Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

File talk:Approx level of technology in Noah's time.png

2008-06-21T14:28:45Z

AShephard:

Having read the [http://www.worldwideflood.com/ark/technology/ancient_technology.htm link] on this subject, and being somewhat of an historian myself, I have to take issue with this graph for a number of different reasons. Before I do, do you defend all the Y-values on the graph? As in, Egypt=Noah=Rome=Greece=Renaissance? If so, that's where we'll start :-).[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 10:17, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
: I wouldn't defend it entirely. For one thing, it shows a very low figure for the supposed "[[dark ages]]", when technology actually advanced. For another, we really have next to no idea what level of technology was achieved pre-flood. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:27, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
::Right. Okay, that's good. I wonder if the poster, Ymmotrojam, agrees!-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 10:28, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

File talk:Approx level of technology in Noah's time.png

2008-06-21T14:17:15Z

AShephard: New page: Having read the [ http://www.worldwideflood.com/ark/technology/ancient_technology.htm link] on this subject, and being somewhat of an historian myself, I have to take issue with this graph...

Talk:Conservative style

2008-06-17T03:04:29Z

AShephard: /* Delete, really? */

==Stuff==
Before anyone just goes and deletes this is hould be know that this was said -

If that is the case, then you would have no objection to the creation of a "Conservative style" entry? --AndrasK 00:59, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

If the proposed entry is truthful as the liberal style entry is, then I don't mind. In fact, I welcome it. But the proposed entry becomes a magnet for liberal vandalism and liberals won't watch and police their own, then it will be deleted.--Aschlafly 08:25, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Just a heads up, and it is truthful as far as conservative positions on this site.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:No comment neccessary! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:26, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::If you are not willing to discuss then you are in no position to delete, it has long been accepted that a person must justify their removals rather than simply doing it. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:37, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::The material included is indeed Liberal vandalism. The contents will be deleted. If you wish to make accurate and truthful additions, these will be welcomed. If you restore the article as currently written, you will be blocked. Thank you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:39, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Please elaborate on exactly what is liberal vandalism, and why the contents you keep deleting are untruthful. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:42, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Constant demands for further and further elaboration of arguments by you and your Liberal chums are not intended to spread enlightenment, nor to answer rational questions, but are purely disruptive in intent. The libellous and untrue nature of the deleted content is obvious to anyone with even half a brain. It has gone, it will stay gone. And if you do not wish to join it, tread carefully. Finis. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:45, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::Perhaps we have just found the first example for the new entry. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::A humourist! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

First off, Bugler, British spellings are not allowed here. Secondly, the article simply summarizes the style used by conservatives on Conservapedia. Please explain how "demonizing negative traits as 'liberal ______'" is not an example of a style used on this website. Saying that my requests for information are "liberal" will only prove my point, and will not contribute to the willingness of you as a conservative to "learn together." --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 18:41, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Also, calling conservative style the antithesis of liberal style actually validates the original point made about conservatives establishing clear dichotomies on any issue. Making claims based on actual examples of conservative argumentation does not "amount to liberal vandalism." --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 18:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

I agree and I took a 2 hour (ideological) block for it.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

==Delete, really?==
Blog or encyclopedia?-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 22:44, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:Does this page look like an encyclopedia article? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:45, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::Does the liberal style page? Please demonstrate how this page, in any way, is different than the Liberal Style page. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:47, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:Please don't answer a question with a question. Yes or no, does this article ([[Conservative Style]]) look like something you would find in an [[encyclopedia]]? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:50, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Yeah buddy, what he said. Henry, you seem to think that this should be less forum, more encyclopedia. Which side of the line does Liberal style fall on? Let's have some formal equality. Nuke 'em both I say, and let God sort them out.-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 22:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::I would if I could. But WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and this is no reason to keep this page. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:50, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
There is no reason to delete it. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:So you think it is encyclopedic? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:53, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::It's better than encyclopedic...it's Conservapedic! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:01, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::I think it's up to par with the rest of the material. And when you're putting your dirty laundry in plain sight, and in fact making it the sole ''raison d'etre'' of the site, it's hard to argue OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Henry.-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 22:58, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::No, no this is not something you would find in an [[encyclopedia]]. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:01, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Is [[Liberal hysteria|this]], friend?-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 23:04, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
Well said AShephard. This entry meets the de facto quality standards of this site. One might argue that it does not appear encyclopedic, but then others on this site will argue that goal of this site is not to be an encyclopedia in the stylistic sense. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:02, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:Thanks!-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 23:04, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Conservative style

2008-06-17T02:58:41Z

AShephard: /* Delete, really? */

==Stuff==
Before anyone just goes and deletes this is hould be know that this was said -

If that is the case, then you would have no objection to the creation of a "Conservative style" entry? --AndrasK 00:59, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

If the proposed entry is truthful as the liberal style entry is, then I don't mind. In fact, I welcome it. But the proposed entry becomes a magnet for liberal vandalism and liberals won't watch and police their own, then it will be deleted.--Aschlafly 08:25, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Just a heads up, and it is truthful as far as conservative positions on this site.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:No comment neccessary! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:26, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::If you are not willing to discuss then you are in no position to delete, it has long been accepted that a person must justify their removals rather than simply doing it. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:37, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::The material included is indeed Liberal vandalism. The contents will be deleted. If you wish to make accurate and truthful additions, these will be welcomed. If you restore the article as currently written, you will be blocked. Thank you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:39, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Please elaborate on exactly what is liberal vandalism, and why the contents you keep deleting are untruthful. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:42, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Constant demands for further and further elaboration of arguments by you and your Liberal chums are not intended to spread enlightenment, nor to answer rational questions, but are purely disruptive in intent. The libellous and untrue nature of the deleted content is obvious to anyone with even half a brain. It has gone, it will stay gone. And if you do not wish to join it, tread carefully. Finis. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:45, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::Perhaps we have just found the first example for the new entry. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::A humourist! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

First off, Bugler, British spellings are not allowed here. Secondly, the article simply summarizes the style used by conservatives on Conservapedia. Please explain how "demonizing negative traits as 'liberal ______'" is not an example of a style used on this website. Saying that my requests for information are "liberal" will only prove my point, and will not contribute to the willingness of you as a conservative to "learn together." --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 18:41, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Also, calling conservative style the antithesis of liberal style actually validates the original point made about conservatives establishing clear dichotomies on any issue. Making claims based on actual examples of conservative argumentation does not "amount to liberal vandalism." --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 18:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

I agree and I took a 2 hour (ideological) block for it.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

==Delete, really?==
Blog or encyclopedia?-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 22:44, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:Does this page look like an encyclopedia article? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:45, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::Does the liberal style page? Please demonstrate how this page, in any way, is different than the Liberal Style page. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:47, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:Please don't answer a question with a question. Yes or no, does this article ([[Conservative Style]]) look like something you would find in an [[encyclopedia]]? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:50, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Yeah buddy, what he said. Henry, you seem to think that this should be less forum, more encyclopedia. Which side of the line does Liberal style fall on? Let's have some formal equality. Nuke 'em both I say, and let God sort them out.-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 22:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::I would if I could. But WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and this is no reason to keep this page. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:50, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
There is no reason to delete it. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:So you think it is encyclopedic? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:53, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::I think it's up to par with the rest of the material. And when you're putting your dirty laundry in plain sight, and in fact making it the sole ''raison d'etre'' of the site, it's hard to argue OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Henry.-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 22:58, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Conservative style

2008-06-17T02:49:06Z

AShephard: /* Delete, really? */

==Stuff==
Before anyone just goes and deletes this is hould be know that this was said -

If that is the case, then you would have no objection to the creation of a "Conservative style" entry? --AndrasK 00:59, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

If the proposed entry is truthful as the liberal style entry is, then I don't mind. In fact, I welcome it. But the proposed entry becomes a magnet for liberal vandalism and liberals won't watch and police their own, then it will be deleted.--Aschlafly 08:25, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Just a heads up, and it is truthful as far as conservative positions on this site.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:No comment neccessary! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:26, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::If you are not willing to discuss then you are in no position to delete, it has long been accepted that a person must justify their removals rather than simply doing it. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:37, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::The material included is indeed Liberal vandalism. The contents will be deleted. If you wish to make accurate and truthful additions, these will be welcomed. If you restore the article as currently written, you will be blocked. Thank you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:39, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Please elaborate on exactly what is liberal vandalism, and why the contents you keep deleting are untruthful. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:42, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Constant demands for further and further elaboration of arguments by you and your Liberal chums are not intended to spread enlightenment, nor to answer rational questions, but are purely disruptive in intent. The libellous and untrue nature of the deleted content is obvious to anyone with even half a brain. It has gone, it will stay gone. And if you do not wish to join it, tread carefully. Finis. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:45, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::Perhaps we have just found the first example for the new entry. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::A humourist! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

First off, Bugler, British spellings are not allowed here. Secondly, the article simply summarizes the style used by conservatives on Conservapedia. Please explain how "demonizing negative traits as 'liberal ______'" is not an example of a style used on this website. Saying that my requests for information are "liberal" will only prove my point, and will not contribute to the willingness of you as a conservative to "learn together." --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 18:41, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Also, calling conservative style the antithesis of liberal style actually validates the original point made about conservatives establishing clear dichotomies on any issue. Making claims based on actual examples of conservative argumentation does not "amount to liberal vandalism." --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 18:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

I agree and I took a 2 hour (ideological) block for it.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

==Delete, really?==
Blog or encyclopedia?-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 22:44, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:Does this page look like an encyclopedia article? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:45, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::Does the liberal style page? Please demonstrate how this page, in any way, is different than the Liberal Style page. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:47, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Yeah buddy, what he said. Henry, you seem to think that this should be less forum, more encyclopedia. Which side of the line does Liberal style fall on? Let's have some formal equality. Nuke 'em both I say, and let God sort them out.-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 22:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Conservative style

2008-06-17T02:44:07Z

AShephard:

Conservative style

2008-06-17T02:39:07Z

AShephard:

In many ways, [[Conservative]] style is the antithesis of the style adopted by [[Liberal]]s.

