Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Ronald Wilson Reagan

2008-03-28T22:19:00Z

Barikada:

Look into my eyes, what do you see?

Cult of personality

I know your anger, I know your dreams

I’ve been everything you want to be

I’m the cult of personality

Like mussolini and kennedy

I’m the cult of personality

Cult of personality

Cult of personality

Neon lights, a nobel prize

The mirror speaks, the reflection lies

You don’t have to follow me

Only you can set me free

I sell the things you need to be

I’m the smiling face on your t.v.

I’m the cult of personality

I exploit you still you love me

I tell you one and one makes three

I’m the cult of personality

Like [[Joseph Stalin]] and [[Gandhi]]

I’m the cult of personality

Cult of personality

Cult of personality

Neon lights a nobel prize

A leader speaks, that leader dies

You don’t have to follow me

Only you can set you free

You gave me fortune

You gave me fame

You me power in your god’s name

I’m every person you need to be

I’m the cult of personality

Look into my eyes, what do you see?

Cult of personality

I know your anger, I know your dreams

I’ve been everything you want to be

I’m the cult of personality

Like [[Benito Mussolini|Mussolini]] and [[John F. Kennedy|Kennedy]]

I’m the cult of personality

Cult of personality

Cult of personality

Neon lights, a nobel prize

The mirror speaks, the reflection lies

You don’t have to follow me

Only you can set me free

I sell the things you need to be

I’m the smiling face on your t.v.

I’m the cult of personality

I exploit you still you love me

I tell you one and one makes three

I’m the cult of personality

Like Joseph Stalin and Gandhi

I’m the cult of personality

Cult of personality

Cult of personality

Neon lights a nobel prize

A leader speaks, that leader dies

You don’t have to follow me

Only you can set you free

You gave me fortune

You gave me fame

You me power in your god’s name

I’m every person you need to be

I’m the cult of personality

Ronald Wilson Reagan

2008-03-28T22:16:07Z

Barikada:

Look into my eyes, what do you see?
Cult of personality
I know your anger, I know your dreams
I’ve been everything you want to be
I’m the cult of personality
Like mussolini and kennedy
I’m the cult of personality
Cult of personality
Cult of personality

Neon lights, a nobel prize
The mirror speaks, the reflection lies
You don’t have to follow me
Only you can set me free
I sell the things you need to be
I’m the smiling face on your t.v.
I’m the cult of personality
I exploit you still you love me

I tell you one and one makes three
I’m the cult of personality
Like [[Joseph Stalin]] and [[Gandhi]]
I’m the cult of personality
Cult of personality
Cult of personality

Neon lights a nobel prize
A leader speaks, that leader dies
You don’t have to follow me
Only you can set you free

You gave me fortune
You gave me fame
You me power in your god’s name
I’m every person you need to be
I’m the cult of personality
Look into my eyes, what do you see?
Cult of personality
I know your anger, I know your dreams
I’ve been everything you want to be
I’m the cult of personality
Like [[Benito Mussolini|Mussolini]] and [[John F. Kennedy|Kennedy]]
I’m the cult of personality
Cult of personality
Cult of personality

Neon lights, a nobel prize
The mirror speaks, the reflection lies
You don’t have to follow me
Only you can set me free
I sell the things you need to be
I’m the smiling face on your t.v.
I’m the cult of personality
I exploit you still you love me

I tell you one and one makes three
I’m the cult of personality
Like Joseph Stalin and Gandhi
I’m the cult of personality
Cult of personality
Cult of personality

Neon lights a nobel prize
A leader speaks, that leader dies
You don’t have to follow me
Only you can set you free

You gave me fortune
You gave me fame
You me power in your god’s name
I’m every person you need to be
I’m the cult of personality

State actor

2008-03-28T05:27:13Z

Barikada:

A '''state actor''' is an entity engaged in public conduct that is prohibited from violating the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] and, by incorporation, the [[Bill of Rights]]. Private actors are generally not state actors, though a substantial nexus with governmental entities can convert a private association into a state actor.

An example of a private association considered to be a state actor is a private association of public schools. The Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit have held that this type of private association is a state actor:<ref>''Christian Heritage Acad. v. Okla. Secondary Sch. Activities Ass'n'', 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 8186, *15 (10th Cir. Apr. 9, 2007).</ref>

:At the outset, we agree with the district court and conclude that OSSAA is subject to the Fourteenth Amendment because it is a state actor. See ''Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Assoc.'', 531 U.S. 288, 298-99, 121 S. Ct. 924, 148 L. Ed. 2d 807 (2001). OSSAA's conduct constitutes state action because of the "persuasive entwinement of public institutions and public officials in its composition and workings." ''Id.'' at 298. OSSAA members are 98 percent public schools, which is a larger percentage than that in Brentwood Academy. See 531 U.S. at 298-99 (concluding that the athletic association was a state actor where 84 percent of its members were public schools). All fourteen of OSSAA's current directors are public school employees, and Oklahoma has authorized OSSAA to determine athletic eligibility and hold play-off games. See Okla. Stat. tit. 70, § 8-103.2. OSSAA is subject to the [[Fourteenth Amendment]].

== References ==
<references/>

[[category:United States law]]

Gulf of Tonkin Resolution

2008-03-28T05:18:15Z

Barikada: Removed some irrelevant info and an unnessecary exclamation mark.

[[Image:Tonkinresolution.jpg|thumb|right|300px|The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution]]
On August 4, 1964, President [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] announced that two days earlier, U.S. ships in the [[Gulf of Tonkin]] had been attacked by the [[North Vietnam]]ese. Johnson dispatched U.S. planes against the attackers and asked Congress to pass a resolution to support his actions. The joint resolution “to promote the maintenance of international peace and security in southeast Asia” passed on August 7, with only two Senators (Wayne Morse and Ernest Gruening) dissenting, and became the subject of great political controversy in the course of the undeclared war that followed.

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution stated that “Congress approves and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repeal any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent any further aggression.” As a result, President Johnson, and later President [[Richard Nixon]], relied on the resolution as the legal basis for their military policies in Vietnam.

As public resistance to the war heightened, the resolution was repealed by Congress in January 1971.

The ''New York Times'' claimed that the US had provoked the incident, but the [[Pentagon papers]] (published by the same newspaper) showed this to be false. <ref>The Times went on to assert that American forces had deliberately provoked the alleged attacks on its ships in the Gulf of Tonkin to justify a Congressional resolution supporting our war efforts. In fact, the Pentagon papers said the opposite: there was no evidence that we had provoked whatever attacks may have occurred. [http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110009203] </ref>

==Notes==
<references/>

==Transcript of Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (1964)==
'''Eighty-eighth Congress of the United States of America'''

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and sixty-four

Joint Resolution
To promote the maintenance of international peace and security in southeast Asia.

Whereas naval units of the Communist regime in Vietnam, in violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law, have deliberately and repeatedly attacked United Stated naval vessels lawfully present in international waters, and have thereby created a serious threat to international peace; and

Whereas these attackers are part of deliberate and systematic campaign of aggression that the Communist regime in North Vietnam has been waging against its neighbors and the nations joined with them in the collective defense of their freedom; and

Whereas the United States is assisting the peoples of southeast Asia to protest their freedom and has no territorial, military or political ambitions in that area, but desires only that these people should be left in peace to work out their destinies in their own way: Now, therefore be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress approves and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression.

Section 2. The United States regards as vital to its national interest and to world peace the maintenance of international peace and security in southeast Asia. Consonant with the Constitution of the United States and the Charter of the United Nations and in accordance with its obligations under the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, the United States is, therefore, prepared, as the President determines, to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom.

Section 3. This resolution shall expire when the President shall determine that the peace and security of the area is reasonably assured by international conditions created by action of the United Nations or otherwise, except that it may be terminated earlier by concurrent resolution of the Congress.
----
{{License|license = This work is in the [[public domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.| source = [http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=98]}}

[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:Lyndon B. Johnson]]
[[category:Vietnam war]]

Talk:Kent State protests

2008-03-28T05:16:20Z

Barikada: New page: "Although the adjutant general of the Ohio National Guard said that a sniper had fired a shot, many Americans felt that there was no justification for the guardsmen to fire into the crowd ...

"Although the adjutant general of the Ohio National Guard said that a sniper had fired a shot, many Americans felt that there was no justification for the guardsmen to fire into the crowd at all." Uh. I'm not sure what this is supposed to say... It doesn't really follow. Any suggestions for how to fix it? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:16, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Geneva Bible

2008-03-28T05:03:01Z

Barikada:

[[Image:Geneva_Bible.jpg|thumb|350px|right|1599 Geneva Bible original frontispiece]]
The '''Geneva Bible''' was the first full-length [[Bible]] to be published in the [[English]] language. Its original compilers and publishers produced 144 separate editions between 1560 and 1644 AD, beyond which time King [[Charles I]] and [[Archbishop of Canterbury|Archbishop]] [[William Laud]] forbade its printing in the [[United Kingdom]]. The Geneva Bible virtually disappeared until modern times. The Geneva Bible is now available in a hardcover edition published in 2006 by Tolle Lege Press.<ref name=Bible>Lillback, Peter A., DeMar, Gary D., Federer, William J., ''et al.'' ''1599 Geneva Bible: The Holy Scriptures Contained in the Old and New Testaments.'' White Hall, [[West Virginia|WV]], [[United States of America|USA]]: Tolle Lege Press, 2006. 1400 pp., cloth. ISBN 0975484699. Also available in black (ISBN 0975484613) and calfskin (ISBN 0975484621) leather-bound editions.</ref>

== History ==
=== Tyndale's New Testament ===
The [[Roman Catholic Church]] had spread throughout the territory that was once part of the Western [[Roman Empire]]. Yet the Church reserved for its own clergy the right to own the written text of the [[Bible]]--and no European monarch permitted any of his subjects actually to possess a copy of the Bible printed in any language other than [[Latin]].<ref name=Foster>Foster, Marshall. "The History and Impact of the Geneva Bible." ''1599 Geneva Bible'', ''op. cit.'', pp. xxiii to xxvi.</ref>

In 1526, [[William Tyndale]] began his first efforts to translate the Bible into [[English]]. For this defiance of the royal edicts then in force, the authorities pursued him. He fled to [[Germany]], where he met [[Martin Luther]], and from there to [[Belgium]]. There he produced a mechanically printed edition of the [[New Testament]], and his friends smuggled 6,000 copies of it into England. Authorities in Belgium hunted him, arrested him, and imprisoned him in Vilvoorde, and on March 6, 1536, he was executed.<ref name=Foster/>

Tyndale's New Testament did not reach the common man in England. It did, however, influence the English clergy and might have been an impetus behind the Reformation in England.<ref name=Foster/> Significantly, [[Anne Boleyn]] was executed in the same year as was Tyndale--and subsequent to this, King [[Henry VIII]] began his sweeping purge of the monasteries in his realm.

=== Bloody Mary ===
In 1553, Queen [[Mary I]] acceded to the throne upon the death of her half-brother, [[Edward VI]]. This Catholic queen quickly earned the nickname "Bloody Mary" by her ruthless persecution of the English Reformers and her execution of 300 of them. Another 800 Reformers fled to the continent, where they gathered in [[Geneva]], [[Switzerland]], then known as [[John Calvin]]'s "Protestant Rome."<ref name=Calvin>Authors unknown. "[http://switzerland.isyours.com/E/guide/religion/christianism/john.calvin.html John Calvin (1509-1564)]" ''Switzerland Is Yours'', Micheloud and Cie, 2006. Retrieved November 2, 2007.</ref> There they set about creating an English-language version of the entire Bible, and one that would have no ties to any monarch, whether in England or elsewhere in Europe. Among the men involved in this project were [[William Whittingham]], [[Miles Coverdale]], [[Christopher Goodman]], [[Anthony Gilby]], [[John Knox]], and [[Thomas Sampson]].<ref name=Foster/>

=== The First Edition ===
The Geneva translators avoided the [[Latin]] Bible version, or [[Vulgate]], and sought access to the oldest and most authentic [[Hebrew]] and [[Greek]] manuscripts they could find. Their research benefited, ironically, from the Fall of the [[Byzantine Empire]] in 1453, an event that had forced many Christian clerics to flee the fallen city of [[Istanbul|Constantinople]] with their manuscripts in hand.

In 1557, Whittingham produced a revised edition of Tyndale's original New Testament. Then in 1560 the reformers produced the first edition of the Geneva Bible. This they dedicated to Queen [[Elizabeth I]], who by then had succeeded to the throne after the death of her sister, "Bloody Mary." Under Elizabeth's patronage, the Geneva Bible became the Bible of choice not merely for clergy but also for laity.<ref name=Foster/>

=== Later Editions ===
From the beginning, the Geneva Bible was a study Bible, richly annotated and illustrated. The 1599 edition had the most extensive annotations of any of the Geneva Bibles, and a table of interpretations of (mainly [[Old Testament]]) proper names.

The Geneva Bible was highly popular in England, and indeed the [[Jamestown]] expeditionaries carried it to America in 1607. Likewise, the [[Pilgrims]] carried it with them to the [[Netherlands]], where they had fled, and then to what later became their [[Plymouth colony]] (in modern [[Massachusetts]]) in 1620.

