like a good idea. Let's have PF Fox place his proposed language on the Talk page while I work on completing the Venona materials. RobS 16:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)


I have copied the conversation below onto the Isaac Newton talk page. I think it makes more sense to have it there for future reference. If we need to continue the conversation, let's do so over there. --Hsmom 07:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I bet Isaac Newton cared about his title of "sir." Not to split hairs. Publicly evaluating a person's legacy based on your opinion of it is a bad idea, and sounds like opinion forbidden by the Commandments.-AmesG 01:02, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Sure, Newton may have cared, in the way that people care about honorary degrees and awards. Maybe he got some privileges from it, I don't know. But nobility status carries no weight with the typical American reader of Conservapedia. Nobody knows what Newton did to get that title, or why the title should make anyone deserving of any respect. It is just stupid and meaningless.
Newton was a great man, and I am not putting him down. He is great for what he did, not because he was friends with some silly king or however he got the title. RSchlafly 01:11, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
'Sir' is a title of respect. Not placing it would be equivalent to removing Doctor from the name of those holding a doctorate. Geo. 01:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
It is only a title of respect among fans of British nobility. Besides, encyclopedias do not normally list people with doctorates under the title "Doctor". RSchlafly 01:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Okay, can the bold text at least show that he was a peer? Geo. 01:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
I assume that you are joking. I don't know what a peer is, except that my dictionary says that it has something to do with British nobility. I think that the average American has very low respect for British nobility. RSchlafly 01:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
A Peer of the Realm is a member of the British nobility. Geo. 03:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
"Nobody knows what Newton did to get that title, or why the title should make anyone deserving of any respect. It is just stupid and meaningless." ... "I don't know what a peer is, except that my dictionary says that it has something to do with British nobility. I think that the average American has very low respect for British nobility." Are you serious? You don't know what Newton did that resulted in his title? I'd guess Calculus? Maybe Gravity? That deserves a heck of a lot of respect. I don't think we need to know the ins and outs of honorary titles in Britain to understand the basics of this one. According to Answers in Genesis, [5] "His country officially recognized his work in 1705 when he became the first person to receive a knighthood for scientific achievement." Surely this is important enough to include his "Sir"? --Hsmom 19:51, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, I am serious. No American has any respect for British nobility titles. Apparently you don't know how Newton got the title either, because you are just guessing. You have a source that says that it was for "his work". Okay, that narrows it a little bit. It wasn't for his relatives. RSchlafly 20:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood my comment, as you misunderstood Geo.'s use of the term "peer". I guess we need to back up a bit. In Britian, knighthoods are given for exceptional achievement or service to the nation, much like the USA gives the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal. Newton was the first to be made a knight for scientific achievement rather than prowess on the battlefield. (From "In 1705, Queen Anne knighted him, Sir Isaac Newton. It was the first knighthood for scientific discoveries rather than deeds on the battlefield or in government." [6]) Thus Newton was given his title for his *body of work*, which of course included topics like gravity and calculus. I understand that *you* have no respect for such awards. Indeed, there is some controversy over modern versions, even in Britian (see [7]). However, I think it's simply not true to say that *No* American has any respect for British nobility titles - see Robledo's examples below. Given that Newton's achievements were so great as to be awarded an honor that had previously been given only for military prowess, I think the "Sir" is worth keeping. --Hsmom 21:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Honorary knighthoods (accepted & thus I'm guessing respected...)

  • George Bush
  • Ronald Reagan
  • Colin Powell
  • General Norman Schwarzkopf
  • Bob Hope

Any more sweepingly daft generalisations to make? :P --Robledo 20:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

No, you've made it for me. I've never heard any American call any of those men "sir". RSchlafly 21:01, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Naturally....none of them are British citizens. Read the source, son....third paragraph. *sighs* --Robledo 21:26, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

That's because it is inappropriate for an American to use such a title.[8] Newton, however, was not American, thus the use of the title is appropriate. I know this stuff is complicated. --Hsmom 21:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Exactly. To put it in context. "Bono" will never be "Sir Bono" (aside from the fact that his real name is Paul Hewson) because he is not a British citizen. So he can never be a "Sir". However, Newton was a British citizen, or a subject of the queen (or king), if you will. So he should be referred to by his correct title. Airdish 21:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
It's a simple matter of respect. "Sir" is his title in his native country and therefore should be the title that he is addressed by whenever he is addressed, wherever he is addressed. Aside from that argument, he is known the world over as "Sir Isaac Newton".Airdish 21:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

My students are fond of this song about Sir Issac - it's in MP3 format. [9]--Hsmom 21:32, 30 March 2007 (EDT)


I would like to argue this edit. It is an extremely important distinction, because scientifically, nothing can ever really be proven. Gravity, relativity, etc. are all still theories, but are backed up with massive amounts of evidence, and are used regularly as facts. In any usage outside science, "theory" usually means a "hunch", or unsubstantiated guess. --Hojimachongtalk 03:05, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I just don't think that it is true that usage of "theory" outside science is significantly different from its usage in science. Do you have any source for that? Theories have varying levels of substantiation, both inside and outside science. I think that the distinction is completely bogus and misleading.
Why is this so important, anyway? The subject of what can be proven is another topic. RSchlafly 03:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Any self-respecting scientist would never use the term theory to mean an unsubstantiated guess. Theories do not have varying levels of substantiation, only the true definition and the misuse by everyone else. ColinRtalk 03:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
That is just not true. Physicists use the term "String Theory", even tho it is just an unsubstantiated guess. Where is the evidence that scientists use the word "theory" differently from others? RSchlafly 03:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Regarding string theory, it has a large amount of "evidence" backing it up. That doesn't mean it's true, but it's certainly not an unsubstantiated guess. Regarding how scientists use the word differently, ask anybody with any sort of involvement in science, it's considered common knowledge that a scientific theory is different than a "guess". --Hojimachongtalk 03:51, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
No, there is no evidence for String Theory. The disputed section has no cited source, and is contrary to common knowledge. Are you just giving your opinion, or can you cite a source? RSchlafly 04:04, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

It's not a disputed fact that theory in the scientific community is not the same as a hypothesis. Sorry. ColinRtalk 04:08, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Correct, that point is not under dispute. RSchlafly 04:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
No, it is definitely not under dispute. A theory in scientific terms can come close to a fact, just like evolution. Actually, evolution is a fact. Do you claim there is no such thing as microevolution?

