Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Chip shop

2007-05-31T17:36:06Z

AvengingAngel: /* Savage Edit by Fox */ reversion

How can you not mention the fact that in renowned glaswegian chippies they offer such delicacies as battered pizza, battered mars bars and battered ice cream?--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 03:24, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
see http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1227_041227_deep_fried_mars_bars.html

[[Image:300px-Deep-fried mars bars.JPG | thumb | left]] Now doesn't that look delicious?
:Yes it does. Can you add the picture to the article? [[User:Dorpfeld|Dorpfeld]] 03:34, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:Good point. We could have sections on the various differences in regional and national cuisine served in these establishments. [[User:Dorpfeld|Dorpfeld]] 03:27, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Will add it later if someone else hasn't done so by then.
--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 03:37, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Re: merger. I don't think this should be merged. The chip shop (or 'chippie') is a very distinctive cultural, as well as culinary, institution specific to Britain and Ireland.

How can anyone talk of merging this article. It;s probably the best one on Conservapedia. I think we should go for [[irony|featured status]]. --[[User:Felix|Felix]] 06:53, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

"Fish Bits" are called "scraps" in Birmingham and Humberside. Also mayonnaise is offered in Birmingham chippies although I am unaware as to whether this has anything to do with Dutch or indeed Belgian immigrants. Not sure if any of this info is apposite. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 07:29, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

We also refer to fish bits as scraps here in Yorkshire. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 07:44, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Merge article? ==

Absolutely not; the articles deal with two entirely different things.

Potato chips is the American term for what are properly called (in Great Britain, home of the English language) potato crisps.

Chip shops are purveyors of the much more substantial and wholesome British older relative of French Fries (which is a distant relative, at best). The importance of chips in British culture, and their incompatibility with French Fries (chips are always prepared from the finest locally-grown potatoes, and must be sliced on the spot, as opposed to being reconstituted, extruded and shaped in a factory like French Fries) makes it absolutely inappropiate to merge the articles. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:05, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I think the proposal to merge must have been made by someone unfamiliar with the use of the word chip in British English. As others have said before. Chip shops do not sell cold crisp thin slices of deep-fried potato (which are known in the UK as potato crisps), but rather piping hot finger-sized chunks of deep-fried potato.[[User:FriendOfDorothy|FriendOfDorothy]] 09:46, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I am really convinced that these folks here at Conservapedia are really benefitting from finding out about the delicacies of British Haute Cuisine. --[[User:Felix|Felix]] 09:54, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

The chip shop is also culturally essential in addition to being of gastronomic import. Chip shop tradition is far greater than the sum of its peas, chips and fine, fine pickled eggs. And surely sharing of cultures and knowledge is the very essence of an encyclopedia. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 09:59, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree absolutely with Trashbat. Chip shops have a strong cultural significance which alone justifies a separate article; but in any case, to cnflate the (completely different) UK and US chips would be absurd. [[User:Volpone|Volpone]] 18:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Chip Shops merged with another subject? Go and wash your mouth out with carbolic, Poor Ed![[User:LateralQuercus|LateralQuercus]] 19:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:Definitely don't merge, they're not even close to the same thing. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 09:54, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

What on earth has happened to this article? I am beginning to suspect an anti-British agenda. Chip-shops are a an integral part of British culture. [[User:MontyZuma|MontyZuma]] 18:58, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank you MontyZuma, I have already tried to convince some of the administrators here about the importance of this topic and about the erosion of the British way of life. I'd rather the few British contributers not be driven away, particularly as some of us are good Christian Conservatives who wish to preserve our way of life too. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:04, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

If we merge these, we should merge barbeque sauce and ketchup. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:00, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:No,you should merge Egypt and Israel.[[User:DDWatkinsIII|DDWatkinsIII]] 21:04, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Now '''''that's''''' radical! Maybe you could get a job at the UN. [[User:MontyZuma|MontyZuma]] 18:18, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Fair enough. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:26, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

'''NEW PICS'''

I know the pics of deep fried mars bars were deleted, but here goes:

[[Image:mars1.jpg]]

[[Image:mars2.jpg]]

I also have found all these refs to [[Deep fried Mars Bars]]

http://www.recipezaar.com/43463

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4103415.stm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1227_041227_deep_fried_mars_bars.html
A report on a December 2004 study, reported in the British medical journal The Lancet gives the following interesting facts:

"The researchers found that Mars bars aren't Scotland's only deep-fried specialties, with chip shops also frying up ice-cream, pizza, pineapple rings, pickled eggs, Snicker bars, and bananas."

and the fact is the French are trying to steal the idea!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/654750.stm

I know that the article and pic of dfmb was deleted, but this article establishes that America IS interested: CBS News picked up the research-
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/17/world/main661751.shtml
quote:

"They decided to investigate after the treat was mentioned by television host Jay Leno on NBC's "Tonight Show."

Now, I think
(a) The original pic should be reinstated on the Chip Shop Page, and
(b) We should have an entire article reinstated about Deep Fried Mars bars as a cultural phenomenon and a helth food issue.

That's my opinion.

--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 05:16, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::How did you get your pictures re-uploaded? I posted some pictures to illustrate my article on [[Pork scratchings]] and they were deleted by User:Aschlafly. Said we didn't need pictures of processed pork. (See my user page). [[User:Erasmus|Erasmus]] 18:28, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I think that this is only of passing interest to the topic of Chip Shops but could certainly be expanded elsewhere. It has a lot to say about Scottish culture and cuisine. Maybe some Glaswegians could help out with this. [[User:MontyZuma|MontyZuma]] 18:15, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== Savage Edit by Fox ==

Can I just look at these:
* [[Birmingham]]: Chips are often steeped in curry sauce, which is usually served cold, sometimes in a polystyrene cup. Because of its Kashmiri community Birmingham is the [[curry capital]] of the country, and many different styles and blends are available, all of remarkably similar taste and appearance.

''OK, its a bit casual, and tries to be funny, but incorrect?''

* [[Yorkshire]]: Haddock, rather than cod, as the default fish; beef [[lard]] the frying medium of choice. "Fish bits" or "scraps" are the pieces of batter that become separated from the fish during cooking. They may be acquired for a nominal fee from the purveyor of fried produce.

''All absolutely true''

* [[Scotland]]: pizza, haggis, macaroni pies and Mars Bars are popular choices, all deep fried. Haddock is also the fish of choice, though several varieties are often available. A macaroni pie consists of cooked pasta in a pastry envelope.
''all absolutely true, and I have seen evidence to substantiate it. There was once a fried mars bar pic somewhere.''

* [[Edinburgh]] and the Lothians: Chip sauce (a.k.a. chippy sauce), based on a closely guarded and centuries old Italian recipe, is offered alongside salt and vinegar as a dressing for fish and chips. Locals swear by it.

''Dont know about the Italian connection, but the rest is Ok''.

I didnt want to make this too long, but I think the Liverpool one is also OK - Beatles ref is absolutely true and Liverpoll does have a Chinatown - I've been there. I'd like to know what evidence that Fox has for making these claims.

--[[User:AvengingAngel|AvengingAngel]] 12:53, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

I can't comment on Hebden Bridge or Portsmouth (never visited either place) but the rest of the stuff removed seems truthful enough. Is there a good reason for removing it? [[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 13:05, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

I know that Philip is a bit concerned by this edit. I wasn't going so far as to call it vandalism, but it does seem extremely over zealous. I don't really want to start reinstating it, as Philip has done a re-edit. Fox isn't a sysop, so if Philip hadn't done anything I think I would have just doen a revert and asked Fox what he was up to.--[[User:AvengingAngel|AvengingAngel]] 13:19, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

It does seem a little bit harsh considering that about 80% of the article has been removed. Still, I'm not one to get into an edit war over chip shops, I'll leave this one to Philip. [[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 13:25, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

I have just asked Philip wheether I can revert it to the pre-Fox edit. --[[User:AvengingAngel|AvengingAngel]] 13:29, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

That seems sensible enough. [[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 13:31, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

I reverted it anyway. I have to log off now; if philip disagrees I am sure he will re---[[User:AvengingAngel|AvengingAngel]] 13:36, 31 May 2007 (EDT)revert it.

Chip shop

2007-05-31T17:34:35Z

AvengingAngel: Save Previous Edit BY Philip J. Rayment, prior to edit by Fox - See Talk page

A chip shop is a British establishment that sells [[chip]]s, usually heated, for [[consumption]] off the premises. Other foodstuffs often for sale include [[Battered fish]], [[pie]]s, [[pickled onion]]s, [[pickled egg]]s and [[saveloy]]s. Many chip shops sell battered sliced potatoes, and regional variations for their names include fritters, scallops and scones. Some of the more up-market establishments might also sell [[doner kebab]]s.

== Regional differences and specialities ==
[[Image:fishchip.jpg|right|250px|thumb|A portion of fish and chips]]
* [[London]]: Saveloys, ([[sausage]]s made up of highly seasoned minced 'meat'); rock salmon. In north London [[guacamole]] is a popular addition to a fish supper. A traditional accompaniment is a small pickle known as a Wally.
* [[Birmingham]]: Chips are often steeped in curry sauce, which is usually served cold, sometimes in a polystyrene cup. Because of its Kashmiri community Birmingham is the [[curry capital]] of the country, and many different styles and blends are available, all of remarkably similar taste and appearance.
* [[Yorkshire]]: Haddock, rather than cod, as the default fish; beef [[lard]] the frying medium of choice. "Fish bits" or "scraps" are the pieces of batter that become separated from the fish during cooking. They may be acquired for a nominal fee from the purveyor of fried produce.
* [[Scotland]]: pizza, haggis, macaroni pies and Mars Bars are popular choices, all deep fried. Haddock is also the fish of choice, though several varieties are often available. A macaroni pie consists of cooked pasta in a pastry envelope.
* [[Edinburgh]] and the Lothians: Chip sauce (a.k.a. chippy sauce), based on a closely guarded and centuries old Italian recipe, is offered alongside salt and vinegar as a dressing for fish and chips. Locals swear by it.
* [[Liverpool]]: with its large Chinese community, boasts more than its fair share of 'Chinese Chippies' which offer such health-conscious multicultural delights as deep fried [[spring roll]]s & chips, [[prawn crackers]], and [[Chop Suey]] (& chips). A fierce debate often ensues in Liverpool as to whether the [[mushy peas]] should be spread over the chips, or eaten [[on the side]]. The [[Beatles]] immortalised the [[Penny Lane]] chip shop with their reference to "four of fish & finger pie".
* [[Hebden Bridge]]: The large number of Dutch immigrants means that this is the only place in the UK where mayonnaise (fritesaus) is commonly offered as a condiment on chips.
*[[Portsmouth]]: This historic naval resort boasted a unique Chinese-Italian chip shop which melded the cuisines of all three cultures. This was especially popular at weekends when the towns streets are thronged by newly discharged sailors.

Talk:Chip shop

2007-05-31T17:29:32Z

AvengingAngel: /* Savage Edit by Fox */

Talk:Chip shop

2007-05-31T17:19:04Z

AvengingAngel: /* Savage Edit by Fox */

Talk:Chip shop

2007-05-31T16:53:55Z

AvengingAngel: /* Savage Edit by Fox */ minor

Talk:Chip shop

2007-05-31T16:53:08Z

AvengingAngel: Savage Edit by Fox

How can you not mention the fact that in renowned glaswegian chippies they offer such delicacies as battered pizza, battered mars bars and battered ice cream?--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 03:24, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
see http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1227_041227_deep_fried_mars_bars.html

[[Image:300px-Deep-fried mars bars.JPG | thumb | left]] Now doesn't that look delicious?
:Yes it does. Can you add the picture to the article? [[User:Dorpfeld|Dorpfeld]] 03:34, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:Good point. We could have sections on the various differences in regional and national cuisine served in these establishments. [[User:Dorpfeld|Dorpfeld]] 03:27, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Will add it later if someone else hasn't done so by then.
--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 03:37, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Re: merger. I don't think this should be merged. The chip shop (or 'chippie') is a very distinctive cultural, as well as culinary, institution specific to Britain and Ireland.