In 1604, shortly after his own accession to the throne, King [[James I]] commissioned [[King James Bible|his own version]] of the Bible, that would later come to be known as "The Bishop's Bible" or, more commonly, the '''Authorized Version'''. James' motive for promulgating his own version was simple: he did not want the people to have in hand a Bible with all the marginal notes that the Geneva Bible had. The reason was equally simple: those marginal notes might encourage lay readers not to credit James' overriding dogma of "the divine right of kings" that was central to his authority.<ref name=Brown>Brown, Michael H. "[http://www.reformedreader.org/gbn/igb.htm Introduction to the Geneva Bible for the historic Baptist faith.]" ''The Reformed Reader'', 1988. Retrieved November 2, 2007. Brown's essay is a scathing indictment of Kings James and Charles and of the [[Church of England]] that they headed. It is also flawed on account of the almost vitriolic [[argumentum ad hominem]] that Brown employs against James and his successors and allies. At the time of his writing, the Geneva Bible remained out of print, and this might have informed his bitterness. Whether he would have written a more refined essay had he known that the Geneva Bible would one day be published once again, is perhaps impossible to determine.</ref>

This version was first published in 1611. A later king ([[Charles I]]) would take the first steps toward suppression of the Geneva Bible toward the end of his reign. In 1644, the Geneva Bible went out of print and would remain out of print for more than four hundred fifty years.

=== Modern Editions ===
In 2003, L. L. Brown and Company published an edition of the 1599 Geneva Bible.<ref name=LLBrown>''The 1599 Geneva Bible''. Ozark, [[Missouri|MO]]: L. L. Brown Publishing, 2003. Cited in Preface, ''1599 Geneva Bible'', Tolle Lege Press, ''op. cit.'', pp. xix-xx.</ref> This edition included the [[Apocrypha]] and a metrical rendition of the Book of Psalms originally intended to encourage their recitation in church.

In January of 2004 a group of concerned American individuals and organizations formed the 1599 Geneva Bible Restoration Project to restore and republish the richly annotated 1599 edition. Seventeen organizations and 270 individuals and families contributed funds for the project.<ref name=partners>"1599 Geneva Bible Restoration Project," ''1599 Geneva Bible'', ''op. cit.'', pp. v to xvii.</ref> The Project acquired the rights to the L. L. Brown copy, but omitted the Apocrypha and metrical Psalms and sought as much as possible to authenticate the original text as printed in 1599. The Tolle Lege edition makes no attempt to "modernize" the text, other than to update some of the spelling. Instead of "translating" the many out-dated words, it includes a glossary intended more as a guide than as a hard-and-fast body of rules. The editors state in their front matter that they wished to deliver an edition as close in meaning to the original as practicable.

== Review ==
=== The Text ===
Foster<ref name=Foster/> states that the Geneva translators relied heavily on manuscripts originally brought to Geneva by Christians fleeing the conquering [[Ottoman Empire|Ottoman Turks]] in 1453. Random comparisons between the [[New Testament]] and the Nestlé-Aland Greek New Testament and its critical apparatus<ref name=Aland>Aland, Barbara, Aland, Kurt, Karavidopoulos, Johannes, Martini, Carlo M., and Metzger, Bruce M., eds. ''The Greek New Testament''. [[Stuttgart]], [[Germany]]: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001. With "A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament," by Barclay M. Newman, Jr. 219 pages, leather. ISBN 3438051133</ref> support that claim. The Geneva text tends to follow the so-called Byzantine family of manuscripts at certain points at which the original Greek text is in dispute.

Likewise, the [[Old Testament]] Geneva text appears to follow the [[Masoretic Text]] prepared by the Hebrew "Masoretes" of the latter part of the second century AD, and pays no homage to the [[Septuagint]] of [[Ptolemy I Soter]] of [[Alexandria]].

==== Distinction from the Authorized Version ====
The Geneva Bible is often called the "Breeches Bible" because of its rendition of {{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=3|verses=7|version=KJV}}. The Geneva text<ref name=Gen37>''1599 Geneva Bible'', Tolle Lege Press, ''op. cit.'', p. 6</ref> reads as follows:{{Cquote|Then the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked, and they sewed fig tree leaves together, and made themselves breeches.}}

In fact, if any version of the Bible, printed or electronic, does ''not'' translate Genesis 3:7 in the words quoted above, then it is ''not'' a Geneva Bible.

The differences in the actual text between the Geneva and Authorized Versions are minor. Nevertheless they are critical to distinguishing the Geneva Bible from the Authorized Version or any other version.

=== The Marginal Notes ===
The copious marginal notes are the key feature of the Geneva Bible, and its key difference from the Authorized Version, which has no such notes. As Foster<ref name=Foster/> stated, the Geneva Bible is the first true ''study Bible''. Its translators sought to explain to the common man not only what the Bible said but also what it meant.

These notes are highly revealing of the mind-set of the Geneva editors. For that reason they are at least as valuable as a source of insight into Reformation thinking as they are as explanatory text of the Bible itself.

==== Literalism ====
The Geneva editors regarded their Bible as literal history. This included the history of [[creation]], the genealogy of the pre-[[Great Flood|Flood]] Patriarchs<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=5}}</ref>, and the full history and exact time-line of the ancient [[Judaism|Jews]]. Some of their notes beg explanation--for example, their counting of the "four hundred years" of oppression of the Israelites<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=15|verses=13}}</ref> as beginning with the birth of [[Isaac]] and not with the entry of [[Jacob]] into [[Egypt]]. This, however, is a minor quibble.

==== Eschatology ====
Though they took their Bible ''history'' literally, they did not take ''prophecy'' nearly as literally. This is especially true as regards [[eschatology]] (literally, "the last words"). Like their friend and protector [[John Calvin]], the Geneva editors held to the following doctrines:

# [[Covenant theology]]. This holds that the covenant promises originally made to [[Abraham]] and his direct lineal descendants the [[Israelite]]s no longer apply to them, but apply instead to the Church. By "Church" they did not mean any one denomination, but rather the whole body of Christian believers.
# [[Postmillennialism]]. This holds that the Second Coming of [[Jesus Christ]] will take place ''after'' the "thousand years" of imprisonment of Satan.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=20|verses=1-3}}</ref>
# [[Preterism]]. This holds that the prophecies mentioned in {{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=4-19}}, {{Bible ref|book=Daniel|chap=7-12}}, {{Bible ref|book=Zechariah|chap=12}}, and elsewhere, had already been fulfilled at the time of their writing.

==== Anti-Catholic sentiment ====
The Geneva editors infused their notes with many attacks against the [[Roman Catholic Church]]--hardly a surprise considering the persecution in which the RCC, and Queen Mary I, were then engaging. The most striking attack against Rome is the handling of the prophecy of the Two Witnesses in Jerusalem<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=11|verses=1-14}}</ref> The Bible says, of course, that two men prophesied for 1,260 days in the court of the [[Temple of Jerusalem]]. The Geneva notes say instead that the two witnesses stand for "ministers" of the Word of [[God]] that are ''outside'' of the RCC, and that the 1,260 days are actually 1,260 ''years'' that began with the Crucifixion (which they assumed had taken place in AD 33 or 34) and ended with the accession to the papacy of [[Pope]] [[Boniface VIII]] (r. 1294-1303). Boniface was famous for issuing a papal bull stating that, to be saved, every man had to be a member of the RCC--and the Geneva notes further accused Boniface of obtaining his office by fraud. The notes on other verses in Revelation go further: they identify the [[Roman Empire]] and the [[Roman Catholic Church]] with the Beast of {{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=13}}.<ref>The original [[Greek]] word is ''therion'', which means not merely a wild animal but a murdering and ravening one.</ref>

==== Royal authority and its limits ====
The Geneva editors, in their notes, spoke of limits on royal authority, and this is probably why [[James I]] specifically ordered a translation of the Bible ''without'' annotation. He construed any limit on royal authority as a challenge to his own authority. For example, the note for {{Bible ref|book=Exodus|chap=1|verses=19|version=KJV}} says the following of the [[Hebrew]] midwives who disobeyed the Pharaoh in refusing to kill Hebrew boy-children at birth:<ref name=Ex119>''1599 Geneva Bible'', Tolle Lege Press, ''op. cit.'', p. 60</ref> {{Cquote|Their disobedience herein was lawful, but their dissembling evil.}} The very notion that the disobedience of a royal command might be a lawful act would be anathema to a king who believed that he ruled by divine right and answered only to [[God]] and not to any of his subjects.<ref name=Brown/> The footnote for {{Bible ref|book=Exodus|chap=1|verses=22|version=KJV}} would surely have been worse:{{Cquote|When tyrants cannot prevail by craft, they burst forth into open rage.}}

The firm belief of the editors of the Tolle Lege edition is that these marginal notes were the catalyst not only for the furtherance (such as it was) of the reformation in England, but also, and more to the point, for the political revolutions in the English-speaking world<ref name=Foster/>--presumably beginning with the [[Glorious Revolution]] of 1688 and continuing with the [[American Revolution]] of 1776-83. They hold this belief even though the Geneva Bible ceased printing in 1644, long before [[William and Mary]] and more than a century before the American Revolution. Brown<ref name=Brown/> points out that the [[Church of England]] retained all of the trappings and hierarchical structure of the [[Roman Catholic Church]], the chief difference being that the Archbishop of Canterbury answered no longer to the [[Pope]] of [[Rome]] but directly to the British crown.

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

== External Links ==
* [http://www.tollelegepress.com/ Tolle Lege Press] (Company site)
* [http://www.1599genevabible.com/ 1599 Geneva Bible] (Official site)
* [http://www.genevabible.org/ Geneva Bible 1599] (Unofficial site)

== See Also ==
* [[King James Bible]]
* [[Biblical chronology dispute]]

[[Category:Bible Versions]]

Fundamentalist Christian

2008-03-28T03:25:14Z

Barikada: No response. If Ed has a problem with it, let him fix it himself.

#REDIRECT [[Fundamentalism]]

Talk:Abortion deceit

2008-03-28T01:56:10Z

Barikada: /* Capital letters */

Aren't #5-#8 pretty much the same thing? Maybe they could be condensed into one item? Also, you might want to add an item noting that pro-abortion folks like to claim that most Americans support their position, when the opposite is true (as per the item currently on the Main Page).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 16:18, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:: I agree that #5 and #8 are similar, but pro-[[abortion]] types don't care about logic and deny it. Don't ask me how! They don't care if they make sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:I would argue that 9 statements need 9 references (or maybe 18, since each statement is a double). And I'm not sure I understand how #3 works. Could someone explain that? Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:25, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:: I can add cites. I'll work on that now. Help is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Number 7 (33 of 39 studies discussed in the Lancet article) is misleading. First of all, there were 53 studies discussed, not 39. Interestingly, the 14 that are left out here are the ones where there are prospective data on whether the study subjects had abortions (as opposed to asking those diagnosed with breast cancer whether they ever had an abortion, which is considered more reliable, partly because many of the studies derived data on abortion from national registries in countries that mandate abortion reporting by law, and partly because self-reported data are collected much closer to the time of an abortion and are less subject to bias). When the data from the 14 overlooked studies are summed, they show that for these studies, the risk of breast cancer is significantly ''less'' for those who had an abortion than for those who did not. As for the 39 studies that are reported here, it is also misleading to say that 33 showed increased risk of breast cancer with abortion, because only one of those 33 actually shows a statistically significant risk. This paper, in general, suggests that ''it is possible'' that induced abortion contributes to the risk for breast cancer, but it is far from conclusive, because it is possible that it is an artifact of the study design. And misstating what was found is not an effective argument. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:42, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Part of [[abortion deceit]] is to equate a small study with a large one. I'll take a look at the other 14 studies, but my recollection is that they are either small or obviously flawed. Moreover, it is statistically significant and should be reported when 33 of 39 large studies show an increase in risk. As to the comments about study design, that is baseless speculation as it is not clear that one approach to polling is better than another.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::::It is speculation in this particular case that the difference between the 2 sets of findings is explained by one being more accurate. In general, prospective data are given more weight. That's my point - there were different findings from one design type relative to the other. It is not clear why. As far as the size of the studies, by my math the 13 prospective studies (ie, the ones that show no increased risk) have an average sample size of 12,493. The 39 retrospective studies have an average sample of 2,228, which is about 17% of the size of the prospective studies. There is also the issue that nearly all of the 33 retrospective studies that are quoted here as showing a risk show that the risk is not statistically significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:58, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually I misread the table initially. The 13 prospective studies have, on average, a sample of 3,374, compared with 2,176 for the retrospective. So the latter are actually, on average, about 2/3 the size of the former. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:03, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::::: I'll have to pull the article again and reexamine this to respond. Did Lancet ever post the article online for public scrutiny?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I don't know whether they have made it freely available. It sounds like you have a copy or access to it, based on your post above and the fact that you wrote an article discussing it, but if you no longer have it let me know here and I can download and email it to you. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:15, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

:So Andy, had a chance to take a look at the article yet? The point in the essay about large vs. small studies is incorrect and should be removed. Also the phrasing ("studies that deny harm") is overly emotional. They are reporting the data, and don't have any more of an agenda than those who found the opposite. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:35, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

If no one minds, I'm going to delete #4. Even though fertility declines with age, that has nothing to do with abortion, and abortion doesn't cause STD's. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 17:56, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:[[Abortion]] certain does encourage promiscuity, and you'll find a higher rate of STD's among women who have had abortions than those who have not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::The myth doesn't have anything to do with the "in fact" in this case. Perhaps they should be two (or three) different cases? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::: They are directly connected. [[Abortion]] advocates falsely deny, and omit, how it causes infertility.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::::OH! I missed the "which cause infertility", sorry. However, the statement about age and fertility doesn't seem related, since it has nothing to do with abortion. Or did I misread that one too? (It's quite possible). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:45, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::::: HelpJazz, please try harder. An [[abortion]] by its very nature postpones the age for the mother's childbirth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:53, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm trying my hardest, I promise. The article says "fertility declines sharply with age", and the footnote (and citation) say nothing about this being due to abortion. Fertility declines even for those women who have never had an abortion. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:06, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: HelpJazz, when a woman chooses abortion rather than childbirth, then she is postponing her childbirth to a time when she is less fertile. That woman is then more likely to encounter fertility problems when she does try to have a child. In addition, the promiscuity encouraged by abortion is also likely to take her fertility away. Get out more and talk to some [[liberal]] women who practiced what they preached and are now struggling against infertility in their 30s.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:10, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Wow, ok. I see now what you were arguing; I thought you meant that abortion actually lowers your fertility/age progression. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:36, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

== #3 ==

Can you explain this to me. How does an abortion end up costing more money then raising a child? I don't quite get what you're getting at here. [[User:DLerner|The user formerly known as DLerner]] 20:00, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

: People make more money than they spend. They pay taxes and still, on average, have an excess of over $400,000 per household. Every [[abortion]] costs an average of over $500,000, including savings and lost taxes.