Theory II

Is there a reason for [[10]] this edit? What was objectionable? --Letusratiocinate 04:16, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I apologize for the ad hominem attack, but there is nothing disputed about what is said in those entries. And protecting articles only hurts the site. ColinRtalk 04:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Those entries certainly are disputed. I disputed them on the Talk pages, and here. The disputed material has no cited sources. I only protected the page because of the removal of the "disputed" tag. If you are right and I am wrong, then you should be able to give some evidence on the Talk page or here. RSchlafly 04:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
There is no disputing the difference between common usage of theory and the scientific meaning. Look it up in a dictionary and you'll see theory is defined as both. ColinRtalk 04:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
The disputed section says that a common speech theory is different from a scientific theory, with the former being an "unsubstantiated guess" and the latter having to be "well-supported and accepted". My dictionaries don't say any of those things, and they don't reflect any popular or scientific usage to my knowledge. I'd be happy to use a dictionary definition, but if you want something else, then you should provide some support for it. RSchlafly 04:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Look at webster's online. ColinRtalk 05:13, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
I looked at Merriam-Webster's, American Heritage, Compact Oxford English, Encarta, and a couple of others. They all disagree with you. You are promoting the oddball definition, so you find support for it. RSchlafly 05:21, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

A theory, as defined by Merriam-Webster:

1 : abstract thought : SPECULATION 2 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action 3 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light> 4 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption :CONJECTURE

As you can see, definition 3 is different than the others. This is because a scientific theory must follow what is known as the scientific method. The Scientific method is "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses". Of course, gravity, relativity, the theory of light, etc. are all unproven, but they are all backed up by massive amounts of evidence. A scientific theory is supported by evidence, though in modern usage outside of science, "theory" is synonymous with "guess". --Hojimachongtalk 15:29, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Your definition shows that your last sentence is wrong on both counts. A scientific theory does not have to be supported by evidence. In modern usage outside of science, "theory" is not synonymous with "guess". I am tempted to add a paragraph explaining this point. RSchlafly 17:17, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Theory of Relativity/draft

Please stop. Special and general relativity are separate theories. Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 14:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean by that? They are certainly closely related, conceptually and historically. Putting them in separate sections already implies differences. Saying that they are separate without any explanation of the difference is just stupid and misleading. RSchlafly 14:38, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
GR describes gravity, SR describes objects relative to each other. Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 07:06, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, but they are not separate. SR is just GR without the gravity. RSchlafly 12:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Wrong, dude. Please stop pretending that you and Andy are experts on everything. Andy's obviously not even an expert on theories of constitutional interpretation. Nor are you an expert on physics. Anyways, special relativity deals with time & length dilation and the Lorentz Transformation. GR is an explanation of gravity and spacetime curvature. Completely different except the name.-AmesGyo! 12:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

No, I am not wrong. I can see from your comments that you know very little about either subject. RSchlafly 13:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
These are difficult subjects, and I myself don't understand either one well. I can do the math of the Lorentz transformation - where fast things get heavy, though.
We need to make this subject accessible to our readership. If this means a simple (basic?) article which mentions both ideas, that will be a good start. We can use the {{main}} template (or something like it: {spinoff} or {more detail}) to refer the reader to an in-depth treatment.
Who wants to volunteer for any part of this? --Ed Poor 14:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Roger is correct; not only are GR and SR not 'separate,' SR is a limiting case of GR, just as Newtonian mechanics is a limiting case of SR. Tsumetai 14:29, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
How's that work? I guess I don't understand it.-AmesGyo! 17:32, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
I'll try to put in an explanation if no one else does. Currently, there are two relativity pages, and both need a lot of work. RSchlafly 18:15, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
GR generally operates in curved spacetime; in SR spacetime is always flat. But if you plug a flat spacetime into the equations of GR, SR is what falls out. The connection is not only quite deep, but very useful too; in any smooth, curved space, one can always pick a sufficiently small patch such that curvature can be safely neglected. In practical terms, this means that any observer can always choose to work within a region of spacetime small enough to make SR an arbitrarily good approximation. Tsumetai 04:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, that is correct. SR approximates GR in the way that a tangent line approximates a curve. RSchlafly 13:10, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
They were developed in very different ways and at very different times and they are taught in very different ways and at very different times in university. They deserve completely separate articles (I am educated to graduate level on both). Airdish 17:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
I believe the latest version of the draft is mine. I'm knowledgeable of Special Relativity and I was trying to explain it in as basic terms as possible. I don't know much about General Relativity other than what I've picked up from other people. However RSchlafly I hope you realise that gravity is a fairly complex force which adds a lot of extra levels of difficulty onto Special Relativity. If anything they should be given different sections simply because they are so abominably different in scale. MatteeNeutra 17:11, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, Special Relativity is simpler. That is why it is called "special". I favor one article titled Relativity that tries to give a concise explanation. There are many textbooks on the subject if the reader really wants the full course. RSchlafly 17:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Personally, I'd favour Relativity as a very short concise "these are the principles of" style article (a sentence or two on each) with links to separate articles for each of the two theories. Also, because it is specialised, "simpler" is not the word. It is "simpler" because the maths is less hardcore, two very different things. Airdish 17:54, 29 March 2007 (EDT)


Your biased editing is an insult to the subjects you touch, to the site, and to your brother's ideals. Please defend your edits to the Copernicus article stating that those problems still exist in modern astronomy today (preposterous!) and your blatant POV articles to the Scalia article. Please use new arguments that I have not already refuted.-AmesGyo! 13:23, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