How can anyone talk of merging this article. It;s probably the best one on Conservapedia. I think we should go for [[irony|featured status]]. --[[User:Felix|Felix]] 06:53, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

"Fish Bits" are called "scraps" in Birmingham and Humberside. Also mayonnaise is offered in Birmingham chippies although I am unaware as to whether this has anything to do with Dutch or indeed Belgian immigrants. Not sure if any of this info is apposite. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 07:29, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

We also refer to fish bits as scraps here in Yorkshire. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 07:44, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Merge article? ==

Absolutely not; the articles deal with two entirely different things.

Potato chips is the American term for what are properly called (in Great Britain, home of the English language) potato crisps.

Chip shops are purveyors of the much more substantial and wholesome British older relative of French Fries (which is a distant relative, at best). The importance of chips in British culture, and their incompatibility with French Fries (chips are always prepared from the finest locally-grown potatoes, and must be sliced on the spot, as opposed to being reconstituted, extruded and shaped in a factory like French Fries) makes it absolutely inappropiate to merge the articles. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:05, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I think the proposal to merge must have been made by someone unfamiliar with the use of the word chip in British English. As others have said before. Chip shops do not sell cold crisp thin slices of deep-fried potato (which are known in the UK as potato crisps), but rather piping hot finger-sized chunks of deep-fried potato.[[User:FriendOfDorothy|FriendOfDorothy]] 09:46, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I am really convinced that these folks here at Conservapedia are really benefitting from finding out about the delicacies of British Haute Cuisine. --[[User:Felix|Felix]] 09:54, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

The chip shop is also culturally essential in addition to being of gastronomic import. Chip shop tradition is far greater than the sum of its peas, chips and fine, fine pickled eggs. And surely sharing of cultures and knowledge is the very essence of an encyclopedia. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 09:59, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree absolutely with Trashbat. Chip shops have a strong cultural significance which alone justifies a separate article; but in any case, to cnflate the (completely different) UK and US chips would be absurd. [[User:Volpone|Volpone]] 18:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Chip Shops merged with another subject? Go and wash your mouth out with carbolic, Poor Ed![[User:LateralQuercus|LateralQuercus]] 19:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:Definitely don't merge, they're not even close to the same thing. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 09:54, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

What on earth has happened to this article? I am beginning to suspect an anti-British agenda. Chip-shops are a an integral part of British culture. [[User:MontyZuma|MontyZuma]] 18:58, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank you MontyZuma, I have already tried to convince some of the administrators here about the importance of this topic and about the erosion of the British way of life. I'd rather the few British contributers not be driven away, particularly as some of us are good Christian Conservatives who wish to preserve our way of life too. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:04, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

If we merge these, we should merge barbeque sauce and ketchup. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:00, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:No,you should merge Egypt and Israel.[[User:DDWatkinsIII|DDWatkinsIII]] 21:04, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Now '''''that's''''' radical! Maybe you could get a job at the UN. [[User:MontyZuma|MontyZuma]] 18:18, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Fair enough. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:26, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

'''NEW PICS'''

I know the pics of deep fried mars bars were deleted, but here goes:

[[Image:mars1.jpg]]

[[Image:mars2.jpg]]

I also have found all these refs to [[Deep fried Mars Bars]]

http://www.recipezaar.com/43463

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4103415.stm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1227_041227_deep_fried_mars_bars.html
A report on a December 2004 study, reported in the British medical journal The Lancet gives the following interesting facts:

"The researchers found that Mars bars aren't Scotland's only deep-fried specialties, with chip shops also frying up ice-cream, pizza, pineapple rings, pickled eggs, Snicker bars, and bananas."

and the fact is the French are trying to steal the idea!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/654750.stm

I know that the article and pic of dfmb was deleted, but this article establishes that America IS interested: CBS News picked up the research-
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/17/world/main661751.shtml
quote:

"They decided to investigate after the treat was mentioned by television host Jay Leno on NBC's "Tonight Show."

Now, I think
(a) The original pic should be reinstated on the Chip Shop Page, and
(b) We should have an entire article reinstated about Deep Fried Mars bars as a cultural phenomenon and a helth food issue.

That's my opinion.

--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 05:16, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::How did you get your pictures re-uploaded? I posted some pictures to illustrate my article on [[Pork scratchings]] and they were deleted by User:Aschlafly. Said we didn't need pictures of processed pork. (See my user page). [[User:Erasmus|Erasmus]] 18:28, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I think that this is only of passing interest to the topic of Chip Shops but could certainly be expanded elsewhere. It has a lot to say about Scottish culture and cuisine. Maybe some Glaswegians could help out with this. [[User:MontyZuma|MontyZuma]] 18:15, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== Savage Edit by Fox ==

Can I just look at these:
* [[Birmingham]]: Chips are often steeped in curry sauce, which is usually served cold, sometimes in a polystyrene cup. Because of its Kashmiri community Birmingham is the [[curry capital]] of the country, and many different styles and blends are available, all of remarkably similar taste and appearance.

''OK, its a bit casual, and tries to be funny, but incorrect?''

* [[Yorkshire]]: Haddock, rather than cod, as the default fish; beef [[lard]] the frying medium of choice. "Fish bits" or "scraps" are the pieces of batter that become separated from the fish during cooking. They may be acquired for a nominal fee from the purveyor of fried produce.

''All absolutely true'''

* [[Scotland]]: pizza, haggis, macaroni pies and Mars Bars are popular choices, all deep fried. Haddock is also the fish of choice, though several varieties are often available. A macaroni pie consists of cooked pasta in a pastry envelope.
''all absolutely true, and I have seen evidence to substantiate it. There was once a fried mars bar pic somewhere.'

* [[Edinburgh]] and the Lothians: Chip sauce (a.k.a. chippy sauce), based on a closely guarded and centuries old Italian recipe, is offered alongside salt and vinegar as a dressing for fish and chips. Locals swear by it.

''Dont know about the Italian connection, but the rest is Ok'.

I didnt want to make this too long, but I think the Liverpool one is also OK - Beatles ref is absolutely true and Liverpoll does have a Chinatown - I've been there. I'd like to know what evidence that Fox has for making these claims.

--[[User:AvengingAngel|AvengingAngel]] 12:53, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Red Army

2007-05-28T22:53:21Z

AvengingAngel: spelling, grammar

After the [[October Revolution]], [[Vladimir Lenin]] ordered that the old army be demobilized and a new Red Army formed of Peasants and Workers. Lenin appointed [[Leon Trotsky]] as its commander. The new fledgeling army had to be assembled quickly in response to the [[White Army]]. Trotsky was effective in pulling the new army together, and later Lenin remarked, "Show me another man who could have practically created a model army in a year and win the respect of military specialists as well." The Red Army went on to defeat the [[White Army]] in the civil war.

At the outbreak of [[World War II]], the Red Army had 1,800,000 soldiers, 10,000 tanks, and 5,000 front-line planes. Originally, the soldiers swore an oath to fight for international socialism. However, that was changed in January of 1939. Men pledged "To protect with all his strength the property of the Army and the people and to cherish unto death his people, the Soviet homeland, and the government of Workers and Peasants, also, to respond at first call from the government of Workers and Peasants to defend the homeland, the [[U.S.S.R.]]"

The Red Army conducted most of the fighting against [[Nazi Germany]] during the [[Second World War]], inflicting about eighty percent of German casualties along the [[Eastern Front]]. Red Army losses were between 8 million and 11 million dead, while Soviet civilian casualties were between 8 million and 16 million dead as a result of the war.

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://militera.lib.ru/research/suvorov8/index.html ''Inside Soviet Military Intelligence'',] Victo Suvorov, MacMillan Publishing Company, London, 1984.

[[Category:Military]]
[[Category:Russia]]

Albino

2007-05-28T22:46:23Z

AvengingAngel:

An albino suffers from a congenital disorder which leaves them without the ability to produce the skin pigment [[melanin]]. It is caused by a [[recessive gene]] and may affect many classes of animals.

Vale of the White Horse

2007-05-28T22:44:44Z

AvengingAngel: wikilink

The Vale of the White Horse, named after the [[White Horse of Uffingham]], is an area on the borders of [[Berkshire]] and [[Oxfordshire]]. The dispute over this area between the two counties has been rumbling ever since the partition of [[Mercia]] by the [[Vikings]] in the 9th century, and during the [[English Civil War]] in the 17th century the Royalist forces of the county of [[Oxford|Oxfordshire]] seized the area from the Parliamentarian forces of Berkshire. With the beheading of [[Charles I]] the area was returned to Berkshire, but border disputes continued to flair up until eventually in 1974 the government transfered the area to Oxfordshire.

Talk:Essay:Crackpot

2007-05-28T22:41:28Z

AvengingAngel: Popular Piece

There was no definition here, and the definition and explanation that I found was taken in the main from : http://scienceweek.com/swbb/messages/bb236.htm. This was an on-line bulletin board and I thought the posting gave a pretty good all round account of a crackpot. I tidied it up a little.--[[User:AvengingAngel|AvengingAngel]] 14:50, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

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

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

I will not revert the edit, but can we discuss this point? --[[User:AvengingAngel|AvengingAngel]] 15:52, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: The crackpot don't fail to understand that; they tout that reason as further evidence of how their revolutionary ideas could be ignored by the establishment. I also don't think it helps to say that the crackpot can be presumed to be wrong because he is too old. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::(1) Yes but crackpots ''are'' generally older, embittered people who for years have been ignored. I was trying to make the difference between young turks with wild new ideas, who have not yet been accepted, and old stagers who have had their day, and had their ideas rejected.
::(2) I think the issue about paradigm shifts is well made. They are almost never in the time of the person making the claim, it's always after
::The kinds of crackpot I have in mind are well described in a Book called "Do you speak Venusian" by Patrick Moore, or David Icke (an ex-TV Presenter who claims the British Royal family are lizards( you couldn't make this up!). I do think age is an issue here, and the paragigm shift, as they often quote that as the reason for not being listened to. If I rewrite that bit, can I re-insert?
--[[User:AvengingAngel|AvengingAngel]] 16:29, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
: This is an absorbing discussion but it's past my bed-time. One point AA I think the R stands for Roger. [[User:NatWest|NatWest]] 18:05, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

== Martin Gardner's book ==

Don't have it at hand and the Google Books partial preview lacks some of the key pieces, but in this book he uses the word phrase frequently and has a section in which he details what he says are the typical characteristics of "crackpot science." I think it's likely that he popularized the term. From the [http://books.google.com/books?id=kWoJ8mEEJ0wC&pg=PA14&ots=Zh4aMKDaXY&dq=crackpot+theory+OR+science+OR+inventor+OR+invention+OR+scientist+OR+doctor+date:1800-1960&num=100&as_brr=3&sig=S-LV50tt1bShj6nmWDRYeYDoo8g#PPA13,M1 Google Books preview], points 3, 4, and 5 are:

3) "the crackpot believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against;"

4) "He has strong compulsions to focus his attacks on the greatest scientists and the best-established theories. When Newton was the outstanding name in physics, eccentric works in that science were violently anti-Newton. Today, with Einstein the father-symbol of authority, a crank theory of physics is likely to attack Einstein in the name of Newton."

5) "He often has a tendency to write in a complex jargon, making use of terms and phrases he himself has coined."

Probably worth digging out and using in writing the article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:39, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

== Popular Piece ==

This piece has attracted a lot of attention. Hm.--[[User:AvengingAngel|AvengingAngel]] 18:41, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Cult of Reason

2007-05-28T22:31:30Z

AvengingAngel: spelling

The '''Cult of Reason''' was set up during the [[French Revolution]] by French revolutionaries Herbert, Chaumette, and Cloots on November 10th, 1793 and abolished the worship of God in France, instead worshipping reason. During the strong waxing and waning of power positions during the revolution, the three fell out of favor during a sudden change and were quickly executed by [[Robespierre]] on March 24th, 1794, effectively ending the outlawing of religion in France.