== Examples of Conservative Style ==

The style of a conservative often includes these characteristics:

* a willingness to debate openly on all aspects of an issue or problem, without being tramelled by ideological preconceptions.
* readiness to take responsibility for the consequences of ones words and deeds.
* not using [[Liberal fluff|fluff]] or obfuscating but telling it as it is.
* behaving with decency towards other people, and treating the opposite sex with respect.
* Considering a source credible when it agrees with a Conservative position, but ignoring the same sources when it does not. (See the Homosexuality articles reliance on the American Psychiatric Institutes statistics, but then ignoring APA reports that abstinence-only education programs is not as effective as comprehensive programs)

==See Also==
*[[Liberal Style]]
[[category:Essays]]
[[category:Conservatives]]
[[category:Deceit]]

Fast Food Christianity

2008-06-17T02:13:39Z

AShephard: New page: '''Fast Food Christianity''' is the practice of Christianity in such a way as to indulge in the practice, while skimping on the spirit. Blind adherence to dogma without thought as to Chri...

'''Fast Food Christianity''' is the practice of Christianity in such a way as to indulge in the practice, while skimping on the spirit. Blind adherence to dogma without thought as to Christ's teachings and what they mean, and blind adherence to literalism without critical thought, are the religious equivalents of "fast food," in that they satisfy, but you're still missing out on the real thing.

[[category:Christianity]]

Cafeteria Christianity

2008-06-17T02:12:07Z

AShephard:

'''Cafeteria Christianity''' is a term implying that someone decides for himself which parts of the [[Bible]] to accept, as one might select certain foods in a cafeteria.<ref>[http://www.churchofgoddfw.com/monthly/cafeteria.html "Cafeteria Christianity," from the Church of God - DFW]</ref> Other terms include "salad-bar Christianity" and "cherry-picking Christianity."
==See Also==
*[[Fast Food Christianity]]
==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Christianity]]

Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog

2008-06-17T00:56:00Z

AShephard: /* List of people willing to join an email requesting the public release of Lenski's data */

== List of people willing to join an email requesting the public release of Lenski's data ==

*[[User:Aschlafly]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:13, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 12:33, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:CescF|CescF]] 18:39, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:BKronky|BKronky]] 19:40, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:FLampard|FLampard]] 20:33, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 20:55, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::Wait a second... if I put my name on this list, is it going to get attached to some combative email? I don't want to just agree, when you seem to be ignoring my attempts to help draft this email. What were you proposing to send, Andy? If you wouldn't mind, could you post the text here before I have to decide if I want to attach my good name to it?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 14:04, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::QFT. I likewise said earlier that I'd be happy to sign on, pending a review of the actual text to be sent. So long as the tone remains professional and polite I'm in. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::: It will be polite and professional, of course. In fact, someone else can draft the text if he likes, as long as it simply requests '''public release of the data for public scrutiny''' and is free of any obfuscation like that displayed by some detractors on this page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:54, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::There's a draft that some folks are working on, below. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Provisionally willing, pending review of the finished draft. I make it a policy never to sign my name to anything I haven't read. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

OK, we have 8 so far. Let's work up a draft. Here's a start, and improvements are welcome:

Dear Prof. Lenski,

Your recent paper in PNAS, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key
innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli,"[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf] has created interest in the media and among the public. We note that the paper acknowledged taxpayer funding and that PNAS has a policy of making data available.

Given the significance of the claims, we respectfully request the public release of the data underlying the key claims in the paper for public scrutiny. Like most papers, your paper itself does not disclose the data themselves, and three times your paper expressly states that referenced data are not shown. Your website[https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/] already discloses some older data, and seems well-suited for public release of the data underlying your recent paper.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this.
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:15, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Recap ==

Carafe, TomMoore, and SMaines all defend the withholding from public scrutiny of data underlying a scientific claim. Moreover, note how insulting some of them have become in response below to a request for public scrutiny of the data. No more insults will be allowed here, and their talk pollution may be removed.

Public scrutiny has obvious benefits, and none of them have given any reason for denying that scrutiny. Journals and even government policy encourage or require it. Ah, but [[evolutionists]] feel they can play by their own rules, and make public claims without making the data public. Rest assured that no one here is fooled by this "make the claim but hide the data from the public" approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:Just for the record, the above as it refers to my own statements is untrue. I think public scrutiny is excellent. I believe, in fact, that given that Lenski so promptly answered your questions, he would probably comply with any specific requests you might make. It does not seem reasonable to demand he send you what must be gigabytes of data off the cuff. If you were a professional in a field even tangentially related, I imagine he might be happy to do so immediately, but as it is, I suspect you are not at the top of the list for someone as busy as he undoubtedly must be.
:Perhaps if you sent him an email asking him a specific question: ("I wonder if you would send me the relevant records from the time at which you believe the bacteria became Cit+" might be one, but I am not a biologist) he would answer it with the records or say why he wouldn't. Or if you wait, they might have time to organize the data into a coherent manner for presentation and make it available on the internet or by request. Cordiality is key, we agree on that much.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 15:05, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::While I appreciate having my name removed from the top list because my position was acknowledged, it's pointless while Carafe, TomMoore, and SMaines are still being represented in the way they are. I'm in agreement with them, and now Philip Rayment too, that simply asking "for all your data" is not only unscientific, but wasteful and disrespectful if there's no meaningful plan in place to use the data productively. None of these people are against disclosure or proper scientific review, so as long as that statement above remains you're continuing to make false statements about CP editors. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:21, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:: If you supported public scrutiny of the data, then you would send Lenski an email requesting it. That you have not, and will not, speaks volumes about your view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:40, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::...to me, it says that I'm not a biologist, and doubt I could fairly evaluate it if I received it. I know the degree of training it has required for me to achieve my present position, and I lack the hubris to think I could exercise equivalent powers of discrimination in a field so unrelated to my own. I'm not faulting you - maybe you have a degree in biochemistry, for all I know! But I know that I am not capable of fairly evaluating in context the raw data of biological experiments. My view is not a multi-book set: there's only one volume to it, and it's humility and appreciation of the credentials of the qualified.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: As I said, TomMoore, you apparently don't support "public scrutiny" of the data. Your own expertise is obviously irrelevant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::I assure you, Andy, I do support it. I see no reason to think it isn't forthcoming, even though he didn't send all of the data to Some Internet Guy who demanded it offhand.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 22:37, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Andy, I will not join in your support in the wasting of the tax dollars of mine and others to provide irrelevant information which you will then proceed to not use. Your version of "scrutiny", unlike scientific scrutiny, accomplishes nothing but to waste our tax dollars.

::::: You can either participate with other scientists in public scrutiny by identifying rational weaknesses in Lenski's work and doing verification experiments, or you can continue to ignore public scrutiny and demand that your version of "scrutiny" be done. What will it be?

::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 20:09, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Although I support the public release of data, there is no way that I would ask for it or put my name to a request for it unless I first knew that someone was available to analyse it. I mentioned earlier (when this discussion was on Aschlafly's talk page) that creationists might not review Lenski's work because of lack of funding and numbers of creationary scientists available to do the work. Nevertheless, two creationary scientists have or are in the process of critiquing it (and I think an ID proponent has also). But the first (Don Batten) has apparently not seen the need to ask for all the data, and if either of the other two feel the need, they can ask for themselves. But given the aforementioned lack of funding and availability, it would be pointless asking for the data if there was nobody available to analyse it. Of course, if Conservapedia, or someone known to Conservapedia, is offering to fund the analysis, that might change things.
::::: Furthermore, most problems with evolutionary conclusions are not because of misrepresenting the data, but with the conclusions being based on the materialistic worldview. It is usually not necessary to analyse the (in this case) 20 years' worth of data in order to find this fault.
::::: I'm also concerned about the impression this will give of creationists. We cop enough criticism as it is simply by holding creationist views without giving our critics real reasons such as unreasonable demands for data that we will probably never use.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:34, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Finally. Someone who makes sense. I'll gladly join in an email requesting any relevant data from Lenski, as needed by an identified/funded creationist scientist for Conservapedia.

:::::: Until that time, Andy's "public scrutiny" just wastes tax dollars.

:::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 12:08, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Request of Examination of raw data is reasonable given the history of evolutionist fraud ==

I do think a request of examination of the alleged raw data is reasonable [[Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation|given the history of evolutionists fraud]]. In addition, we know know that [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin was deceitful regarding his public pronouncements regarding his worldview]] and he was actually an [[atheism|atheist]]. So given the history of [[deceit]] in connection with the evolutionary position and its promotion, I do think Andy is quite justified in requesting to see the raw data of Lenski's alleged work. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:14, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: As I wrote above, I'm pretty sure the relevant data would be happily provided as soon as a request a bit more specific than "give me all the data" is given. Some particular weakness that Andy identified in Lenski's reasoning, perhaps? Or some experimental procedure that you deemed especially prone to mistake, or even forgery? What is this "skepticism" that has been "expressed" based on? Or is it some sort of... dogmatic skepticism?

: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 00:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::I had asked a question above that was never answered, so I'll repeat it here: Who does Conservapedia plan on retaining to review the data from on scientific basis? It would be a lot more professional to select a qualified scientist or panel of scientists to do the job, and let them have a ''professional'' dialog with Prof. Lenski to review the raw data and conclusions. This is just grandstanding - "You haven't delivered gigs and gigs of raw data as requested, so you're withholding data". What it comes down to is that the CP leadership wants anything BUT a professional, qualified review of professor Lenski's work, because the outcome of that is not likely to be what they want. This reminds me of Kent Hovind's "Evolution Challenge" - set up ridiculous demands, and then claim victory because reasonable people don't meet them. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:07, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Public scrutiny has obvious benefits. See "recap" above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:31, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I'll repeat my specific point. There's nothing improper about requesting that Professor Lenski share his raw data, but it's disrespectful of his time if there's no intention of using that data purposefully. I had asked what the plan was for having the data reviewed once it's received. Are there any qualified professionals lined up to review it and respond? He showed courtesy and professionalism in responding intra-day to the original request, so it's disrespectful to accuse him of withholding information after a single exchange of emails. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::It's also disrespectful to claim that Carafe, TomMoore, SMaines and I are all defending "the withholding from public scrutiny of data underlying a scientific claim." None of us have made that statement, so please remove it since it's untrue. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:46, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: DinsdaleP, clearly state that you support the public release of the data, and retract any comments to the contrary, and I'll remove your name.