: I'm sure that surprises you. It surprises everyone, because [[abortion deceit]] has been so good at fooling all of us.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:: And can I see a cite on that "fact" about making more money than they spend? And also on the $400,000 per household as well. Is that in a year, in 10 years, in a lifetime? Do you want to put any kind of reality in that statement or just throw a number out there and see if it sticks? And I did take an economics course, so feel free to use big words. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 10:48, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

::Why/how/in what way does an abortion cost that much, somehow I don't believe that's the price clinics charge. [[User:DLerner|The user formerly known as DLerner]] 20:33, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::: You seem to miss the point. The [[economic]] cost of abortion is primarily the [[opportunity cost]] of a life. Have you ever taken a course in economics?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:31, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: So... spending a large amount of your pay to feed a child is actually /saving/ money? And actually /saving/ that money by /not/ having a child is actually /losing/ that money? Good sir, are we in the Twilight Zone? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:39, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

::::: It's called [[opportunity cost]]. Please take a good [[economics]] course and don't criticize what you don't understand. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:41, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Generally, children don't refund the money their parents spent raising them. So, while abortion may be costly to the economy as a whole, the parents would be significantly better off financially. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:44, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== I was asked to help find cites ==

I have done some research, but I am having trouble. I have added some cites, but perhaps someone could help me out a bit. I can't find a source which tries to argue that "abortion saves money" -- the only cites I can find which back this claim up are from conservatives who are attempting to disprove the claim. I can't find any primary source. Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:44, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

: I already supported that one with a citation. Thanks anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:29, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::But you haven't supported (and I can't verify) that anyone actually ''uses'' the claim. That's what I need help finding. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:33, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

==Abortion and Infertility==

I just have to pick this up, how does abortion actually lead to infertility? Sure a woman who has an abortion may not be able to conceive at a later date because she has grown older, but it is not abortion which causes this infertility, rather age (infertility refers to the ability to conceive a child, rather than actually having children, a nun can be very fertile even if she does not have children). Also, the claim that 25% of girls have STD's which lead to infertility is not supported by the cite, which simply states that 25% of girls have STD's, not that all of these lead to infertility. And I'm at a loss as to how '''abortion''' actually lead to girls getting these STD's, I believe you may be mistaking it with '''sex'''... [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 00:28, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

==Capital letters==

What's with all the IN FACTS? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 21:41, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
:It's Andy's way of confusingly attempting to show that anything said by anyone who is pro-choice is a lie. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:56, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Susceptible

2008-03-28T00:59:15Z

Barikada:

To be '''susceptible''', in medical terminology, means to be unprotected against [[disease]].<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/about/terms/glossary.htm#s</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Medicine]]

Mastodon

2008-03-28T00:56:33Z

Barikada:

'''Mastodon''' are an extinct species of mammals which closly resemble the [[elephant]].<ref>{{Nuttall|Mastodon}}</ref>

==Notes==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Mammals]]
[[Category:Extinct animals]]

Talk:Fundamentalist Christian

2008-03-28T00:52:53Z

Barikada:

Uh. Alright, Joaquin. Why're you breaking a redirect? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:36, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

*Please, talk to Ed before changing his idea. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 20:38, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
::Will do. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:39, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
::Done, and now to wait for an answer. Just out of curiosity, though, why do I have to ask to fix things Ed broke? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:52, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Mud flat

2008-03-28T00:46:03Z

Barikada: Busting a cap.

A '''mud flat''' is a [[land]] cover/use subcategory under Barren land. A mud area with less than 5 percent vegetative cover.
==References==
[http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/1997/summary_report/glossary.html List of USDA terminology] 
[[Category:Geography]]
{{USDA_Terms}}

Godless liberal

2008-03-28T00:42:16Z

Barikada: Grammar

"'''Godless Liberal'''" is a pejorative term describing [[Liberal]]s who are [[atheists]], or whose opponents claim believe in purging spirituality and all references to [[God]] from public life.

[[George Clooney]] regularly describes himself as a 'godless liberal' in a joking manner.
[[category:politics]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Articles with unsourced statements]]

Talk:Fundamentalist Christian

2008-03-28T00:39:28Z

Barikada:

Sustain

2008-03-28T00:38:28Z

Barikada:

To '''sustain''', in [[legal]] terminology, is a court ruling upholding an objection or a motion.
[[Category:law]]

Talk:Fundamentalist Christian

2008-03-28T00:36:14Z

Barikada: New page: Uh. Alright, Joaquin. Why're you breaking a redirect? ~~~~

Uh. Alright, Joaquin. Why're you breaking a redirect? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:36, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Fellowship of the Ring

2008-03-28T00:32:05Z

Barikada:

The '''Fellowship of the Ring''' is the group comprised [[Frodo Baggins]] and the eight companions chosen by the Council of [[Elrond]] to help him destroy the One Ring in [[J.R.R. Tolkien]]'s novel [[The Lord of the Rings]].<ref>For the published volume, containing the first two parts of The Lord of the Rings, see [[The Fellowship of the Ring]].</ref> The nine are set against the nine evil riders of Mordor who are pursuing the ring. Members include [[Frodo Baggins]], [[Samwise Gamgee]], Peregrin ([[Pippin]]) Took, Meriadoc ([[Merry]]) Brandybuck, [[Gandalf]], [[Aragorn]] the Ranger, [[Boromir]] of Gondor, [[Legolas]] the Elf, and [[Gimli]] the Dwarf.

{{spoiler}}
==Gathering of the Fellowship==
The four hobbits of the Shire (Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin) had lived peaceful, comfortable and sheltered lives. Gimli, the dwarf, lived in wealth in the Lonely Mountain. Legolas, the elf, had lived as a prince in [[Mirkwood]]. Boromir, of Gondor, lived as a soldier prince in his sieged land. Gandalf the Wizard was often busy with adventures, wars and quests. Aragorn lived a wanderer's life in the wild.

It all changed when [[Sauron]] began to hunt for the [[ring of power]] and prepared for war. Dwarves, Elves and Men found themselves all alike at war. Frodo had received the ring from his uncle, Bilbo. When Gandalf told him of [[Sauron]]'s use of it he left with Sam for [[Rivendell]]. (Gandalf meanwhile was captured by the traitorous [[Saruman]].) Pippin accompanied Frodo and Sam out of the Shire, meeting Merry who went on ahead to prepare a house). They had many adventures across plain and through forest chased by mysterious [[black riders]]. In a hamlet called [[Bree]], they met Strider who (revealed as [[Aragorn]] led them to Rivendell (with much trouble from the black riders).<ref>[[The Fellowship of the Ring]], by J.R.R. Tolkien, Houghton Mifflin Company.</ref>

==The Council of Elrond==
It was at the Council of Elrond that the Fellowship was formed. Frodo agreed to take the ring to Mordor and Sam insisted on accompanying him. Legolas, Boromir, Gimli, and Aragorn were all chosen to represent the "Free Folk" of the world. Gandalf was chosen because it was to be "his last task." Pippin and Merry were reluctantly accepted by Elrond (at Gandalf's advice).<ref>[[The Fellowship of the Ring]], by J.R.R. Tolkien, Houghton Mifflin Company.</ref>

==The Journeys of the Fellowship==
The fellowship travelled south to pass through the Misty Mountains. They attempted the Pass of Cahadras but failed to succeed. They chose, reluctantly, to take the road through the Mines of Moria. They fought wolves and goblins along the way. Gandalf was taken by a evil creature of fire and flame called a Balrog. They rested for a time in Lothlorien. They then rowed in boats down the river, Anduin, pursued by evil orcs. The journey down the river ended at a hill called Amon Hen.

==The Breaking of the Fellowship==
Boromir, thinking the Ring could be used in defense of his city, tried to get it from Frodo, finally resorting to force when persuasion failed. Frodo ran away determined to go alone to Mordor. Orcs attacked the Fellowship on Amon Hen, mortally wounding Boromir and abducting Pippin and Merry whom their masters secretly hoped might have the Ring. Before Boromir died he told the Fellowship of the hobbits' disappearance. Sam alone found Frodo and went on with him to Mordor. Aragorn recognized that the Fellowship's usefulness to the Ringbearer had ended, and led its remains to find the captured hobbits.

==The Fellowship in the War of the Ring==
The orcs who had captured Merry and Pippin where actually found and killed by riders of Rohan in a fierce battle. The hobbits escaped into Fangorn Forest during the battle. There they met Treebeard, an Ent, with whom they stayed for a time. The pursuers met the riders of [[Rohan]] and learned of the battle. They went into Fangorn where they met Gandalf, returned from death in White. They then realized that Rohan was about to be invaded by orcs and headed for its capital, Edoras. Gandalf roused the King of Rohan to bring up an army against the invaders. While Gandalf headed for more support, the others battled at the fortress of Helm's Deep. The battle was won by the heroes and they went to [[Isengard]], where the army's leader, Saruman, lived. They found the place flooded by the Ents with Merry and Pipin enjoying themselves. Then Gandalf left with Pippin for Gondor to give them aide against the dark Lord, Sauron. He and Pippin endured the siege of Gondor for many a day. Meanwhile, the others brought up armies to give aide to Gondor. The Battle of the Pelennor Fields was won with great cost. They finally made a march on [[Mordor]]. <ref>[[The Two Towers]] and [[The Return of the King]], by J.R.R. Tolkien, Houghton Mifflin Company.</ref>

==The Journeys of the Ring==
Frodo and Sam instead went for Mordor. Shortly afterwards they met Gollum, who led them across the wilds into Mordor. In the end though he betrayed them causing Frodo to be captured by evil orcs. Sam rescued Frodo from the orcs and they then traveled with their last strength to Mount Doom. At the end the Ring and Gollum were destroyed.

==The Passing of the Fellowship==
The Fellowship rejoiced in reunion at the field of Cormallen for a time. Aragorn was then crowned King of Gondor and wedded to [[Arwen]], daughter of Elrond. The hobbits met one last fight in their homeland. They defeated their old enemy Saruman in the battle of Bywater. A few years afterwards Frodo and Gandalf left by the Grey Havens. The rest of the Fellowship lived out it's days in offices and wanderings; some died in Middle-earth, but tradition holds that Sam, Legolas, and Gimli followed Frodo and Gandalf into the West.<ref>[[The Return of the King]], by J.R.R. Tolkien, Houghton Mifflin Company.</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[category:book]]
[[Category:Middle-Earth]]
[[Category:Lord of the Rings]]

The Lord of the Rings

2008-03-28T00:31:39Z

Barikada:

[[Image:Mhjfjfr7.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Cover for the three volumes of The Lord of the Rings trilogy.]]

'''The Lord of the Rings''' is the best-selling fantasy novel of the twentieth century. It written by British professor [[J.R.R. Tolkien]]. Conceived by the author as a 7-book work (including compendious appendices and an index), it was released by the publisher in three volumes:

#''[[The Fellowship of the Ring]]'' 
#''[[The Two Towers]]'' 
#''[[The Return of the King]]'' 

''The Lord of the Rings'' was published in hardbound in 1954 and 1955, but was known only to a small audience of aficionados until 1965. At that time, J. R. R. Tolkien himself was known primarily to scholars for his work on [[Beowulf]]. This changed when an American paperback publisher released a "pirated" paperback edition, paying Tolkien nothing, in the belief that Tolkien's copyright in the U. S. was defective because of a technicality. Tolkien reached a legal settlement with this publisher, and another publisher released an authorized edition for which Tolkien was paid royalties. The book was an instant success, particularly among college students.

== Story ==
''The Lord of the Rings'' is set in [[Middle-earth]], a vastly expanded version of the fictional world presented in ''[[The Hobbit]]'' and ''[[The Silmarillion]]''. It continues the story that ''The Hobbit'' began, but while ''The Hobbit'' was intended for children, ''The Lord of the Rings'' was written for all ages.

The story takes place at a time when the [[Elves]], immortal, good, and fairest of all beings in the world, are leaving the war-weary world to sail to the blessed realm of [[Valinor]]. With the departure of the Elves, the Age of [[Men (Middle-earth)|Men]] has come, but they are opposed by the Dark Lord, [[Sauron]]. Although Sauron is a formidable foe, most of his powers are bound to a magic [[Ring (Middle Earth)|Ring]] which was cut from his finger in a battle thousands of year ago. This Ring fell by chance into the hands of a [[hobbit]], [[Bilbo Baggins]] who in turn left it in the keeping of his nephew and heir, [[Frodo Baggins]]. If this Ring is destroyed, it will strip Sauron of his power and free Middle-earth from his threat. The only way the Ring can be destroyed, however is by casting it into the fires of [[Mount Doom]], a volcano in the heart of Sauron's realm. The Lord of the Rings follows Frodo's adventures as he journeys to destroy Sauron's Ring.

Frodo's journey is interwoven with other themes as he joins a [[Fellowship of the Ring]], pledged to take it to Mount Doom where it can be destroyed. The ranger [[Aragorn|Strider]] and the wizard [[Gandalf]] are foremost among his companions. He is also assisted by ther Ents, a peaceful tree-folk, and the elves.