Cthulhu

2007-05-28T22:29:56Z

AvengingAngel: grammar

[[Image:Cthulu.png|thumb|right]]
'''Cthulhu''' (pronounced "Khlûl'hloo" or "Kathooloo") (Other spellings: Kutulu, Ktulu, Cthulu, Kthulhut, Thu Thu, Tulu) is a fictional Pre-Judeo-Christian deity/demon variously described as a "sleeping" or "dreaming" in the works of [[H. P. Lovecraft]]. Cthulhu sleeps in the sunken city of R'lyeh and when the stars are right, will reawaken ushering in the destruction of humanity.

A correlation has been proposed<ref>Kepler and Yard ''Lovecraft and Christianity: a hidden message?'' (2005)</ref> between the symbology of the mythos and both the Christian devil [[Satan]] and [[crackpot|creation science]] in Christianity: in the stories the being Cthulhu corrupts creatures from God and turns their worship inward, on their own bodies, with horrific results<ref>H. P. Lovecraft ''The Shadow over Innsmouth'' (1941)</ref>; furthermore, many of the tales in the mythos feature the triumph of the [[supernatural]] over established science<ref>H. P. Lovecraft ''At the Mountains of Madness'', ''The Dream Quest for Unknown Kadath'' (various).</ref>. It should be recognized, however, that Lovecraft was an avowed atheist and that the symbology is likely coincidental.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Fantasy]]

Motherboard

2007-05-28T22:18:40Z

AvengingAngel:

[[Image:Abit-kt7-large.jpg|right|thumb|300px|An ATX format motherboard.]]

'''Motherboard''' - A large [[circuit board]] found inside your PC, which is used to make all the other components ([[Processor]], [[RAM]], [[Hard Drive]], [[Graphics Card]], [[Sound Card]], [[USB]] & others) work together when plugged into it.

[[Category:Technology]]

London School of Economics

2007-05-28T22:11:30Z

AvengingAngel: wikilinks

The London School of [[Economics]] and [[Political Science]] is a world-renowned undergraduate and graduate school for training future economists, investment bankers, financial analysts, businessmen, diplomats and those interested in public policy.<ref>http://www.lse.ac.uk/</ref>

It often features debates and lectures of significant interest to [[England]] the [[European Community]].

== References ==

<references/>
[[category:economics]]

Astrology

2007-05-28T22:10:31Z

AvengingAngel: fixed split infinitive

Astrologers use their knowledge of the relative positions of celestial bodies and related details supposedly to understand, interpret, and organize information about personality, human affairs, and other terrestrial matters. A practitioner of astrology is called an astrologer.

'''Astrology''' is often considered as pseudoscience by [[scientist]]s, as it does not make its predictions via [[Scientific method|scientific means]]. Following the science methodologies adopted by [[Crackpot|Creation scientists]], many astrologers consider themselves to be using scientific methods to show that such scientific evidence is consistent with their understanding and interpretation of the heavens and its effect on human affairs<ref>http://www.cyberastro.com/articles/article3.asp</ref>. This view was supported by [[Intelligent Design]] proponent [[Michael Behe]] in his testimony during the Dover trial.<ref>When asked "But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?" Behe answered "Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html </ref>

==Sun signs==
* [[Aries]] - March 21 - April 20
* [[Taurus]] - April 21 - May 21
* [[Gemini]] - May 22 - June 21
* [[Cancer (zodiac)|Cancer]] - June 22 - July 22
* [[Leo]] - July 23 -August 21
* [[Virgo]] - August 22 - September 23
* [[Libra]] - September 24 - October 23
* [[Scorpio]] - October 24 - November 22
* [[Sagittarius]] - November 23 - December 22
* [[Capricorn]] - December 23 - January 20
* [[Aquarius]] - January 21 - February 19
* [[Pisces]] - February 20- March 20

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Astrology]]

Moustache

2007-05-28T22:04:40Z

AvengingAngel:

Facial hair grown on the upper lip. Moustaches come in a variety of different styles.

== Moustache styles ==

* the pencil: [[Ronald Coleman]], [[David Niven]]
* the toothbrush: [[Charlie Chaplin]], [[Adolf Hitler]]
* the handlebar: [[Jimmy Edwards]]
* the caterpillar: [[Freddie Mercury]], [[Peter Mandelson]]
* the Zapata: [[Frank Zappa]], [[Emiliano Zapata]]

Talk:Creation Museum

2007-05-28T21:44:03Z

AvengingAngel:

I'm a big fan of the creation museum and Ken Ham but does this really belong in a encyclopedia?
<blockquote>
''"Ken Ham will defend the Museum against these criticisms on The FOX News Channel’s TV program The O’Reilly Factor on 28th May"''
</blockquote>

Oh, come on, it won't last more than a day. Someone will quote was was said tomorrow. Give me a break...--[[User:AvengingAngel|AvengingAngel]] 17:35, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm just not sure whether the page is intended to be a announcement board of AGI events... Remember (as I'm sure you know) this is a encyclopedia.--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 17:41, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

OK if I'd left out that last bit, the other section would probably have got zapped. This way, I layed down a marker for someone else to follow tomorrow. I am trying to be even handed here.--[[User:AvengingAngel|AvengingAngel]] 17:44, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Creation Museum

2007-05-28T21:35:53Z

AvengingAngel:

Essay:Crackpot

2007-05-28T21:34:32Z

AvengingAngel: re-edit to para 3 (Ok Richard?)

The term '''crackpot''' is used perjoratively against a person, who writes or speaks in an authoritative fashion about a particular subject, often in [[science]] or [[mathematics]], but is alleged to have false or even ludicrous beliefs. Such a person may also be termed a [[crank]].

Ideas held by such people are called ''crank ideas'' or ''crackpot theories''.

True Crackpots usually have some formal training in science but are often unattached to any university, college, or research institute, and have usually reached a point where their papers and commentaries are refused by standard scientific journals as being of little interest. They form a "fringe" in any field, and it is often difficult to distinguish crackpots from bona fide scientists who hold minority views because the distinction is usually based primarily on behavior rather than on scientific contributions. The consequence is that a bona fide scientist with a minority view is unfortunately sometimes called a crackpot merely due to peculiar or disruptive behavior. Often crackpots are experts in one field but choose to make authorative assertions outside their area of expertise.

Some distinguishing characteristics of crackpots are:

1. The crackpot has usually lost interest in new experiments and will defend to his theory or viewpoint, even though it may have been rejected by the scientific community as invalid or useless. Any objective view of reality becomes less important than his own personal view.

2. As a consequence of continuing peer rejection, the crackpot becomes more and more strident with advancing age, until eventually one finds him doing vigorous vocal battle in fringe arenas, open forums, anti-science mailing lists, and magazines devoted to fringe ideas and readers who thrive emotionally on fringe ideas.

3. In any serious discussion of a scientific issue, the crackpot will usually offer polemics rather than reason, invective rather than fact, and a harangue that he's a "revolutionary" against an "establishment". Sometimes he makes accusations of a [[conspiracy theory|conspiracy]] against him. At other times, the accusation is of "social control" of the minds of scientists. He appoints himself as the avant-garde of a [[paradigm shift]]. However, this often represents a basic philosophical failure in the crackpot to understand that "paradigms" and "paradigm shifts" are usually recognized ''de post facto'' by historians and almost never while the shift is occuring, and that significant paradigm shifts are almost always the work of younger scientists who come up with innovative and significant ideas early in their career, and not of older scientists whose ideas have already been examined and rejected.

Ionosphere

2007-05-28T21:04:58Z

AvengingAngel: was not a sentence

The '''Ionosphere''' is that region of the [[atmosphere]] between the altitudes of 65 [[kilometer]]s and 330 kilometers where the [[gas]]es are [[ion]]ized.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Lebensraum

2007-05-28T21:03:59Z

AvengingAngel: I hopethat it is "was", and not "is", otherwise we are all in deeeep trouble.

'''Lebensraum''' was a [[German]] term made popular by [[Adolf Hitler]] and the [[Nazis]], which literally means "living space". Lebensraum was a policy of expanding the territory of [[Germany]], particularly to the east. Under Hitler's rule, lebensraum became the political rationale behind the Nazi conquest of territories lost by the [[Treaty of Versailles]], which ended [[World War I]].

[[Category:World War II]]

Washington Monument

2007-05-28T21:00:39Z

AvengingAngel: an obelisk is a structure

[[Image:DcWashingtonMor1.JPG|thumb|250px|A view of the Washington Monument from the World War Two Memorial]]

The '''Washington Monument''' is an [[obelisk]] that stands 555 feet tall in [[Washington, D.C.]] dedicated to [[George Washington]]. Engraved on its metal cap is the [[Latin]] phrase "Laus Deo," meaning "Praise be to [[God]]." When It was completed it was the world's tallest structure until the [[Eiffel Tower]] was finished in 1889.

[[Category:Buildings]]
[[Category:Tourist Attractions]]

Talk:Essay:Crackpot

2007-05-28T20:29:07Z

AvengingAngel:

User talk:RSchlafly

2007-05-28T19:52:38Z

AvengingAngel: Crackpot

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

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

==Review==
Roger, here's some material you may wish to review regarding "expansion of due process", [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Fourteenth_Amendment&diff=21204&oldid=14972]

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

== Gospel of Thomas ==

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

: It is my understanding that Christians have historically regarded these apocryphal gospels as being tainted with heresy. Yes, fascinating, but fascinating in the way that heresy is fascinating. I didn't want the Thomas entry to imply that Thomas is a good source of Christian beliefs. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks for your reply. I have amended the entry, both on the [[Gospels]] and the [[Gospel of Thomas]], to make this more explicitly clear.

::[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 17:42, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== reply ==

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

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

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

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

== [[Scientology]] ==

Hello RSchlafly. In your recent modification to the article, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=43627&oldid=43502], you introduced that "not everyone considers it to be a religion". But that would be true of any religion that can be named, some people, somewhere, will consider it to not be a 'true' religion. Are we really trying to present such value judgements to our readers? Can't we simply be brief and to the point and inform readers, then let readers do as they like with their information? If we remain conservative and steadfast and present good, clean information, clear of bias and potential confusions or criticsm, our readers are better served, don't you think ? Yes, there are controversial issues the Church of Scientology has involved itself in but are those actually necessary to a brief, clear description of the religion? Can we discuss, please ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 14:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I was understating the controversy. I think that it is fair to say that most people do not consider Scientology a religion. IRS did not, until just a few years ago. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Okay. How does one explain news items like this one [http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/16921716.htm] ("Scientology Religion") in the Kansas City Star ? Or the 7000+ hits a person gets by googling "Scientology" (its religous locations) at google maps? Or the many website pages about the Scientology Religion? There is nothing like that for a "Scientology Cult" search, with the exception of thousands of pages of criticsm. If an organization presents itself as a religion, is accepted by most governments as a religion, is presented in newspapers as a religion, then shouldn't we present it as a religion, too ? On the other hand, if an article is to be large, then other points of view could be presented ? But if small, then why not as direct and simple as possible ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 17:14, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I did your test, and I found 113,000 google hits for "scientology religion", and 168,000 hit for "scientology cult". This does indeed suggest that more people call it a cult than a religion. But that is just one controversy. Care to say anything about psychotherapy? The Xenu story? Battles over leaks of the OT documents? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Sure, I'll talk with you about anything you like. psychotherapy sucks, no one who knows the myth talks, the Church defends itself vigorously in court. The critics are loud, the critics can publish cheaply. A simplicity of the situation exists, but how can a person view the simplicity, there's the question, would you say? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 09:39, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==McCarthy==
Much of the material [[User:PF Fox]] is "obsolete and deprecated", as per WP's new WP:ATTFAQ' I fought for this along time ago. Plus there is evidence of trolling on the talk page, as I forecasted. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&diff=next&oldid=32278] I would propose a roll back to my version, with whatever material you may wish to save from the recent editing, and then Page Protection. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: My inclination is to start a section titled, "Criticism of McCarthy's methods", and start it by saying: "It is often alleged that McCarthy's methods were irresponsible, inhumane, and reckless. Here are some examples of where his committee supposedly ruined lives." Then let PF Fox put in his most egregious examples, as long as they are factual. You want to do it? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::I've protected the page. That sounds like a good idea. Let's have PF Fox place his proposed language on the Talk page while I work on completing the Venona materials. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