No, you have not refuted anything. Your edits are false, malicious, misleading, and disrupted. You do not defend what you do on the Talk pages. Please stop, or I'll have to block you.
I did not say that those problems "still exist in modern astronomy today". Reread it. I even gave a date for resolving the parallax problem. Your change called Tycho one of "previous astronomers". That is not correct, as Tycho lived after Copernicus.
Your changes to Scalia's article are also completely unacceptable. No encyclopedia would say that. You are trying to put words in his mouth that he never said. If you have proof that Scalia is against desegregation, then document it. Otherwise, don't say it. The article is about Scalia and what he has said and done, not about your personal speculations about what his opinions might have been in the 1950s.
You are becoming a nuisance. Use the Talk pages to make your points. RSchlafly 13:40, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
I blocked him. --Ed Poor 13:42, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't know AmesG's other work. My objection is to these edits: Scalia [11] Copernicus [12] Theory [13], and to his subsequent edit wars over those edits. RSchlafly 14:12, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
What's wrong with the Brahe insert? He did solve many of the problems with Copernicus' theory.--Dave3172 14:16, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Tycho Brahe did some important works, as did dozens of later eminent astronomers. I think that AmesG's comments were inappropriate because it is peculiar to single out Tycho in this context, Tycho was not a "previous astronomer", and Tycho did not solve any of the 3 problems that were mentioned in the previous sentence. RSchlafly 14:27, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
As to the other two, I think Ames could've left out the Brown v. Board part and left it at that. And most of the "Theory" part is good, except for this: " In fact, it is hard to find anyone who makes this distinction, outside those who are promoting the theory of evolution to the general public." That's a flat-out falsehood. It's also unsubstantiated and opinion, not fact.--Dave3172 14:19, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
If the statement is "flat-out falsehood", then it should be easy to prove me wrong. Just give me a couple of URLs of pages that make the distinction. I did discuss the matter on the Talk page. RSchlafly 14:36, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Are you serious?? If anything, the burden should be on you to prove your statement. I make that distinction all the time, b/c it'd be less than honest to tell people that the word "theory" can't be used in different ways. And again, you can't cite that claim. It should be removed.--Dave3172 15:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, I am quite serious. If you have some evidence that I am wrong, please post it on Talk:Theory. RSchlafly 15:11, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

ACLU and Evolution

Thanks for the revert; however, what is wrong with reverting back to my edit [14]. (sourced ref from Ann Coulter). I think it is wrong for liberal editors to change sourced conservative views and replace them with their own liberal opinions (in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments). This is Conservapedia, and I don't want this to turn into Wikipedia, where the libs edit out what they don't like. They preach about free speech, including burning the flag, but they won't allow sourced comments from Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter. Crocoitetalk 12:37, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

If some edit of yours got lost, go ahead and put it back in. I was merely trying to revert an edit of AmesG. He removed a perfectly good quote, and inserted a sentence in a half that had 3 factual errors in it. Almost every edit of his is erroneous and destructive. RSchlafly 20:22, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

My Reply

A few things.

  1. As requested by Ed Poor, I have posted my reply to your "charges" here. I feel that my edits to Copernicus have been vindicated.
  2. In re the Theory article, Shlaf, you've been argued into a corner you can't get out of on the talk page. Please answer the comments there before claiming that you're right.
  3. In re the Antonin Scalia article, I never intended to imply that Scalia does not support the Brown decision. I'm sure he comes up with his own way to back it up. However, the Earl Warren opinion on Brown did rest on responsivism, which Scalia disagrees with flat out, as you have proven for me. So he disagrees with the popular reason for Brown, which is all that I argued, regardless of what you inferred. And you haven't disproven that thesis except to say, "Wha?! Who!??! Huh!?"
  4. Thank you to everyone who defended me. I appreciate it.
  5. I still think you can't be serious regarding the Theory article.
  6. Peace.-AmesGyo! 16:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

No, your edits to Copernicus were entirely wrong. In fact, all of you edits have been 100% bogus. I just had to revert this edit [15] to ACLU. You just changed one line and managed to insert three errors. I believe that you should be blocked for persisting in making such destructive edits. RSchlafly 21:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

As discussed on talk:ACLU, yours is a bias-laden statement that makes no pretense at neutrality. Mine is legal fact. Look it up, or read the case, if it's just not too much trouble for ya. I would be thrilled to e-mail you a PDF from Lexis so you can have a go at it. I already have.-AmesGyo! 17:39, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Good delete

Good delete on Flat Earth Society. I believe that both of those organizations, while the URLs exist, are hoaxes and do not belong on this site. MountainDew 23:19, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, those sites are hoaxes, and so was the article. I just added an article on Flat Earth. RSchlafly 00:48, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Pedophilic priests

I had previously deleted that, but sysop Ed Poor wanted to try to make it into an article. Do you think it would be maybe appropriate to make a more general article called something such as "Catholic Church abuse scandal"? MountainDew 01:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I was thinking of moving it to a more general Pedophila article, but someone deleted that. Not sure why. RSchlafly 01:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

That could also be done. At the very least, there should be a section on the specific Catholic aspects within that article, because it was obviously a fairly significant news story. MountainDew 01:47, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Flat Earth

So, are you going to explain your block of the Flat Earth page? Given that my arguments are valid and need to be addressed I would have thought that an open, and more thoughtful outcome of the situation could have arisen. Also, given that its either my version or yours, the decision to block should be made by a different sysop (i.e. not one of the involved editors!) as to whether or not the page should be blocked. MatteeNeutra 11:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

So tell me on the Talk page where my version is in error. I posted why your version is wrong. RSchlafly 11:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, I had already posted this before I realised you had posted on the talk page! MatteeNeutra 11:49, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
I added a lot to Flat Earth and made some comments at talk:Flat Earth. --Ed Poor 13:04, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks. Conservapedia ought to be one place where evolutionists cannot make fun of Christians as flat earthers. RSchlafly 15:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)


Mohammedans? Never heard of it. I guess you learn something new every day... --Hojimachongtalk 17:55, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