== Languages ==
Though Tolkien was an excellent writer, his primary interest was [[The Languages of Tolkien|languages]]. Tolkien originally came up with Middle Earth as a world in which his languages could be spoken. {{Fact}} In an interview with the BBC in 1972, shortly before his death, Tolkien said that he came up with the concept of a hobbit in part because he had been embarrassed about his own below-average height in his early childhood, and liked to imagine a world where he could be "normal" or even possibly "a hero". {{Fact}} Tolkien based his fictional languages largely on the sounds and style of [[Finnish]] (his 'Quenya' or High Elvish language) and [[Welsh]] ('Sindarin', or the tongue of the Grey Elves). His stories were influenced by [[Norse mythology]] which features dragons, elves and dwarves. He also knew and liked the [[Gothic]] language, and Old English. His Riders of Rohan are like [[Goth]]s in the way they fight, but speak Old English (e.g. 'Theoden' their king's name is OE for 'prince').

== Christianity ==
J. R. R. Tolkien was a [[Roman Catholic]], and many readers see [[Christian]] undertones in ''The Lord of the Rings.'' <ref>"Much as it is possible to identify allegories of the Second World war into ''The Lord of the Rings'', it is possible to identify any number of Christian allegories as well" in Smith, J. and Matthews, J.C. ''The Lord of the Rings:the Films, the books, the radio series'' (Virgin Books 2004), p.116.</ref> Tolkien himself discounts the belief that he wrote the book as a direct Christian allegory, in contrast with the overt and acknowledged allegory in the works of Tolkien's friend, [[C.S. Lewis]].<ref>Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, # 129</ref>

==Film Version==
New Line Cinema has produced three films all of which have names which are derived from the three books in The Lord of the Rings. They were released from 2001 to 2003. A Special Extended Editions have also been released for each film. Each set includes four discs, two of bonus material. All were directed by [[Peter Jackson]]. <ref> [[The Fellowship of the Ring]], Directed by Peter Jackson, Produced by Barrie M. Osborne, Peter Jackson 2001. </ref>

== References ==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Lord of the Rings, The}}
[[Category:Book]]
[[Category:Middle-Earth]]
[[Category:Lord of the Rings]]

Middle-earth

2008-03-28T00:31:08Z

Barikada:

[[Image:Middle-earth.jpg|right|thumb|A map of the north-western part of Middle-earth at the end of the Third Age.|300px]]
'''Middle-earth''' was the name given to the setting of a series of [[mythological]] stories written by [[Oxford]] [[Professor]] [[J.R.R. Tolkien]]. The name was derived from [[Midgard]]<ref>http://www.pantheon.org/areas/mythology/europe/norse/articles.html</ref>, the "Middle World" of Norse Mythology inhabited by people and located underneath Asgard (Norse Heaven) and above Hel (The Norse spelt Hell with one L).

Tolkien did not create another Earth for his novels, although the shape of our lands have changed since the Third Age. Middle-earth corresponds to the [[Eurasian]] land mass, "east of the Sea." [[The Silmarillion]] tells of how the [[Noldor]], immortal [[Elves]] from the West, invade Middle-earth on a quest for three [[Silmaril]]s stolen by [[Morgoth]]. There they find the younger race of mortal Men, whose souls are not bound to Arda but depart beyond the circles of the world upon death.

The First Age of Middle-earth ended with the defeat of the Vala Morgoth, who was cast into oblivion. However, in the Second Age, a [[Maia]] named [[Sauron]], who was the servant of Morgoth, rose to great power and took his master's place as the malign spirit opposed to everything good in Middle-earth. He was defeated by the Last Alliance of Elves and Men at the foot of [[Mount Doom]], and his great [[ruling Ring]] was taken from him by [[Isildur]] heir of [[Elendil]]. Sauron's body was slain and his vanquished spirit fled into the wilderness, which ushered in the [[Third Age]]. However in doing so the shape of the world was forever changed, the island of [[Numenor]] destroyed and the road to [[Valinor]] hidden.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Middle-Earth]][[Category:Lord of the Rings]]

Talk:Liberals and reason

2008-03-28T00:29:08Z

Barikada: /* Suggestion */

Really? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:13, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

:It's a deliberate strategy. See the quote I just posted about feminism opposing reason.

:Liberals claim to exalt human reason, but all too often they do just the opposite. Don't you see that as a contradiction? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:16, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

::I see that as a contradiction, but I don't believe for one minute that all liberals are like your quote. Even so, your quotation doesn't say that liberals want to get rid of reason, it says that one radical feminist want's to look again at the ''study'' of reason.

::If we keep the article we should probably remove the link to [[ad hominem]], because the article itself is pretty close to ad hominem in itself. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:25, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

:I was going to vote for you to be promoted to admin, but if you miss words like ''typical'' and then argue from the basis that the text meant all - then I guess I better not.

:You also missed "Everything must go - even the allegedly universal disciplines of logic, mathematics and science". The quote didn't talk about the [[university]] discipline, you know. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:30, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

::I can't get edit rights and Andy publicly ridicules me -- I'm not expecting admin any time soon, anyway.
::I see exactly what you are trying to say, and I did see the word "typical" but I still don't think it's true. "Most" liberals are not irrational -- any more than "most" conservatives are.
::Lastly, I read the whole quote but interpreted it in the context that I've heard radical feminists say it time after time after time: they think that everything has a "man bias" and so it should be redone, not removed. I don't think that whoever said that honestly believes that we don't need logic, math or science. 18:39, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

:Oh, like when a woman tells her husband, "You never take me to the movies"? She means that he doesn't take her often enough, or maybe just that she'd like to go in the near future.

:Well, I think there should be one standard for all academics. No fair holding men to a strict standard of accountability, while women can say anything they want and then take it back.

:This is an encyclopedia, and if that particular feminist quote was not meant to be taken literally we need another quote. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:51, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

::I agree that men and women should be taken on their word. I just don't agree that this one quotation extends to all or most liberals. Maybe we should take it literally -- sometimes radical feminists really just are that crazy! ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:49, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

== It's Not Going to be as Funny as You Hope ==

Ed,

You've said in several places that you can't wait for April 1st. When the jokes and the real articles can't be told apart, yelling "April Fools!" won't be nearly as amusing. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 19:57, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

==Suggestion==

Honestly, Ed, I've got no problem with you having your own opinion, but maybe with some elaboration this might fit the standards of an essay. Until then, this is little more than a hate filled ramble masquerading as fact, and as such should quite probably be deleted or moved to your namespace so you can improve it further. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:00, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
:I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a hate-filled ramble. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:19, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
::You're right. Perhaps ramble is too strong a term. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:23, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Considering you've already been blocked 10 times (by my count), one would think that you would put a little more "constructive" into your constructive criticisms and a little less "criticism", eh? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:27, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
::::I did. I suggested moving unencyclopedic content to the proper namespace. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:29, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Campaigns

2008-03-28T00:27:55Z

Barikada: Broken redirect with no possibility of retargeting at this time, unlikely someone will search for campaign in plural form.

{{delete}}

#REDIRECT [[Campaign]]

Fundamentalist Christian

2008-03-28T00:25:39Z

Barikada: Fixing redirect

#REDIRECT [[Fundamentalism]]

Talk:Liberals and reason

2008-03-28T00:23:49Z

Barikada: /* Suggestion */

Talk:Liberals and reason

2008-03-28T00:00:30Z

Barikada:

Talk:Abortion deceit

2008-03-24T02:39:56Z

Barikada: /* #3 */

Aren't #5-#8 pretty much the same thing? Maybe they could be condensed into one item? Also, you might want to add an item noting that pro-abortion folks like to claim that most Americans support their position, when the opposite is true (as per the item currently on the Main Page).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 16:18, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:: I agree that #5 and #8 are similar, but pro-[[abortion]] types don't care about logic and deny it. Don't ask me how! They don't care if they make sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:I would argue that 9 statements need 9 references (or maybe 18, since each statement is a double). And I'm not sure I understand how #3 works. Could someone explain that? Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:25, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:: I can add cites. I'll work on that now. Help is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Number 7 (33 of 39 studies discussed in the Lancet article) is misleading. First of all, there were 53 studies discussed, not 39. Interestingly, the 14 that are left out here are the ones where there are prospective data on whether the study subjects had abortions (as opposed to asking those diagnosed with breast cancer whether they ever had an abortion, which is considered more reliable, partly because many of the studies derived data on abortion from national registries in countries that mandate abortion reporting by law, and partly because self-reported data are collected much closer to the time of an abortion and are less subject to bias). When the data from the 14 overlooked studies are summed, they show that for these studies, the risk of breast cancer is significantly ''less'' for those who had an abortion than for those who did not. As for the 39 studies that are reported here, it is also misleading to say that 33 showed increased risk of breast cancer with abortion, because only one of those 33 actually shows a statistically significant risk. This paper, in general, suggests that ''it is possible'' that induced abortion contributes to the risk for breast cancer, but it is far from conclusive, because it is possible that it is an artifact of the study design. And misstating what was found is not an effective argument. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:42, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Part of [[abortion deceit]] is to equate a small study with a large one. I'll take a look at the other 14 studies, but my recollection is that they are either small or obviously flawed. Moreover, it is statistically significant and should be reported when 33 of 39 large studies show an increase in risk. As to the comments about study design, that is baseless speculation as it is not clear that one approach to polling is better than another.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::::It is speculation in this particular case that the difference between the 2 sets of findings is explained by one being more accurate. In general, prospective data are given more weight. That's my point - there were different findings from one design type relative to the other. It is not clear why. As far as the size of the studies, by my math the 13 prospective studies (ie, the ones that show no increased risk) have an average sample size of 12,493. The 39 retrospective studies have an average sample of 2,228, which is about 17% of the size of the prospective studies. There is also the issue that nearly all of the 33 retrospective studies that are quoted here as showing a risk show that the risk is not statistically significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:58, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually I misread the table initially. The 13 prospective studies have, on average, a sample of 3,374, compared with 2,176 for the retrospective. So the latter are actually, on average, about 2/3 the size of the former. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:03, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::::: I'll have to pull the article again and reexamine this to respond. Did Lancet ever post the article online for public scrutiny?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I don't know whether they have made it freely available. It sounds like you have a copy or access to it, based on your post above and the fact that you wrote an article discussing it, but if you no longer have it let me know here and I can download and email it to you. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:15, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

If no one minds, I'm going to delete #4. Even though fertility declines with age, that has nothing to do with abortion, and abortion doesn't cause STD's. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 17:56, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:[[Abortion]] certain does encourage promiscuity, and you'll find a higher rate of STD's among women who have had abortions than those who have not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::The myth doesn't have anything to do with the "in fact" in this case. Perhaps they should be two (or three) different cases? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::: They are directly connected. [[Abortion]] advocates falsely deny, and omit, how it causes infertility.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::::OH! I missed the "which cause infertility", sorry. However, the statement about age and fertility doesn't seem related, since it has nothing to do with abortion. Or did I misread that one too? (It's quite possible). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:45, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::::: HelpJazz, please try harder. An [[abortion]] by its very nature postpones the age for the mother's childbirth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:53, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm trying my hardest, I promise. The article says "fertility declines sharply with age", and the footnote (and citation) say nothing about this being due to abortion. Fertility declines even for those women who have never had an abortion. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:06, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: HelpJazz, when a woman chooses abortion rather than childbirth, then she is postponing her childbirth to a time when she is less fertile. That woman is then more likely to encounter fertility problems when she does try to have a child. In addition, the promiscuity encouraged by abortion is also likely to take her fertility away. Get out more and talk to some [[liberal]] women who practiced what they preached and are now struggling against infertility in their 30s.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:10, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Wow, ok. I see now what you were arguing; I thought you meant that abortion actually lowers your fertility/age progression. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:36, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

== #3 ==

Can you explain this to me. How does an abortion end up costing more money then raising a child? I don't quite get what you're getting at here. [[User:DLerner|The user formerly known as DLerner]] 20:00, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

: People make more money than they spend. They pay taxes and still, on average, have an excess of over $400,000 per household. Every [[abortion]] costs an average of over $500,000, including savings and lost taxes.

: I'm sure that surprises you. It surprises everyone, because [[abortion deceit]] has been so good at fooling all of us.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:: And can I see a cite on that "fact" about making more money than they spend? And also on the $400,000 per household as well. Is that in a year, in 10 years, in a lifetime? Do you want to put any kind of reality in that statement or just throw a number out there and see if it sticks? And I did take an economics course, so feel free to use big words. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 10:48, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

::Why/how/in what way does an abortion cost that much, somehow I don't believe that's the price clinics charge. [[User:DLerner|The user formerly known as DLerner]] 20:33, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::: You seem to miss the point. The [[economic]] cost of abortion is primarily the [[opportunity cost]] of a life. Have you ever taken a course in economics?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:31, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: So... spending a large amount of your pay to feed a child is actually /saving/ money? And actually /saving/ that money by /not/ having a child is actually /losing/ that money? Good sir, are we in the Twilight Zone? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:39, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

== I was asked to help find cites ==

I have done some research, but I am having trouble. I have added some cites, but perhaps someone could help me out a bit. I can't find a source which tries to argue that "abortion saves money" -- the only cites I can find which back this claim up are from conservatives who are attempting to disprove the claim. I can't find any primary source. Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:44, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

: I already supported that one with a citation. Thanks anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:29, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::But you haven't supported (and I can't verify) that anyone actually ''uses'' the claim. That's what I need help finding. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:33, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

==Abortion and Infertility==

I just have to pick this up, how does abortion actually lead to infertility? Sure a woman who has an abortion may not be able to conceive at a later date because she has grown older, but it is not abortion which causes this infertility, rather age (infertility refers to the ability to conceive a child, rather than actually having children, a nun can be very fertile even if she does not have children). Also, the claim that 25% of girls have STD's which lead to infertility is not supported by the cite, which simply states that 25% of girls have STD's, not that all of these lead to infertility. And I'm at a loss as to how '''abortion''' actually lead to girls getting these STD's, I believe you may be mistaking it with '''sex'''... [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 00:28, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Ripperologists

2008-03-24T02:32:16Z

Barikada: Delete notice breaks redirect

#REDIRECT [[Ripperologist]]

Mobius strip

2008-03-24T02:31:08Z

Barikada:

A '''Möbius strip''' is a one-sided object. It is formed by taking a thin strip of material, twisting a section 180 degrees, and making the two ends touch. Despite being one sided, the object does, in fact, still exist in three dimensions.