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

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

: Sure, Newton may have cared, in the way that people care about honorary degrees and awards. Maybe he got some privileges from it, I don't know. But nobility status carries no weight with the typical American reader of Conservapedia. Nobody knows what Newton did to get that title, or why the title should make anyone deserving of any respect. It is just stupid and meaningless.
: Newton was a great man, and I am not putting him down. He is great for what he did, not because he was friends with some silly king or however he got the title. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:'Sir' is a title of respect. Not placing it would be equivalent to removing Doctor from the name of those holding a doctorate. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It is only a title of respect among fans of British nobility. Besides, encyclopedias do not normally list people with doctorates under the title "Doctor". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, can the bold text at least show that he was a peer? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I assume that you are joking. I don't know what a peer is, except that my dictionary says that it has something to do with British nobility. I think that the average American has very low respect for British nobility. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:A Peer of the Realm is a member of the British nobility. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 03:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:"Nobody knows what Newton did to get that title, or why the title should make anyone deserving of any respect. It is just stupid and meaningless." ... "I don't know what a peer is, except that my dictionary says that it has something to do with British nobility. I think that the average American has very low respect for British nobility." Are you serious? You don't know what Newton did that resulted in his title? I'd guess Calculus? Maybe Gravity? That deserves a heck of a lot of respect. I don't think we need to know the ins and outs of honorary titles in Britain to understand the basics of this one. According to Answers in Genesis, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i3/newton.asp] "His country officially recognized his work in 1705 when he became the first person to receive a knighthood for scientific achievement." Surely this is important enough to include his "Sir"? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 19:51, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Yes, I am serious. No American has any respect for British nobility titles. Apparently you don't know how Newton got the title either, because you are just guessing. You have a source that says that it was for "his work". Okay, that narrows it a little bit. It wasn't for his relatives. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood my comment, as you misunderstood [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]]'s use of the term "peer". I guess we need to back up a bit. In Britian, knighthoods are given for exceptional achievement or service to the nation, much like the USA gives the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal. Newton was the first to be made a knight for scientific achievement rather than prowess on the battlefield. (From doesgodexist.org: "In 1705, Queen Anne knighted him, Sir Isaac Newton. It was the first knighthood for scientific discoveries rather than deeds on the battlefield or in government." [http://www.doesgodexist.org/NovDec01/IsaacNewtonAndGodsLawOfGravity.html]) Thus Newton was given his title for his *body of work*, which of course included topics like gravity and calculus. I understand that *you* have no respect for such awards. Indeed, there is some controversy over modern versions, even in Britian (see [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/23/world/main590022.shtml]). However, I think it's simply not true to say that *No* American has any respect for British nobility titles - see [[User:Robledo|Robledo]]'s examples below. Given that Newton's achievements were so great as to be awarded an honor that had previously been given only for military prowess, I think the "Sir" is worth keeping. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

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

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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1091938.stm

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

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

Naturally....none of them are British citizens. Read the [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1091938.stm source], son....third paragraph. *sighs* --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 21:26, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's because it is inappropriate for an American to use such a title.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1091938.stm] Newton, however, was not American, thus the use of the title is appropriate. I know this stuff is complicated. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Exactly. To put it in context. "Bono" will never be "Sir Bono" (aside from the fact that his real name is Paul Hewson) because he is not a British citizen. So he can never be a "Sir". However, Newton ''was'' a British citizen, or a subject of the queen (or king), if you will. So he should be referred to by his correct title. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 21:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It's a simple matter of respect. "Sir" is his title in his native country and therefore should be the title that he is addressed by whenever he is addressed, wherever he is addressed. Aside from that argument, he is known the world over as "Sir Isaac Newton".[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 21:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

My students are fond of this song about Sir Issac - it's in MP3 format. [http://www.acme.com/jef/singing_science/newton-160.mp3]--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:32, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== Theory ==

I would like to argue [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_Theory&diff=64382&oldid=63053 this] edit. It is an extremely important distinction, because scientifically, nothing can ever really be proven. Gravity, relativity, etc. are all still theories, but are backed up with massive amounts of evidence, and are used regularly as facts. In any usage outside science, "theory" usually means a "hunch", or unsubstantiated guess. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:05, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: I just don't think that it is true that usage of "theory" outside science is significantly different from its usage in science. Do you have any source for that? Theories have varying levels of substantiation, both inside and outside science. I think that the distinction is completely bogus and misleading.
: Why is this so important, anyway? The subject of what can be proven is another topic. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::Any self-respecting scientist would never use the term theory to mean an unsubstantiated guess. Theories do not have varying levels of substantiation, only the true definition and the misuse by everyone else. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 03:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: That is just not true. Physicists use the term "String Theory", even tho it is just an unsubstantiated guess. Where is the evidence that scientists use the word "theory" differently from others? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Regarding string theory, it has a large amount of "evidence" backing it up. That doesn't mean it's true, but it's certainly not an unsubstantiated guess. Regarding how scientists use the word differently, ask anybody with any sort of involvement in science, it's considered common knowledge that a scientific theory is different than a "guess". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:51, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: No, there is no evidence for String Theory. The disputed section has no cited source, and is contrary to common knowledge. Are you just giving your opinion, or can you cite a source? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:04, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
It's not a disputed fact that theory in the scientific community is not the same as a hypothesis. Sorry. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:08, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

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

== Theory II ==
Is there a reason for [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory&diff=next&oldid=64081]] this edit? What was objectionable? --[[User:Letusratiocinate|Letusratiocinate]] 04:16, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

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

: Those entries certainly are disputed. I disputed them on the Talk pages, and here. The disputed material has no cited sources. I only protected the page because of the removal of the "disputed" tag. If you are right and I am wrong, then you should be able to give some evidence on the Talk page or here. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::There is no disputing the difference between common usage of theory and the scientific meaning. Look it up in a dictionary and you'll see theory is defined as both. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The disputed section says that a common speech theory is different from a scientific theory, with the former being an "unsubstantiated guess" and the latter having to be "well-supported and accepted". My dictionaries don't say any of those things, and they don't reflect any popular or scientific usage to my knowledge. I'd be happy to use a dictionary definition, but if you want something else, then you should provide some support for it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Look at webster's online. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 05:13, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: I looked at Merriam-Webster's, American Heritage, Compact Oxford English, Encarta, and a couple of others. They all disagree with you. You are promoting the oddball definition, so you find support for it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:21, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

A theory, as defined by Merriam-Webster:

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

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

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

== [[Theory of Relativity/draft]] ==

Please stop. Special and general relativity are separate theories. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 14:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

: What do you mean by that? They are certainly closely related, conceptually and historically. Putting them in separate sections already implies differences. Saying that they are separate without any explanation of the difference is just stupid and misleading. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:38, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::GR describes gravity, SR describes objects relative to each other. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 07:06, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, but they are not separate. SR is just GR without the gravity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

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

: No, I am not wrong. I can see from your comments that you know very little about either subject. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::These are difficult subjects, and I myself don't understand either one well. I can do the math of the Lorentz transformation - where fast things get heavy, though.

::We need to make this subject accessible to our readership. If this means a simple (basic?) article which mentions both ideas, that will be a good start. We can use the {{tl|main}} template (or something like it: {spinoff} or {more detail}) to refer the reader to an in-depth treatment.

::Who wants to volunteer for any part of this? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Roger is correct; not only are GR and SR not 'separate,' SR is a limiting case of GR, just as Newtonian mechanics is a limiting case of SR. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:29, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::How's that work? I guess I don't understand it.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:32, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I'll try to put in an explanation if no one else does. Currently, there are two relativity pages, and both need a lot of work. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:15, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::GR generally operates in curved spacetime; in SR spacetime is always flat. But if you plug a flat spacetime into the equations of GR, SR is what falls out. The connection is not only quite deep, but very useful too; in any smooth, curved space, one can always pick a sufficiently small patch such that curvature can be safely neglected. In practical terms, this means that any observer can always choose to work within a region of spacetime small enough to make SR an arbitrarily good approximation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Yes, that is correct. SR approximates GR in the way that a tangent line approximates a curve. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: They were developed in very different ways and at very different times '''and''' they are taught in very different ways and at very different times in university. They deserve completely separate articles (I am educated to graduate level on both). [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I believe the latest version of the draft is mine. I'm knowledgeable of Special Relativity and I was trying to explain it in as basic terms as possible. I don't know much about General Relativity other than what I've picked up from other people. However RSchlafly I hope you realise that gravity is a fairly complex force which adds a lot of extra levels of difficulty onto Special Relativity. If anything they should be given different sections simply because they are so abominably different in scale. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 17:11, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, Special Relativity is simpler. That is why it is called "special". I favor one article titled Relativity that tries to give a concise explanation. There are many textbooks on the subject if the reader really wants the full course. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Personally, I'd favour Relativity as a very short concise "these are the principles of" style article (a sentence or two on each) with links to separate articles for each of the two theories. Also, because it is specialised, "simpler" is not the word. It is "simpler" because the maths is less hardcore, two very different things. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:54, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== Copernicus ==

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

: No, you have not refuted anything. Your edits are false, malicious, misleading, and disrupted. You do not defend what you do on the Talk pages. Please stop, or I'll have to block you.
: I did not say that those problems "still exist in modern astronomy today". Reread it. I even gave a date for resolving the parallax problem. Your change called Tycho one of "previous astronomers". That is not correct, as Tycho lived after Copernicus.
: Your changes to Scalia's article are also completely unacceptable. No encyclopedia would say that. You are trying to put words in his mouth that he never said. If you have proof that Scalia is against desegregation, then document it. Otherwise, don't say it. The article is about Scalia and what he has said and done, not about your personal speculations about what his opinions might have been in the 1950s.
: You are becoming a nuisance. Use the Talk pages to make your points. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:40, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::I blocked him. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:42, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I don't know AmesG's other work. My objection is to these edits: Scalia [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Antonin_Scalia&diff=69941&oldid=69913] Copernicus [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nicolaus_Copernicus&diff=71299&oldid=71288] Theory [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory&curid=7019&diff=71251&oldid=71242&rcid=73770], and to his subsequent edit wars over those edits. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:12, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What's wrong with the Brahe insert? He did solve many of the problems with Copernicus' theory.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:16, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Tycho Brahe did some important works, as did dozens of later eminent astronomers. I think that AmesG's comments were inappropriate because it is peculiar to single out Tycho in this context, Tycho was not a "previous astronomer", and Tycho did not solve any of the 3 problems that were mentioned in the previous sentence. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:27, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::*Just a little note here, a quick check of the edit history of the page reveals AmesG's edit '''''did not''''' say that Tycho was a "previous astronomer" but in fact, said the exact opposite! http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nicolaus_Copernicus&oldid=71299 . HTH [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 15:03, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::As to the other two, I think Ames could've left out the Brown v. Board part and left it at that. And most of the "Theory" part is good, except for this: " In fact, it is hard to find anyone who makes this distinction, outside those who are promoting the theory of evolution to the general public." That's a flat-out falsehood. It's also unsubstantiated and opinion, not fact.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:19, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: If the statement is "flat-out falsehood", then it should be easy to prove me wrong. Just give me a couple of URLs of pages that make the distinction. I did discuss the matter on the Talk page. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:36, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Are you serious?? If anything, the burden should be on you to prove your statement. I make that distinction all the time, b/c it'd be less than honest to tell people that the word "theory" can't be used in different ways. And again, you can't cite that claim. It should be removed.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, I am quite serious. If you have some evidence that I am wrong, please post it on [[Talk:Theory]]. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:11, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU and Evolution==
Thanks for the revert; however, what is wrong with reverting back to my edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=prev&oldid=76854]. (sourced ref from Ann Coulter).
I think it is wrong for liberal editors to change sourced conservative views and replace them with their own liberal opinions (in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments). This is Conservapedia, and I don't want this to turn into Wikipedia, where the libs edit out what they don't like. They preach about free speech, including burning the flag, but they won't allow sourced comments from Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 12:37, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