It's a very old fashioned term, and considered to be offensive. MountainDew 17:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it is an old-fashioned term, but it used to be extremely common and it is still in dictionaries. It fell out of favor, but I don't think that it is correct to say that it is offensive. It is no more offensive than "moslem". Some people prefer "muslim" to "moslem", but there is nothing wrong with using "moslem" or "mohammedan". RSchlafly 18:03, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Moslem vs. Muslim is a trans-Atlantic distinction. As for "Mohammedan," I studied with one of the nation's best Islamicists when I was at Rice. She specifically told us never to use "Mohammedan," and if you read any formal scholarship (after 1900) on the subject, you'll learn not to do it either. May I suggest Berkey, "the Formation of Islam"? Or, if you still disagree, we might as well revert to the Sayers translation of Song of Roland, and just call Muslims Paynims. It has about the same pejorative meaning.-AmesGyo! 01:24, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, there are those who prefer not to use the term Mohammedan, but their objection is not that it is an ethnic slur or a synonym for paynim. RSchlafly 12:57, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Those who "prefer not to use" the term are the Muslims themselves :-/ -AmesGyo! 01:04, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
And there are terrorists who prefer not to be called terrorists, and Moslems who prefer not to be called Moslems. RSchlafly 02:37, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
My understanding is that the reason why it is not used is because it falsely implies that Muslims worship Mohammed. MountainDew 02:38, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Reasons like that are sometimes given, but they don't make much sense. Note that your reason is different from AmesG's reason. I don't think that there is any good reason. RSchlafly 03:13, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
I suppose the #1 determinant for whether the term goes in should be whether it is, in fact, commonly used or not. I can't speak for others, but I don't hear it used. Maybe in other parts of the country the term is more common, I don't know. MountainDew 03:31, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
It used to be more common. You'll find it a lot if you read old books. I would not be suggesting it if I thought that it was an ethnic slur. It is not. It literally means just a follower of Mohammad. Nothing wrong with the term. RSchlafly 03:44, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
I think the one place I've seen it is in an old book in my church library, so that makes sense. MountainDew 03:51, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it's bad because it is an ethnic slur, and insulting for the reason that MountainDew stated - it implies that Muslims worship Mohammed, which is insulting in the same way that saying that Jews worship Moses would be insulting. If you can find it in old books, guys, but not in any other books, it probably means that the term is outdated, as I've argued. I'm sure you'll find "colored" in old books describing African Americans, but I'd advise against using it in an article...-10:36, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

It is VERY offensive for muslims to be referred to as Mohammadeans, for the above reasons. They are a very adamantly monotheistic faith, and any implication that they worship a human being is considered blasphemy (and you know how they feel about that). It's like calling Christians John-ians or Luke-ians. Leave it out already. Why would you want to be so offensive. PalMDtalk 10:57, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think that Mohammedan is an ethnic slur any more than "Abrahamic religion" is an ethnic slur on Jews. RSchlafly 11:19, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
You don't think a lot of the time. Apology accepted.-AmesGyo! 15:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
AmesG, I was not apologizing to you.
PalMD, calling Christians John-ians or Luke-ians is not particularly offensive. Of course, there are people who are offended by innocuous statements. RSchlafly 01:04, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Since you weren't apologizing to me before, I'll accept it now.-AmesGyo! 18:08, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

For what? Are you a Mohammedan who doesn't like to be called a Mohammedan? RSchlafly 18:57, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Abortion poll

Dear Ms Schlafly - I did quote the abortion poll correctly, and when you quoted it selectively I expanded your quotation to give details. Please check the link. My subsequent editing of your misleading statement has been reverted. I suggest altering it to the unarguable one that 62% of Americans do not want Roe v Wade to be returned. Unless I hear your reasons why you believe this to be less than factual, I will edit it to that version shortly. --Britinme 16:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Your statement did not match the most recent poll on the cited page with the poll results. Yes, your statement is less than factual. Give support on the Talk page, if you wish. RSchlafly 17:12, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
The page I linked to had a whole series of polls. The two most recent polls said that 16% of the American public favored retaining unlimited rights to abortion, and 39% favored abortion being 'legal in most cases'. Of the remainder, 31% favored it being illegal in 'most' cases and 12% illegal in all cases. In other words, 55% favor it being legal in all or most cases and 43% favor it being illegal in all or most cases, with 2% unsure either way. The other poll referred to the retention of the rights granted under Roe v Wade and 62% favored this. This should be reflected in the article because as it stands the article misrepresents the facts. Please tell me why you think we should misrepresent facts clearly laid out in a neutral opinion poll. --Britinme 17:37, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
No, I posted actual facts. I am against misrepresenting facts. RSchlafly 18:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Here is something I put on my userpage. Please spread the word among your friends



Conservative 19:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Sysop Pledge

As my good deed of the day I am requesting that you place this template on your userpage. Participating sysops will earn my respect and gratitude. --BenjaminS 00:05, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

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


Could we divide the topic of adultery into, for example, the Sin of adultery and "Adultery"? I'm not sure what the two types of infraction should be called, but it might make it easier on readers if we did a sort of division. What do you think would be best? --Ed Poor 20:11, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

What's the difference between the Sin of adultery and Adultery? What's the latter, the crime? I don't really agree with the recent edits on that page, and I guess I'll say so there. RSchlafly 21:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Homosexuality article

Hi Roger. Could you please alter the first sentences of Homosexuality in accordance with talk:homosexuality#attraction or activity or comment there? I see you altered the Biblical Prohibition section. Thanks. --Scott 10:15, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Capital punishment

What was dubious about explaining the context of Leviticus and Deuteronomy as a covenant between the Israelis and God?

By the way, I wasn't the one who put the stupid comment about the Ten Commandments in there. DanH 13:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

please vote for me

Please vote for me here: Conservative 00:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Why do you hate gay people so much?

Just curious. I'd love to know the reasons behind your "principled" disagreement.-AmesGyo! 10:52, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

My disagreement is with your edits, as they are frequently erroneous and destructive. It has nothing to do with you being gay or not gay. RSchlafly 14:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I never said I was gay or not (!?), but as someone who believes in equality & egalitarianism, I think it offends all of humanity, the level of distaste that your edits level against homosexuals.-AmesGyo! 16:31, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I never said that I hate gay people. Your bigotry is noted. RSchlafly 20:02, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Hmm, bigotry is not accepting bigotry now? (butting in where I'm not wanted) Human 21:32, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Apparently AmesG and you want to use this page for ad hominem attacks on me. You will note that AmesG does not mention any specific edits to support his attacks. RSchlafly 22:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

i know i have no part in this, but doesnt it seem like "mr. equality and egalitarianism and tolerance" AmesG is showing an utter lack of tolerance?Bohdan

No, AmesG asked Roger a question and he schlaflied it by avoiding the question and making a random assessment of the user. Jrssr5 15:51, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I liked this edit. [16] It's exactly what I was trying to say, but couldn't put into words. --Ed Poor 12:29, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Question about your beliefs