The shape was independently discovered by German mathematicians August Ferdinand Möbius and Johann Benedict Listing.

[[category:science]]

Mobius strip

2008-03-24T02:28:36Z

Barikada: New page: A '''mobius strip''' is a one-sided object. It is formed by taking a thin strip of material, twisting a section 180 degrees, and making the two ends touch. Despite being one sided, the obj...

A '''mobius strip''' is a one-sided object. It is formed by taking a thin strip of material, twisting a section 180 degrees, and making the two ends touch. Despite being one sided, the object does, in fact, still exist in three dimensions.

[[category:science]]

Serpent (cipher)

2008-03-24T02:22:22Z

Barikada:

'''Serpent''' is a symmetric stream cipher which came second place in the competition to determine which cipher should be called AES.

Talk:Wikipedia police

2008-03-24T02:19:01Z

Barikada:

Guess what I am going to ask. Do you have any evidence AT ALL to back up this page?--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 13:48, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Come on. Seriously? Judging by the flurry of hilarious articles recenetly created by him, this guy has completely lost it. Also, should there be a mention of Conservapedia police, mentioning the likes of Karajou and Crocoite? His tenuous link to reality has finally been cut. [[User:Schoenberg|Schoenberg]] 15:21, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Source please? For this page or any on this site, really. [[User:NoraReed|NoraReed]] 15:33, 27 February 2008 (EST)

This is getting ridiculous. I saw you make up this term on the main page Andy. You went from talking about the 'Wikipedia police' to saying, 'That deserves its own entry'. Based on...?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 15:44, 27 February 2008 (EST)

"They almost never have user names reflecting their real names"--well, with the amount of identity theft and perverts out there, isn't that what your supposed to do? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 23:27, 27 February 2008 (EST) (Brian Katcher)

The cited page doesn't reference or support the idea of "secret police". No factual basis.[[User:apjames|apjames]]

Ah, I see someone found a +1 Tin Foil Hat. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:19, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Ouija board

2008-03-24T02:14:59Z

Barikada:

The '''Ouija board''' has been around for centuries, dating as far back as 500BC. Its main use is to contact the dead in a “séance”. Many Christians find this practice to be morally wrong because of its occult connotations. One version of the Ouija board is currently sold by Parker Brothers.

[[category:board games]]
[[category:occult]]

Talk:Deadwood (TV series)

2008-03-13T01:36:20Z

Barikada: New page: ==Swearing== Righto, the note I put in about swearing is unclear. However, I'm not entirely sure how to clarify it-- As I've been blocked for using a slang term for breasts, I doubt the us...

==Swearing==
Righto, the note I put in about swearing is unclear. However, I'm not entirely sure how to clarify it-- As I've been blocked for using a slang term for breasts, I doubt the use of the D Word With Four Letters The Last Of Which Is A N would be appropriate. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:36, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Deadwood (TV series)

2008-03-13T01:32:48Z

Barikada: Added note about anachronistic swearing, fixed odd grammar which made it seem like homosexuality was violent.

'''Deadwood''' was a [[American]] [[western]]-[[television]] series created by [[David Milch]]. The show ran for 3 seasons, between 2004 and 2006, on the [[HBO]] network. The show is highly [[profanity|offensive]], with over 1.5 repetitions of the F-word per one minute on average. The swearing is highly [[anachronism|anachronistic]]. It is also highly violent, and deals with topics such as [[homosexuality]] and [[murder]].

The show is named after the actual city of [[Deadwood]], [[South Dakota]]. It portrays actual [[history|historical]] figures, such as [[Wild Bill Hickok]], [[Seth Bullock]], [[Al Swearengen]], [[Calamity Jane]], [[Charlie Utter]] and [[George Hearst]] to name a few. It won eight [[Emmy Award|Emmy Awards]] and one [[Golden Globe]].

[[category:Television Shows]]
[[category:Wild West]]

Vaccine Safety Datalink Project

2008-03-12T23:14:55Z

Barikada:

The '''Vaccine Safety Datalink Project (VSD)''' is a project claiming to seek to increase knowledge about [[vaccine]] [[adverse events]].

The [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] have formed partnerships with eight large health Management Organizations (HMOs) to continually evaluate vaccine safety. The project contains data on more than 6 million people. Medical records are monitored for potential adverse events following [[immunization]].

The VSD project is supposed to allow for planned vaccine safety studies as well as timely investigations of hypothesis.<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/about/terms/glossary.htm#v</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Medicine]]

Vaccine Safety Datalink Project

2008-03-12T23:14:36Z

Barikada:

'''Vaccine Safety Datalink Project (VSD)''' is a project claiming to seek to increase knowledge about [[vaccine]] [[adverse events]].

The [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] have formed partnerships with eight large health Management Organizations (HMOs) to continually evaluate vaccine safety. The project contains data on more than 6 million people. Medical records are monitored for potential adverse events following [[immunization]].

The VSD project is supposed to allow for planned vaccine safety studies as well as timely investigations of hypothesis.<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/about/terms/glossary.htm#v</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Medicine]]

Dar al-Islam

2008-03-12T23:14:05Z

Barikada:

{{stub}}

'''Dar al-Islam''' is the "Household of Submission" under Islam, which means Muslim territories governed by the [[shari'a]] (Muslim code of law under the Koran).

[[category:islam]]

Precision

2008-03-12T23:04:50Z

Barikada: bold

'''Precision''' is an indication of how good the measuring device was in a [[measure|measurement]].<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Chemistry''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998</ref>

At some point, precision reaches a scientific limit. Due to [[quantum mechanics]], and especially the [[Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle]], at some point precision in measurement is impossible without the imparting of energy onto the measured object. For this reason, precision at the [[atom|atomic]] level is difficult to obtain. One example is, instead of referring to [[electron|electrons]] in a particular location around an atom, scientists determine what area of space they ''could'' occupy, and label this area a probability cloud, or an [[orbital]].

In most non-scientific prose, it is common to give approximate values. That being the norm, there is no need to use ''about'' in phrases like, "The first airplane was flown by the [[Wright Brothers]] {{#expr: {{years ago|1903}} round -2}} years ago."

==References==
<references/>

[[category:science]]

Talk:Pi

2008-03-12T22:59:12Z

Barikada: /* Is the Bible wrong about pi? */

Answering the question posed in the article, "As of 2002, the record is held by Yasumasa Kanada of Tokyo University at 1,241,100,000,000 digits. That result was never printed out: can you figure out why not?"

An ordinary printed page can hold about 5,000 digits.

To print 1,241,100,000,000 digits would require 248,220,000 pages, or 496,440 reams of paper. A ream of paper is the size of a large book. It would take a building the size of a city library to hold the printed output. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 23:08, 13 January 2007 (EST)

Counting the letters in the phrase "Now I wish I had a drink—alcoholic, of course" '''Does not help because it gives a wrong answer.''' it gives 3(.)141315926, it should be 3.1415926...
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:54, 15 January 2007 (EST)

*Yikes! I'm going to have to turn in my geek badge. It should be "How I want a drink--alcoholic of course." I was mixing it with "How I wish I could recollect pi easily today." Sorry. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:16, 16 January 2007 (EST)

So I'm assuming by the change back to the old version, my revision was no good. An explanation why would be nice, though. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 21:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Groan==

What was I thinking here? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pi&curid=4960&diff=71562&oldid=71280&rcid=74105]

113 '''divided into''' 355 like this:

3.14156.....
---------
113|355.00000

I had 1/pi by mistake - not even an approximation, more like an abomination. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:44, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== I like Pi ==

Pi R Squared? No they're not, Pie are round. Brownies are square. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:LOL. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:08, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

==22/7==
Besides the fact that "Pi is exactly 3!", 22/7 is also a repeating decimal.
Pi is also known as Archimedes' constant, Ludolphine, and Ludolph's Number.
Ludolph van Ceulen (Germany) spent a great deal of time calculating digits of pi. The number is engraved on his tombstone. If I were to get buried, I would have all the digits I memorized engraved on it, but I want to get cremated instead. [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 10:16, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:It is not true that Pi is exactly 3. What is your suggestion to improve the article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:31, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

::I haven't said anything about my beliefs, let's just leave my life out of this, eh? And, with you saying that pi=3, are you suggesting CP completely rewrites this article? [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 10:39, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:::If you are not claiming that pi = 3, then that makes two of us. :-)
:::I've made a few updates to the article, primarily about scriptural references and historical estimates. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:41, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

==Is the Bible wrong about pi?==

In the ancient world, measurements were not given as exact as they are today, and that was generally considered acceptable.
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/piwrong.html [[User:DanH|DanH]] 01:22, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:Who said it was wrong? Sloppy ancients aren't nessecarily wrong ancients. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:25, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::So, can I reinsert the Bibical perspective? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:15, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::It's not relevant simply to note that the Bible happens to approximate it in passing. However, many use it as an argument to show that the Bible is errant, and that's what I surmise may have been the purpose for its inclusion [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:35, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Wait. The Bible's interpretation of Pi is not relevant to Pi? What? Look, friend, the Bible is always relevant. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:14, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::You admit you're an atheist on your user page. Why are you so interested in inserting this in there? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:15, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::I admit I'm an atheist-- You say it like it's a bad thing. I'm not trying to stat a fight, Dan, I just figure that, as a wiki with a majority of users that are Christian, it would be good to include the Biblical perspective on matters where it has spoken, as is done in [[shrimp]]. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:18, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:I didn't realize that was still in [[shrimp]]. Anyways, as the article posted above explains, the numbers were not meant to be exact, and the circumference and diameter may have been given as approximate estimates, but pi wasn't a concept that most people knew about or cared about. The Bible wasn't meaning to comment on pi at that point, only at the relevant calculations. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:24, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::That's great, Dan. You seem pretty hostile to the Bible. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:16, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
I don't see how Dan seems to be "pretty hostile to the Bible". Your insertion was simply wrong, as the Bible is not trying to give a value for pi at all. Besides, the Bible reference which is frequently quoted by bibliosceptics as supposedly representing pi is already in the article, and even that warrants being removed (in that form) in my opinion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:47, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:Oh... So anything a skeptic quotes must be purged, then? What is the purpose of the verse if not to show the value of pi? Furthermore, how do you know what the Bible is and is not trying to say, Philip? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:48, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:Also, bibliosceptics is A: Spelled wrong and B: a word which would translate as "Skeptical of books." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:49, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, bugger. It seems I didn't notice that the verse was already quoted in the History section. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:51, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::: I didn't say that anything a sceptic quotes should be purged.
::: What's the purpose if not to show the value of pi? To ''describe the object's size'', genius!
::: What is incorrect about the spelling of "bibliosceptics"? Yes, the word ''could'' mean "sceptical of books", but as "Bible" means "book", it's appropriate to use it to mean "sceptical of the Bible".
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:03, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::"Besides, the Bible reference which is frequently quoted by bibliosceptics as supposedly representing pi is already in the article, and even that warrants being removed (in that form) in my opinion." That's exactly what you said, Philip!
::::Then why not describe it ''correctly''?
::::Skeptics. With a K. Also: Yes. I know it means book. Your use of faux Latin does not make you smarter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:13, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: That quote of mine does not indicate that ''anything'' a sceptic quotes should be purged, and neither does it say that that bit should be removed ''because it's something a sceptic quotes''.
::::: Aussies traditionally spell "sceptic" with a "c", hence my use of "bibliosceptic" rather than "biblioskeptic".
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

A fourth consecutive edit, because a thought occurs. How can we be sure that man's measurements are correct in this case but the Bible is not? Furthermore, if the Bible is wrong here, how can we logically accept that everything else is exact-- IE, the age of the Earth? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:56, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
: What reason is there to think that the Bible's measurements are incorrect? The logic of your question is valid, but the premise (that the Bible is incorrect) is not. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:05, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::Well, if it's ten cubits from one side to the other, it should be 31 all around, if we're rounding. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:13, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: What if it was actually 9.7 cubits (rounded to 10) from one side to the other? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Then the measurement given is, quite simply, wrong. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:44, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: Huh? Okay, I'll have to spell it out for you. If (and this is not the only possible explanation) the ''actual'' diameter was 9.7 cubits, then the ''actual'' radius would be 30.47 cubits. If ''both'' of those figures are rounded to the nearest cubit, then the diameter would be listed as 10 cubits and the circumference would be listed as 30 cubits. And guess what! That's what the Bible lists them as! So if this is correct (and it doesn't have to be exactly that: it could be 9.6 cubits for example), then the Bible is perfectly accurate! ("Accurate" is a different thing to "precise", as Ed mentions below.) If you still aren't convinced, have a look at the links in the External Links section of the article, particularly the Math Forum one. In fact, don't reply here unless you first read the three links. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:03, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::Yes. Rounding. I get it. It's impercise. If I say Ed is six feet tall, I'm wrong because he's not. If I say he's ''about'' six feet tall, I'm right, because he's just over six feet tall. Is that so hard to understand, Philip? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:06, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Alright. Scanned through the links. I get it-- God couldn't be arsed to tell the lowly Earthers a more prescise number. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:51, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::You're not wrong to call me six feet tall; I don't mind losing 3 inches in the interest of smooth prose. Just don't call me [[two meters]] tall! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:50, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::That's what the "about" is for-- it indicates impercision. Most useful article ever, by the way. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:59, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I took a few science courses in high school and college. You might be interested to learn about the difference between "[[accuracy]]" and "[[precision]]". (I probably should compare and contrast the two ideas in a proposed new article: [[accuracy and precision]].)