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

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

No, your edits to [[Copernicus]] were entirely wrong. In fact, all of you edits have been 100% bogus. I just had to revert this edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=77179&oldid=77166] to [[ACLU]]. You just changed one line and managed to insert three errors. I believe that you should be blocked for persisting in making such destructive edits. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

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

==Good delete==

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

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

==Pedophilic priests==

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

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

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

==Flat Earth==

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

: So tell me on the Talk page where my version is in error. I posted why your version is wrong. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::Sorry, I had already posted this before I realised you had posted on the talk page! [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:49, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I added a lot to [[Flat Earth]] and made some comments at [[talk:Flat Earth]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:04, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Thanks. Conservapedia ought to be one place where evolutionists cannot make fun of Christians as flat earthers. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Mohammedans? ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Islam&curid=1925&diff=87904&oldid=87876 Mohammedans]? Never heard of it. I guess you learn something new every day... --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:55, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

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

: Yes, it is an old-fashioned term, but it used to be extremely common and it is still in dictionaries. It fell out of favor, but I don't think that it is correct to say that it is offensive. It is no more offensive than "moslem". Some people prefer "muslim" to "moslem", but there is nothing wrong with using "moslem" or "mohammedan". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:03, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Moslem vs. Muslim is a trans-Atlantic distinction. As for "Mohammedan," I studied with one of the nation's best Islamicists when I was at Rice. She specifically told us never to use "Mohammedan," and if you read any formal scholarship (after 1900) on the subject, you'll learn not to do it either. May I suggest Berkey, "the Formation of Islam"? Or, if you still disagree, we might as well revert to the Sayers translation of ''Song of Roland'', and just call Muslims ''Paynims''. It has about the same pejorative meaning.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:24, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, there are those who prefer not to use the term Mohammedan, but their objection is not that it is an ethnic slur or a synonym for paynim. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:57, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Those who "prefer not to use" the term are the Muslims themselves :-/ -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:04, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: And there are terrorists who prefer not to be called terrorists, and Moslems who prefer not to be called Moslems. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:37, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::My understanding is that the reason why it is not used is because it falsely implies that Muslims worship Mohammed. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:38, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Reasons like that are sometimes given, but they don't make much sense. Note that your reason is different from AmesG's reason. I don't think that there is any good reason. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:13, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I suppose the #1 determinant for whether the term goes in should be whether it is, in fact, commonly used or not. I can't speak for others, but I don't hear it used. Maybe in other parts of the country the term is more common, I don't know. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:31, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: It used to be more common. You'll find it a lot if you read old books. I would not be suggesting it if I thought that it was an ethnic slur. It is not. It literally means just a follower of Mohammad. Nothing wrong with the term. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:44, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I think the one place I've seen it is in an old book in my church library, so that makes sense. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:51, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

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

It is VERY offensive for muslims to be referred to as Mohammadeans, for the above reasons. They are a very adamantly monotheistic faith, and any implication that they worship a human being is considered blasphemy (and you know how they feel about that). It's like calling Christians John-ians or Luke-ians. Leave it out already. Why would you want to be so offensive. [[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 10:57, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

: I don't think that Mohammedan is an ethnic slur any more than "Abrahamic religion" is an ethnic slur on Jews. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:19, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::You don't think a lot of the time. Apology accepted.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::: AmesG, I was not apologizing to you.
::: PalMD, calling Christians John-ians or Luke-ians is not particularly offensive. Of course, there are people who are offended by innocuous statements. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:04, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Since you weren't apologizing to me before, I'll accept it now.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 18:08, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

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

==Abortion poll==

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

: Your statement did not match the most recent poll on the cited page with the poll results. Yes, your statement is less than factual. Give support on the Talk page, if you wish. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:12, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::The page I linked to had a whole series of polls. The two most recent polls said that 16% of the American public favored retaining unlimited rights to abortion, and 39% favored abortion being 'legal in most cases'. Of the remainder, 31% favored it being illegal in 'most' cases and 12% illegal in all cases. In other words, 55% favor it being legal in all or most cases and 43% favor it being illegal in all or most cases, with 2% unsure either way. The other poll referred to the retention of the rights granted under Roe v Wade and 62% favored this. This should be reflected in the article because as it stands the article misrepresents the facts. Please tell me why you think we should misrepresent facts clearly laid out in a neutral opinion poll. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:37, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::: No, I posted actual facts. I am against misrepresenting facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

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

'''ARTICLES I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WRITTEN AT CONSERVAPEDIA:'''

'''ABORTION RELATED ARTICLES:'''

*[[Abortion alternatives]]
*[[Abortion procedures]]
*[[Culture of life]]
*[[Dilatation and curettage abortion]]
*[[Dilatation and Evacuation abortion]]
*[[National Right to Life Committee]]
*[[Prostaglandin Abortion]]
*[[Partial birth abortion]]
*[[Right to life]]
*[[Right to life books]]
*[[Right to life movement]]
*[[Right to life leaders]]
*[[Saline abortion]]
*[[Suction abortion]]
*[[Sanctity of life]]
*[[Silent scream]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

==Sysop Pledge==

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

{{Sysop Pledge}}

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

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

== Homosexuality article ==

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

==Capital punishment==

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

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

== please vote for me ==

Please vote for me here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Request_for_Bureaucratship [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why do you hate gay people so much? ==
Just curious. I'd love to know the reasons behind your "principled" disagreement.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 10:52, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

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

I never said I was gay or not (!?), but as someone who believes in equality & egalitarianism, I think it offends all of humanity, the level of distaste that your edits level against homosexuals.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:31, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

: I never said that I hate gay people. Your bigotry is noted. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:02, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::Hmm, bigotry is not accepting bigotry now? (butting in where I'm not wanted) [[User:Human|Human]] 21:32, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Apparently AmesG and you want to use this page for ad hominem attacks on me. You will note that AmesG does not mention any specific edits to support his attacks. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

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

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

I liked this edit. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homophobia&diff=next&oldid=140220] It's exactly what I was trying to say, but couldn't put into words. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:29, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== Question about your beliefs ==

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

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

== f****t==

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

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

It is more offensive than "homophobic." The parallel is, "n****r" : "racist" :: "f****t" : "homophobe".-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:32, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

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

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

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

Okay, let's clarify the difference. I'm not saying it's okay to say it under any circumstances. But the generally accepted cultural convention is that someone "in" the group may use a derogatory slur, just like you can say, "yeah, I sucked on that exam," but your friend saying, "DUDE, you sucked on that exam," is not okay. That doesn't make EITHER words that are okay when used by someone outside the group, and esp. not to convey malice.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:03, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::shouldnt the "homophobes" only be able to call themselves homophobes?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
NO. There is a difference. But tell you what if you don't see it, and if you don't want to be called a "homophobe," fine. I won't call you that, and I'll not use the word, if you won't use the words discussed above. This is only because I can't seem to make the difference clear to you, although it would be clear to anyone who actually is gay.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:06, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: Yeah, I see the difference. You just happen to like some name-calling better than other name-calling, based on your own personal prejudices. That's all. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:46, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

==Revert==
Hey can you revert my user talk page? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 14:34, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== [[Geocentric theory]] ==

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

: I don't know whether she believes that stuff or not, but even if she believes it, that is not reason enough to put it in an encyclopedia. A lot of people believe a lot of kooky things, and we can't list them all. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::I don't see why you are so opposed to the page stating that some people believe the geocentric theory. Clearly some people do believe it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 12:30, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::: No, it is not clear. Who? Where? How do you know that the web page is not a joke? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:36, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::It looks real, as does [http://www.galileowaswrong.com/ This one] --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 12:41, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: I am not going to pay the $27 to try to find out. What if someone else says the Moon is made of green cheese and cites a web site? It is not much evidence that there is any significant belief in a green cheese theory. Maybe it could be mentioned in an article on Internet scams or something like that. I did look at the work that Mmeelliissssaa referred me too, and it is not a serious piece of work. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:49, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Exactly what i try to tell to creationists time to time, if 99% of biologists think creationism has no merits and is just view held by few people because of their religious beliefs, why waste time and space on encyclopedia for that. But still, most encyclopedias like Wikipedia are willing to add articles that admit that some people still believe earth to be 6000 years old. But i see Conservapedia is taking a stricter attitude here. I'm all in favour of it. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 12:57, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: What is the idea in adding joke pages (for example fixedearth) as references - I don't understand it if this site is trying to be encyclopedic one and not a joke collection!? They are parodies written about Christians. Irony and taunt. And even better joke if someone takes it as earnestly written. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 13:42, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well to be fair, I thought [[YEC]] was a parody of Christian beliefs until I did some research on it. Geocentrism doesn't sound that much more implausible to me. --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 14:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

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

==Reversions==
WILL YOU DISCUSS THIS INSTEAD OF JUST UNDOING????

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

==Wiki-Conservapedia?==

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

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

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

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

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

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

==[[Conservapedia:AFD Homophobia]]==
Need some support, please. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:59, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

==[[Agnosticism]]==
Good clarification. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:51, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Notice ==

Please read this: [[New Sysops Training Page]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:26, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

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

: Go ahead propose something on the Talk page. My main purpose there was to make sure that the criticisms were specific and documented. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:09, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::I haven't checked out the conservapedia article on McCarthy yet, but you might get a chuckle out of [[User:HeartOfGold/MythOfMcCarthyism|MythOfMcCarthyism]] in my user space. You've probably read the book, but if not, it is good. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>HG</big>HeartOfGold]] [[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 23:08, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Blog ==

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

== Gonzales statement is not controversial ==

Hello. Regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Habeas_corpus&diff=171451&oldid=171414 this]...I am the person who added that section title. However, upon reflection, I agree, that Gonzales's statement is not controversial. The implication is controversial to me, and probabably many others on the left and the right, but he is technically correct.

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

::You're a bit late for that--just ask Jose Padilla. Habeas Corpus is now obsolete in the USA, and the Democrats aren't too likely to be inclined to put the toy away when they get to play with it. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:10, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::: There is some controversy over whether enemy combatants have habeas corpus rights. The US Constitution is silent on the matter. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:20, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::I think the only question is whether U.S. Citizens who have been classified as enemy combatants enjoy such rights. Any foreign national, picked up and held on foreign soil--they need to seek the protection of their own country's constitution...but my opinion is a matter for discussion, not an article. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>HG</big>HeartOfGold]] [[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 01:26, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Crackpot ==

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

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

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

--[[User:AvengingAngel|AvengingAngel]] 15:52, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Creation Museum

2007-05-28T19:19:55Z

AvengingAngel: link

The Creation Museum is a multi million dollar museum in the United States designed to promote [[Young Earth Creationism]]. It will open its doors to the public on May 28, 2007.

The museum presents a literal interpretation of [[Genesis]] in the origin of universe and life. The exhibits are designed to demonstrate that the planet is just a few thousand years old and that man and dinosaurs once coexisted. The enterprise is supported by [[Ken Ham]], creator of the group [http://www.answersingenesis.org/ Answers in Genesis].