:::::: Your comment above suggests that you only support requests for data that have a proper purpose (whatever that is), a proper plan for review (whatever that is), and "qualified professionals lined up to review it." If you cling to that very limited approach, then you do oppose "public scrutiny" of data underlying a scientific claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:38, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I thought my comments were self-explanatory, but I'll try to simplify it. Yes, I support the public release of the data, and never claimed otherwise. I hope that's clear enough. The point we disagree on is that after a single exchange of emails, it's wrong to accuse Prof. Lenski of withholding data when he made a reasonable attempt to answer your questions and point you to the supporting data in his papers. If you ask him in a courteous manner how the underlying raw data can be made available, I'm sure you'll get a prompt and professional reply. So go ahead, make the request, and get the data. Frankly, I don't care what you do with it, but at least it will stop the insulting accusations of data being withheld. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:03, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::A last clarification - my point about having a "proper purpose" in requesting the data simply meant that if you were asking Prof. Lenski to take the time and effort to collect the raw data and send it to you, I'd hope the effort wasn't going to be a waste of time because it never got into the hands of people qualified to evaluate it properly. Time will tell. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:07, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Perhaps you're saying you don't oppose public release of the data. You haven't demonstrated you would "support" it, as in joining an email requesting it. Or would you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::"Perhaps"? I thought my statement above was plain enough, but instead of retracting your false accusation, you're just adding new conditions - now I have to add my signature to an email I haven't seen to show my support for disclosure? That's a sad way to avoid accountability for making false statements. Show me the email and a plan for using the data that doesn't make this a waste of time and taxpayer money, and I'll consider signing the request. In the meantime, please remove the false statements at the top of this page. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:17, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: I'm sure all of us here will gladly join in an email requesting public release of the data in a scientific scrutiny process. I will not however join in your version of "scrutiny", which has nothing to do with scientific scrutiny at all. -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 20:11, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== responses of creation scientists to Lenski matter ==

Here are the responses of creation scientists to the Lenski matter:

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5827

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/06/14/news-to-note-06142008

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:48, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

== Another email? ==

Is there going to be one? It's entirely possible that, having received a request from a lawyer for data, a scientist might very well think that the data provided in the report would be sufficient. Before deciding that he's hiding something, why not give him enough rope to conclusively hang himself?

"Dear Dr. Lenski,

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear enough in the first place. We were hoping to see the entirety of the raw data in order to assess it ourselves."

Or some such.

[[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:26, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::If you are running a study on the genetics of a rapidly multiplying bacterial species over many years, the data accumulated will run into many many gigabytes. I don't believe it is practical to hand it out to any Tom, Dick and Harry requesting it. If there are concerns about any particular area of the study which raised suspicion of fraud or misinterpretation of data, then Mr. Schlafly should be asking the raw data pertaining to that particular area.

::I have published in many medical journals and actively peer review for 2 of them. This is how it works in the field of science. Being a lawyer, Mr. Schlafly may not be familiar with the practice. So I do not think the email Aziraphale prepared is appropriate. This is my opinion and most of the users seem to agree with this as well. --[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 13:35, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

In response to Aziraphale, my email was clear and there is no reason for me to say the same thing again. You're welcome to make your request of Lenski if you really don't think he understood my email.

In response to SMaines, I'll add your name to the list above of people who oppose the public release of data underlying public claims about the data. (The amount of the data is no obstacle to its release.) SMaines' approach prevents mistakes and fraud from being identified by independent public review. Apparently SMaines does not even request availability of the data when he does peer review. Perhaps he could tell us which journals he does peer review for so that others can have a healthy skepticism about claims made in them. Of course, SMaines is unlikely to disclose the names of those journals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:21, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

It is true that I do not ask for raw data from all the authors that I have peer reviewed articles for. You do not seem to understand how the peer review process works. The role of the peer reviewer is not to repeat all the work the authors have already done.

First I check whether the authors are asking a relevant question regarding the hypothesis, whether the hypotheses are falsifiable, whether the methodology is sound without any obvious flaws, were the data collected ethically and whether they obtain informed consent of all involved. I also aim to determine the experiments performed adhering to protocol and statistical methods used were sound. Then I determine whether their results actually conclude what they have listed as their conclusions. I check whether the bibliography is complete and up-to-date. Finally I recommend to the editor whether the paper is significant and relevant to the journal. I may have omitted a few steps, but that is in nutshell how a peer review process works.

I have worked in academic circles for years and I am yet to come across any referee who will ask for the whole set of raw data for all the papers reviewed. Raw data is only asked for if we have any concerns regarding the validity of methodology or conclusions. I have in the past asked for set of raw data to run some specific calculations myself. I have never known any one who will ring an author and ask to send the whole set of data covering years of data collection.

It works like Carafe described “A, I tried duplicating your experiment, but parameters x, y, and z that I need were not in your article. I need you to disclose to me x, y, and z that you used at the time. What are they?”

Also, have you come across the different peer review tools? Please familiarize yourself with the process before

For record, I am not against public scrutiny at all, but you have not even pointed out what your concerns or skepticisms are. What you have effectively said is you paper does not fit my belief patterns, so I do not believe you. Hand over all the raw data. This is childish and silly.
--[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 15:06, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:Dear Aschlafly,

:You've mistaken me for someone who thinks he could diagnose Lenski's work in a meaningful way. You are one who can do so, so I was offering advice. It was free, and worth every penny. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Aziraphale, you still don't get it. I support the public release of the data, so that the public can analyze it. Got it now?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::One of us is certainly not getting something - my suggestion was meant to encourage the release of the data, rather than allowing the conversation to die with a possibility existing that there was a miscommunication rather than a denial of the request. What's more important here: that a political point is scored, or that the data be released? You are 100% mistaken if you think I'm opposed to the release of the data. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:50, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:20, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Absolutely, but I won't divulge my identity to you. If using a pseudonym is alright with you I'll gladly attach my support. If my particular handle is too silly, I could be appended as a John Doe instead. That said, you and I have different ideas of what language is appropriate, so I'd expect to see the exact text in advance. For example, until ''proven'' a liar or charlatan he deserves not to be accused of anything. Rather, just as when a motion for discovery is not compeletely fulfilled to your satisfaction, a firm but courteous clarification of your expectations would be appropriate.

::::Would you care for me to draft something instead, and you can sign off, or not, as you see fit? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 21:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Rants Against Public Release of Data ==

:While you're at it, you might do well to explain to Lenski what exactly a "Conservapedia" is. Unless he really likes Lewis Black's "The conservatives think that YOU, THE PUBLIC, HAVE A LIBERAL BIAS." quote, he's unlikely to know. After all, this site gets most of its views from a small group of devout sysops and the snarkers over at RW. Godspeed. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 13:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf Paper 180.] All kinds of data. If you want, I can also link to the protocols and such. Prof. Lenski is way more obliging than we would have any right to expect... I sent him a letter of congratulations, and he even took the time to reply thanking me!--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 15:27, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::So, Andy, when can we expect your in-depth analysis of paper #180? -Drek

:::With a professional and comprehensive reply having been sent promptly by Professor Lenski, what would be the intended follow-up from Conservapedia? It seems like he answered the letter's first two questions and pointed out that the third was based on a misunderstanding of his paper. Since his study's data and methodology are freely available for review, I'm wondering who CP is looking to engage to independently review and assess his work, which has already passed peer review in order to be published. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:03, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::He answered, everybody scramble! I need that Lack of Evidence in the air NOW! You call artillery and tell them to deploy the Inconclusive Data immediately! Move, move, move! We've got a battle against science to fight, people!--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:29, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Lenski's reply did not provide the data as requested. It did clarify that his claims are not as strong as some [[evolutionists]] have insisted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:07, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:"You will find all the relevant methods and data supporting this claim in our paper." If this statement is true then I hardly think he's going to go to the trouble of sending us all his data when it is readily available. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:29, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:: StatsMsn, have you ever read a scientific paper? Papers don't set forth the data themselves. At most, they set forth summaries of data, which can be flawed or self-serving.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:31, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Supposing he gave you access to the gigs of raw data, would you:
:::#Be able to understand any of it?
:::#Be prepared to accept that the data accurately reflects the physical facts of the matter in the lab, were you to find it consistent with his conclusions?
:::Given your educational background, I have serious doubts about 1), and given your behaviour on this site, I find myself incapable of believing 2). Please feel free to offer me some reassurance. --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 10:26, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I find this ironic that you suddenly want data to support someone else's claim, given your "Mystery: Young hollywood stars and breast cancer" ballpark figure. The paper provides more than ballpark figures you have previously used to support your hypothses in the past. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: In response to Leda, if for some unexplained reason I can't understand the data, then I'll find someone who can. I don't know how to fly an airplane but obviously that does not stop me from traveling by air. I am not reassured by the withholding of data.

::::: In response to DanielB, I presented my data and described it as a mystery. What we have here is the unacceptable opposite: a scientific claim without production of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:12, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: ''"I don't know how to fly an airplane but obviously that does not stop me from traveling by air."'' Oh, nobody's objecting to you flying when clueless. But a modicum of flight knowledge might expected of you if you, say, suddenly rush into the cockpit and demand that the pilot repeat to you every single flight procedure done for the last 12 hours, lest you declare him fraudulent and/or incompetent. I mean, isn't that what you're implying?

:::::: I mean, what are you expecting when you demand "data" of the Cit+ mutation occurance other than a log entry of "Jan 24th, 2008, 2:03pm. Generation 2026 confirmed to express Cit+ mutation"? Then what you do oh-so-politely request? That all of his collaborator's minds be read so you can make sure there is no mistakes?

:::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 23:08, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Your attempt to defend the withholding of data underlying a scientific claim is amusing. While you're at it, perhaps you should also protest the Submission guidelines for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science: "(viii) Materials and Data Availability. To allow others to replicate and build on work published in PNAS, authors must make materials, data, and associated protocols available to readers. Authors must disclose upon submission of the manuscript any restrictions on the availability of materials or information." You might also protest policies that recommend or require taxpayer-funded data to be made available.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:21, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: You thought my poking fun at your inability to form a coherent analogy was supposed to be a defense? The amusement is all on this side of the table, trust me. You see, there is no defending going on here, because there is no withholding going on here.

:::::::: ''"(viii) Materials and Data Availability..."'' Yes, you can stop repeating yourself now. This was in your letter, which I did in fact read (something that might not be said of you and the myriad articles Richard provided). I did wonder why that was in your letter. I mean, did you think that normal scientific discourse doesn't occur unless by your legal coercion? I'm pretty sure if you had, say, a request just a tad more specific than "give me all your data", Richard would have been more than happy to reply. "Give me all your data" is as an absurd of a data request as demanding that Richard must "right now tell me all you know about E. coli", which, come to think about it, would be pretty much the same thing.

:::::::: '''''"To allow others to replicate and build on''' work published in PNAS, authors must..."'' Out of curiosity, which part of his experiment are you trying to replicate that need additional information not available in the paper? Maybe you should tell him, he could easily help you with that. If you are not replicating the experiment, then did you have a real question or concern, or a weakness that you identified, like "I had a concern about this-and-that procedure of the strain selection, it seems particularly vulnerable to contamination" he would be quite happy to help you too. But hey, that requires that you have a clue about the subject matter.

:::::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 00:32, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::You really go out of your way to defend a guy who's clearly a fraudulent hack. Even if he released his so called "raw data" it would just be a huge load of numbers no one is going to take the time to analyze. If it took him years and years to do this experiment he can be pretty sure no one is going to waste that much time trying to replicate it, so everyone can assume he's right and the atheist Darwinists can pretend they've proved evolution, even when we know it's impossible. Do you believe everything you read? If someone claimed they had a mountain of evidence that Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster had a baby, I suppose you'd believe that too if it were published somewhere? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 14:36, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::So let me see if I understand you correctly, Tony. If Lenski doesn't release all of the raw data accumulated over twenty years as Mr. Schlafly requests, it's proof that he's a fraud. If Lenski releases all of the raw data accumulated over twenty years as Mr. Schlafly requests, the sheer volume is proof that he's trying to pull a fast one, and he's a fraud.
::::::::::Is that correct?
::::::::::Given this and other comments you have made, I suspect that you're a satirist attempting to make conservatives look unreasonable. If so, please stop. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:06, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::I resent being called a satirist. You assume that anyone who doesn't hold your liberal views must be joking! Well, the majority of the people in this country are "satirists" if that is the case. It doesn't much matter if Lenski releases his data or not. Us right thinking people know he's a fraud because he claims to have witnessed evolution, and we know that is impossible. That is a fact! I'd like to see his data. I bet it's so seriously flawed even someone with little background in biology will be able to tell. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 21:54, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::: Do not call Lenski or anyone else a fraud without good evidence. Evolution is impossible, but for Lenski to be a fraud he would have to be claiming something that he ''knows'' to be wrong, and you've provided no evidence of that, and I doubt that it exists. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT) (Administrator)

::::::::::: Where did the 20 years come from? Lenski was asked for the data supporting his claim. He has produced some information on a website, but not that data. Yes, making a claim while withholding the data, even after a request, can reasonably lead one to doubt the claim. Wouldn't you agree with that?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

'''(Unindent)'''

Certainly, Mr. Schlafly. What I'm taking issue with is Tony's claim that even if Lenski releases his data, it's not worth taking the time to analyze or "waste the time" trying to replicate. It seems very much to me as if he's trying to portray conservatives as closed-minded and unwilling to look at the evidence. Perhaps I'm mistaken on that point, but I certainly think you'd agree that such individuals have turned up here before, wouldn't you?

With respect to the 'twenty years' portion: I was under the impression that you wanted the full and complete data to be made available. Given that the experiment took twenty years, I assumed that you would want the full twenty years of data included for evaluation. I apologize if I was mistaken.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:28, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

----

I was wondering how anyone possibly could conclude from this exchange that Lenski was hiding something. I came to the conclusion that some people must not understand how scientific scrutiny works. I wrote a guide.

Scientific scrutiny works like this: 
{| width="500px"
|-
|'''Scientist A''' publishes results. 
'''Scientist B''': A, I tried duplicating your experiment, but parameters x, y, and z that I need were not in your article. I need you to disclose to me x, y, and z that you used at the time. What are they? 
'''A''': x, y, and z are such and such. 
'''B''': Using x, y, and z, my result doesn't agree with yours at all. Are you sure you did the procedures that you claimed? 
'''A''': ... 
'''B''': You fraud!

Scientific scrutiny ''does not'' work like this: 

'''A''' publishes results. 
'''B''': I have Generic Skepticism toward your article. Under code viii of the Publication Criteria, I demand that you give me all of your data! 
'''A''': ... ok...? It seems that everything you would need is already in the article. Did you have something specific in mind? 
'''B''': A has refused to attach all data he has ever used for the experiment. He is withholding information and thus hiding something.
|-
|}

-- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 01:42, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:This is it. This one is my favorite post. Carafe has won Conservapedia, roll the credits.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 01:49, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Beautiful! What else can I say?--[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 13:37, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Not much, apparently. I think you've exhausted your meaningful comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Aschlafly, have you read the paper? ==

I have. It pretty fairly lays out all the important data. Unless you want to run the experiments yourself - which I don't know if you could do, given the equipment he used - I think it's probably the best you'll ever get. I think a fair reply to Lenski would be point out elements of his analysis that you don't like, and put that in a reply e-mail. Otherwise, your lack of reply makes it look like you've given up, and your defensive parries here ("he didn't give all his data!") look like a losing rearguard action.-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 17:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::May I sign-with-qualifier? As in, signed, "A. Shephard - please do show as much as reasonably possible; the truth will out and convince those who doubt you, and this will hasten it along."?-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 22:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Something to note ==

From the AiG article:

"AiG’s Dr. Georgia Purdom is studying the research for an upcoming semi-technical article in the journal Answers In Depth."

Apparently, Lenski has released his data to Purdom. Presumably, Dr. Purdom wouldn't settle for fragmentary data that wouldn't allow her to fully evaluate the claims. Had Lenski refused to disclose, it seems certain that AiG would have made note of it.

{{unsigned|Benp}}

==Hypothetical==
Let's say that a second email is enough for Lenski to release his data. What are you going to do with it all? Previous discussions show you don't what you are doing with small, simple to analyse data sets. You would need a degree in biochemistry and biostats to even begin to know what you are going to do with it. The people who have peer reviewed the paper a by far better qualified and if they had concerns they would have asked specifically for what they wanted without sounding like .... Well I want say what you sound like writting emails singed with a law degree demanding data. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:25, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::Sure, but like the human genome it will probably be released in time anyway in a way that is useful. You standing there making demands, signing letters JD, makes you look like some lawyer with an axe to grind rather than someone interested in research. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

==Proposed Follow-up Email==
Since Andy wants to send a second email for some of the rest of us to sign as well, here is a space to work out the wording. I wonder if MainS and Carafe would help us write something that seems reasonable and polite, since you guys seem to have sufficient knowledge in the field to describe what we are looking to find out?

I would suggest something along these lines:

''Dear Professor Lenski''
''We are writing in regards to your recent experiment with cit+ development in observed E. coli populations. We were wondering if you would oblige us by sending the relevant raw data from your observations during the period in which the bacteria population developed the ability to utilize citrase. We are intensely curious about that information. If it will be made available through some other venue and you wish to direct us to that instead, then we would very much like to be made aware of that.''
''Thank you,''
''Andy Schlafly, Thomas Moore, etc.''

Is that a reasonable request? I am afraid biology protocol is quite beyond me, so some help would be appreciated.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 22:47, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::Looks like a good start, Tom, but from the comments so far it seems like nothing short of the full set of observations is going to be satisfactory for some of the skeptics here. I'd suggest the following revision to the second and third sentences:
::''We were wondering if you would oblige us by sending the relevant raw data for the full set of your observations for this population. We are intensely curious about the period in which the bacteria population developed the ability to utilize citrase, but would like the complete set of observations instead of a subset to facilitate an independent analysis of the research.'' --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 00:07, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::It doesn't seem reasonable to demand twenty years' worth of observations, which would be the full set. Or at least, it doesn't seem reasonable to me.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 00:09, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::It doesn't seem reasonable to me, either, which is why Professor Lenski's response pointed readers to the relevant subsets of data, and that would be sufficient for most reasonable people. I was just pointing out that unreasonable people here will consider anything less than all 20 years to be withholding data, so what's needed to satisfy the skeptics is a way for that full body of observations to be accessible. If the response is that it would take too much time and/or money to satisfy the request, then the burden of proof falls on the skeptics to justify why they can't start with the data already made available and only request additional data when they have specific questions that require it for an answer. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 00:32, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Well, maybe they will feel differently. I think this is the polite and reasonable approach, rather than asking for all twenty years. Other comments? Andy?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 18:51, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

==What is the plan for a Conservapedia review of Lenski's work?==

One thing that keeps getting lost in the rhetoric - who is looking at the Lenski work on behalf of Conservapedia? More than a few people here, including a CP sysop, have pointed out that a proper scientific review can begin using the data already made available by Professor Lenski. If this review surfaces any questions or criticisms, then that would prompt an exchange with Lenski on the specifcs, and I'm sure the related data would be made available. While I see that there are reviews of the work being done by some creationist groups (who apparently see no need to have all the raw data first), the Conservapedia approach is more like a set of lawyers looking for discovery than a set of scientists looking for truth. Why can't CP review Lenski's work in a scientific manner like AiG instead? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:31, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

: The issue is '''public''' release and scrutiny of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::No one investigating Lenski's work in a scientific manner is accusing him of withholding any data from them, or from the public. You're setting a new, and unprofessional, precedent in expecting a scientist to take the time to collect and send you decades of raw data on his research simply because you're asking him to, when you haven't even shown the courtesy of demonstrating why this effort is necessary. I repeat the question you keep avoiding - is this exercise going to be a waste of Lenski's time so you can make a point, or do you have a plan to use that raw data and a timetable for publishing your findings? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::: DinsdaleP, it sounds like your name should be added back to the list of those who oppose public release and scrutiny of the data above. The questions you keep harping on are irrelevant to the issue of public release and scrutiny of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:02, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Feel free to add me back to your ridiculous list, then. Anyone who can read knows where I stand, just as they can see your continued avoidance of my question. There is no plan, is there? I'll be glad to stand corrected if I'm wrong. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:17, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: How is asking about "scrutiny of the data" irrelevant to the issue of "public release and '''scrutiny of the data'''"? Color me confused!--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:03, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

You don't seem to understand the scientific method at all. There is a reason peer review is so called. It is a review of work by your peers, that is fellows engaged in similar fields of research. You are not a peer of Dr. Lenski. You don't even hold an undergraduate degree in a related field. You aren't even qualified to be a research assistant in his lab. You're a lawyer, and I'm sure you're good at your job and all, but don't try to pretend to qualifications you simply do not have to serve a political purpose.

Lets face it, the good doctor has been extremely kind to you thus far. I would not recommend pushing your luck. Had it been me, your email would have hit the bit bucket faster than you can say "plunk". As far as I can tell, you haven't even had the good grace to read the poor guy's paper as he suggested. I did, and I found it extremely accessible compared to the cryptography papers I'm used to reviewing. I believed I followed the bulk of it, and I'm sure you could too if you were so minded.

But of course, you aren't minded to. You're not at all interested in his findings, because you assume they're false before you even know the details. If he were correct, it would yet further discredit your young earth creationist beliefs. Here is research that gives the lie to the old "mutations never produce new information" talking point, while at the same time demonstrating how a feature that seems incredibly unlikely were it to happen in one big bang, can in fact become trivial via building up a "potentiated genome" as alluded to by Lenski in his email (see the section headed "Historical Contingency in the Evolution of Cit+" for details of the experiments they performed to confirm this.)

This experiment yet again confirms the predictions of the theory of evolution, while contradicting your own creation hypothesis (The capacity for citrate utilisation starts out weak and gets stronger over time, via additional mutations that out compete the peers they fissioned from.) This result scares you. You aren't interested at all in Dr. Lenski's data are you? All you want is to make an unreasonable request, and then when it is sensibly refused or ignored to trumpet that clearly the scientists working on LEE are attempting to hide something. Nobody is impressed by your transparent posturing. --[[User:Taciturn|Taciturn]] 15:08, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Character

2008-06-16T02:44:08Z

AShephard: New page: '''Character''' refers to the indefinable qualities that make up a person's unique personality, especially those traits that are positive. For example, an honest person is said to hav...

'''Character''' refers to the indefinable qualities that make up a person's unique [[personality]], especially those traits that are positive. For example, an honest person is said to have "good character." In this sense, character may be interchangeable with [[reputation]].

A character may also be a main participant in a [[drama]] or [[comedy]], or a player-controlled personality in a [[video game]].

[[category:Sociology]]

Talk:Essay:Marry a Conservative

2008-06-16T02:27:37Z

AShephard: /* Suggestion... */

I LOVE the statement that all liberals are unfaithful. My mom and dad have been married for 27 years, and they have never cheated on each other, and have three kids, myself included. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 16:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:Your comment is ridiculous and takes literalism to a new level. Nowhere does the essay say that '''all''' Liberals are unfaithful. However, such are [[Liberal]] values by their nature that the likelihood of infidelity, violence, STDs etc is far higher among Liberals than Conservatives. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:18, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:"Transfan", you left out one detail: you seem to have trouble reading and/or thinking, as demonstrated by Bugler's response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:31, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::Wow, Andy! LOVE the personal attacks you're dishing out today! --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 16:41, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: It is good you are easily amused, Transfan, but it would be even better if you expressed an understanding of your own mistake.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

==Examples==
Will this essay be expanded to include sourced examples, or will it continue to consist of unverifiable anecdotes? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: We're not going to violate anyone's privacy, but there may be examples that are already published elsewhere that could be sourced. Ronald Reagan's first marriage comes to mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:45, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: Wandering, aren't you going to follow through and post the example of Ronald Reagan's first marriage?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:35, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm a bit concerned that such an example could be taken the wrong way, Andy. I've known some liberals to make much of Reagan's rulings as governor of California (particularly his self-admitted mistake of signing a bill that expanded abortion.) Isn't it likely that they'd take the opportunity to twist an example of his first marriage into an attack on the man? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:46, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Not once the details are set forth. I guess Wandering isn't going to follow through on his suggestion, so I suppose I'll have to do this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::Give the trouble I got in for edits on articles you seem to be focused on (such as Barack Obama), I'm not even going to think about editing your personal essays. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 21:05, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Why did you bother me with your question if you're not willing to follow through?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Suggestion... ==

The vagaries of life that define the contours of one's romantic life are hard to reduce to an aphorism, and I can't help but think that for every example you put up a counterexample could be found. I'll testify for myself that I'm a liberal grad student, and have been in a committed relationship for five years now (we're talking about marriage), but I would never consider marrying a conservative woman. A woman who thinks that her only goals in life revolve around family and the home would bore me to tears; I need a challenge, and my girlfriend of five years has always been great fun to debate and learn from. Her counsel is invaluable to me, and her life as a young professional the source of countless exciting conversations, and a great deal of pride for me, for whatever small credit I can claim in her accomplishments (and she mine).

But that's my choice. Others may see it the other way. I wouldn't reduce my own taste to a generic lesson for the populace, any more than I would try to foist my preference for brunettes on the world either!-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 16:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: ''I would never consider marrying a conservative woman. A woman who thinks that her only goals in life revolve around family and the home would bore me to tears'' Why think that? There are many, many examples of Conservative women who render your hoary old stereotype a... hoary old stereotype. And giving birth and raising a family at home doesn't require a brain removal, you know. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:01, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::Of course not! I know that. But the conservative women I've met - as conservative is defined on this website - seem to think that it does. Submission, and all that. [[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 17:03, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Your candid comments are appreciated, but "submission" is a stereotype rather than a conservative value. Many "grad school" relationships do not last 10, 20 and ultimately 50 years of marriage. To the extent one party to the relationship insists on [[liberal]] values, there can be lots of unhappiness that follow for ''both'' parties to the relationship down the road.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:34, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Thanks for telling me my relationship is going to fail. I didn't know "sniping at your ideological opponents" was a conservative value," but now I guess I do. And I think your aphorism is best reduced to "pe mople should make sure their life goals match, regardless of political persuasion." That seems to be much more accurate, and a lot less needlessly hurtful, no?
::::As for "submission is a stereotype," let's investigate. Can a "conservative" woman in your mind have a job?-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 18:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Wow, AShepard, you insult conservative women, to which no one takes offense, but woe to anyone who even slightly challenges your views! Perhaps you're right you're better off finding a liberal spouse, because a conservative one wouldn't be able to stand your reactions (and absurd stereotypes)!

::::: Sure, you and wife can have a job, as you obviously expect. And then a child arrives, and there is the issue of who is going to take care of the child. Often liberal women want the man to provide at least half that care, whereupon there is juggling your job with that, and juggling the wife's job with her half. The stress hits fourfold from that awkward arrangement, careers suffer, the child frequently gets sick in group care, nerves start to snap, and the marriage begins to feel the strain. And that's if all goes well! The situation can be even worse if no child arrives, as before long the spouses can grow apart.

::::: It's not a formula for success. I wish everyone the best who tries. I also do my best to let them know what's in store for them so they don't go down a road they'd rather not travel.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

I am a moderate and so is my partner (Moderate in NZ is liberal in the states) and so are many of our friends but we have a wonderful life. Same with our friends also. In fact, we have gotten happier as time goes on.
Also, small point, I dont think a liberal would want to marry a conservative.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:38, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: I'm sure there are counterexamples. I'm also sure you're not telling us the whole story about marriages by [[liberals]] among people in NZ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Hmmmmm well I am not telling you any stories about marrige in NZ, whole or otherwise. All I know is my liberal (and atheist I might add) partner and I are very happy.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: No, that's not all you said. You also claimed "so are many of [your] friends." And there is strikingly little detail about your own marriage, such as the basic number of years you've been married (and how many times). If you and your friends are as liberal as you say, then unfortunately I'm confident there is a lot of marital unhappiness there and many divorces. I'm not asking for the gory details, but I do object to the false portrayal of it here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:36, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

What? Are you serious? You are doubting what I say based on what? None of my friends have ever been divorced and neither have I. We are all very happy and, actually, I dont know why I even dignify your comment with an answer. Yes it is unfortunate that you are confident you know my life better then I. You have basically implied I am a liar based on......well, nothing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:41, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: Still no details from AdenJ, so I'll give you some: the divorce rate in New Zealand is almost as high as the marriage rate! [http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/Articles/marriage-divorce-99.htm] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

I am not going to give you details of mine or others marriages and your stats, while true, say nothing about my situation or my friends. I said I am happy and my friends are happy so what reason do you have to suggest I am lying? If your reason is "because they are liberals" then that says more about you than me.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 20:04, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:Aschlafly, I reiterate my statement that the truth in your little "essay" - if any truth there be - lies higher up the funnel of abstraction, at the simple aphorism, "people should talk about long-term plans before getting married." A couple can get through anything if they truly love about each other and appreciate the sacrifices, and a couple with different values - regardless of what values those may be - will fall apart before long, but it won't be anyone's fault, except the couple's for planning poorly. Your attempt to blame the marriage on liberals is sheer polemic, and quite insultive at that.-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 22:27, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wow ==

I don't even know what to say, this essay turns my stomach. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 20:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: That says more about you, DLerner, than it does about the essay.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:09, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Really! ==

Being a member of this site for a while (not that anyone would notice, they don't give me any extra rights cause they don't like my politics/religion), one of the things liberals get attacked for is their alleged [[Liberals and friendship|bias to people of different ideologies]], (Complete rubbish article, but I gave up arguing with Andy on the talk page once he stopped being coherent).

I've seen a lot of crazy nonsense written on this site, but this takes the cake. Why not throw in "Don't marry blacks or Jews, most of them are liberal".

*''freedom from sexually transmitted diseases and their harm (including infertility)'' Right, because we all know that conservatives are never gay (Haggert, anyone) and '''never''' cheat on their wives or boyfriends...
*''fidelity in marriage and accountability'' Identical response
*''lack of hostility to faith, no censorship of prayer'' Who would '''marry''' someone that censors their beliefs? Sounds outlandish, anybody ever have their spouse "censor" them? Once again the vile lie that all liberals are anti-religion, I'll point out again that I'm probably the most religious person on this site and Andy thinks nice conservative girls shouldn't marry me because I'm a lib
*''respect for the Ten Commandments and opposition to deceit'' What, are you electing a public official? I guess conservatives lie much less then liberals. (Iraq WMD's, torture, 9/11 connection).
*''respect for a work ethic, and rejection of an entitlement mentality'' No republicans on welfare, no siree. Liberals don't work and expect to get money from the government, eh?
*''appreciates the importance of a conservative culture in raising children'' And liberals appreciate the importance of a '''liberal''' culture to raise their children in. You see Andy, that what we call an opposing point of view, but then you oppose multiculturalism, so it's my way or the high way.
*''no confusion over who is the homemaker and who is the breadwinner; recognizing the benefits of division of labor'' Women belong in the kitchen! YAY
*''recognizing that values do matter and do have serious consequences'' Only conservatives do that...
*''having values powerful enough to overcome addiction, such as drinking, gambling, pornography, obesity and smoking'' No such thing as a fat, smoking & drug addicted conservative ([[Rush Limbaugh|Well, except this guy]])
*''freedom from the liberal media and Hollywood values, and their misguided promotions and fads'' Conservatives don't have TV's? Where do they watch faux news?
*''a relationship where issues and problems can be openly discussed, free from the ideological shackles of Liberal beliefs, Liberal denial and political correctness.'' Liberals never talk, and when they do they're never open. about it.

'''True case studies''' Convenient, facts changed, they'll be just like [[conservative parables]] you'll make them up as you go along.

Case one: Right, conservatives never break up with each other over differences.

Case two: some people are infertile, it could be Joe was sterile.

Case three: John McCain did the same thing... (Now that he's the nominee he's conservative enough for you...)

Case four: Stan is a moron and got what he deserved, ("All women were that way" true conservative way of thinking).

Case five: No such thing as a gay republican, right, Senator?

'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 20:47, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog

2008-06-16T02:24:39Z

AShephard: /* Aschlafly, have you read the paper? */

== Recap ==

Carafe, TomMoore, DinsdaleP and SMaines all defend the withholding from public scrutiny of data underlying a scientific claim. Moreover, note how insulting some of them have become in response below to a request for public scrutiny of the data. No more insults will be allowed here, and their talk pollution may be removed.

Public scrutiny has obvious benefits, and none of them have given any reason for denying that scrutiny. Journals and even government policy encourage or require it. Ah, but [[evolutionists]] feel they can play by their own rules, and make public claims without making the data public. Rest assured that no one here is fooled by this "make the claim but hide the data from the public" approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:Just for the record, the above as it refers to my own statements is untrue. I think public scrutiny is excellent. I believe, in fact, that given that Lenski so promptly answered your questions, he would probably comply with any specific requests you might make. It does not seem reasonable to demand he send you what must be gigabytes of data off the cuff. If you were a professional in a field even tangentially related, I imagine he might be happy to do so immediately, but as it is, I suspect you are not at the top of the list for someone as busy as he undoubtedly must be.
:Perhaps if you sent him an email asking him a specific question: ("I wonder if you would send me the relevant records from the time at which you believe the bacteria became Cit+" might be one, but I am not a biologist) he would answer it with the records or say why he wouldn't. Or if you wait, they might have time to organize the data into a coherent manner for presentation and make it available on the internet or by request. Cordiality is key, we agree on that much.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 15:05, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:: If you supported public scrutiny of the data, then you would send Lenski an email requesting it. That you have not, and will not, speaks volumes about your view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:40, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::...to me, it says that I'm not a biologist, and doubt I could fairly evaluate it if I received it. I know the degree of training it has required for me to achieve my present position, and I lack the hubris to think I could exercise equivalent powers of discrimination in a field so unrelated to my own. I'm not faulting you - maybe you have a degree in biochemistry, for all I know! But I know that I am not capable of fairly evaluating in context the raw data of biological experiments. My view is not a multi-book set: there's only one volume to it, and it's humility and appreciation of the credentials of the qualified.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: As I said, TomMoore, you apparently don't support "public scrutiny" of the data. Your own expertise is obviously irrelevant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: '''Schlafly Scrutiny, n.'''. The demand to release all relevant and irrelevant data pertaining, or not pertaining to, a particular scientific study, to be analyzed by no one in particular. Schlafly Scrutiny is dissimilar to scientific scrutiny and public scrutiny in that it requires no field knowledge, no verification objectives, no scientific effort, and is unlike any scientific verification process to have ever existed in history. Schlafly Scrutiny usually hampers research and waste tax dollars in making a tremendous amount of irrelevant information available.

::::: Andy, I will not join in your support in the wasting of the tax dollars of mine and others to provide irrelevant information which you will then proceed to not use. I do not at all support Schlafly Scrutiny, which is easily identified by any three-year-old to differ from public scrutiny or scientific scrutiny.

::::: You can either participate with other scientists in public scrutiny by identifying rational weaknesses in Lenski's work and doing verification experiments, or you can continue to ignore public scrutiny and demand that Schlafly Scrutiny be done. What will it be?

::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 20:09, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Request of Examination of raw data is reasonable given the history of evolutionist fraud ==

I do think a request of examination of the alleged raw data is reasonable [[Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation|given the history of evolutionists fraud]]. In addition, we know know that [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin was deceitful regarding his public pronouncements regarding his worldview]] and he was actually an [[atheism|atheist]]. So given the history of [[deceit]] in connection with the evolutionary position and its promotion, I do think Andy is quite justified in requesting to see the raw data of Lenski's alleged work. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:14, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: As I wrote above, I'm pretty sure the relevant data would be happily provided as soon as a request a bit more specific than "give me all the data" is given. Some particular weakness that Andy identified in Lenski's reasoning, perhaps? Or some experimental procedure that you deemed especially prone to mistake, or even forgery? What is this "skepticism" that has been "expressed" based on? Or is it some sort of... dogmatic skepticism?

: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 00:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::I had asked a question above that was never answered, so I'll repeat it here: Who does Conservapedia plan on retaining to review the data from on scientific basis? It would be a lot more professional to select a qualified scientist or panel of scientists to do the job, and let them have a ''professional'' dialog with Prof. Lenski to review the raw data and conclusions. This is just grandstanding - "You haven't delivered gigs and gigs of raw data as requested, so you're withholding data". What it comes down to is that the CP leadership wants anything BUT a professional, qualified review of professor Lenski's work, because the outcome of that is not likely to be what they want. This reminds me of Kent Hovind's "Evolution Challenge" - set up ridiculous demands, and then claim victory because reasonable people don't meet them. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:07, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Public scrutiny has obvious benefits. See "recap" above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:31, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I'll repeat my specific point. There's nothing improper about requesting that Professor Lenski share his raw data, but it's disrespectful of his time if there's no intention of using that data purposefully. I had asked what the plan was for having the data reviewed once it's received. Are there any qualified professionals lined up to review it and respond? He showed courtesy and professionalism in responding intra-day to the original request, so it's disrespectful to accuse him of withholding information after a single exchange of emails. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::It's also disrespectful to claim that Carafe, TomMoore, SMaines and I are all defending "the withholding from public scrutiny of data underlying a scientific claim." None of us have made that statement, so please remove it since it's untrue. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:46, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: DinsdaleP, clearly state that you support the public release of the data, and retract any comments to the contrary, and I'll remove your name.

:::::: Your comment above suggests that you only support requests for data that have a proper purpose (whatever that is), a proper plan for review (whatever that is), and "qualified professionals lined up to review it." If you cling to that very limited approach, then you do oppose "public scrutiny" of data underlying a scientific claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:38, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I thought my comments were self-explanatory, but I'll try to simplify it. Yes, I support the public release of the data, and never claimed otherwise. I hope that's clear enough. The point we disagree on is that after a single exchange of emails, it's wrong to accuse Prof. Lenski of withholding data when he made a reasonable attempt to answer your questions and point you to the supporting data in his papers. If you ask him in a courteous manner how the underlying raw data can be made available, I'm sure you'll get a prompt and professional reply. So go ahead, make the request, and get the data. Frankly, I don't care what you do with it, but at least it will stop the insulting accusations of data being withheld. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:03, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::A last clarification - my point about having a "proper purpose" in requesting the data simply meant that if you were asking Prof. Lenski to take the time and effort to collect the raw data and send it to you, I'd hope the effort wasn't going to be a waste of time because it never got into the hands of people qualified to evaluate it properly. Time will tell. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:07, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Perhaps you're saying you don't oppose public release of the data. You haven't demonstrated you would "support" it, as in joining an email requesting it. Or would you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::"Perhaps"? I thought my statement above was plain enough, but instead of retracting your false accusation, you're just adding new conditions - now I have to add my signature to an email I haven't seen to show my support for disclosure? That's a sad way to avoid accountability for making false statements. Show me the email and a plan for using the data that doesn't make this a waste of time and taxpayer money, and I'll consider signing the request. In the meantime, please remove the false statements at the top of this page. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:17, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: I'm sure all of us here will gladly join in an email requesting public release of the data in a scientific scrutiny process. None of us here will join in Schlafly Scrutiny, as we do not want our tax dollars wasted on irrelevant information. -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 20:11, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== responses of creation scientists to Lenski matter ==

Here are the responses of creation scientists to the Lenski matter:

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5827

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/06/14/news-to-note-06142008

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:48, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

== Another email? ==

Is there going to be one? It's entirely possible that, having received a request from a lawyer for data, a scientist might very well think that the data provided in the report would be sufficient. Before deciding that he's hiding something, why not give him enough rope to conclusively hang himself?

"Dear Dr. Lenski,

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear enough in the first place. We were hoping to see the entirety of the raw data in order to assess it ourselves."

Or some such.

[[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:26, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::If you are running a study on the genetics of a rapidly multiplying bacterial species over many years, the data accumulated will run into many many gigabytes. I don't believe it is practical to hand it out to any Tom, Dick and Harry requesting it. If there are concerns about any particular area of the study which raised suspicion of fraud or misinterpretation of data, then Mr. Schlafly should be asking the raw data pertaining to that particular area.

I have published in many medical journals and actively peer review for 2 of them. This is how it works in the field of science. Being a lawyer, Mr. Schlafly may not be familiar with the practice. So I do not think the email Aziraphale prepared is appropriate. This is my opinion and most of the users seem to agree with this as well. --[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 13:35, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

In response to Aziraphale, my email was clear and there is no reason for me to say the same thing again. You're welcome to make your request of Lenski if you really don't think he understood my email.

In response to SMaines, I'll add your name to the list above of people who oppose the public release of data underlying public claims about the data. (The amount of the data is no obstacle to its release.) SMaines' approach prevents mistakes and fraud from being identified by independent public review. Apparently SMaines does not even request availability of the data when he does peer review. Perhaps he could tell us which journals he does peer review for so that others can have a healthy skepticism about claims made in them. Of course, SMaines is unlikely to disclose the names of those journals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:21, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

It is true that I do not ask for raw data from all the authors that I have peer reviewed articles for. You do not seem to understand how the peer review process works. The role of the peer reviewer is not to repeat all the work the authors have already done.

First I check whether the authors are asking a relevant question regarding the hypothesis, whether the hypotheses are falsifiable, whether the methodology is sound without any obvious flaws, were the data collected ethically and whether they obtain informed consent of all involved. I also aim to determine the experiments performed adhering to protocol and statistical methods used were sound. Then I determine whether their results actually conclude what they have listed as their conclusions. I check whether the bibliography is complete and up-to-date. Finally I recommend to the editor whether the paper is significant and relevant to the journal. I may have omitted a few steps, but that is in nutshell how a peer review process works.

I have worked in academic circles for years and I am yet to come across any referee who will ask for the whole set of raw data for all the papers reviewed. Raw data is only asked for if we have any concerns regarding the validity of methodology or conclusions. I have in the past asked for set of raw data to run some specific calculations myself. I have never known any one who will ring an author and ask to send the whole set of data covering years of data collection.

It works like Carafe described “A, I tried duplicating your experiment, but parameters x, y, and z that I need were not in your article. I need you to disclose to me x, y, and z that you used at the time. What are they?”

Also, have you come across the different peer review tools? Please familiarize yourself with the process before

For record, I am not against public scrutiny at all, but you have not even pointed out what your concerns or skepticisms are. What you have effectively said is you paper does not fit my belief patterns, so I do not believe you. Hand over all the raw data. This is childish and silly.
--[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 15:06, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:Dear Aschlafly,

:You've mistaken me for someone who thinks he could diagnose Lenski's work in a meaningful way. You are one who can do so, so I was offering advice. It was free, and worth every penny. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Aziraphale, you still don't get it. I support the public release of the data, so that the public can analyze it. Got it now?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::One of us is certainly not getting something - my suggestion was meant to encourage the release of the data, rather than allowing the conversation to die with a possibility existing that there was a miscommunication rather than a denial of the request. What's more important here: that a political point is scored, or that the data be released? You are 100% mistaken if you think I'm opposed to the release of the data. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:50, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:20, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Absolutely, but I won't divulge my identity to you. If using a pseudonym is alright with you I'll gladly attach my support. If my particular handle is too silly, I could be appended as a John Doe instead. That said, you and I have different ideas of what language is appropriate, so I'd expect to see the exact text in advance. For example, until ''proven'' a liar or charlatan he deserves not to be accused of anything. Rather, just as when a motion for discovery is not compeletely fulfilled to your satisfaction, a firm but courteous clarification of your expectations would be appropriate.

::::Would you care for me to draft something instead, and you can sign off, or not, as you see fit? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 21:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Rants Against Public Release of Data ==

:While you're at it, you might do well to explain to Lenski what exactly a "Conservapedia" is. Unless he really likes Lewis Black's "The conservatives think that YOU, THE PUBLIC, HAVE A LIBERAL BIAS." quote, he's unlikely to know. After all, this site gets most of its views from a small group of devout sysops and the snarkers over at RW. Godspeed. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 13:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf Paper 180.] All kinds of data. If you want, I can also link to the protocols and such. Prof. Lenski is way more obliging than we would have any right to expect... I sent him a letter of congratulations, and he even took the time to reply thanking me!--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 15:27, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::So, Andy, when can we expect your in-depth analysis of paper #180? -Drek

:::With a professional and comprehensive reply having been sent promptly by Professor Lenski, what would be the intended follow-up from Conservapedia? It seems like he answered the letter's first two questions and pointed out that the third was based on a misunderstanding of his paper. Since his study's data and methodology are freely available for review, I'm wondering who CP is looking to engage to independently review and assess his work, which has already passed peer review in order to be published. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:03, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::He answered, everybody scramble! I need that Lack of Evidence in the air NOW! You call artillery and tell them to deploy the Inconclusive Data immediately! Move, move, move! We've got a battle against science to fight, people!--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:29, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Lenski's reply did not provide the data as requested. It did clarify that his claims are not as strong as some [[evolutionists]] have insisted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:07, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:"You will find all the relevant methods and data supporting this claim in our paper." If this statement is true then I hardly think he's going to go to the trouble of sending us all his data when it is readily available. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:29, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:: StatsMsn, have you ever read a scientific paper? Papers don't set forth the data themselves. At most, they set forth summaries of data, which can be flawed or self-serving.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:31, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Supposing he gave you access to the gigs of raw data, would you:
:::#Be able to understand any of it?
:::#Be prepared to accept that the data accurately reflects the physical facts of the matter in the lab, were you to find it consistent with his conclusions?
:::Given your educational background, I have serious doubts about 1), and given your behaviour on this site, I find myself incapable of believing 2). Please feel free to offer me some reassurance. --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 10:26, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I find this ironic that you suddenly want data to support someone else's claim, given your "Mystery: Young hollywood stars and breast cancer" ballpark figure. The paper provides more than ballpark figures you have previously used to support your hypothses in the past. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: In response to Leda, if for some unexplained reason I can't understand the data, then I'll find someone who can. I don't know how to fly an airplane but obviously that does not stop me from traveling by air. I am not reassured by the withholding of data.

::::: In response to DanielB, I presented my data and described it as a mystery. What we have here is the unacceptable opposite: a scientific claim without production of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:12, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: ''"I don't know how to fly an airplane but obviously that does not stop me from traveling by air."'' Oh, nobody's objecting to you flying when clueless. But a modicum of flight knowledge might expected of you if you, say, suddenly rush into the cockpit and demand that the pilot repeat to you every single flight procedure done for the last 12 hours, lest you declare him fraudulent and/or incompetent. I mean, isn't that what you're implying?

:::::: I mean, what are you expecting when you demand "data" of the Cit+ mutation occurance other than a log entry of "Jan 24th, 2008, 2:03pm. Generation 2026 confirmed to express Cit+ mutation"? Then what you do oh-so-politely request? That all of his collaborator's minds be read so you can make sure there is no mistakes?

:::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 23:08, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Your attempt to defend the withholding of data underlying a scientific claim is amusing. While you're at it, perhaps you should also protest the Submission guidelines for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science: "(viii) Materials and Data Availability. To allow others to replicate and build on work published in PNAS, authors must make materials, data, and associated protocols available to readers. Authors must disclose upon submission of the manuscript any restrictions on the availability of materials or information." You might also protest policies that recommend or require taxpayer-funded data to be made available.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:21, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: You thought my poking fun at your inability to form a coherent analogy was supposed to be a defense? The amusement is all on this side of the table, trust me. You see, there is no defending going on here, because there is no withholding going on here.

:::::::: ''"(viii) Materials and Data Availability..."'' Yes, you can stop repeating yourself now. This was in your letter, which I did in fact read (something that might not be said of you and the myriad articles Richard provided). I did wonder why that was in your letter. I mean, did you think that normal scientific discourse doesn't occur unless by your legal coercion? I'm pretty sure if you had, say, a request just a tad more specific than "give me all your data", Richard would have been more than happy to reply. "Give me all your data" is as an absurd of a data request as demanding that Richard must "right now tell me all you know about E. coli", which, come to think about it, would be pretty much the same thing.

:::::::: '''''"To allow others to replicate and build on''' work published in PNAS, authors must..."'' Out of curiosity, which part of his experiment are you trying to replicate that need additional information not available in the paper? Maybe you should tell him, he could easily help you with that. If you are not replicating the experiment, then did you have a real question or concern, or a weakness that you identified, like "I had a concern about this-and-that procedure of the strain selection, it seems particularly vulnerable to contamination" he would be quite happy to help you too. But hey, that requires that you have a clue about the subject matter.

:::::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 00:32, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::You really go out of your way to defend a guy who's clearly a fraudulent hack. Even if he released his so called "raw data" it would just be a huge load of numbers no one is going to take the time to analyze. If it took him years and years to do this experiment he can be pretty sure no one is going to waste that much time trying to replicate it, so everyone can assume he's right and the atheist Darwinists can pretend they've proved evolution, even when we know it's impossible. Do you believe everything you read? If someone claimed they had a mountain of evidence that Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster had a baby, I suppose you'd believe that too if it were published somewhere? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 14:36, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::So let me see if I understand you correctly, Tony. If Lenski doesn't release all of the raw data accumulated over twenty years as Mr. Schlafly requests, it's proof that he's a fraud. If Lenski releases all of the raw data accumulated over twenty years as Mr. Schlafly requests, the sheer volume is proof that he's trying to pull a fast one, and he's a fraud.
::::::::::Is that correct?
::::::::::Given this and other comments you have made, I suspect that you're a satirist attempting to make conservatives look unreasonable. If so, please stop. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:06, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::I resent being called a satirist. You assume that anyone who doesn't hold your liberal views must be joking! Well, the majority of the people in this country are "satirists" if that is the case. It doesn't much matter if Lenski releases his data or not. Us right thinking people know he's a fraud because he claims to have witnessed evolution, and we know that is impossible. That is a fact! I'd like to see his data. I bet it's so seriously flawed even someone with little background in biology will be able to tell. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 21:54, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Where did the 20 years come from? Lenski was asked for the data supporting his claim. He has produced some information on a website, but not that data. Yes, making a claim while withholding the data, even after a request, can reasonably lead one to doubt the claim. Wouldn't you agree with that?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

'''(Unindent)'''

Certainly, Mr. Schlafly. What I'm taking issue with is Tony's claim that even if Lenski releases his data, it's not worth taking the time to analyze or "waste the time" trying to replicate. It seems very much to me as if he's trying to portray conservatives as closed-minded and unwilling to look at the evidence. Perhaps I'm mistaken on that point, but I certainly think you'd agree that such individuals have turned up here before, wouldn't you?