Have you heard how they genetically alter fruit to make new fruits? I strongly disagree with this practice because it messes with the Earth the way it was created. Next it will be human cloning. This is just a stepping stone. Whats your opinion? (By the way I love your user page! It is so exciting. Mine is boring.) Thanks your friend--BushRules12 23:40, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I think that the genetic modifications have been for the better, so far. Human cloning is another story. RSchlafly 00:25, 29 April 2007 (EDT)


Please do not ever use the above-referenced word in an encyclopedia article. It is an offensive and ignorant slur, and does not reflect well upon the user. Thank you. --JeffersonDarcy 14:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Why do you say that it is "ignorant"? Is it more offensive than "homophobic"? Why? RSchlafly 15:39, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

It is more offensive than "homophobic." The parallel is, "n****r" : "racist" :: "f****t" : "homophobe".-AmesGyo! 16:32, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

So you say, but that is not my experience. Do you have any evidence to back up what you say? RSchlafly 16:56, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Call a gay man a "f****t" and see the effect. Ask a homosexual how they feel about that word. If you have any emotions at all, you can see why it's more offensive.-AmesGyo! 16:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I hear black men say "nigger" frequently. I have heard homosexual man say "faggot" frequently. Both are obviously "in words". --Ed Poor 17:02, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, let's clarify the difference. I'm not saying it's okay to say it under any circumstances. But the generally accepted cultural convention is that someone "in" the group may use a derogatory slur, just like you can say, "yeah, I sucked on that exam," but your friend saying, "DUDE, you sucked on that exam," is not okay. That doesn't make EITHER words that are okay when used by someone outside the group, and esp. not to convey malice.-AmesGyo! 17:03, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

shouldnt the "homophobes" only be able to call themselves homophobes?Bohdan

NO. There is a difference. But tell you what if you don't see it, and if you don't want to be called a "homophobe," fine. I won't call you that, and I'll not use the word, if you won't use the words discussed above. This is only because I can't seem to make the difference clear to you, although it would be clear to anyone who actually is gay.-AmesGyo! 17:06, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, I see the difference. You just happen to like some name-calling better than other name-calling, based on your own personal prejudices. That's all. RSchlafly 00:46, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
When homsexuals call each other "faggot" and Black people call each other "nigga", that's the technique of "owning" a word that was offensive to them. As someone outside those groups, you can use those words but only within close company and as part of some humorous issue. The equivalent in the Jewish community would be the constant joking reference to "Hitler". How many "Seinfeld" episodes or other Jewish comedians would constantly make some kind of joke about the man who butchered so many of their fellow Jews? This is a way of dealing with a pain that people can not normally deal with in any other way. I hope I was helpful. Scorpio 08:58, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
I was merely mentioning that "faggot" is an offensive epithet. Someone else was arguing that the term should not be mentioned at all. What's next -- not mentioning Hitler unless the editor is Jewish? RSchlafly 12:10, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
RSchlafly, yes, I agree. I was only providing the reasoning for why certain people use certain words in a particular way. Just adding some info for everyone but not aimed at you specifically. Scorpio 14:06, 5 July 2007 (EDT)


Hey can you revert my user talk page? --Will N. 14:34, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Geocentric theory

Roger: Strange as it might seem, I have personally run into people who cite the Bible in support of the geocentric theory of the solar system. I'm not saying that I buy those interpretations. I am saying that there's more to that proposition than someone (like user Mmeelliissssaa) trying to be a "wiseguy." I would say to Mmeelliissssaa that she ought to cite her sources for any claims of "evidence advanced to support geocentrism." Then we can cite contrary evidence. But as I say--I don't think those edits really constituted subtle vandalism. I believe that the editor submitted them in good faith, and all that they need are appropriate citations.--TerryHTalk 12:13, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't know whether she believes that stuff or not, but even if she believes it, that is not reason enough to put it in an encyclopedia. A lot of people believe a lot of kooky things, and we can't list them all. RSchlafly 12:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
I don't see why you are so opposed to the page stating that some people believe the geocentric theory. Clearly some people do believe it. --CPAdmin1 12:30, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
No, it is not clear. Who? Where? How do you know that the web page is not a joke? RSchlafly 12:36, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
It looks real, as does This one --CPAdmin1 12:41, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
I am not going to pay the $27 to try to find out. What if someone else says the Moon is made of green cheese and cites a web site? It is not much evidence that there is any significant belief in a green cheese theory. Maybe it could be mentioned in an article on Internet scams or something like that. I did look at the work that Mmeelliissssaa referred me too, and it is not a serious piece of work. RSchlafly 12:49, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
Exactly what i try to tell to creationists time to time, if 99% of biologists think creationism has no merits and is just view held by few people because of their religious beliefs, why waste time and space on encyclopedia for that. But still, most encyclopedias like Wikipedia are willing to add articles that admit that some people still believe earth to be 6000 years old. But i see Conservapedia is taking a stricter attitude here. I'm all in favour of it. Timppeli 12:57, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
What is the idea in adding joke pages (for example fixedearth) as references - I don't understand it if this site is trying to be encyclopedic one and not a joke collection!? They are parodies written about Christians. Irony and taunt. And even better joke if someone takes it as earnestly written. --Aulis Eskola 13:42, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
Well to be fair, I thought YEC was a parody of Christian beliefs until I did some research on it. Geocentrism doesn't sound that much more implausible to me. --Sulgran 14:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Vandalism to Geocentric Theory

You managed to cut out all of my well-researched and highly-relevant material from the article without any comment whatsoever. I consider this to be vandalism. If this behaviour continues I shall report this to a SySop. User:OfficerDibble.



Peace Pact. If you want to make reversions, propose them on the Talk page. I know I have one other person who is editing who will support my point of view.


Can I point out that the reason the Conservapedia was set up in the first place was that some conservative views were being sidelined by an obviously liberal organ because those views did not concur whith the majority. Your revert of the Geocentric Theory page then protection of it clearly demonstrates that the are some conservative elements who are quilty of the same crime that Wikipedia is accused of. User:OfficerDibble

I have made my points, and have to log off now. I shall attempt to reformulate these ideas in a different form. The points i am tying to make in the GeoCentric Article are twofold:

  1. The view of whether the earth, the sun, the moon, Ceres or for that matter any other body is a starionary object at the centre of the universe is a matter of scientific convention. The Laws of Gravity and relativity can, in principle be reformulated to ake this happen. Thsi is a sceintific FACT, not a speculation. The fact that we don't do this is a matter of convention and parsimony, due to Occam's Razor, combined with the fact that the exlanatory schema imposed by Heliocentrism has a certain elegance. i.e. it makes the math easier. David Deutsch's book confirms this position. It is a PHiliosophiucal View, therefore and not a scientific one.
  2. There are groups of people who hold that the Bible says that GeoCentricisnm is correct, and is supported by biblical text. An article on Geocentricism should include material about these people, their beliefs and how these are squared with current scientific evidnce.

Ypu are just removing this without discussion, and my point is that this is no way to behave. User:OfficerDibble

You are barking up the wrong tree. The article already makes these points. I have protected the article so that any changes can be discussed on the Talk page, and to allow you to calm down. RSchlafly 05:46, 6 May 2007 (EDT)


I'd like to see a comprehensive list of specific reasons why you reverted on the talk page ASAP. --Robledo 19:56, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I already did, before you posted your request. RSchlafly 20:47, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:AFD Homophobia

Need some support, please. RobS 17:59, 9 May 2007 (EDT)


Good clarification. Dpbsmith 08:51, 14 May 2007 (EDT)


Please read this: New Sysops Training Page

Conservative 21:26, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

McCarthy article

I have a great deal of Senator McCarthy information that I would like to add. Can you please allow me to make edits to that page? I would be happy to do a mock-up for you to inspect prior to allowing edits of the McCarthy page. Please let me know. Thank you. --11:48, 21 May 2007 (EDT)Scorpio

Go ahead propose something on the Talk page. My main purpose there was to make sure that the criticisms were specific and documented. RSchlafly 12:09, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
I haven't checked out the conservapedia article on McCarthy yet, but you might get a chuckle out of MythOfMcCarthyism in my user space. You've probably read the book, but if not, it is good. HGHeartOfGold talk 23:08, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
RSchlafly, thank you, please check the Talk page for McCarthy for the additions I would like to make. --Scorpio 11:27, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
RSchlafly, I added the new info to the section titled, "VENONA files & Other Security/Loyalty Risks". Please let me know if you are OK with them. Otherwise, feel free to revert. The info comes mostly from Buckley's book, as I noted. I still need to put everything in alphabetical order and create new articles for the new names. Before I do that, I just want to know your thoughts on my progress. Thank you. Scorpio 21:21, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
RSchlafly and RobS, I would like to upload one or more images for the Joseph McCarthy article. I don't have the authority to do this so can you please help me with this or list me as a sysop so I can do the work without having to bug you guys about it? Thank you. Best Regards. Scorpio 14:04, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
You've done good work on the article. I don't know how to upload pictures myself, but let me know if someone doesn't find a way for you to do it. RSchlafly 16:12, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
RSchlafly, thanks for the kudos on the McCarthy article. I appreciate it. I've uploaded and placed images on Conservapedia before but the rules must have changed because not everyone is able to do it anymore. There are a great many public domain images I would like to upload for various articles so having to ask permission every time I want to upload an image and then for permission to place it is going to be rather cumbersome. Is there an easier way to do this? Please let me know. Thank you. Scorpio 17:17, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
Aschlafly, thank you very much. Greatly appreciated. Scorpio 17:26, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

P.S. You and Andrew are great guys and have a great mom. I've been a fan of Mrs. Schlafly since I came across her work in the mid-1980's. God bless. :)


"Mr. Right, It Turns Out, Does Not...". Just wanted you to know I came across that, and got a chuckle out of it. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 19:48, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Gonzales statement is not controversial

Hello. Regarding this...I am the person who added that section title. However, upon reflection, I agree, that Gonzales's statement is not controversial. The implication is controversial to me, and probabably many others on the left and the right, but he is technically correct.

Habeas Corpus was such an important individual "right" (really, specified as privilege in the constitution) that it is one of the few individual rights/privileges mentioned in the Constitution. Personally, as a conservative who believes in the rule of law, I do think the Gonzales's implication is controversial, but this is my opinion, and you were right to revert it. (Mind you, I am not one to think that Habeas Corpus applies to enemy combatants held in Cuba--rather, I do fear the day they take away the right to petition for habeas corpus of U.S. citizens held by U.S. officials)...Could you imagine if Hillary decides to make use of or expand upon Gonzales's statements? HGHeartOfGold talk 23:07, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

You're a bit late for that--just ask Jose Padilla. Habeas Corpus is now obsolete in the USA, and the Democrats aren't too likely to be inclined to put the toy away when they get to play with it. --Gulik3 23:10, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
There is some controversy over whether enemy combatants have habeas corpus rights. The US Constitution is silent on the matter. RSchlafly 23:20, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
I think the only question is whether U.S. Citizens who have been classified as enemy combatants enjoy such rights. Any foreign national, picked up and held on foreign soil--they need to seek the protection of their own country's constitution...but my opinion is a matter for discussion, not an article. HGHeartOfGold talk 01:26, 22 May 2007 (EDT)


I agree with point 4 removal, as it was probably redundant, but I do think we ought to re-insert some of point 3 back, in particular the bits in bold I think are important:

... when usually there is no "paradigm" in any Kuhnian sense, but merely a consensus view about a small scientific question. One basic philosophical failure of the crackpot is the failure to understand that "paradigms" and "paradigm shifts" are usually recognized after the fact by historians and almost never during the time of the shift, and secondly that paradigm shifts are almost always the work of younger scientists and not of older scientists.

I will not revert the edit, but can we discuss this point?

--AvengingAngel 15:52, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Edit to Vegetarianism

There is no evidence that vegetarians need to take any dietary supplements, other than B12 in some circumstances (Elderly, pregnant women, very small children), even then this vitamin can be found naturally:

"Fortified cereals are one of the few sources of vitamin B12 from plants, and are an important dietary source of vitamin B12 for strict vegetarians and vegans. Strict vegetarians and vegans who do not consume foods that come from plants that are fortified with vitamin B12 need to consider taking a dietary supplement that contains vitamin B12 and should discuss the need for vitamin B12 supplements with their physician".

This would make a better edit.--Felix 12:14, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

The general gist of things are that as a wise vegetarian you need to make informed choices and spend a little bit of time planning your daily food intake. You obviously can't just go out and buy a couple stalks of celery and expect to be nutrionally sound. --Colest 12:19, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
Are you trying to distinguish eating a vitamin-fortified cereal from taking a vitamin supplement? I don't see the point. Either way, it is a vitamin supplement. RSchlafly 12:24, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Article creation drive

I added something to the main page: Conservapedia:Articles That Need To Created

Conservative 14:24, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

Search Engine listings

RSchlafly, I was wondeering if you had any thoughts on how we can get a higher listing on Conservapedia articles on various search engines, including Google. I just did a new search today and found that the Joseph McCarthy is now placing as number 25, which is an improvement. But I think the article should place higher and I'm wondering what we can do to improve the results. Please let me know if you have any ideas on this matter. Thank you. Scorpio 11:35, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

I hope I'm not out of line in posting here, but have you submitted to the google webmaster program ( They have a sitemap program which may help Conservapedia to get indexed quicker. Other than that, its all about people linking to Conservapedia, especially those with higher page ranks. Just something I thought I'd mention, maybe you already have done this. Mskreuz 11:55, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
MsKreuz, thanks for your comments. That is well said. When I once had a website to help people fight scams, I used a great program that would automatically submit to hundreds of search engines based on keywords my website. It worked so well that my website would usually rank in the top four on Google. Maybe there's a program that can help in this situation as well. But perhaps RSchlafly might know of a better way to get this done. Scorpio 09:30, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

Axiom of Choice

Can you check out the Axiom of Choice entry, and particularly the symbolic representation? I've improved it and still plan to add how it leads to a contradiction in the Banach–Tarski paradox, on which we could also use an entry.--Aschlafly 00:34, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

I don't agree with the last couple of paragraphs. If "The formulation of a constructive Axiom of Choice is one of three major problems which challenge 21st century logicians", then what are the other 2? RSchlafly 02:03, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
I don't know, as that was added by someone else. But I don't think anyone doubts that a constructive Axiom of Choice is a goal that has not yet been realized.
I'm going to add how the Axiom of Choice leads to a contradiction in the Banach-Tarski "paradox".--Aschlafly 10:51, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
Yes, I doubt that. A constructive AC is not a goal. It is not objectionable to derive results based on the AC. It is not analogous to non-falsifiable claims. Those paragraphs are ridiculous. RSchlafly 11:43, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Isaac Newton

What was wrong with this edit please that caused you to revert it without comment? Philip J. Rayment 05:48, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

See the previous conversation on the topic here - [17] --Hsmom 21:46, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for that. I didn't think to look there (and an edit comment pointing me there would have been proper). That doesn't explain the reversion of the bolding (bolding the article title in its first reference is standard practice), nor the lack of an edit comment. (Nor the lack of a reply from RSchlafly here.) And the argument you point to is out of date in that Conservapedia has moved away from being so exclusively American. In other words, although I now see that it was discussed, I still think it should be there. But I'll make that point on that page. Philip J. Rayment 22:03, 5 July 2007 (EDT)


User:Scorpio has been blocked for one week for twice removing discussion page comments from RSchlafly'es page.

I believe we have evidence of a meatpuppet attack on me after a "chat" with TK. The removal of comments from RSchlafly's page were critical of TK. RobS 19:36, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

I don't get it. Are you saying Scorpio removed some of his own comments from a Talk page? Does anyone care? I'd like to remove everything on this page. RSchlafly 19:51, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
Yes, it does matter. Scorpio may be acting as a meatpuppet of another user, and this is evidence. The user has an abusive pattern and history of information destruction on several websites to cover his actions. RobS 19:57, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
I still don't get it. I have not seen the abuse or distruction. RSchlafly 20:06, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
Scorpio posted here "but I'm alarmed to find that Sysop-TK is not a fan of my contributions nor of those of RobS." [18] Scorpio & I were working good together, then TK had a "chat" with Scorpio [19], and now a "mediation" process making demands on my time (Joseph McCarthy#Mediation), is being requested. This is little more than trolling on me, wasting my time, and a meatpuppet attack orchestrated by another user. And some of the evidence was removed twice from you talk page. RobS 20:20, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Roger, the editor and I worked out his mistaken take on my comments, and removed his intemperate remarks about me. For that RobS has blocked him. I was away all day yesterday, but I take it the user asking for mediation, about another matter, involving Rob, and Geo accepting to do it, somehow makes it my fault. If you cannot follow, neither can I. If you figure it out, let me know. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 06:08, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
  • This is trolling. This editor made a specific complaint about User:TK to ASchlafly [20], after a "chat" with TK [21], engaged in a pattern of conduct very similiar to TK, and complaints about TK in both CP and RW, information destruction. RobS 09:56, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
Rob sealed the McCarthy article to silence opposing points of view. That is the cause of mediation. Geo.Complain! 15:08, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
This in fact is not true per Scoprio's own postings. The material Scorpio reverted here read,
  • I appreciate your support of my work on the McCarthy page but I'm alarmed to find that Sysop-TK is not a fan of my contributions nor of those of RobS. RobS 15:12, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
Maybe I am stupid, but your complaint makes no sense to me. Why would I care about some opinion that Scorpio posted on a Talk page? You'll have to spell it out more clearly for me to understand it. RSchlafly 15:22, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
Ok, Scorpio & I agreed to work together on Joe McCarthy; Scorpio posted all sorts of flattering comments about my contribs to that article. Scorpio complained to Andy that TK was treating Scoprio's work esseantially as "garbage." [22] I took two days off over the holiday and came back to see trolling demands on my time over an alleged dispute at Talk:Joseph McCarthy#Mediation after TK & Scoprio had a "chat." [23] This is a meatpuppet attack, defined here on User:TK's talk page as "another person who's taking up his friend's fight by proxy." [24] User:Scorpio recieved a temporary block because of it, while the source of the attack and trolling is being sorted out. RobS 16:45, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

Roger, this is the first time I have had a chance to defend myself because in order to silence my ability to defend what really should need no defense, RobS has been violating Conservapedia rules by blocking me without cause.

As Rob stated above, I have been consistently praising him and his work on the McCarthy page. He and I have worked well together up until very recently. For some reason, Rob stopped communicating with me about his edits, started adding non-cited info to the article, and was adding info to the article that duplicated what we were saying thus making the article sound incoherent. I tried to communicate with Rob but he refused to respond or when he did respond, he made absolutely no sense. It was like we were talking about two different things. At that point, TK came into the discussion and made some comments to me that I took as being critical of me and my work. After having had a chance to chat, TK and I worked out our issues and I decided on my own to remove my critical response to TK based on the fact that I no longer felt those words were appropriate. Now, for some unknown reason, Rob decides to lock the McCarthy thread so that he alone can edit the article. He did this inspite of the fact that Andy had originally unlocked the article at my request so that I could work on it.

I contacted TK about the bizarre lock and he conferred with other Sysops who then elected Geo to mediate the matter and re-opened the article. I explained my concerns in the section that Geo created on the McCarthy Discussion page. Rob remained silent. A couple of days later, Rob reverts my removal of my comments about TK. I reverted them back with a request to Rob to explain why he did that. Rob would not address my question but instead blocked me in violation of Conservapedia rules. I don't really know how many times in the past few days Rob has blocked me and considerate Sysops have unblocked me. I have no way of checking this fact. All I know is that Rob has been involved in some kind of idealogical conflict with other Sysops and editors over I believe the "Darwin" article and other articles. Rob was trying to use my previous post of what I said to TK as a weapon against TK. That's why Rob wanted to keep those words in place. Rob seems to believe that there is some kind of conspiracy against him and so he has maliciously called me a "meatpuppet" even though I have done nothing to call for such an insulting accusation that is yet another violation of basic Conservapedia rules. In reality, Rob has used me as his "meatpuppet" to attack TK. That's why he is so insistent on keeping my words about TK on your Talk page.

Worse yet, on Rob's Talk page, he states, "Scorpio however, is pursueing all the old cases McCarthy pursued --the cases McCarthy had wrong about being involved in espionage." Remember, it was just a short time ago that Rob was praising my work but now that he thinks I'm involved in a conspiracy against him, he attacks me with false accusations. Rob is wrong here about the McCarthy info I have posted and knows it. If he doesn't know it, he has no business working on the McCarthy article. The info I post comes primarily from the Congressional Record and the book by William F. Buckley that fairly addresses McCarthy's cases. There's no question about the validity of this info. Only the most dishonest left-wingers deny this info. But because Rob now has some agenda, it's sad to say that he has seemingly joined the chorus of those people.

Rob continues by saying, "Scorpio wants to add language from highly partisan McCarthy supporters written in the 1950s to defend McCarthy, and wants CP to claim it is the definitive historic record." Again, Rob is making absurd claims. Unless Rob thinks that the Congressional Record is a highly partisan McCarthy source, then he's way off base here. As for saying that I want Conservapedia to make any kind of claim, is even more absurd. I have never said anything like that. As every Conservapedia editor wants, I just want to provide accurate, verifiable, and truthful information that fairly reflects Senator McCarthy's life and work. If that is a crime, then I'm guilty. But we all know that it is not and Rob is grasping at straws in his effort to attack me.

Lastly, Rob states, "Hence, Scorpio wants exactly what McCarthy's (and CP's) detractors want -- then and now -- they want Conservapedia to take a highly partisan stand on an area that the historic record cannot exonerate." Yes, Rob actually said that. He is now essentially putting me in the same vein as Communists, left-wingers, fellow travelers, etc.!! And just as bad, he's either flat out lying about my intentions or is simply ignorant of the matter. Either way, these are false accusations and again, Rob has violated Conservapedia rules. Exactly how many times a Sysop can violate basic rules and still remain a Sysop is something you and the other Sysops should rightfully address. Rob has clearly taken the fun out of contributing here at Conservapedia. Instead of focusing on adding and improving articles, I've been blocked and forced to come here and defend myself from outrageous allegations. I don't know, maybe Rob has suddenly found my name in the Venona files and now believes that I am an espionage agent!! I really don't know what's going on in his head and why he would make absurd allegations and hateful insults with no foundation in reality. But for whatever reason, he has made them and performed acts in violation of conservapedia rules.

I have two options here. I can either ignore his bizarre and hateful comments or I can defend myself and ask for appropriate action to be taken. Based on these issues, I am requesting an official inquiry into Rob's slander and actions and that his privileges as Sysop be suspeneded or revoked and his ability to edit be temporarily halted until all his recent edits on all articles, be examined for verifiable truth. I do not make this request easily and it is with a heavy-heart that I ask something of this nature. However, when an editor, and especially a Sysop, abuses his privileges and directly works to hurt other editors and Sysops, this person must be prevented from damaging the credibility of Conservapedia and the wonderful work we are doing here. After having consulted other Sysops, I have been informed that I should also petition Andy directly, so as per that advice, I will be sending Andy a formal request for an investigation into the abusive and abhorent behavior of RobS. I pray that the wisdom of the rational Sysops here prevails and appropriate action be taken to prevent Rob from further abusive behavior against me, other Sysops, other editors, and Conservapedia as a whole. Roger, in the meantime, I ask that you continue to have Geo monitor the McCarthy article and prevent Rob from further abusing me. Thank you for your time and help. Scorpio 15:21, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Sidney Poitier

Hey, speaking of "sir", and mostly to change the subject, how about checking out my new little article on Sidney Poitier? He's famous for To Sir, With Love. --Ed Poor Talk 22:37, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Good article. I would have said that he is best known for In the heat of the night. RSchlafly 23:51, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
I would have said he is best known for Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, second choice Lilies of the Field, and third choice Porgy and Bess! That probably dates me... And wasn't he in A Patch of Blue? (click, click) Yes. Dpbsmith 14:53, 12 July 2007 (EDT)


I don't know how to copy and download pics to Conservapedia. Can you show me how to do it? If I am not able to understand your directions can you download some pictures for me? Conservative 15:40, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, I don't know either. RSchlafly 15:48, 19 July 2007 (EDT)


You're talk page is over 75kb long - you might want to think about archiving older discussions. I can walk you through it if you like, or I could just do it. Thanks, --ηοξιμαχονγθαλκ 15:50, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Go ahead. RSchlafly 17:18, 19 July 2007 (EDT)