Controversy has raged since the enterprise was first announced with [[Lawrence Krauss]], director of the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Case Western University (Ohio) stating that the museum is both a "fraud" and "hypocritical" because it:
<blockquote>"... repeatedly misrepresents the process and results of science and distorts the scientific record. Yet in every case it takes advantage of the technical wizardry of science to get its point across, with a series of dazzling animatronic displays and explanations" <ref> Kraus, L, 2007 quoted in "Museum of Misinformation", New Scientist, May 26th 2007, p24 </ref></blockquote>

Ken Ham will defend the Museum against these criticisms on The FOX News Channel’s TV program The O’Reilly Factor on 28th May <ref> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/28/museum-news-oreilly </ref>

==references==
<references/>

Creation Museum

2007-05-28T19:18:07Z

AvengingAngel: links

The Creation Museum is a multi million dollar museum in the United States designed to promote [[Young Earth Creationism]]. It will open its doors to the public on May 28, 2007.

The museum presents a literal interpretation of the genesis in the origin of universe and life. The exhibits are designed to demonstrate that the planet is just a few thousand years old and that man and dinosaurs once coexisted. The enterprise is supported by [[Ken Ham]], creator of the group [http://www.answersingenesis.org/ Answers in Genesis].

Controversy has raged since the enterprise was first announced with [[Lawrence Krauss]], director of the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Case Western University (Ohio) stating that the museum is both a "fraud" and "hypocritical" because it:
<blockquote>"... repeatedly misrepresents the process and results of science and distorts the scientific record. Yet in every case it takes advantage of the technical wizardry of science to get its point across, with a series of dazzling animatronic displays and explanations" <ref> Kraus, L, 2007 quoted in "Museum of Misinformation", New Scientist, May 26th 2007, p24 </ref></blockquote>

Ken Ham will defend the Museum against these criticisms on The FOX News Channel’s TV program The O’Reilly Factor on 28th May <ref> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/28/museum-news-oreilly </ref>

==references==
<references/>

Creation Museum

2007-05-28T19:17:00Z

AvengingAngel: extend article. I wait for the debate. Needs more tomorrow...

The Creation Museum is a multi million dollar museum in the United States designed to promote young Earth creationism. It will open its doors to the public on May 28, 2007.

The museum presents a literal interpretation of the genesis in the origin of universe and life. The exhibits are designed to demonstrate that the planet is just a few thousand years old and that man and dinosaurs once coexisted. The enterprise is supported by Ken Ham, creator of the group [http://www.answersingenesis.org/ Answers in Genesis].

Controversy has raged since the enterprise was first announced with [[Lawrence Krauss]], director of the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Case Western University (Ohio) stating that the museum is both a "fraud" and "hypocritical" because it:
<blockquote>"... repeatedly misrepresents the process and results of science and distorts the scientific record. Yet in every case it takes advantage of the technical wizardry of science to get its point across, with a series of dazzling animatronic displays and explanations" <ref> Kraus, L, 2007 quoted in "Museum of Misinformation", New Scientist, May 26th 2007, p24 </ref></blockquote>

Ken Ham will defend the Museum against these criticisms on The FOX News Channel’s TV program The O’Reilly Factor on 28th May <ref> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/28/museum-news-oreilly </ref>

==references==
<references/>

Talk:Canadian slave trade

2007-05-28T18:57:53Z

AvengingAngel:

AmeriCan, you just don't get it do you. You're a prime example of why so many people don't like Americans. You couldn't have done an article on the topic of Human Trafficking, and had a section on countries, you had to start a stub of an article, and base it on human trafficking in Canada. You're just in this to make America look good, and countries you perceive as a threat to look bad. Case in point, you had to title your article "Canadian" slave trade, as if it is some sort of booming industry. I've got news for you, it happens everywhere, including the states. Why don't you open up your mind?

However, I will give you this liberal news source to cite a particular case of slavery in Canada, it's from the Toronto Star Saturday May 19th. [http://www.thestar.com/News/article/215708]

==suggestion for re-edit of the first paragraph==

The '''Canadian slave trade''' refers to the problems that [[Canada]] faces in relation to modern-day sexual slavery. The country is among a number of industrialized nations in the western world which are attempting to address this important issue.

--[[User:AvengingAngel|AvengingAngel]] 14:57, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Crackpot

2007-05-28T18:50:13Z

AvengingAngel: explanation

Essay:Crackpot

2007-05-28T18:47:45Z

AvengingAngel:

The term Crackpot is used perjoratively against a person, who writes or speaks in an authoritative fashion about a particular subject, often in [[science]] or [[mathematics]], but is alleged to have false or even ludicrous beliefs. Such a person may also be termed a [[crank]].

Ideas held by such people are called ''crank ideas'' or ''crackpot theories''.

True Crackpots usually have some formal training in science but are often unattached to any university, college, or research institute, and have usually reached a point where their papers and commentaries are refused by standard scientific journals as being of little interest. They form a "fringe" in any field, and it is often difficult to distinguish crackpots from bona fide scientists who hold minority views because the distinction is usually based primarily on behavior rather than on scientific contributions. The consequence is that a bona fide scientist with a minority view is unfortunately sometimes called a crackpot merely due to peculiar or disruptive behavior.

Some distinguishing characteristics of crackpots are:

1. The crackpot has usually lost interest in new experiments and will defend to his theory or viewpoint, even though it may have been rejected by the scientific community as invalid or useless. Any objective view of reality becomes less important than his own personal view.

2. As a consequence of continuing peer rejection, the crackpot becomes more and more strident with advancing age, until eventually one finds him doing vigorous vocal battle in fringe arenas, open forums, anti-science mailing lists, and magazines devoted to fringe ideas and readers who thrive emotionally on fringe ideas.

3. In any serious discussion of a scientific issue, the crackpot will usually offer polemics rather than reason, invective rather than fact, and a harangue that he's a "revolutionary" against an "establishment". Sometimes he makes accusations of a [[conspiracy theory|conspiracy]] against him. At other times, the accusation is of "social control" of the minds of scientists. He appoints himself as the avant-garde of a "paradigm shift", when usually there is no "paradigm" in any Kuhnian sense, but merely a consensus view about a small scientific question. One basic philosophical failure of the crackpot is the failure to understand that "paradigms" and "paradigm shifts" are usually recognized after the fact by historians and almost never during the time of the shift, and secondly that paradigm shifts are almost always the work of younger scientists and not of older scientists.

4. Many crackpots, for one reason or another, have no physical access to the current scientific literature, and the result is a shutting out of any new input. New results are unimportant to the crackpot: he will say the case was closed years ago, or tell you the results are meaningless without his even reading the new paper, or tell you he knows of the group that did the work and he doesn't trust their laboratory.

Essay:Crackpot

2007-05-28T18:46:05Z

AvengingAngel: Enhance article

The term Crackpot is used perjoratively against a person, who writes or speaks in an authoritative fashion about a particular subject, often in science or mathematics, but is alleged to have false or even ludicrous beliefs. Such a person may also be termed a [[crank]].

Ideas held by such people are called ''crank ideas'' or ''crackpot theories''.

True Crackpots usually have formal training in science and are often unattached to any university, college, or research institute, and they usually reach a point where their papers and commentaries are refused by standard scientific journals as of little interest. They form a "fringe" in any field, and it is often difficult to distinguish crackpots from bona fide scientists who hold minority views because the distinction is usually based primarily on behavior rather than on scientific contributions. The consequence is that a bona fide scientist with a minority view is unfortunately sometimes called a crackpot merely due to peculiar or disruptive behavior.

Some distinguishing characteristics of crackpots are:

1. The crackpot has usually lost interest in new experiments and will defend to his theory or viewpoint, even though it may have been rejected by the scientific community as invalid or useless. Any objective view of reality becomes less important than his own personal view.

2. As a consequence of continuing peer rejection, the crackpot becomes more and more strident with advancing age, until eventually one finds him doing vigorous vocal battle in fringe arenas, open forums, anti-science mailing lists, and magazines devoted to fringe ideas and readers who thrive emotionally on fringe ideas.

3. In any serious discussion of a scientific issue, the crackpot will usually offer polemics rather than reason, invective rather than fact, and a harangue that he's a "revolutionary" against an "establishment". Sometimes he makes accusations of a [[conspiracy theory|conspiracy]] against him. At other times, the accusation is of "social control" of the minds of scientists. He appoints himself as the avant-garde of a "paradigm shift", when usually there is no "paradigm" in any Kuhnian sense, but merely a consensus view about a small scientific question. One basic philosophical failure of the crackpot is the failure to understand that "paradigms" and "paradigm shifts" are usually recognized after the fact by historians and almost never during the time of the shift, and secondly that paradigm shifts are almost always the work of younger scientists and not of older scientists.

4. Many crackpots, for one reason or another, have no physical access to the current scientific literature, and the result is a shutting out of any new input. New results are unimportant to the crackpot: he will say the case was closed years ago, or tell you the results are meaningless without his even reading the new paper, or tell you he knows of the group that did the work and he doesn't trust their laboratory.

Essay:Crackpot

2007-05-28T18:36:38Z

AvengingAngel: new article

Planet

2007-05-28T18:21:56Z

AvengingAngel:

{{Solarsystem}}
A '''planet''' is a astronomical body that is in [[orbit]] around a [[star]], has sufficient mass for its own [[gravity]] to overcome rigid body forces, assumes an approximately spherical shape, and has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit <ref>http://www.iau.org/iau0603.414.0.html</ref>, i.e. has "swept out" the area around its orbit during its formation, accreting into its mass all other smaller bodies within its orbit. Consequently, a planet does not share its orbital region with any other bodies of significant size, except for its satellites or those collected later by virtue of its gravitational field.

== Young Earth Creationism View ==
[[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationist]] assert that [[materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the planet formation are inadequate and contra-evidential. <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences3.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp</ref> In addition, creationists often cite the secular scientific literature in order to make the case that materialist explanations of planet formation are inadequate:

“... most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.” Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr who was proposing a new planetary formation model, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” <ref> Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605 cited at: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref>

"No one knows quite how planetesimals ever attain protoplanet status." <ref>D. Kaisler, The puzzles of planethood, Sky & Telescope 104(2):32-38, 2002.</ref>

“It turns out to be surprisingly difficult for planetesimals to accrete mass during even the most gentle collisions.” Erik Asphaug, “The Small Planets,” <ref> Scientific American, Vol. 282, May 2000, p. 54. cited at: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes46.html</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Planet

2007-05-28T18:21:23Z

AvengingAngel: attempt to shorten the first paragraph. Revert if you don't like it.

{{Solarsystem}}
A '''planet''' is a astronomical body that is in [[orbit]] around a [[star]], has sufficient mass for its own [[gravity]] to overcome rigid body forces, assumes an approximately spherical shape, and has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit <ref>http://www.iau.org/iau0603.414.0.html</ref>, i.e. has "swept out" the area around its orbit during its formation, accreting into its mass all other smaller bodies within its orbit. Consequently, a planet dooes not share its orbital region with any other bodies of significant size, except for its satellites or those collected later by virtue of its gravitational field.

== Young Earth Creationism View ==
[[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationist]] assert that [[materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the planet formation are inadequate and contra-evidential. <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences3.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp</ref> In addition, creationists often cite the secular scientific literature in order to make the case that materialist explanations of planet formation are inadequate:

“... most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.” Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr who was proposing a new planetary formation model, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” <ref> Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605 cited at: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref>

"No one knows quite how planetesimals ever attain protoplanet status." <ref>D. Kaisler, The puzzles of planethood, Sky & Telescope 104(2):32-38, 2002.</ref>

“It turns out to be surprisingly difficult for planetesimals to accrete mass during even the most gentle collisions.” Erik Asphaug, “The Small Planets,” <ref> Scientific American, Vol. 282, May 2000, p. 54. cited at: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes46.html</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Planet

2007-05-28T18:14:33Z

AvengingAngel: sort out references

{{Solarsystem}}
A '''planet''' is a astronomical body that is in [[orbit]] around a [[star]], has sufficient mass for its own [[gravity]] to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes an approximately spherical shape, and has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit <ref>http://www.iau.org/iau0603.414.0.html</ref>.