:::Here's how it's relevant to [[Pi]]. When the Bible says ten cubits, that is an approximation. Scientists would say the measurement is being given to "[[one significant figure]]". It really could be anything between 9 and 11 cubits, and it still wouldn't be wrong, because it's only an approximation, like saying that Ed Poor is six feet tall (I'm 6'3" in bare feet).

:::The ratio between the diameter of a wheel and its circumference is, roughly, three. And if you drew a circle on the ground, with a diameter of 10 cubits, you would pace off 30 cubits when you walked around the circle. [[Pacing]] is not a very precise measurement, but it's good enough for some cases. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:01, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: "''It really could be anything between 9 and 11 cubits...''": 9.5 and 10.5 actually. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:06, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Anyway, you're being too patient with a time-waster. Liberals l-o-v-e to change the subject, with distractions like the supposedly preferable spelling of sceptic. I'm sceptical of this fella's motives, and I've left a note at his talk page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:13, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: I would actually like him to answer my last question above, though. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:43, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::Ed: You'll get a response in the appropriate place momentarily, don't worry.
:::::Philip J. Rayment: So you have wished it, so it shall be. Response is above. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:44, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

The Bible does not provide a value for pi, so the following statement is misleading at best:

:The [[Qur'an]] also defines Pi as 3.(al-Sûra ''aleph bei'').

Use of the word "also" implies that the Bible has provided a definition. The story about the ten cubits does not define pi. It merely gives a diameter and a radius of something presumed to be circular. (A circumference of thirty is consistent with a diameter of ten, with a precision of one [[significant digit]].)

In any case, I'd like to see the exact words of an English translation of any Koran passage related to circle math before approving any claim as damaging as "defines Pi as 3." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:53, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Larry Craig

2008-03-12T22:41:51Z

Barikada: /* Airport incident */

'''Larry Craig''' (b. July 20, 1945) has been a [[Republican]] [[United States Senate|United States Senator]] from the state of [[Idaho]] since 1991. From 1981 to 1991 he represented Idaho in the [[United States House of Representatives]]. He is generally considered to be a social conservative and is also a strong advocate of the proposed Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.

==Early years==
Senator Craig was born on the family ranch near Midvale, Idaho, which was homesteaded in 1899 by his grandfather. He later served as the Idaho State President and National Vice-President of the Future Farmers of America. Craig earned his B.A. at the University of Idaho in 1969 and did graduate work at George Washington University 1970. Craig has worked as a farmer and rancher and served in the Idaho senate from 1974-1980.

==U.S. Senate==
In 1974, the people of Payette and Washington counties sent Craig to the Idaho State Senate, where he served three terms before winning the 1980 race for Idaho's First District Congressional Seat. He was re-elected four times before winning the U.S. Senate election in 1990 and was re-elected to the Senate in 1996 and 2002. Senator Craig served as chairman of the Steering Committee, a legislative "think tank" and action group for Senate conservatives. He was the youngest senator ever elected to that position.

Craig quickly rose in the Senate leadership in his first term, when his colleagues elected him Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee. He was re-elected to that position in the 106th and 107th Congresses. The Committee is responsible for developing policy positions for Senate Republicans.

Craig has emerged as a leader for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, limited taxation, private property rights, and greater accountability in government. He has been recognized by national groups including Citizens for a Sound Economy, Citizens Against Government Waste, Watchdogs of the Treasury, and the National Taxpayers Union Foundation,

With his appointment to the Senate Appropriations Committee, Craig oversees funding on the following subcommittees: Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies; Energy and Water Development; Homeland Security; Labor, HHS, and Education; Military Construction and Veterans Affairs; and Interior and Related Agencies, where he serves as the Ranking Member. He is also a member of the Special Committee on Aging, which he chaired during the 107th and 108th Congresses, and the Committee on Environment and Public Works, where he serves on the Public Sector Solutions to Global Warming, Oversight, and Children's Health Protection Subcommittee and the Superfund and Environmental Health Subcommittee.

In addition to his committee memberships, Craig sits on a number of caucuses including: Air Force; Diabetes; Congressional Sportsmen's; Senate Sweetener; WTO for Farmers and Ranchers; Congressional Potato; National Congressional Award Board of Directors; Idaho Safe Kids Coalition (Honorary Co-Chair); the Western States Senate Coalition; Education Advisory Committee to the National Youth Leadership Conference. He serves as Co-Chairman of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption and helped to found and lead the CCAI, an institute working on adoption issues.

Craig is also on the Board of Directors of the [[National Rifle Association]], the Alliance to Save Energy, and he co-founded and co-chairs the Congressional Property Rights Coalition.

Craig chaired the Senate Republican Policy Committee (1996-2003), the Special Committee on Aging (One Hundred Eighth Congress), and the Committee on Veterans� Affairs (One Hundred Ninth Congress).

Craig was dedicated spokesman on behalf of the people and economic base of Idaho who depend upon the [[timber]] and power industries. Many [[environmentalist]]s believe his departure could be benificial for [[ecological]] causes, such as [[salmon]] recovery, which may cause economic disruption and unemployment in a conservative "flyover" state.<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070929/ap_on_go_co/salmon_democrats Sen. Craig's fall may benefit salmon]</ref>

==Airport incident==
On June 11, 2007, Craig was arrested in a men's room at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, by Sgt. Dave Karsnia, and charged with lewd conduct. Karsnia had been staging a sting operation in the men's room, based on complaints of frequent [[homosexual]] trysts, and reported that Craig propositioned him by peering into Karsnia's toilet stall, and tapping his foot against Karsnia's.<ref>[http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/ssi/craig_police_report_082807.pdf Lewd conduct: Report of Sgt. Dave Karsnia #4211, Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport Police Department. (June 12, 2007)] URL accessed February 21, 2007</ref>

When questioned after his arrest, Craig characterized Karsnia's behavior as [[entrapment]].<ref>[http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/Craigtranscript.pdf Transcript of arrest interview] [http://www.break.com/index/senator-craig-police-audio-tape.html Audio]</ref> Later, however, Craig indicated he planned to plead guilty to the charges, and continued on his trip. He had hoped to keep the arrest quiet, didn't consult a lawyer, and he never told family, friends, staff or colleagues about the incident. Craig returned to Minneapolis on August 8th, 2007 and plead guilty to a reduced charge disorderly conduct.<ref>John, McArdle,[http://www.rollcall.com/cgi-bin/texis/scripts/rollcall-search/search.html?subscriber_search=true&query=%22Craig+Arrested%2C+Pleads+Guilty+Following+Incident+in+Airport+Restroom+but+Says+He+Did+Nothing+Wrong&x=8&y=7 Craig Arrested, Pleads Guilty Following Incident in Airport Restroom but Says He Did Nothing Wrong], ''Roll Call'', August 27, 2007.</ref>

A few weeks after Craig's guilty plea, the arrest story earned major press attention, and on September 1, 2007, Craig announced he intended to resign from the Senate (effective September 30, 2007). However, Craig announced plans to withdraw his guilty plea, and repeatedly denied unsubstantiated claims that he was homosexual.<ref>http://www.idahostatesman.com/eyepiece/story/143801.html</ref> Craig hired two Washington criminal defense lawyers, Stan Brand, who has defended lawmakers before, and Billy Martin, whose most recent client was NFL quarterback [[Michael Vick]]. Craig also retained one of the capital's top public-relations experts, Judy Smith, who handled press for [[Monica Lewinsky]] and more recently for U.S. Rep. [[William Jefferson]].<ref>[http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/149810.html Craig may not quit after all if he's cleared of charges, spokesman says], By GREGORY HAHN AND ERIKA BOLSTAD - ''Idaho Statesman'', 09/04/07.</ref>

Craig's attempt to withdraw the guilty plea was rejected by a Hennepin County District Court judge on October 4th 2007. Senator Craig has indicated that his intention is to serve out his Senate term. <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/04/craig.arrest/].</ref>

Should Craig choose not to resign, his third Senate term will expire in January 2009.<ref> [http://www.idahostatesman.com/eyepiece/story/143801.html (Idaho Statesman)] </ref> Craig earlier resigned as an advisor to [[Republican]] [[Mitt Romney]]'s presidential campaign.<ref>http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/08/28/craig/?rsssource=1</ref>

===Responses from other politicians===
Former President [[Bill Clinton]] said on [[CNN]]'s ''Larry King Live'',

:"Well, first of all, I think we ought to recognize that this is a very traumatic time for him and his family.... we should be hoping that he and his family can work through this ...I think that that is more important than the politics of this. The politics of this will have to be resolved by him and the Republicans in the Senate."

Craig has also received support from Senator [[Arlen Specter]], and Sidney Smith, a spokesman for Craig, has stated that the decision to resign may not be final.<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RF0EGO0&show_article=1</ref>

In February 2008, the Senate Ethics Committee<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/13/larry.craig/index.html</ref> issued a public "letter of admonition" to Craig, charging him with "improper conduct," and unethical use of over $200,000 of his campaigning money for legal and other costs related to the airport incident.

==References==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Craig, Larry}}

[[Category:United States Senators|Craig, Larry]]
[[Category:Republican Party|Craig, Larry]]

Encephalopathy

2008-03-12T21:55:57Z

Barikada:

'''Encephalopathy''' is a general term describing brain dysfunction. Examples include [[encephalitis]], [[meningitis]], [[seizure|seizures]] and [[head trauma]].<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/about/terms/glossary.htm#e</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Medicine]]

Talk:Vomit

2008-03-12T21:53:37Z

Barikada:

Perhaps the evolutionary usefulness of vomiting would have a place here? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:31, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:What evolutionary usefulness does it have, as opposed to other sorts of usefulness? That is, how does vomiting help evolution? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:41, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::It's an adaptation, genius. If you eat poisoned food and you can't vomit, you're dead. If you eat poisoned food, your body catches it and forces you to vomit, then you're more likely to live. It's not foolproof by any means, but it's better than nothing. Incidentally, this is also why seeing others vomit makes us nauseous. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:43, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Okay, I'll accept that. But then what evidence is there that it is an evolutionary adaptation rather than a design feature? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:55, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Would anything intelligent create a system that involves searing one's own flesh with acid? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:44, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: You perhaps forget (assuming you knew enough about the subject to begin with) that what we have today is not the perfect world that God created, but a degenerate, [[Fall of man|fallen]], world, where some things are worse than was originally created. I'm not certain that's the explanation, but it's a likely one. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:58, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Right, Right. I keep forgetting God doesn't really like us. However, let's go with the idea that God intentionally designed us so we'd seer our own flesh to prevent dying. Wouldn't he have at least made this work 100% of the time? Heck, even if we do puke up the poison, we can still choke on the vomit. (Proof: Hendrix, Jimi.) I'm just saying, you'd think God would've given us some better mechanism for getting rid of poisons. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:02, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::You need to see a doc. In 40+ years, I've never seared my own flesh when tossing cookies. Get a grip and quit trolling. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 22:07, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::::Ever seen the throat of someone who has vomited a lot? A bulimic, for example? It shows.
::::::::On another note, I'd appreciate it if you avoided calling me a troll. If I was, I'd be blanking pages and adding things without discussion-- The exact opposite of janitorial work and discussing. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:09, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Maybe that's a design feature to discourage vomiting. Bulimia not being a default setting and all. And don't get gobby, you ARE trolling. Plus your attitude stinks. Quit playing to the gallery and log out if you've nothing useful to contribute. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 22:11, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::This is not the place for a debate about the merits of my edits, Fox. If you've got an issue with me instead of my position, it would be far more appropriate to take it up with me on my talk page instead of derailing the dicussion. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:13, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::Lest I be a hypocrite, here's something on topic: Indeed, bulimia isn't the default position. I never claimed it was. Why would you want to discourage removing poisons from one's body, though? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:14, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Barikada, you're simply not getting it. If the explanation is that the world we have today is not the perfect world that God created, and that His creation has since deteriorated, then God ''didn't'' "intentionally [design] us so we'd seer our own flesh to prevent dying". That is, He would have designed vomiting in order to eject poisons, but designed it in such a way that we would not have been seared. And getting seared ''now'' is therefore a ''fault'' that has developed in the original design.

My understanding of a "troll" is someone who posts comments in order to provoke or stir up arguments. Whether that applies to you or not I couldn't say for certain, but I can certainly see why Fox thinks so. ''Your'' description of a troll is incorrect, I believe.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:50, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:Oh for the love of... Look, as I told Ed I would, I've made a debate topic [[Debate: Vomiting: Design feature or adaptation?|here.]] Incoherent my foot. 17:53, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Vomit

2008-03-12T21:53:22Z

Barikada:

Talk:Pi

2008-03-12T21:51:28Z

Barikada: Edit readded, plus another response.

Answering the question posed in the article, "As of 2002, the record is held by Yasumasa Kanada of Tokyo University at 1,241,100,000,000 digits. That result was never printed out: can you figure out why not?"

An ordinary printed page can hold about 5,000 digits.

To print 1,241,100,000,000 digits would require 248,220,000 pages, or 496,440 reams of paper. A ream of paper is the size of a large book. It would take a building the size of a city library to hold the printed output. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 23:08, 13 January 2007 (EST)

Counting the letters in the phrase "Now I wish I had a drink—alcoholic, of course" '''Does not help because it gives a wrong answer.''' it gives 3(.)141315926, it should be 3.1415926...
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:54, 15 January 2007 (EST)

*Yikes! I'm going to have to turn in my geek badge. It should be "How I want a drink--alcoholic of course." I was mixing it with "How I wish I could recollect pi easily today." Sorry. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:16, 16 January 2007 (EST)

So I'm assuming by the change back to the old version, my revision was no good. An explanation why would be nice, though. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 21:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Groan==

What was I thinking here? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pi&curid=4960&diff=71562&oldid=71280&rcid=74105]

113 '''divided into''' 355 like this:

3.14156.....
---------
113|355.00000

I had 1/pi by mistake - not even an approximation, more like an abomination. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:44, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== I like Pi ==

Pi R Squared? No they're not, Pie are round. Brownies are square. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:LOL. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:08, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

==22/7==
Besides the fact that "Pi is exactly 3!", 22/7 is also a repeating decimal.
Pi is also known as Archimedes' constant, Ludolphine, and Ludolph's Number.
Ludolph van Ceulen (Germany) spent a great deal of time calculating digits of pi. The number is engraved on his tombstone. If I were to get buried, I would have all the digits I memorized engraved on it, but I want to get cremated instead. [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 10:16, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:It is not true that Pi is exactly 3. What is your suggestion to improve the article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:31, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

::I haven't said anything about my beliefs, let's just leave my life out of this, eh? And, with you saying that pi=3, are you suggesting CP completely rewrites this article? [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 10:39, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:::If you are not claiming that pi = 3, then that makes two of us. :-)
:::I've made a few updates to the article, primarily about scriptural references and historical estimates. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:41, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

==Is the Bible wrong about pi?==

In the ancient world, measurements were not given as exact as they are today, and that was generally considered acceptable.
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/piwrong.html [[User:DanH|DanH]] 01:22, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:Who said it was wrong? Sloppy ancients aren't nessecarily wrong ancients. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:25, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::So, can I reinsert the Bibical perspective? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:15, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::It's not relevant simply to note that the Bible happens to approximate it in passing. However, many use it as an argument to show that the Bible is errant, and that's what I surmise may have been the purpose for its inclusion [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:35, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Wait. The Bible's interpretation of Pi is not relevant to Pi? What? Look, friend, the Bible is always relevant. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:14, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::You admit you're an atheist on your user page. Why are you so interested in inserting this in there? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:15, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::I admit I'm an atheist-- You say it like it's a bad thing. I'm not trying to stat a fight, Dan, I just figure that, as a wiki with a majority of users that are Christian, it would be good to include the Biblical perspective on matters where it has spoken, as is done in [[shrimp]]. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:18, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:I didn't realize that was still in [[shrimp]]. Anyways, as the article posted above explains, the numbers were not meant to be exact, and the circumference and diameter may have been given as approximate estimates, but pi wasn't a concept that most people knew about or cared about. The Bible wasn't meaning to comment on pi at that point, only at the relevant calculations. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:24, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::That's great, Dan. You seem pretty hostile to the Bible. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:16, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
I don't see how Dan seems to be "pretty hostile to the Bible". Your insertion was simply wrong, as the Bible is not trying to give a value for pi at all. Besides, the Bible reference which is frequently quoted by bibliosceptics as supposedly representing pi is already in the article, and even that warrants being removed (in that form) in my opinion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:47, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:Oh... So anything a skeptic quotes must be purged, then? What is the purpose of the verse if not to show the value of pi? Furthermore, how do you know what the Bible is and is not trying to say, Philip? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:48, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:Also, bibliosceptics is A: Spelled wrong and B: a word which would translate as "Skeptical of books." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:49, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, bugger. It seems I didn't notice that the verse was already quoted in the History section. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:51, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::: I didn't say that anything a sceptic quotes should be purged.
::: What's the purpose if not to show the value of pi? To ''describe the object's size'', genius!
::: What is incorrect about the spelling of "bibliosceptics"? Yes, the word ''could'' mean "sceptical of books", but as "Bible" means "book", it's appropriate to use it to mean "sceptical of the Bible".
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:03, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::"Besides, the Bible reference which is frequently quoted by bibliosceptics as supposedly representing pi is already in the article, and even that warrants being removed (in that form) in my opinion." That's exactly what you said, Philip!
::::Then why not describe it ''correctly''?
::::Skeptics. With a K. Also: Yes. I know it means book. Your use of faux Latin does not make you smarter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:13, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: That quote of mine does not indicate that ''anything'' a sceptic quotes should be purged, and neither does it say that that bit should be removed ''because it's something a sceptic quotes''.
::::: Aussies traditionally spell "sceptic" with a "c", hence my use of "bibliosceptic" rather than "biblioskeptic".
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

A fourth consecutive edit, because a thought occurs. How can we be sure that man's measurements are correct in this case but the Bible is not? Furthermore, if the Bible is wrong here, how can we logically accept that everything else is exact-- IE, the age of the Earth? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:56, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
: What reason is there to think that the Bible's measurements are incorrect? The logic of your question is valid, but the premise (that the Bible is incorrect) is not. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:05, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::Well, if it's ten cubits from one side to the other, it should be 31 all around, if we're rounding. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:13, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: What if it was actually 9.7 cubits (rounded to 10) from one side to the other? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Then the measurement given is, quite simply, wrong. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:44, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: Huh? Okay, I'll have to spell it out for you. If (and this is not the only possible explanation) the ''actual'' diameter was 9.7 cubits, then the ''actual'' radius would be 30.47 cubits. If ''both'' of those figures are rounded to the nearest cubit, then the diameter would be listed as 10 cubits and the circumference would be listed as 30 cubits. And guess what! That's what the Bible lists them as! So if this is correct (and it doesn't have to be exactly that: it could be 9.6 cubits for example), then the Bible is perfectly accurate! ("Accurate" is a different thing to "precise", as Ed mentions below.) If you still aren't convinced, have a look at the links in the External Links section of the article, particularly the Math Forum one. In fact, don't reply here unless you first read the three links. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:03, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::Yes. Rounding. I get it. It's impercise. If I say Ed is six feet tall, I'm wrong because he's not. If I say he's ''about'' six feet tall, I'm right, because he's just over six feet tall. Is that so hard to understand, Philip? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:06, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Alright. Scanned through the links. I get it-- God couldn't be arsed to tell the lowly Earthers a more prescise number. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:51, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I took a few science courses in high school and college. You might be interested to learn about the difference between "[[accuracy]]" and "[[precision]]". (I probably should compare and contrast the two ideas in a proposed new article: [[accuracy and precision]].)

:::Here's how it's relevant to [[Pi]]. When the Bible says ten cubits, that is an approximation. Scientists would say the measurement is being given to "[[one significant figure]]". It really could be anything between 9 and 11 cubits, and it still wouldn't be wrong, because it's only an approximation, like saying that Ed Poor is six feet tall (I'm 6'3" in bare feet).

:::The ratio between the diameter of a wheel and its circumference is, roughly, three. And if you drew a circle on the ground, with a diameter of 10 cubits, you would pace off 30 cubits when you walked around the circle. [[Pacing]] is not a very precise measurement, but it's good enough for some cases. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:01, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: "''It really could be anything between 9 and 11 cubits...''": 9.5 and 10.5 actually. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:06, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Anyway, you're being too patient with a time-waster. Liberals l-o-v-e to change the subject, with distractions like the supposedly preferable spelling of sceptic. I'm sceptical of this fella's motives, and I've left a note at his talk page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:13, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: I would actually like him to answer my last question above, though. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:43, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::Ed: You'll get a response in the appropriate place momentarily, don't worry.
:::::Philip J. Rayment: So you have wished it, so it shall be. Response is above. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:44, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

The Bible does not provide a value for pi, so the following statement is misleading at best:

:The [[Qur'an]] also defines Pi as 3.(al-Sûra ''aleph bei'').

Use of the word "also" implies that the Bible has provided a definition. The story about the ten cubits does not define pi. It merely gives a diameter and a radius of something presumed to be circular. (A circumference of thirty is consistent with a diameter of ten, with a precision of one [[significant digit]].)

In any case, I'd like to see the exact words of an English translation of any Koran passage related to circle math before approving any claim as damaging as "defines Pi as 3." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:53, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal tricks

2008-03-12T21:48:29Z

Barikada: /* Liberal friendship */

It doesn't hurt to try? I assume this is in reference to drugs, alcohol, etc.? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:37, 23 February 2008 (EST)

==Paranoid personality disorder: Descriptive diagnosis per '''American''' DSM-IV-TR==

DSM-IV-TR 301.00 Paranoid Personality Disorder.

According to the DSM-IV-TR, this disorder is characterized by a pervasive distrust and suspicion of others such that their motives are interpreted as malevolent, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by four (or more) of the following:

:* Suspects, without sufficient basis, that others are exploiting, harming, or deceiving him or her
:* Is preoccupied with unjustified doubts about the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends or associates
:* Is reluctant to confide in others because of unwarranted fear that the information will be used maliciously against him or her
:* Reads benign remarks or events as threatening or demeaning.
:* Persistently bears grudges, i.e., is unforgiving of insults, injuries, or slights
:* Perceives attacks on his or her character or reputation that are not apparent to others and is quick to react angrily or to counterattack
:* Has recurrent suspicions, without justification, regarding fidelity of spouse or sexual partner.

The traits, behaviors and characteristics

:* Do not occur exclusively during the course of a mood disorder accompanied by psychotic features nor other psychotic disorders.
:* Are not due to the direct physiological effects of a general medical condition.

Does this American definition sound familiar to ''anyone''?[[User:SiggyF|SiggyF]] 14:04, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Or was I too subtle? The profusion of Liberal (fill in the blank) articles is bordering on ridiculous to outright delusional. These overlapping articles on one man's opinion of a large albeit imaginary group of people seems rather---paranoid. [[User:SiggyF|SiggyF]] 16:12, 24 February 2008 (EST)
: I don't know of anyone here who fits those criteria. I suspect, however, that you have different ''opinions'' about some of the subjective parts of those criteria. For example, is the suspicion of the first point "without sufficient basis", or does it have sufficient basis? Is any preoccupation (second point) unjustified or justified? And so on. The way that ''I'' judge it, I can't see that list fitting anyone here. Does that answer your question, or was it more of a criticism than a question? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:47, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== Confusing ==

Some of these are a bit confusing to me. I think if they are worded differently they would be more clear. (I'm taking specifically about the current numbers 1, 7, 9, and 15). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:40, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== This page has issues too. ==

This page seems to be just an attempt to make liberals look bad. I would say that most liberals do not act like this page suggests.
A lot of these points are very questionable at best.
Others, while it is true that liberals use them, are used by others just as much as liberals.
--[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 22:26, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: There are liberal tricks, and this entry helps identify the more popular ones. Review how much the [[liberals]] here protested our entry [[Hollywood Values]], and watch how often the [[liberals]] on television and in magazines push [[Hollywood]]. That isn't coming from [[God]], and we know deceitful His opposite is. To be forewarned is to be prepared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:27, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: So liberals (say folks like, Jimmy Carter, LBJ,Pierre Trudeau, Nelson Mandela and Barak Obama) are inspired by Satan, then? Or are devils themselves? what exactly are you getting at by linking liberalism to "God's opposite?" [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 00:17, 27 February 2008 (EST)
:: Although I added a couple of points to this list, points that seem to fit the theme of the other items in the list, I later wondered if they where really ''tricks''. In many if not most cases, I would think that there is nothing deliberate about the use of these "tricks". I'm inclined to think that "tricks" is not the best name for the article. "Liberal fallacies", perhaps? And of course, these fallacies are not used exclusively by liberals, and not by all liberals. But I would be inclined to believe that they are used more by liberals than by non-liberals.
:: Regarding Aboganza's question, as Christians we believe that ''all'' the evil and error in the world is ultimately influenced by Satan. No, Andy's not saying that those people are devils themselves, but that they have been influenced by ideas that find their origin with Satan.
:: That leads on to whether or not liberalism can be equated with Satan. And that raises the question as to what is meant by "liberal". The word, of course, has different meanings in different contexts. To take one extreme, in Australia the more conservative of the two main political parties is the Liberal Party! I guess that Andy uses it (and I'm not suggesting that he's the only one) to mean someone who holds ideas that are contrary to biblical views, the latter being held to more so by conservatives. So if they are contrary to biblical views, they are, by definition, ultimately of Satan. We do need to be careful, however to distinguish whether particular views typically held by "liberals" ''are'' contrary to biblical views, or not. For example, although gun control is apparently promoted mainly by liberals in the U.S. and opposed mainly by conservatives, I know of nothing in the Bible that supports or opposes gun control (as distinct from the right to self defence, by the way).
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:36, 27 February 2008 (EST)
::So from your reply to my post, you are arguing that Nelson Mandela was "influenced by ideas that find their origin with Satan ?" Remarkable. What does that say about P.W. Botha, then? [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 16:02, 27 February 2008 (EST)
::: I wasn't trying to be specific; just explaining general principles. And although liberals hold to some views that are opposed to the Bible, this doesn't mean that every view held by non-liberals is consistent with the Bible; conservatives can also hold views opposed to the Bible. Take evolution for example. Many people who would otherwise be considered conservative believe in evolution, but I would think that almost all liberals believe in evolution, whilst most (not all) believers in creation would be conservatives. So people on both sides of a political fence can hold anti-biblical views. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:19, 27 February 2008 (EST)

==Liberal friendship==
"liberals befriend you so you should become liberal (why don't they become conservative?)" You ''can't'' be serious. You're honestly saying someone like me befriends people solely because I want to convert them to the EEEEEEEEVIL of liberalism? Furthermore, what's with the stuff in quotes? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:18, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:Brackets. I meant brackets. Also, the first instance of liberal should be capitalized. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:48, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

== Category ==

This article is great (like all the articles about liberals). But it should be in Category:Liberals.

[[User:Maupiti|Maupiti]] 10:23, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Lerner index

2008-03-12T14:19:13Z

Barikada:

The '''Lerner index''' is a formula to quantify a firm's [[monopoly]] power:

:Lerner index = (P-MC)/P

where P is the price and MC is the marginal cost.

The index ranges from 0 (no monopoly power) to 1 (complete monopoly power when MC=0).

This index has been criticized for relying on MC, which is not usually known, and for being static rather than dynamic.

[[Category:Economics]]

Talk:Liberal tricks

2008-03-12T14:18:43Z

Barikada: Liberal friendship

Godwin's law

2008-03-12T14:14:58Z

Barikada:

'''Godwin's Law''' is a law of [[Usenet]] named after [[Mike Godwin]] concerning Usenet "discussions". <blockquote>
As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving [[Nazi]]s or [[Hitler]] approaches one.
</blockquote>

In modern usage, it applies to all arguments on the [[internet]], and the first side to reference the [[Nazis]] is generally assumed to have lost the argument, unless the conversation topic is about [[Nazis]].

Other Laws of Internet Arguments:

* [[Danth's Law]]
* [[Skarka's Law]]

==Further Reading==
*[http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/ How to post about Nazis and get away with it - the Godwin's Law FAQ]
[[category:internet culture]]
[[Category:Principles]]

Talk:Vomit

2008-03-12T14:13:27Z

Barikada:

Perhaps the evolutionary usefulness of vomiting would have a place here? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:31, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:What evolutionary usefulness does it have, as opposed to other sorts of usefulness? That is, how does vomiting help evolution? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:41, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::It's an adaptation, genius. If you eat poisoned food and you can't vomit, you're dead. If you eat poisoned food, your body catches it and forces you to vomit, then you're more likely to live. It's not foolproof by any means, but it's better than nothing. Incidentally, this is also why seeing others vomit makes us nauseous. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:43, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Okay, I'll accept that. But then what evidence is there that it is an evolutionary adaptation rather than a design feature? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:55, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Would anything intelligent create a system that involves searing one's own flesh with acid? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:44, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: You perhaps forget (assuming you knew enough about the subject to begin with) that what we have today is not the perfect world that God created, but a degenerate, [[Fall of man|fallen]], world, where some things are worse than was originally created. I'm not certain that's the explanation, but it's a likely one. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:58, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Right, Right. I keep forgetting God doesn't really like us. However, let's go with the idea that God intentionally designed us so we'd seer our own flesh to prevent dying. Wouldn't he have at least made this work 100% of the time? Heck, even if we do puke up the poison, we can still choke on the vomit. (Proof: Hendrix, Jimi.) I'm just saying, you'd think God would've given us some better mechanism for getting rid of poisons. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:02, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::You need to see a doc. In 40+ years, I've never seared my own flesh when tossing cookies. Get a grip and quit trolling. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 22:07, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::::Ever seen the throat of someone who has vomited a lot? A bulimic, for example? It shows.
::::::::On another note, I'd appreciate it if you avoided calling me a troll. If I was, I'd be blanking pages and adding things without discussion-- The exact opposite of janitorial work and discussing. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:09, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Maybe that's a design feature to discourage vomiting. Bulimia not being a default setting and all. And don't get gobby, you ARE trolling. Plus your attitude stinks. Quit playing to the gallery and log out if you've nothing useful to contribute. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 22:11, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::This is not the place for a debate about the merits of my edits, Fox. If you've got an issue with me instead of my position, it would be far more appropriate to take it up with me on my talk page instead of derailing the dicussion. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:13, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::Lest I be a hypocrite, here's something on topic: Indeed, bulimia isn't the default position. I never claimed it was. Why would you want to discourage removing poisons from one's body, though? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:14, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Barikada, you're simply not getting it. If the explanation is that the world we have today is not the perfect world that God created, and that His creation has since deteriorated, then God ''didn't'' "intentionally [design] us so we'd seer our own flesh to prevent dying". That is, He would have designed vomiting in order to eject poisons, but designed it in such a way that we would not have been seared. And getting seared ''now'' is therefore a ''fault'' that has developed in the original design.

My understanding of a "troll" is someone who posts comments in order to provoke or stir up arguments. Whether that applies to you or not I couldn't say for certain, but I can certainly see why Fox thinks so. ''Your'' description of a troll is incorrect, I believe.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:50, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:Ah, yes. The convenience of that-- Of ''course'' the design sucks, God wants it that way. Sidenote, this should be continued over at [[Debate: Vomiting: Design feature or adaptation?]] [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:13, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Pi

2008-03-12T14:06:38Z

Barikada: /* Is the Bible wrong about pi? */

Answering the question posed in the article, "As of 2002, the record is held by Yasumasa Kanada of Tokyo University at 1,241,100,000,000 digits. That result was never printed out: can you figure out why not?"

An ordinary printed page can hold about 5,000 digits.

To print 1,241,100,000,000 digits would require 248,220,000 pages, or 496,440 reams of paper. A ream of paper is the size of a large book. It would take a building the size of a city library to hold the printed output. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 23:08, 13 January 2007 (EST)

Counting the letters in the phrase "Now I wish I had a drink—alcoholic, of course" '''Does not help because it gives a wrong answer.''' it gives 3(.)141315926, it should be 3.1415926...
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:54, 15 January 2007 (EST)

*Yikes! I'm going to have to turn in my geek badge. It should be "How I want a drink--alcoholic of course." I was mixing it with "How I wish I could recollect pi easily today." Sorry. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:16, 16 January 2007 (EST)

So I'm assuming by the change back to the old version, my revision was no good. An explanation why would be nice, though. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 21:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Groan==

What was I thinking here? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pi&curid=4960&diff=71562&oldid=71280&rcid=74105]

113 '''divided into''' 355 like this:

3.14156.....
---------
113|355.00000

I had 1/pi by mistake - not even an approximation, more like an abomination. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:44, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== I like Pi ==

Pi R Squared? No they're not, Pie are round. Brownies are square. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:LOL. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:08, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

==22/7==
Besides the fact that "Pi is exactly 3!", 22/7 is also a repeating decimal.
Pi is also known as Archimedes' constant, Ludolphine, and Ludolph's Number.
Ludolph van Ceulen (Germany) spent a great deal of time calculating digits of pi. The number is engraved on his tombstone. If I were to get buried, I would have all the digits I memorized engraved on it, but I want to get cremated instead. [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 10:16, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:It is not true that Pi is exactly 3. What is your suggestion to improve the article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:31, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

::I haven't said anything about my beliefs, let's just leave my life out of this, eh? And, with you saying that pi=3, are you suggesting CP completely rewrites this article? [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 10:39, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:::If you are not claiming that pi = 3, then that makes two of us. :-)
:::I've made a few updates to the article, primarily about scriptural references and historical estimates. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:41, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

==Is the Bible wrong about pi?==

In the ancient world, measurements were not given as exact as they are today, and that was generally considered acceptable.
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/piwrong.html [[User:DanH|DanH]] 01:22, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:Who said it was wrong? Sloppy ancients aren't nessecarily wrong ancients. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:25, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::So, can I reinsert the Bibical perspective? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:15, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::It's not relevant simply to note that the Bible happens to approximate it in passing. However, many use it as an argument to show that the Bible is errant, and that's what I surmise may have been the purpose for its inclusion [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:35, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Wait. The Bible's interpretation of Pi is not relevant to Pi? What? Look, friend, the Bible is always relevant. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:14, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::You admit you're an atheist on your user page. Why are you so interested in inserting this in there? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:15, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::I admit I'm an atheist-- You say it like it's a bad thing. I'm not trying to stat a fight, Dan, I just figure that, as a wiki with a majority of users that are Christian, it would be good to include the Biblical perspective on matters where it has spoken, as is done in [[shrimp]]. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:18, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:I didn't realize that was still in [[shrimp]]. Anyways, as the article posted above explains, the numbers were not meant to be exact, and the circumference and diameter may have been given as approximate estimates, but pi wasn't a concept that most people knew about or cared about. The Bible wasn't meaning to comment on pi at that point, only at the relevant calculations. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:24, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::That's great, Dan. You seem pretty hostile to the Bible. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:16, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
I don't see how Dan seems to be "pretty hostile to the Bible". Your insertion was simply wrong, as the Bible is not trying to give a value for pi at all. Besides, the Bible reference which is frequently quoted by bibliosceptics as supposedly representing pi is already in the article, and even that warrants being removed (in that form) in my opinion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:47, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:Oh... So anything a skeptic quotes must be purged, then? What is the purpose of the verse if not to show the value of pi? Furthermore, how do you know what the Bible is and is not trying to say, Philip? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:48, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:Also, bibliosceptics is A: Spelled wrong and B: a word which would translate as "Skeptical of books." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:49, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, bugger. It seems I didn't notice that the verse was already quoted in the History section. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:51, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::: I didn't say that anything a sceptic quotes should be purged.
::: What's the purpose if not to show the value of pi? To ''describe the object's size'', genius!
::: What is incorrect about the spelling of "bibliosceptics"? Yes, the word ''could'' mean "sceptical of books", but as "Bible" means "book", it's appropriate to use it to mean "sceptical of the Bible".
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:03, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::"Besides, the Bible reference which is frequently quoted by bibliosceptics as supposedly representing pi is already in the article, and even that warrants being removed (in that form) in my opinion." That's exactly what you said, Philip!
::::Then why not describe it ''correctly''?
::::Skeptics. With a K. Also: Yes. I know it means book. Your use of faux Latin does not make you smarter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:13, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: That quote of mine does not indicate that ''anything'' a sceptic quotes should be purged, and neither does it say that that bit should be removed ''because it's something a sceptic quotes''.
::::: Aussies traditionally spell "sceptic" with a "c", hence my use of "bibliosceptic" rather than "biblioskeptic".
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

A fourth consecutive edit, because a thought occurs. How can we be sure that man's measurements are correct in this case but the Bible is not? Furthermore, if the Bible is wrong here, how can we logically accept that everything else is exact-- IE, the age of the Earth? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:56, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
: What reason is there to think that the Bible's measurements are incorrect? The logic of your question is valid, but the premise (that the Bible is incorrect) is not. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:05, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::Well, if it's ten cubits from one side to the other, it should be 31 all around, if we're rounding. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:13, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: What if it was actually 9.7 cubits (rounded to 10) from one side to the other? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Then the measurement given is, quite simply, wrong. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:44, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: Huh? Okay, I'll have to spell it out for you. If (and this is not the only possible explanation) the ''actual'' diameter was 9.7 cubits, then the ''actual'' radius would be 30.47 cubits. If ''both'' of those figures are rounded to the nearest cubit, then the diameter would be listed as 10 cubits and the circumference would be listed as 30 cubits. And guess what! That's what the Bible lists them as! So if this is correct (and it doesn't have to be exactly that: it could be 9.6 cubits for example), then the Bible is perfectly accurate! ("Accurate" is a different thing to "precise", as Ed mentions below.) If you still aren't convinced, have a look at the links in the External Links section of the article, particularly the Math Forum one. In fact, don't reply here unless you first read the three links. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:03, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::Yes. Rounding. I get it. It's impercise. If I say Ed is six feet tall, I'm wrong because he's not. If I say he's ''about'' six feet tall, I'm right, because he's just over six feet tall. Is that so hard to understand, Philip? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:06, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I took a few science courses in high school and college. You might be interested to learn about the difference between "[[accuracy]]" and "[[precision]]". (I probably should compare and contrast the two ideas in a proposed new article: [[accuracy and precision]].)

:::Here's how it's relevant to [[Pi]]. When the Bible says ten cubits, that is an approximation. Scientists would say the measurement is being given to "[[one significant figure]]". It really could be anything between 9 and 11 cubits, and it still wouldn't be wrong, because it's only an approximation, like saying that Ed Poor is six feet tall (I'm 6'3" in bare feet).

:::The ratio between the diameter of a wheel and its circumference is, roughly, three. And if you drew a circle on the ground, with a diameter of 10 cubits, you would pace off 30 cubits when you walked around the circle. [[Pacing]] is not a very precise measurement, but it's good enough for some cases. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:01, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: "''It really could be anything between 9 and 11 cubits...''": 9.5 and 10.5 actually. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:06, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Anyway, you're being too patient with a time-waster. Liberals l-o-v-e to change the subject, with distractions like the supposedly preferable spelling of sceptic. I'm sceptical of this fella's motives, and I've left a note at his talk page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:13, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: I would actually like him to answer my last question above, though. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:43, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::Ed: You'll get a response in the appropriate place momentarily, don't worry.
:::::Philip J. Rayment: So you have wished it, so it shall be. Response is above. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:44, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

The Bible does not provide a value for pi, so the following statement is misleading at best:

:The [[Qur'an]] also defines Pi as 3.(al-Sûra ''aleph bei'').

Use of the word "also" implies that the Bible has provided a definition. The story about the ten cubits does not define pi. It merely gives a diameter and a radius of something presumed to be circular. (A circumference of thirty is consistent with a diameter of ten, with a precision of one [[significant digit]].)

In any case, I'd like to see the exact words of an English translation of any Koran passage related to circle math before approving any claim as damaging as "defines Pi as 3." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:53, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

First Law of Thermodynamics

2008-03-12T05:14:58Z

Barikada:

The '''First Law of Thermodynamics''' states that the increase in internal energy of a closed system equals the amount of heat energy added minus the work performed by the system.

Mathematically, this is described as follows:

:<math>\mathrm{d}U=\delta Q-\delta W\,</math>

where <math>\mathrm{d}U</math> is the infinitesimal increase in the internal energy, <math>\delta Q</math> is the infinitesimal amount of heat added, and <math>\delta W</math> is the infinitesimal amount of work performed.

A ramification of this is the [[Principle of conservation of energy]]<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Chemistry''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998</ref> <ref>“This law is considered the most powerful and most fundamental generalization about the universe that scientists have ever been able to make. No one knows why energy is conserved... All that anyone can say is that in over a century and a quarter of careful measurement scientists have never been able to point to a definite violation of energy conservation, either in the familiar everyday surroundings about us, or in the heavens above or in the atoms within.” Issac Asimov, Smithsonian Institution Journal, 1970, p.6 [http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp (quoted)] </ref>; the amount of energy in the closed system of the universe remains constant. This can be combined with the principle of [[Mass-Energy Equivalence]] to demonstrate that the amount of mass in the universe is constant.

Note that if no energy is added, then the maximum amount of work that can be performed by the system is equal to its initial energy. This prevents the existence of a type of [[perpetual motion machine]].

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]