With respect to the 'twenty years' portion: I was under the impression that you wanted the full and complete data to be made available. Given that the experiment took twenty years, I assumed that you would want the full twenty years of data included for evaluation. I apologize if I was mistaken.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:28, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

----

I was wondering how anyone possibly could conclude from this exchange that Lenski was hiding something. I came to the conclusion that some people must not understand how scientific scrutiny works. I wrote a guide.

Scientific scrutiny works like this: 
{| width="500px"
|-
|'''Scientist A''' publishes results. 
'''Scientist B''': A, I tried duplicating your experiment, but parameters x, y, and z that I need were not in your article. I need you to disclose to me x, y, and z that you used at the time. What are they? 
'''A''': x, y, and z are such and such. 
'''B''': Using x, y, and z, my result doesn't agree with yours at all. Are you sure you did the procedures that you claimed? 
'''A''': ... 
'''B''': You fraud!

Scientific scrutiny ''does not'' work like this: 

'''A''' publishes results. 
'''B''': I have Generic Skepticism toward your article. Under code viii of the Publication Criteria, I demand that you give me all of your data! 
'''A''': ... ok...? It seems that everything you would need is already in the article. Did you have something specific in mind? 
'''B''': A has refused to attach all data he has ever used for the experiment. He is withholding information and thus hiding something.
|-
|}

-- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 01:42, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:This is it. This one is my favorite post. Carafe has won Conservapedia, roll the credits.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 01:49, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Beautiful! What else can I say?--[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 13:37, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Not much, apparently. I think you've exhausted your meaningful comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Aschlafly, have you read the paper? ==

I have. It pretty fairly lays out all the important data. Unless you want to run the experiments yourself - which I don't know if you could do, given the equipment he used - I think it's probably the best you'll ever get. I think a fair reply to Lenski would be point out elements of his analysis that you don't like, and put that in a reply e-mail. Otherwise, your lack of reply makes it look like you've given up, and your defensive parries here ("he didn't give all his data!") look like a losing rearguard action.-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 17:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::May I sign-with-qualifier? As in, signed, "A. Shephard - please do show as much as reasonably possible; the truth will out and convince those who doubt you, and this will hasten it along."?-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 22:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Something to note ==

From the AiG article:

"AiG’s Dr. Georgia Purdom is studying the research for an upcoming semi-technical article in the journal Answers In Depth."

Apparently, Lenski has released his data to Purdom. Presumably, Dr. Purdom wouldn't settle for fragmentary data that wouldn't allow her to fully evaluate the claims. Had Lenski refused to disclose, it seems certain that AiG would have made note of it.

==Hypothetical==
Let's say that a second email is enough for Lenski to release his data. What are you going to do with it all? Previous discussions show you don't what you are doing with small, simple to analyse data sets. You would need a degree in biochemistry and biostats to even begin to know what you are going to do with it. The people who have peer reviewed the paper a by far better qualified and if they had concerns they would have asked specifically for what they wanted without sounding like .... Well I want say what you sound like writting emails singed with a law degree demanding data. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:25, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::Sure, but like the human genome it will probably be released in time anyway in a way that is useful. You standing there making demands, signing letters JD, makes you look like some lawyer with an axe to grind rather than someone interested in research. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Marry a Conservative

2008-06-15T22:44:25Z

AShephard: /* Suggestion... */

Cable

2008-06-15T21:13:45Z

AShephard: New page: '''Cable''' may refer to a conduit for the passage of data, or more generally to the broadcast medium by which television shows are sent to subscribing customers through RCA coaxia...

'''Cable''' may refer to a conduit for the passage of data, or more generally to the [[broadcast]] [[medium]] by which television shows are sent to subscribing customers through RCA coaxial cables. "Cable TV," in this fashion, is one of the more popular forms of [[television]] dissemination, and is in competition with [[satellite]]-based television.

By February 2009, digital cable television will replace broadcast television, making cable TV the oldest functioning broadcasting medium.

[[category:Electronics]]

Bill O'Reilly

2008-06-15T21:11:40Z

AShephard: GOodbye redlinks!

[[Image:Bll.png|thumb|right|Bill O' Reilly On The O' Reilly Report]]
'''Bill O'Reilly''' is a commentator and host of the show ''The O'Reilly Factor'' on the [[Fox News Channel]], which he calls the "No Spin Zone." O'Reilly often remarks that his personal [[political]] viewpoint is not captured by the modern [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] and [[Republican Party|Republican]] archetypes and would rather call himself a "traditionalist" and "independent". In this vein, he has expressed support for some positions not traditionally associated with his political supporters, instead associated with [[liberals]], including [[anthropogenic climate change]] and [[civil union]]s for both [[heterosexual]] and [[homosexual]] couples.

''The O'Reilly Factor'' is the highest-rated hour on any [[cable]] [[news]] [[channel]]. 11 million people nightly watch the show and 9 million more listen to his on radio show. <ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/23/60minutes/main645202.shtml Bill O'Reilly: "No Spin"] Transcript 60 Minutes with Mike Wallace aired Sept. 26, 2004. </ref>

Recently [[Conservative|conservatives]] criticized O'Reilly [http://www.conservapedia.com/Fox_News_Channel#Fox_News_Channel_and_Homosexuality regarding his views in relation to homosexuality].

==Early life/Education==
O'Reilly was born in 1949 [[New York City]] to parents William and Angela O'Reilly.<ref>{{cite news|author=Pragoff, Cat|title=Fox News' Bill O'Reilly was in classroom before newsroom|publisher=[[New Hampshire Union Leader]]|date=[[2005-02-09]]|page=D10}}</ref> After graduating from Chaminade High School, a private Catholic boys high school in Mineola in 1967, O'Reilly attended Marist College. While at Marist, O'Reilly played punter in the National Club [[American football|Football]] Association,<ref>{{cite web |author= Duffy, Don| title="Campus Stuff" (''The Circle'')|url=http://library.marist.edu/archives/Circle/1970/1970-11-19.pdf |publisher=[[Marist College]]|date=1970-11-19| accessdate=2008-05-12 }}</ref> and was also a writer for the school's newspaper, ''The Circle''. An honors student, he majored in history. O'Reilly received his [[Bachelor of Arts|B.A.]] in [[History]] in 1971, graduating as valedictorian. He played professional [[baseball]] during this time, as a pitcher. O'Reilly later earned a master's degree in Broadcast Journalism from [[Yale University]] and another Master of Public Administration from [[Harvard]].

==Views on prejudice and racism==

O'Reilly has condemned white [[racist]] prejudice against U.S. blacks, although recently some remarks he made underscoring the fact that black-owned and [[Italian]]-owned restaurants are comparable were taken out of context by the far-left "watchdog" group [[Media Matters]]. <ref>http://mediamatters.org/items/200709260003?f=h_top</ref> Some asserted outrage over his use of the term "lynching party" when discussing [[Michelle Obama]], though in actuality he was defending her and not using the term in a racist context.

==Criticism==
O'Reilly has often been accused of berating his guests. He is deeply disliked by many on the [[leftist|far-left]], who often accuse him of distorting facts or [[slander]]ing those unfriendly to his position. He has occasionally been criticized by conservatives on certain issues such as his stance on gun control.

==Trivia==

* O'Reilly and [[Stephen Colbert]] have a friendly rivalry <ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16698834/</ref>, even appearing on each others' shows.

== See also ==

*[[Conservative Links]]

==References==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Oreilly, Bill}} 
[[Category:Broadcasters|Oreilly, Bill]]

Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog

2008-06-15T21:10:47Z

AShephard: Aschlafly, have you read the paper?

Talk:Essay:Marry a Conservative

2008-06-15T21:03:36Z

AShephard: /* Suggestion... */

Talk:Essay:Marry a Conservative

2008-06-15T21:03:19Z

AShephard: /* Suggestion... */

Parthian shot

2008-06-15T21:02:07Z

AShephard:

A '''Parthian shot''' is a criticism leveled by someone as they leave a group. It is named after the Parthians, the ancient people of [[Parthia]] who used the innovative [[cavalry]] tactic of feigning retreat and then, as their enemies pursued them, twisting around and shooting arrows at their adversaries.

The Parthian shot saw dramatic usage in the defeat of [[Crassus]], where, according to [[Plutarch]], Parthian soldiers facing west in the early morning used the sun reflecting off their armor to blind their enemies. They then circled them to barrage them with arrow fire, and rode away, executing the Parthian shot maneuver to decimate those still standing.

It is sometimes referred to as a "parting shot."

==Examples on Conservapedia==
The [[Conservapedia]] sysops are "[[swift-boating]]" these former Conservapedia editors:

#12/28/07 '''ModerateCatholic''' on ''Talk:Deceit'' [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Deceit#I_am_officially_leaving_this_website_after_reading_this]
#12/27/07 '''Stryker''' on ''User:Stryker'' [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Stryker&curid=32343&diff=359009&oldid=265134&rcid=388505]
#9/29/07 '''Graham''' on ''Talk:Main Page'' [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/archive26#I.27ve_had_enough]
#9/27/07 '''Porthos''' on ''Talk:Main Page'' [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/archive26#I.27m_Done]
#7/11/07 '''HeikkiL''' on ''User talk:Aschlafly'' [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly/Archive25#90.2F10_talk_violater_criticizes_competition]
#6/12/07 '''Irat''' to ''RobS'' on ''Talk:Essay:New Ordeal'' [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:New_Ordeal&diff=232096&oldid=232093#I_Quit I Quit]

[[category:debate]]

Talk:Essay:Marry a Conservative

2008-06-15T20:59:10Z

AShephard: Suggestion...