The phrase "cleared the neighborhood around its orbit" refers to a body "sweeping out" the area around its orbit as it forms, by causing all other smaller bodies in its orbit to accrete with it. As a consequence it does not then share its orbital region with any other bodies of significant size, except for satellites or those collected later under its gravitational influence.

== Young Earth Creationism View ==
[[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationist]] assert that [[materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the planet formation are inadequate and contra-evidential. <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences3.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp</ref> In addition, creationists often cite the secular scientific literature in order to make the case that materialist explanations of planet formation are inadequate:

“... most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.” Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr who was proposing a new planetary formation model, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” <ref> Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605 cited at: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref>

"No one knows quite how planetesimals ever attain protoplanet status." <ref>D. Kaisler, The puzzles of planethood, Sky & Telescope 104(2):32-38, 2002.</ref>

“It turns out to be surprisingly difficult for planetesimals to accrete mass during even the most gentle collisions.” Erik Asphaug, “The Small Planets,” <ref> Scientific American, Vol. 282, May 2000, p. 54. cited at: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes46.html</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Planet

2007-05-28T18:11:59Z

AvengingAngel: grammar etc.

{{Solarsystem}}
A '''planet''' is a astronomical body that is in [[orbit]] around a [[star]], has sufficient mass for its own [[gravity]] to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes an approximately spherical shape, and has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit <ref>http://www.iau.org/iau0603.414.0.html</ref>.

The phrase "cleared the neighborhood around its orbit" refers to a body "sweeping out" the area around its orbit as it forms, by causing all other smaller bodies in its orbit to accrete with it. As a consequence it does not then share its orbital region with any other bodies of significant size, except for satellites or those collected later under its gravitational influence.

== Young Earth Creationism View ==
[[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationist]] assert that [[materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the planet formation are inadequate and contra-evidential. <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences3.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp</ref> In addition, creationists often cite the secular scientific literature in order to make the case that materialist explanations of planet formation are inadequate:

“... most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.” Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr who was proposing a new planetary formation model, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605 <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref>

"No one knows quite how planetesimals ever attain protoplanet status." (D. Kaisler, The puzzles of planethood, Sky & Telescope 104(2):32-38, 2002.

“It turns out to be surprisingly difficult for planetesimals to accrete mass during even the most gentle collisions.” Erik Asphaug, “The Small Planets,” Scientific American, Vol. 282, May 2000, p. 54. <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes46.html</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Talk:American English

2007-05-28T18:09:28Z

AvengingAngel:

===Editted Bad Example===
Mardy Bum, in the dialect tha the Arctic Monkeys use, does not refer to a tramp at all, and in fact, the word bum is not used for tramp (I live here, and speak it.) In this case, it is simply a compound-phrase meaning a grumpy or sulky individual (a variation on the phrase uses a less family-friendly word for the posterior to get the same effect, albeit with less affection and more vehemence.) If you want a citation, I can vite you the lyrics of the song [[User:Stargrave|Stargrave]] 12:42, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

It seems to me that this article is in real need of an upgrade. There are no refeences, and while this reads as if it might be correct, it could be personal prejudice.--[[User:AvengingAngel|AvengingAngel]] 14:09, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

American English

2007-05-28T18:08:04Z

AvengingAngel:

The term '''American English''' is not an accurate term, but it is not an [[oxymoron]] as some believe.

It is considered amongst scholars of [[linguistics]] not to be a language in itself, but rather a [[dialect]] of the original language spoken in [[United Kingdom|Great Britain]].

The use of [[English]] in the [[United States]] was inherited as a result of British colonization of the country which at the time was partly a British colony. The first wave of English-speaking settlers arrived in North America in the 17th century. During that time, there were also speakers in North America of Dutch, French, German, Spanish, Swedish, Scots, Welsh, Irish, Scottish Gaelic, Finnish, as well as numerous Native American languages. To a certain extent, the American dialect spoken commonly throughout the USA comes from the intertwining of many of these languages and dialects.

In many ways, compared to British English, American English is conservative in its phonology. Dialects in North America are most distinctive on the East Coast of the continent partly because these areas were in contact with England, and imitated prestigious varieties of British English at a time when those varieties were undergoing changes. Also, many speech communities on the East Coast have existed in their present locations longer than others. The interior of the United States, however, was settled by people from all regions of the existing U.S. and, as such, developed a far more generic linguistic pattern.

Examples of similar, albeit less conservative, English dialects are found throughout the world including Britain itself. In Singapore for example a dialect, similar to English is spoken by the countries inhabitants. The dialect, dubbed 'Singlish' by its users can be best described as an amalgamation of English, as spoken throughout the Empire at the time, and other South-East Asian languages, namely Mandarin Chinese. 'Singlish' is a vividly colorful language and one which the Singaporean people are, quite rightly, extremely proud of. It forms an aspect of the countries identity, much in the same way as dialects such as 'Cockney' characterise the East-End of London.

Dialects of the English language are also spoken widely throughout Africa and the West Indies (also former British colonies). These dialects have been labelled 'Pidgin-English' and again are an amalgamation of native languages mixed with that of the English speaking British colonials.

As mentioned previously, English dialects are found extensively throughout the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. Cockney, which in its rhyming form is perhaps the most famous example is spoken rarely now in the East-End of London. This is not the only notable example however, 'Scouse', originating in Liverpool, is spoken in Liverpool. In addition to this, different regions will also adopt their own terminologies, these are often area exclusive but have extended into 'popular culture' through music and art, an example of which can be found in The Arctic Monkeys song 'Mardy Bum', essentially meaning a grumpy or sulky person. Despite the wide ranging usage of such dialects however, they are not recognised either by their users or by authoritative sources to be correct English. As such, if use of these dialects are found on applications or examination papers they will be sent back, or in the case of academia marked down.{{fact}}

This is not to say that use of dialects is wrong, indeed many would argue the opposite in that they provide color to a rapidly greying world. In accordance to this it can be argued that use of such dialects should be permitted on the internet and in the public sector, providing that others can understand and that the usage is not offensive. On the other extreme however, limiting an area, for example an internet domain, to one dialect in the name of conservatism, is abhorrent and arguably anti-intellectual. We can only be grateful that such an aggressive attack on our freedom of speech is not present in our fair nation.
[[Category:United States]]

Golden Ratio

2007-05-15T23:18:38Z

AvengingAngel: /* Fibonacci Numbers and the Golden Ratio */

The golden ratio is a number, commonly known as phi (<math>\varphi</math>), defined as
<math>\varphi^2 = \varphi + 1</math>. The value of phi is

:<math>\frac{1 + \sqrt{5}}{2}</math>

Phi is an [[irrational number]]. In decimal form it is often written

:1.618...

The golden ratio was first defined by Euclid of Alexandria around 300BC. His definition reads:

<blockquote>''A straight line is said to have been cut in extreme and mean ratio when, as the whole line is to the greater segment, so is the greater to the lesser.''</blockquote>

A dodecahedron, a solid in which each side is a pentagon, is related to the Golden Ratio in that both the surface area and the volume of a dodecahedron of unit edge length are functions of the Golden Ratio. Plato described the dodecahedron as the solid ''which the gods used for embroidering the constellation on the whole heaven.''

==Fibonacci Numbers and the Golden Ratio==

Leonardo of Pisa (c1170 – 1250), commonly known as Fibonacci, was an Italian mathematician, who wrote an arithmetic treatise called [[Liber Abaci]] ( the book of the abacus) in 1202. In this book, Fibonacci describes a problem concerning rabbit popuations, the solution to which is the sequence:

1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, ...

The sequence can be continued by adding together the last two terms generated.

The numbers in the sequence are normally called Fibonacci numbers, and they have some remarkable properties, such as if the terms in the series are labelled with the natural numbers, then any Fibonacci number which occurs with a label which is prime, is itself prime. (for example, the 11th number in the sequence is 89. Both 11 and 89 are prime).

The relevance of this sequence here is that the ratio of the last two numbers generated at each stage in the Fibonacci sequence converges to the Golden Ratio. This can be checked:
* 1/1 = 1
* 2/2 = 2
* 3/2 = 1.5
* 5/3 = 1.6666..
* 8/5 = 1.6
* 13/8 = 1.625 etc.

It can be seen from this that successive ratios underestimate and overestimate the ratio, and the convergence is quite rapid.

For more on the sequence, see: http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat.html

==The golden ratio in art==

It has been observed that the golden ratio is evident in the arrangement of branches along the stems of plants, and of veins in leaves. The golden ratio also has a place in art when used to determine what arrangements of a composition are aesthetically pleasing to the eye. Some would suggest that the "perfect" human face adheres to the golden ratio <ref> http://www.beautyanalysis.com/index2_mba.htm </ref>.

[[Leonardo da Vinci]] was a close friend of Luca Pacioli, who published a treatise (''Divina Proportione'') on the Golden Ratio in 1509. It has been claimed that he used the Golden Ratio in his composition of the [[Mona Lisa]], but there is no documentation to prove this.

[[Salvador Dali]] deliberately used the golden ratio in his painting ''Sacrament of the Last Supper'', incorporating also a huge dodecahedron around the supper table.

[[Le Corbusier]] designed an entire design system called the ''Modulor'', based on the Golden Ratio, which aimed to give harmonious proportions to everything about a building.

==References==
<references/>

[[category:mathematics]]

Golden Ratio

2007-05-15T23:17:57Z

AvengingAngel: /* Fibonacci Numbers and the Golden Ratio */

The golden ratio is a number, commonly known as phi (<math>\varphi</math>), defined as
<math>\varphi^2 = \varphi + 1</math>. The value of phi is

:<math>\frac{1 + \sqrt{5}}{2}</math>

Phi is an [[irrational number]]. In decimal form it is often written

:1.618...

The golden ratio was first defined by Euclid of Alexandria around 300BC. His definition reads:

<blockquote>''A straight line is said to have been cut in extreme and mean ratio when, as the whole line is to the greater segment, so is the greater to the lesser.''</blockquote>

A dodecahedron, a solid in which each side is a pentagon, is related to the Golden Ratio in that both the surface area and the volume of a dodecahedron of unit edge length are functions of the Golden Ratio. Plato described the dodecahedron as the solid ''which the gods used for embroidering the constellation on the whole heaven.''

==Fibonacci Numbers and the Golden Ratio==

Leonardo of Pisa (c1170 – 1250), commonly known as Fibonacci, was an Italian mathematician, who wrote an arithmetic treatise called [[Liber Abaci]] ( the book of the abacus) in 1202. In this book, Fibonacci describes a problem concerning rabbit popuations, the solution to which is the sequence:

1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, ...

The sequence can be continued by adding together the last two terms generated.

The numbers in the sequence are normally called Fibonacci numbers, and they have some remarkable properties, such as if the terms in the series are labelled with the natural numbers, then any Fibonacci number which occurs with a label which is prime, is itself prime. (for example, the 11th number in the sequence is 89. Both 11 and 89 are prime).

The relevance of this sequence here is that the ratio of the last two numbers generated at each stage in the Fibonacci sequence converges to the Golden Ratio. This can be checked:
* 1/1 = 1
* 2/2 = 2
* 3/2 = 1.5
* 5/3 = 1.6666..
* 8/5 = 1.6
* 13/8 = 1.625 etc.

It can be seen from this that successive ratios underestimate and overestimate the ratio, and the convergence is quite rapid.

==The golden ratio in art==

It has been observed that the golden ratio is evident in the arrangement of branches along the stems of plants, and of veins in leaves. The golden ratio also has a place in art when used to determine what arrangements of a composition are aesthetically pleasing to the eye. Some would suggest that the "perfect" human face adheres to the golden ratio <ref> http://www.beautyanalysis.com/index2_mba.htm </ref>.

[[Leonardo da Vinci]] was a close friend of Luca Pacioli, who published a treatise (''Divina Proportione'') on the Golden Ratio in 1509. It has been claimed that he used the Golden Ratio in his composition of the [[Mona Lisa]], but there is no documentation to prove this.

[[Salvador Dali]] deliberately used the golden ratio in his painting ''Sacrament of the Last Supper'', incorporating also a huge dodecahedron around the supper table.

[[Le Corbusier]] designed an entire design system called the ''Modulor'', based on the Golden Ratio, which aimed to give harmonious proportions to everything about a building.

==References==
<references/>

[[category:mathematics]]

Golden Ratio

2007-05-15T23:17:15Z

AvengingAngel:

The golden ratio is a number, commonly known as phi (<math>\varphi</math>), defined as
<math>\varphi^2 = \varphi + 1</math>. The value of phi is

:<math>\frac{1 + \sqrt{5}}{2}</math>

Phi is an [[irrational number]]. In decimal form it is often written

:1.618...

The golden ratio was first defined by Euclid of Alexandria around 300BC. His definition reads:

<blockquote>''A straight line is said to have been cut in extreme and mean ratio when, as the whole line is to the greater segment, so is the greater to the lesser.''</blockquote>

A dodecahedron, a solid in which each side is a pentagon, is related to the Golden Ratio in that both the surface area and the volume of a dodecahedron of unit edge length are functions of the Golden Ratio. Plato described the dodecahedron as the solid ''which the gods used for embroidering the constellation on the whole heaven.''

==Fibonacci Numbers and the Golden Ratio==

Leonardo of Pisa (c1170 – 1250), commonly known as Fibonacci, was an Italian mathematician, who wrote an arithmetic treatise called [[Liber Abaci]] ( the book of the abacus) in 1202. In this book, Fibonacci describes a problem concerning rabbit popuations, the solution to which is the sequence:

1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, ...

The sequence can be continued by adding together the last two terms generated.

The numbers in the sequence are normally called Fibonacci numbers, and they have some remarkable properties, such as if the terms in the series are labelled with the natural numbers, then any Fibonacci number which occurs with a label which is prime, is itself prime. (for example, the 11th number in the sequence is 89. Both 11 and 89 are prime).

The relevance of this sequence here is that the ratio of the last two numbers generated at each stage in the Fibonacci sequence converges to the Golden Ratio. This can be checked:
* 1/1 = 1
* 2/2 = 2
* 3/2 = 1.5
* 5/3 = 1.6666..
* 8/5 = 1.6
* 13/8 = 1.625 etc.

It can be seen from this that successive ratios underestimate and overestimate the ratio, and the convergence is quite rapid.
For more on the sequnce, see: http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat.html

==The golden ratio in art==

It has been observed that the golden ratio is evident in the arrangement of branches along the stems of plants, and of veins in leaves. The golden ratio also has a place in art when used to determine what arrangements of a composition are aesthetically pleasing to the eye. Some would suggest that the "perfect" human face adheres to the golden ratio <ref> http://www.beautyanalysis.com/index2_mba.htm </ref>.

[[Leonardo da Vinci]] was a close friend of Luca Pacioli, who published a treatise (''Divina Proportione'') on the Golden Ratio in 1509. It has been claimed that he used the Golden Ratio in his composition of the [[Mona Lisa]], but there is no documentation to prove this.

[[Salvador Dali]] deliberately used the golden ratio in his painting ''Sacrament of the Last Supper'', incorporating also a huge dodecahedron around the supper table.

[[Le Corbusier]] designed an entire design system called the ''Modulor'', based on the Golden Ratio, which aimed to give harmonious proportions to everything about a building.

==References==
<references/>

[[category:mathematics]]

Talk:Tapeworm

2007-05-15T22:56:45Z

AvengingAngel: /* Material removed from article */

This article has very little to do with the subject matter and needs to be fixed [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

It is very interesting though, [[User:LateralQuercus|LateralQuercus]] 08:56, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Suggestion:
http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec17/ch196/ch196k.html seems to be a good starting point.--[[User:AvengingAngel|AvengingAngel]] 18:36, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Material removed from article==
The origin of the tapeworm (Class Cestoda, various species) is somewhat obscure, but if one reads about Noah and his magnificent ark it is apparent that the tapeworm was brought with the other organisms on the ark as commanded by God: "And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch." -Genesis 6:13-14. And: "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every [sort] shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep [them] alive with thee; they shall be male and female." -Genesis 6:19. And: "1. And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. 2. Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that [are] not clean by two, the male and his female. 3. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth. 4. For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. 5. And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him." -Genesis 7:1-5

What becomes unclear exactly is what other animal species carried this strange cargo. Based on the number of species of tapeworms (approximately 5000 in class Cestoda) it is fair to say that every animal on the ark must have been a defacto mini-Noah's ark, carrying the "flesh" in their intestines that would be spared from the coming flooding of Earth.[Citation Needed] It is a fascinating answer, but not precise in its scope by any measure: If there were more species than tapeworms, where did the extra tapeworms go? If there were fewer, which species were spared and why? Perhaps as creationist scholars investigate questions such as these more thoroughly a more exact answer to this mystery will take form on these pages and elsewhere.

:I removed all of this, as while it is an interesting essay, it seemed totally out of place in an article on tapeworms. If the author of this feels aggrieved, please feel free to edit it and put it back in a suitably amended form.

--[[User:AvengingAngel|AvengingAngel]] 18:49, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Tapeworm

2007-05-15T22:53:38Z

AvengingAngel:

[[Image:tapeworm.gif|right|thumb|400px|Diagram of a beef tapeworm]]

Tapeworms are large, flat worms that live in the intestines of humans and other animals and can achieve lengths of up to 30 feet. Sections of the worm (proglottids) which contain eggs are excreted by the initial host, and if the faeces are left untreated, the eggs may be ingested by intermediate hosts, such as pigs and cattle. The eggs hatch in the intermediate host, and the larvae attach themselves to the intestinal wall, eventually passing through into the bloodstream, and invading muscle and fatty tissues, where they form cysts. When the animal is killed for food, humans ingest the parasite by eating these cysts in raw or undercooked meat or fish. Once inside the intestinal tract, the cysts hatch, developing into adult worms, which then attach themsleves to the new host's intestinal wall. The worms then grow in length, until they are adults and ready to reproduce, at which point the cycle is complete.

==Notes and References==

A fuller account can be found at: http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec17/ch196/ch196k.html

Tapeworm

2007-05-15T22:52:54Z

AvengingAngel:

File:Tapeworm.gif

2007-05-15T22:50:40Z

AvengingAngel: Tapeworm diagram

Tapeworm diagram

Tapeworm

2007-05-15T22:49:54Z

AvengingAngel: /* Notes and References */

Talk:Tapeworm

2007-05-15T22:49:28Z

AvengingAngel:

This article has very little to do with the subject matter and needs to be fixed [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

It is very interesting though, [[User:LateralQuercus|LateralQuercus]] 08:56, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Suggestion:
http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec17/ch196/ch196k.html seems to be a good starting point.--[[User:AvengingAngel|AvengingAngel]] 18:36, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Material removed from article==
The origin of the tapeworm (Class Cestoda, various species) is somewhat obscure, but if one reads about Noah and his magnificent ark it is apparent that the tapeworm was brought with the other organisms on the ark as commanded by God: "And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch." -Genesis 6:13-14. And: "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every [sort] shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep [them] alive with thee; they shall be male and female." -Genesis 6:19. And: "1. And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. 2. Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that [are] not clean by two, the male and his female. 3. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth. 4. For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. 5. And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him." -Genesis 7:1-5

What becomes unclear exactly is what other animal species carried this strange cargo. Based on the number of species of tapeworms (approximately 5000 in class Cestoda) it is fair to say that every animal on the ark must have been a defacto mini-Noah's ark, carrying the "flesh" in their intestines that would be spared from the coming flooding of Earth.[Citation Needed] It is a fascinating answer, but not precise in its scope by any measure: If there were more species than tapeworms, where did the extra tapeworms go? If there were fewer, which species were spared and why? Perhaps as creationist scholars investigate questions such as these more thoroughly a more exact answer to this mystery will take form on these pages and elsewhere.

--[[User:AvengingAngel|AvengingAngel]] 18:49, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Tapeworm

2007-05-15T22:48:34Z

AvengingAngel:

Tapeworms are large, flat worms that live in the intestines of humans and other animals and can achieve lengths of up to 30 feet. Sections of the worm (proglottids) which contain eggs are excreted by the initial host, and if the faeces are left untreated, the eggs may be ingested by intermediate hosts, such as pigs and cattle. The eggs hatch in the intermediate host, and the larvae attach themselves to the intestinal wall, eventually passing through into the bloodstream, and invading muscle and fatty tissues, where they form cysts. When the animal is killed for food, humans ingest the parasite by eating these cysts in raw or undercooked meat or fish. Once inside the intestinal tract, the cysts hatch, developing into adult worms, which then attach themsleves to the new host's intestinal wall. The worms then grow in length, until they are adults and ready to reproduce, at which point the cycle is complete.

==Notes and References==

A fuller account can be found at: http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec17/ch196/ch196k.html

The origin of the tapeworm (Class Cestoda, various species) is somewhat obscure, but if one reads about Noah and his magnificent ark it is apparent that the tapeworm was brought with the other organisms on the ark as commanded by God: "And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch." -Genesis 6:13-14. And: "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every [sort] shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep [them] alive with thee; they shall be male and female." -Genesis 6:19. And: "1. And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. 2. Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that [are] not clean by two, the male and his female. 3. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth. 4. For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. 5. And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him." -Genesis 7:1-5

What becomes unclear exactly is what other animal species carried this strange cargo. Based on the number of species of tapeworms (approximately 5000 in class Cestoda) it is fair to say that every animal on the ark must have been a defacto mini-Noah's ark, carrying the "flesh" in their intestines that would be spared from the coming flooding of Earth.{{fact}} It is a fascinating answer, but not precise in its scope by any measure: If there were more species than tapeworms, where did the extra tapeworms go? If there were fewer, which species were spared and why? Perhaps as creationist scholars investigate questions such as these more thoroughly a more exact answer to this mystery will take form on these pages and elsewhere.

Tapeworm

2007-05-15T22:47:18Z

AvengingAngel: Added facts

Tapeworms are large, flat worms that live in the intestines of humans and other animals and can achieve lengths of up to 30 feet. Sections of the worm (proglottids) which contain eggs are excreted by the initial host, and if the faeces are left untreated, the eggs may be ingested by intermediate hosts, such as pigs and cattle. The eggs hatch in the intermediate host, and the larvae attach themselves to the intestinal wall, eventually passing through into the bloodstream, and invading muscle and fatty tissues, where they form cysts. When the animal is killed for food, humans ingest the parasite by eating these cysts in raw or undercooked meat or fish. Once inside the intestinal tract, the cysts hatch, developing into adult worms, which then attach themsleves to the new host's intestinal wall. The worms then grow in length, until they are adults and ready to reproduce, at which point the cycle is complete.

The origin of the tapeworm (Class Cestoda, various species) is somewhat obscure, but if one reads about Noah and his magnificent ark it is apparent that the tapeworm was brought with the other organisms on the ark as commanded by God: "And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch." -Genesis 6:13-14. And: "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every [sort] shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep [them] alive with thee; they shall be male and female." -Genesis 6:19. And: "1. And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. 2. Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that [are] not clean by two, the male and his female. 3. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth. 4. For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. 5. And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him." -Genesis 7:1-5

What becomes unclear exactly is what other animal species carried this strange cargo. Based on the number of species of tapeworms (approximately 5000 in class Cestoda) it is fair to say that every animal on the ark must have been a defacto mini-Noah's ark, carrying the "flesh" in their intestines that would be spared from the coming flooding of Earth.{{fact}} It is a fascinating answer, but not precise in its scope by any measure: If there were more species than tapeworms, where did the extra tapeworms go? If there were fewer, which species were spared and why? Perhaps as creationist scholars investigate questions such as these more thoroughly a more exact answer to this mystery will take form on these pages and elsewhere.

Talk:Tapeworm

2007-05-15T22:36:00Z

AvengingAngel: