Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Al Franken

2008-04-27T16:34:28Z

DrCB: /* No Response */

==Layout==
Right now everything is in one long paragraph, if anyone wants to make it look more appealing, I have no problem with that, I'll probably do it my self when I have more time [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:39, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

==Quote==

I don't want to insert a fact tag, because those are ugly and usually not needed. But we really need a citation on that quote about being glad the homosexual was killed.... If this is posted with no backup and it's not true, it crosses the line. This would be pure libel [http://internet-law.lawyers.com/Libel-Online.html] and could get this site in serious trouble. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 17:48, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
:Sources added, libel avoided. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:25, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
::Sorry to seem a stickler... but I wouldn't slam the door on that yet... I mean, the first two are simply opinions columns (with the first linking to the second) as for the third. It's obviously genuine, but after reading through the article, it seems very poorly written. on top of that. This is a quote from 1976 (if it was even said.) I don't see why a 40 year old quote is relevant today. Many people change attitudes through experience. In 1976, Homosexuality was still conseridered a mental disorder in some circles. This seems much like drug charges that are often leveled at people... who cares? people change [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 18:34, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Not really a stickler; you just wanted accuracy. The first source may be an opinion column, but having that source come directly from a gay blog carries some weight in it; the other two lead to the actual source of the quote, which is Harvard University's newspaper...and Harvard has always been a bastion of liberal toleration and love, hasn't it? Whether or not it's relevent today is immaterial; the point is that Franken had actually said such a despicable remark. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:39, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
::::(rolls eyes)Please...reading the original source article, Franken is ''clearly'' being sarcastic, expressing mock-anger that the Hasty Pudding people rejected the skit he wrote.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 18:57, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::I acutally agree with Ross. As for your earlier points. I don't think having it come from a gay blog gives it any more weight than not.... But that's another point. As for the other point, I disagree.. If we're going to trolling through everybody's past to find any type of bad thing they said and then assume with no context that this makes them a bad person.... well then by all means, go ahead... Besides, in terms of homsexuality, this site has said a lot worse than whatever Franken did or didn't say... I think the term "despicable remark" is a little out of place. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 19:02, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::In short, he gets a pass because he's a liberal, right? Not on this site. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 07:12, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Not suggesting he get a pass. Suggesting that it be made clearer that his statement was a (poor) attempt at humor.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:16, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
(unindent) It has nothing to with liberal or conservative.... But this site is demanding when it comes to quoting [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:TomMoore#Alleged_quotations certain people] I find it strange that we're so open when it comes to others.... I would argue that the liberal bias (in this case negative) is in my opponent. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 18:14, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

==Books and credibility==

Is this the guy who wrote "Lies and the lying liars" or whatever it's called? I heard he tried to discredit someone with a charge of plagiarism, which '''he plagiarized''' from another source! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]

== Citations ==
There should be a citation for radical. If There's a reason to put it in the article, then, there should be a citation. [[User:LiberalSmack|LiberalSmack]] 11:12, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You can't cite being a radical. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:24, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Changes==

I made a serveral major changes to the article, and I decided it would be easier to lay them out here point by point.
*Whatever your personal opinion about Franken, there is a fine line between character assassination and opinion reporting. Accusing someone of "masquerading as a 'satirist' who deliberately [[smears]] and [[defames]] people he disagrees with ... " with your ref being a site that exists only to attack Franken if hardly acceptable.
*The line "Franken's rudeness, vulgarity, and his tendency to make outrageously offensive comments." is completely out of place in an encyclopedia. Is this article meant to be an opinion piece? if so, by all means lets keep it in.
*"even in a state such as Minnesota known for electing wrestling stars as governors" Really? An Ad Hominem attack against an entire state? How about we add that California is a state that likes to elect has been B Movie actors? Not to mention, past governors have nothing to do with article.
*Regardless of whether or not you agree with the subtitle of the book, it's still part of the title. Personal feelings are immaterial. If his book was subtitled "Why all Conservatives should be shot." it's still part of the title and needs to be listed as such.
*We have no idea of seeign into a person's mind and decided what they believe or what they simply charge. In the book, Franken makes it clear that he feels everything he's writing is true, and we cannot extrapolate the facts to make decisions.
On a final note, the second proof of his hatred should be removed or better sourced. As it is now, the ref simply tells a story with no page numbers or proof whatsoever. I would just take it out now, but I'm sure my changes would be reverted. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 12:26, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:Franken's own work has shown a history of smearing and defaming; he doesn't try hard to cover it up as he has convinced himself he needs to be a counter-balance to the right. The title of his book on Rush Limbaugh would certainly qualify as rude, for instance - as well as being horribly insulting and politically incorrect to about 50 million Americans.
:Arnold had a history of positive political contributions, especially in the area of fitness. And Arnold never left office to make a large check being a guest referee for Wrestlemania while he was employed as a governor. The people of Minnesota took Ventura's victory with all of the respect it was due such as doing brisk sales with the 'My governor can beat up your governor' T-shirts. It is what it is. Politics in Minnesota stand out on their own merits.
:Franken has gone out of his way to push the envelope. Using the language from the Fox network in the title of his book. Calling his show O'Franken. And that's hardly all. We go by the fruits. How many people will tell you they have hatred? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:35, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::Well, considering the fan magazine article that is [[Ann Coulter]] on this site... I was under the mistaken impression that we gave a damn about honest reporting.... So you know what? screw it.... this site is doomed to fail if good hard work from editors is simply reverted, with a go screw message left on the talk pages.... Have fun with your blog. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 13:12, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:::I have not been actively involved in the Ann Coulter article, but if you're saying we need to shield the truth about Franken or water it down to sound nice because you don't like the way Ann Coulter is written, then no, that's not the way it works. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:59, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I said nothing or the sort. I simply bring up the Ann Coulter article because it sounds like it's written by a 13 year old with a crush. I have no problem with including ciritisms against Al Franken... but this is beyond the line... It goes right along with the "He a liberal so we don't like him" party-line of this site. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 16:04, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
==No Response==
It's been several days, and I've received no response to my postings. Can I please have the common curtesy of a reply. None of my original points has been addressed, and the current version of the article still remains. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 23:43, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Al_Franken&diff=435324&oldid=434391] [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:38, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
::Your repsonse is a simple link to a week old response? Wow, just wow. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 13:17, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
:::You appeared to have missed it. So are you ever going to provide constructive information to this site, oh 'conservative doctor'? How about detailing medical procedures, various maladies, and details on medical instruments? I look forward to seeing your results. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:27, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Excuse me sir.... I have given you no reason to cast such doubt on my personal history, nor have I ever patronized you in such a matter. If you cannot conduct yourself in a civilized, decent mannor, I would ask that you not address me at all. As for my contributions to this site, and this page in particular, I find it quite obvious that you know this is pure garbage and simply choose to let it stand for ideaological reasons (aka, Franken is Liberal, so we defame and slander his name) and I will simply let it be. May I also ask you sir, what your chosen field of study is and what profession you work within? [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 12:34, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal gullibility

2008-04-26T20:02:18Z

DrCB: /* Entry confirmed */

Some real problems here.

* global warming must be caused by man
(I think the consensus is that man is adding to the probem)
* providing government health care for all will reduce illness
(Again, you cant reduce illness but you can help people by giving them health care - it works where I am from)
* the Holy Bible is not true, but the writings of atheists are
(Not all liberals are athiests - some conservatives are. Also hindus dont believe the bible or athiests)
* the Piltdown Man is the missing link, and so was the Nebraska Man!
(many people were fooled by this)

In light of this the article should be tossed or renamed.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:42, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Problems==

I'm not going to touch the ideological thing, but you might want to pick better examples.
"taking away guns will prevent gun crime"
:This is a pretty reasonable belief, even if you don't agree with it and think it is not correct. It doesn't seem gullible, although a good case can be made that it is incorrect.
"global warming must be caused by man"
:This seems like a misstatement... rather than "must be," liberals just believe it ''is'' caused by man. It might not have been, but the science seems to support that. Again, you might think differently, but liberals are listening to the IPCC and National Academy of Science and so on... regardless of whether or not those scientists are all lying, liberals can hardly be blamed for believing them, since few people are qualified to judge ice core data themselves.
"providing government health care for all will reduce illness"
:This also seems fairly reasonable, given that universal health care would hopefully focus on wellness rather than only treating illnesses. I am not sure if UHC is a good thing or not, but a case can be made for it that is based on logic.
"government programs can reduce poverty by giving more money away"
:Redistribution of wealth might be something you have an issue with, and fairly so, but it is entirely reasonable to acknowledge that taking money from the wealthy in the form of taxes and giving it to the poor in government benefits will reduce poverty, even if it does not do so very effectively or is not ethically correct. Again, a reasonable position that you just happen to disagree with.
"the Holy Bible is not true, but the writings of atheists are
:I am not sure what this means. Have atheists written some myths and claimed they were true or something? Obviously if there was some question Bertrand Russell wrote something, it would not be assumed that his authorship was true automatically... is this what is meant? At the least, this needs strong clarification.
"the Piltdown Man is the missing link, and so was the Nebraska Man!"
:This would seem to be another case of laypeople believing scientists because they are not qualified to judge for themselves. If it turned out that string theory was a hoax, would I be gullible for believing it might be true based on the assessments of physicists?
Some better examples, or clearer writing, is probably needed, Andy.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 21:48, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

== Entry confirmed ==

The comments by AdenJ and TomMoore above, claiming that the liberal statements in the entry are true, simply underscore the point of this entry: many liberals fall for the falsehoods. And [[Michael Moore]] and others make a mint off of them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:01, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Andy andy andy, duh. You obviously didnt read what I wrote. For example - its not just liberals that dont believe in the bible, I dont know many Hindus that believe it. Also it is the consensus the man ADDS to the problem of global warming. Hence this needs to be rewritten.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 22:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: AdenJ, you're clueless. Hindus are quite receptive to the Bible, far more so than they are to [[atheists]]. And you've found no error with the statement about [[global warming]] in the entry here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:09, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, receptive but probably not believing. I'll rewrite if you like
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]]

While obviously I can't demand you do so, it would be nice for you to choose at least one of my points above and answer it, so we can discuss our varying points of view. I feel that most of these are inaccurately stated (a la strawman) or reasonable opinions, and accordingly it is needlessly contemptuous to mock them.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 22:12, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

TomMoore, all it takes is a little discernment to understand that all of these points apply to at least 95% of all liberals. I'm not trying to be ugly, but if you would take off the blue democratic lense which you are looking through, you would see the validity of all the points that have been raised. [[User:LyleB|LyleB]] 22:56, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

:That actually is a pretty ugly thing to say, attacking me rather than addressing the points. I don't appreciate it.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:50, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

:This seems like a head I win, tails you lose situation. You post something which makes allegations agaist a whole group of people. You do so with no sources other than your own opinion, and when people debate you claim vindication and victory. How can a party debate when every counterpoint is met with "That proves my point, I win." If one were to post an article claiming that "Conservatives have to respond to every critism levied against them," and someone reponds in the negative, the original poster could easily claim victory as the Conservative just proved their point. This seems like a childish way to run a debate. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 23:13, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I think liberals decided to put themselves into that situation when they decided to become liberals. I can't be held accountable for their decision. I believe in personal responsibility, do you? [[User:LyleB|LyleB]] 23:21, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: Well put, LyleB. In further response to DrCB, I didn't expect liberals here to fully defend the falsities. They could have claimed that thinking liberals don't (didn't) fall for the falsehoods. I don't think [[Michael Moore]] does believe much of the stuff he peddles.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:38, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks, Aschlafly. I look foward to adding to this site(once finals are over, I am pretty busy right now!) [[User:LyleB|LyleB]] 23:47, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

::So instead of responding to any of me comments, you return with "It's their fault because their Liberals." through in the appriopriate buzz word about personal responsibility and drinks are on the house. That may make someone feel good by self congratulation, but it's no way to run a debate. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 15:21, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't know who you're quoting "Doctor", but your name fits the mold of a [[liberal]] appearing to have authority that he doesn't really have. See point 3 in [[liberal style]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:36, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

::::I'm quoting LyleB who said "I think liberals decided to put themselves into that situation when they decided to become liberals." And I'm sorry, Aschlafly.... I simply pointed out that with one simply response, everything I said was left alone. On top of that, I find your use of quotation marks around my name rather patronizing. Would it be appropriate for me to address you as Conservapedia's resident "lawyer?" Of course not, and that's why I would not do such a thing. On top of the matter, I never onced claimed to have any authority other than being a party to a debate in which no debate is actually taking place because the other party claimed victory before the start. And if we want to talk about the so called Liberal Style, how about number 23? You seem to revel in constant mockery Liberals, which translates to anyone you disagree with, no matter what their true opinions. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 15:43, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

::: I'm sorry, DoctorCB, I'm new here, and don't know much about running debates. I'm sorry if I offended anyone, but I won't back down from my conservative principles. If there is a consensus that I am in the wrong, I will stop editing this page. [[User:LyleB|LyleB]]
::::Not at all Sir, I nevel meant to imply that you do back down from your principles, I had no umbridge with you, and I would never ask that you stop editing with the dictates of your worldview. I would also like to point out that no matter what the popular opnion, there is rarely ever a wrong point in an open minded debate, simply one you don't agree with. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 16:02, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

== ah yes, more craaaaaaziness ==

Indeed Obama does have ties to Islam. His father is a Muslim. Doesnt mean he is though.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Suggestion==
"Liberals will believe anything that Obama tells them, yet accuse Christians of having blind faith", and "Liberals oppose the War on Terrorism, but want us to intervene in Darfur" are examples of liberal positions or hypocrisy or mendacity or whatever, but not gullibility. Those examples need to be reworded or something; the first one would work if you lop off the second half, not sure about the latter. --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:37, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

: You're right. Please try to improve the phrases mentioned. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:13, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

: I think you are right too, Ross. I will try to improve the first. Do we have a liberal hypocrisy page to try the second one on? [[User:LyleB|LyleB]] 12:16, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

== Good lordy ==

Andy, do you honestly think that liberals still think Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man are real?! Guess what—we don't. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 15:01, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal gullibility

2008-04-26T19:43:32Z

DrCB: /* Entry confirmed */

Some real problems here.

* global warming must be caused by man
(I think the consensus is that man is adding to the probem)
* providing government health care for all will reduce illness
(Again, you cant reduce illness but you can help people by giving them health care - it works where I am from)
* the Holy Bible is not true, but the writings of atheists are
(Not all liberals are athiests - some conservatives are. Also hindus dont believe the bible or athiests)
* the Piltdown Man is the missing link, and so was the Nebraska Man!
(many people were fooled by this)

In light of this the article should be tossed or renamed.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:42, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Problems==

I'm not going to touch the ideological thing, but you might want to pick better examples.
"taking away guns will prevent gun crime"
:This is a pretty reasonable belief, even if you don't agree with it and think it is not correct. It doesn't seem gullible, although a good case can be made that it is incorrect.
"global warming must be caused by man"
:This seems like a misstatement... rather than "must be," liberals just believe it ''is'' caused by man. It might not have been, but the science seems to support that. Again, you might think differently, but liberals are listening to the IPCC and National Academy of Science and so on... regardless of whether or not those scientists are all lying, liberals can hardly be blamed for believing them, since few people are qualified to judge ice core data themselves.
"providing government health care for all will reduce illness"
:This also seems fairly reasonable, given that universal health care would hopefully focus on wellness rather than only treating illnesses. I am not sure if UHC is a good thing or not, but a case can be made for it that is based on logic.
"government programs can reduce poverty by giving more money away"
:Redistribution of wealth might be something you have an issue with, and fairly so, but it is entirely reasonable to acknowledge that taking money from the wealthy in the form of taxes and giving it to the poor in government benefits will reduce poverty, even if it does not do so very effectively or is not ethically correct. Again, a reasonable position that you just happen to disagree with.
"the Holy Bible is not true, but the writings of atheists are
:I am not sure what this means. Have atheists written some myths and claimed they were true or something? Obviously if there was some question Bertrand Russell wrote something, it would not be assumed that his authorship was true automatically... is this what is meant? At the least, this needs strong clarification.
"the Piltdown Man is the missing link, and so was the Nebraska Man!"
:This would seem to be another case of laypeople believing scientists because they are not qualified to judge for themselves. If it turned out that string theory was a hoax, would I be gullible for believing it might be true based on the assessments of physicists?
Some better examples, or clearer writing, is probably needed, Andy.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 21:48, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

== Entry confirmed ==

The comments by AdenJ and TomMoore above, claiming that the liberal statements in the entry are true, simply underscore the point of this entry: many liberals fall for the falsehoods. And [[Michael Moore]] and others make a mint off of them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:01, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Andy andy andy, duh. You obviously didnt read what I wrote. For example - its not just liberals that dont believe in the bible, I dont know many Hindus that believe it. Also it is the consensus the man ADDS to the problem of global warming. Hence this needs to be rewritten.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 22:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: AdenJ, you're clueless. Hindus are quite receptive to the Bible, far more so than they are to [[atheists]]. And you've found no error with the statement about [[global warming]] in the entry here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:09, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, receptive but probably not believing. I'll rewrite if you like
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]]

While obviously I can't demand you do so, it would be nice for you to choose at least one of my points above and answer it, so we can discuss our varying points of view. I feel that most of these are inaccurately stated (a la strawman) or reasonable opinions, and accordingly it is needlessly contemptuous to mock them.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 22:12, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

TomMoore, all it takes is a little discernment to understand that all of these points apply to at least 95% of all liberals. I'm not trying to be ugly, but if you would take off the blue democratic lense which you are looking through, you would see the validity of all the points that have been raised. [[User:LyleB|LyleB]] 22:56, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

:That actually is a pretty ugly thing to say, attacking me rather than addressing the points. I don't appreciate it.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:50, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

:This seems like a head I win, tails you lose situation. You post something which makes allegations agaist a whole group of people. You do so with no sources other than your own opinion, and when people debate you claim vindication and victory. How can a party debate when every counterpoint is met with "That proves my point, I win." If one were to post an article claiming that "Conservatives have to respond to every critism levied against them," and someone reponds in the negative, the original poster could easily claim victory as the Conservative just proved their point. This seems like a childish way to run a debate. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 23:13, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I think liberals decided to put themselves into that situation when they decided to become liberals. I can't be held accountable for their decision. I believe in personal responsibility, do you? [[User:LyleB|LyleB]] 23:21, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: Well put, LyleB. In further response to DrCB, I didn't expect liberals here to fully defend the falsities. They could have claimed that thinking liberals don't (didn't) fall for the falsehoods. I don't think [[Michael Moore]] does believe much of the stuff he peddles.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:38, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks, Aschlafly. I look foward to adding to this site(once finals are over, I am pretty busy right now!) [[User:LyleB|LyleB]] 23:47, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

::So instead of responding to any of me comments, you return with "It's their fault because their Liberals." through in the appriopriate buzz word about personal responsibility and drinks are on the house. That may make someone feel good by self congratulation, but it's no way to run a debate. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 15:21, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't know who you're quoting "Doctor", but your name fits the mold of a [[liberal]] appearing to have authority that he doesn't really have. See point 3 in [[liberal style]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:36, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

::::I'm quoting LyleB who said "I think liberals decided to put themselves into that situation when they decided to become liberals." And I'm sorry, Aschlafly.... I simply pointed out that with one simply response, everything I said was left alone. On top of that, I find your use of quotation marks around my name rather patronizing. Would it be appropriate for me to address you as Conservapedia's resident "lawyer?" Of course not, and that's why I would not do such a thing. On top of the matter, I never onced claimed to have any authority other than being a party to a debate in which no debate is actually taking place because the other party claimed victory before the start. And if we want to talk about the so called Liberal Style, how about number 23? You seem to revel in constant mockery Liberals, which translates to anyone you disagree with, no matter what their true opinions. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 15:43, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

== ah yes, more craaaaaaziness ==

Indeed Obama does have ties to Islam. His father is a Muslim. Doesnt mean he is though.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Suggestion==
"Liberals will believe anything that Obama tells them, yet accuse Christians of having blind faith", and "Liberals oppose the War on Terrorism, but want us to intervene in Darfur" are examples of liberal positions or hypocrisy or mendacity or whatever, but not gullibility. Those examples need to be reworded or something; the first one would work if you lop off the second half, not sure about the latter. --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:37, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

: You're right. Please try to improve the phrases mentioned. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:13, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

: I think you are right too, Ross. I will try to improve the first. Do we have a liberal hypocrisy page to try the second one on? [[User:LyleB|LyleB]] 12:16, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

== Good lordy ==

Andy, do you honestly think that liberals still think Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man are real?! Guess what—we don't. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 15:01, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal gullibility

2008-04-26T19:21:11Z

DrCB: /* Entry confirmed */

Some real problems here.

* global warming must be caused by man
(I think the consensus is that man is adding to the probem)
* providing government health care for all will reduce illness
(Again, you cant reduce illness but you can help people by giving them health care - it works where I am from)
* the Holy Bible is not true, but the writings of atheists are
(Not all liberals are athiests - some conservatives are. Also hindus dont believe the bible or athiests)
* the Piltdown Man is the missing link, and so was the Nebraska Man!
(many people were fooled by this)

In light of this the article should be tossed or renamed.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:42, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Problems==

I'm not going to touch the ideological thing, but you might want to pick better examples.
"taking away guns will prevent gun crime"
:This is a pretty reasonable belief, even if you don't agree with it and think it is not correct. It doesn't seem gullible, although a good case can be made that it is incorrect.
"global warming must be caused by man"
:This seems like a misstatement... rather than "must be," liberals just believe it ''is'' caused by man. It might not have been, but the science seems to support that. Again, you might think differently, but liberals are listening to the IPCC and National Academy of Science and so on... regardless of whether or not those scientists are all lying, liberals can hardly be blamed for believing them, since few people are qualified to judge ice core data themselves.
"providing government health care for all will reduce illness"
:This also seems fairly reasonable, given that universal health care would hopefully focus on wellness rather than only treating illnesses. I am not sure if UHC is a good thing or not, but a case can be made for it that is based on logic.
"government programs can reduce poverty by giving more money away"
:Redistribution of wealth might be something you have an issue with, and fairly so, but it is entirely reasonable to acknowledge that taking money from the wealthy in the form of taxes and giving it to the poor in government benefits will reduce poverty, even if it does not do so very effectively or is not ethically correct. Again, a reasonable position that you just happen to disagree with.
"the Holy Bible is not true, but the writings of atheists are
:I am not sure what this means. Have atheists written some myths and claimed they were true or something? Obviously if there was some question Bertrand Russell wrote something, it would not be assumed that his authorship was true automatically... is this what is meant? At the least, this needs strong clarification.
"the Piltdown Man is the missing link, and so was the Nebraska Man!"
:This would seem to be another case of laypeople believing scientists because they are not qualified to judge for themselves. If it turned out that string theory was a hoax, would I be gullible for believing it might be true based on the assessments of physicists?
Some better examples, or clearer writing, is probably needed, Andy.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 21:48, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

== Entry confirmed ==

The comments by AdenJ and TomMoore above, claiming that the liberal statements in the entry are true, simply underscore the point of this entry: many liberals fall for the falsehoods. And [[Michael Moore]] and others make a mint off of them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:01, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Andy andy andy, duh. You obviously didnt read what I wrote. For example - its not just liberals that dont believe in the bible, I dont know many Hindus that believe it. Also it is the consensus the man ADDS to the problem of global warming. Hence this needs to be rewritten.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 22:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: AdenJ, you're clueless. Hindus are quite receptive to the Bible, far more so than they are to [[atheists]]. And you've found no error with the statement about [[global warming]] in the entry here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:09, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, receptive but probably not believing. I'll rewrite if you like
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]]

While obviously I can't demand you do so, it would be nice for you to choose at least one of my points above and answer it, so we can discuss our varying points of view. I feel that most of these are inaccurately stated (a la strawman) or reasonable opinions, and accordingly it is needlessly contemptuous to mock them.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 22:12, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

TomMoore, all it takes is a little discernment to understand that all of these points apply to at least 95% of all liberals. I'm not trying to be ugly, but if you would take off the blue democratic lense which you are looking through, you would see the validity of all the points that have been raised. [[User:LyleB|LyleB]] 22:56, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

:That actually is a pretty ugly thing to say, attacking me rather than addressing the points. I don't appreciate it.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:50, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

:This seems like a head I win, tails you lose situation. You post something which makes allegations agaist a whole group of people. You do so with no sources other than your own opinion, and when people debate you claim vindication and victory. How can a party debate when every counterpoint is met with "That proves my point, I win." If one were to post an article claiming that "Conservatives have to respond to every critism levied against them," and someone reponds in the negative, the original poster could easily claim victory as the Conservative just proved their point. This seems like a childish way to run a debate. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 23:13, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I think liberals decided to put themselves into that situation when they decided to become liberals. I can't be held accountable for their decision. I believe in personal responsibility, do you? [[User:LyleB|LyleB]] 23:21, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: Well put, LyleB. In further response to DrCB, I didn't expect liberals here to fully defend the falsities. They could have claimed that thinking liberals don't (didn't) fall for the falsehoods. I don't think [[Michael Moore]] does believe much of the stuff he peddles.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:38, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks, Aschlafly. I look foward to adding to this site(once finals are over, I am pretty busy right now!) [[User:LyleB|LyleB]] 23:47, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

::So instead of responding to any of me comments, you return with "It's their fault because their Liberals." through in the appriopriate buzz word about personal responsibility and drinks are on the house. That may make someone feel good by self congratulation, but it's no way to run a debate. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 15:21, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

== ah yes, more craaaaaaziness ==

Indeed Obama does have ties to Islam. His father is a Muslim. Doesnt mean he is though.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Suggestion==
"Liberals will believe anything that Obama tells them, yet accuse Christians of having blind faith", and "Liberals oppose the War on Terrorism, but want us to intervene in Darfur" are examples of liberal positions or hypocrisy or mendacity or whatever, but not gullibility. Those examples need to be reworded or something; the first one would work if you lop off the second half, not sure about the latter. --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:37, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

: You're right. Please try to improve the phrases mentioned. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:13, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

: I think you are right too, Ross. I will try to improve the first. Do we have a liberal hypocrisy page to try the second one on? [[User:LyleB|LyleB]] 12:16, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

== Good lordy ==

Andy, do you honestly think that liberals still think Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man are real?! Guess what—we don't. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 15:01, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal gullibility

2008-04-26T03:13:53Z

DrCB: /* Entry confirmed */

Talk:Al Franken

2008-04-25T17:17:53Z

DrCB:

Talk:Black Entertainment Television

2008-04-25T17:16:42Z

DrCB:

==scientist==

How can someone be an amateur scientist? That's like saying someone is an amateur pastor or an amateur internet user. There is no official definition of a professional scientist. It seems as if it comes down to I don't like him so I'll discredit him however I can. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 19:48, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:Sentence removed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:57, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::I replaced the line about James Randi. I don't think anyone, liberal or conservative, can argue in defense of so called "faith healers" like Popoff... He hurt a lot of people very badly in the name of god to line his pockets. His debunking was very well known and a very infamous moment in Televangelism(sp?). I think the line is very pertinent to the article. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 00:27, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Here;s another link [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUkCmkcuU4U&feature=related part 1][http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WL4HzorZd-g&feature=related part 2] dealing with it. This is the actual Tonight Show Episode. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 00:29, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Fine, I don't care about having the line. However, without formal training, he is an amatuer. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 00:30, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Science isn't something you need formal training for. A seven year old who wonders if things fall down all the time and devises an "experiment" to test their theory is a scientist. Labcoats and PHD's don't make a scientist. There is no such thing as an amateur scientist. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 00:33, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
==African American==
A quick look at BET programing, and it's obvious that it is not geared toward "Caribbean blacks living in Queens." Considering most Carribbean natives and Africans hate African Americans, it's not exactly geared toward them. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 13:16, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Black Entertainment Television

2008-04-25T17:15:00Z

DrCB: see talk page

'''Black Entertainment Television''' (BET) is a cable network geared toward African Americans. It features lightly censored music videos and a morning line up of religious programming. It's run by [[Viacom]], parent company of [[MTV]].

==Criticism==

BET has run into much criticism from African American activists, who claim the channel perpetuates harmful black stereotypes. The hop-hip videos BET is best known for often contain misogynistic, materialistic, and/or violent themes. The protests have forced BET to heavily censor content from the videos, sometimes cutting entire verses from videos. Others have pointed out the irony in the network's choice to broadcast Rap and Hip Hop videos while showing strong religious programming as well. Several critics refer to BET as "Black Exploitation Television," comparing the channel to a minstrel show. They also point out that BET is currently owned and operated by Viacom, which is led by Philippe Dauman, a white person.

BET has also found criticism from the Christian evangelical community. Aside from the music and programming content, they've also complained about the morning religious lineup. BET broadcasts evangelical TV shows every morning, including Robert Tilton, Don Stewart, and Peter Popoff. All three have been found guilty of heading fraud ministries, with Popoff's ministry losing its tax-exempt status in Canada. Scientist James Randi notoriously debunked Popoff several times, including a famous spot on The Tonight Show in 1988<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ-7beRITYM</ref>

==External Links==
*[http://www.bet.com/ Official Website]

==References and notes ==
<div class="references-small" style="column-count:2;-moz-column-count:2;">
<references/>
</div>

[[Category:Cable TV Networks]]

Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-24T03:48:59Z

DrCB: /* They keep having to lock the WP article */

Page has become a vandalism magnet - which, by the way, proves the thesis of the movie: people want to shut Stein up instead of answering his points. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:43, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==Categories==
There is already a page on [[Expelled]]. Merge the categories over here? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:14, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== Including Criticism ==

I have to disagree with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&curid=55627&diff=388348&oldid=388346 this edit.] While I don't think the critics' arguments have merit, I think we should include them. People who believe in creationism or intelligent design have nothing to hide; let's not appear that we do, by removing a criticism section.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 13:47, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:See [[strawman fallacy]]. I don't know that the film portrays intelligent design as an alternative scientific theory to evolution. According to what I've read so far, it portrays the establishment as '''suppressing''' discussion of whether there can '''be''' any such alternatives. Do you see the difference? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:59, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::Oops. You're right; that doesn't bear on the movie, it bears on the theory. Good call on removing it, sorry. Thank you!-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 14:01, 15 February 2008 (EST)

==Counterarguments==

Has anyone argued that the film's thesis is untrue? Or are we just going to get the usual liberal backlash complaining that interviewees were "tricked" into exposing the truth? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:30, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:The main point of the film is that there's a vast, far-reaching conspiracy by the Evolutionists to stifle the teaching of the idea that a magical man created everything exactly as it is now. As for proving it untrue... Well, how can we possibly prove there ISN'T A conspiracy against the teaching of unscientific dogma under the guise of science? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:20, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:: You should take up cricket: You're good at putting a negative spin on things! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:36, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::: Why thank you, Philip. Somebody here needs to take off the rose coloured glasses, yes? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Or clean their glasses. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:35, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: You're not very good with metaphors, are you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::: Hmmmm. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 7 March 2008 (EST)

==Bribery==
Oh deary me. I cite the website itself with its message of "Force kids to watch our film and get money!" and you still revert my edit stating that the producers have been ACCUSED of attempted bribery. Tell me, Philip, what would be a better source than the website in question? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:The problem is not (this time) with the choice of web-site, but with what it's claimed to be saying. The site says nothing about bribing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:37, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::Ah, yes. Encouraging mandatory field trips (Question 2.) and saying the schools can return the ticket stubs for donations '''certainly''' isn't bribery. Aside from that, I said that that's the site that was cited. How about I simply add that they've been accused with no source? Hmm? Would that appease you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:10, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::: The main definition of "bribe", according to my dictionary, is "any valuable consideration given or promised for ''corrupt behaviour'' in the performance of any official or public duty" (my emphasis), and this is what use of the word here would suggest. Yet there is no basis for putting that in the article, beyond a non-notable blog. Therefore, it should not go in, full stop. What ''could'' go in is a mention along the lines that the producers of the movie are encouraging schools to take their students to see it, but I don't really think that's of sufficient relevance to warrant a mention. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::It seems to match the definition given perfectly. What's your problem, then? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: My problem is that it ''doesn't' match the definition, unless you have an odd definition of "corrupt behaviour". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause.

What we need for this article is a discussion (or better yet, a '''description''') of the thesis and the specific points made in the film - one which regrettably I have not seen yet. Along with this, we welcome any reports of noteworthy critiques of the film's thesis.

Complaints by the group which in engages in censorship, that they were tricked into testifying against themselves, are irrelevant. "No fair! I thought I was bragging, not confessing!"

Our mission here is to provide trustworthy information. So unless Dawkins, et al., are '''taking back''' what they said, then the lack of candidness on the part of the producer's is hardly germane. Unless you want to make an argument that academic dishonesty is so prevalent, so cavalier, and so devious that exposing it requires extraordinary detective work! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:22, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:"Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause." Please, show me where I've encouraged bribery to support my "cause."
:So... In order to expose the academic dishonesty of this secret cabal, you must use academic dishonesty? The ends don't justify the means, my tinfoil hat wearing friend. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::What standard of [[academic dishonesty]] do you suggest we '''all''' avoid while collaborating here? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::: He was blocked for 3 months, so you'll be waiting a while for an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Not the classiest way to win an argument. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 15:38, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

== Stating my reasons ==

I changed some wording that may make me seem like a liberal...I'm not. I simply did so in order to make the article as unbiased as possible. If you want proof of my views look at all the trouble I've gotten into on the Wikipedia version of this talk page. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 09:39, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
: I don't think it's serious enough to revert, but in doing so the wording now gives the impression that it doesn't necessarily succeed in this. Not having seen the film, I can't really comment on the accuracy of that, but Conservapedia aims to be accurate rather than neutral, and if being neutral gives a false impression, then it's not for the better.
: You also added a line about criticism, footnoted to a paragraph that said nothing about the criticism, and which had no source. Could you clarify that please?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:17, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:The Orlando Sentinel's movie reviewer snuck into a private screening and then blasted the film in his reviews. Several other editors have done the same. We were talking about it over at wikipedia and I couldn't find the source cite. So I took a quote we we were discussing at the talk page and used it as the temporary source. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:16, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I've always found that its better to say that something attempts to do something than to say it does something. If you say it does something than it someone will come along and claim that it doesn't. Its just a way to be safe. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:18, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:Where does your last reference come from? You quote it, but you don't state the source. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:25, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

So we should say that NASA ''attempted'' to send men to the moon rather than saying that they actually did? The point is, we say things as though they are true when we are satisfied that they ''are'' true, and by that I don't mean that ''nobody'' disputes it (some argue, for example, that NASA didn't really send men to the moon). At Conservapedia we reject a lot of ideological objection. A lot of the objection to things like this movie are ideological. That's not to say, of course, that the people objecting are wrong; we still have to be careful to ensure that what we say is correct, but we don't qualify statements that we believe are clearly true just because people with a different ideology object. However, in this case, as I said, I've not seen the movie (and presumably nobody else here has yet), so I can't say whether it does succeed in its objective.

To clarify some of that, when a court decides if a defendant is guilty of a criminal offence, it does so "beyond reasonable doubt". When a court decides who is at fault in a civil matter, it does so on the basis of probabilities. In neither case are the matters normally settled with absolutely no doubt at all. If they were that clear, the criminal defendant would plead guilty and the civil participants would not even bring the matter to court, but settle it themselves. In both cases, the court decides according to the level of "proof" appropriate to the circumstances. Note also that the court is unable to test the matter scientifically. The court is making its decision on a unique past event, and that event is not repeatable; it's not able to be studied in a scientific way. (This doesn't deny that scientific tests can be made about some of the supporting evidence, such as DNA found at the scene.) Similarly, whether this movie achieves its results, although not a past event, is difficult if not impossible to determine in a scientific way, as it concerns people's motives (i.e. it likely does demonstrate suppression and persecution, but it's further arguing that this is deliberate. How do you scientifically test for deliberateness?) But this lack of ability to scientifically test does not prevent courts from making decisions, and neither should it prevent this encyclopedia from stating what is clearly the case (on those occasions when it ''is'' clearly the case), regardless of the objections of people with opposing ideological views.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

== opps ==

My mistake..
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 15:06, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

==Disagreement and condemnation==

I'd like to see a division in the article, between actual disagreements and mere condemnation. After all, the whole point of the movie is that ID opponents never take on ID directly but merely condemn it. Where are the specific rebuttals of the movie's main point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, I'm happy to debate with you about the merits of the article. However, it seems to me that you block anyone who tries to do that. If you're willing to not block me, and listen to me in good faith, I'll try to abide by 90/10 as well. Are you willing to listen, or am I going to be expelled, too?-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 11:28, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::Ha, ha, nice try. You condemn without giving evidence - precisely what the movie complains of. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:50, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Seriously, what would you like me to answer? I can tell you that scientists certainly take on ID directly - for example, in response to the "irreducible flagellum" argument, a great amount of research has been generated which parses the variety of intermediate forms between "nothing" and "flagellum," and scientists have identified each and specified their independent uses. I'm looking for the source right now.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 11:55, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Inter alia, a director of the NCSE assembled this accessible document [http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html here], which explains how the gradual evolution of the flagellum is possible. Additionally, there are a couple of easy-to-understand arguments against irreducible complexity - namely, if all flagella are irreducibly complex, and therefore "designed," how come there are so many different types or assemblies of flagella? Why are there different "styles" of flagella, functioning in different ways, which still perform the same task today? Evolutionary biology suggests that "convergent evolution" - different processes working on different organisms which, by virtue of the end product's desirability, produce a similar result - would have exactly this type of result. How does intelligent design explain that?-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 12:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

The movie said people are pressured to keep quiet about their scientific disagreements about evolution. How does your response relate to this point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:I don't appreciate the "yawn" edit comment.
:You said that evolutionists never take on ID, head-on, scientifically. I just did, right? And proved that scientists do, right?
:Also, if the claim is that ID creationists are being "expelled" for their ''bona fide'' scientific position, what I've proved is that their position, if scientific at all, is ''bad'' science, and therefore their alleged termination wasn't "discrimination," but termination for failing to live up to professional standards... just like a history teacher being fired for denying the holocaust. After all, ID is a negative argument: once a valid positive surfaces, to continue to argue the negative and pretend the positive doesn't exist is just ignorance.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 12:39, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::This latest edit of yours isn't borne out by your ability to debate the merits on the talk page :-/-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 14:44, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

More like a journalist fired for questioning Senator Clinton's tarmac terrorist story. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Copyright infringements==
I noticed that someone removed the piece about the movie using plagiarized animation material from Harvard. There is also another issue that the movie used John Lennon's "Imagine" without getting the rights as well as well as some other song "All these Things That I Have Done" by the Killers. Since the original material was removed from the article is it allowed to put these issues back in?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You may put in any trustworthy information. I will remove anything which is false, misleading or inadequately sourced.

:If you know anything about [[metabolism]] that you can explain in terms a high school student can understand, I'd rather you worked on that. See recent changes for a draft. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:49, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120839097431221369.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Wall street journal]? Would this count?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:58, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Ed, what was false or inadequately sourced about my original edit? Someone accused the film's producers of copyright infringement,and I sourced the legal notice sent to them. The producers filed a counter-suit claiming they didn't, and I sourced that as well. The fact that this is unresolved is just that, a fact - it's wrong to assume that the producers of ''Expelled'' are innocent (or guilty for that matter) until the issue is settled in the courts. I've restored the edit, and if you can present a fact-based reason why it should be removed, I'm open to revising it accordingly. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:15, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Slashdot effect==

I'll probably protect this article tomorrow, when [[lusers]] start pouring in after watching the premiere. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Probably a good idea, at least until the publicity dies down.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 20:19, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Reviews==
Ed - regarding your pulling of the Time magazine review, the fact that ID is explained on the website isn't a good reason to pull the reviewers comment. The movie should stand or fall on its own merits, as that's all the viewer's going to see. So while I've removed the inflammatory section you objected to, I'd ask that it be put back in - or any other quotes from any of the reviews, in fact. These reporters are mostly the movie critics of their publications, and it's only fair to hear their comments on the movie itself, even if we don't agree with them - remember, this is only a movie, and even if you like its premise, you might not like the movie, as a movie. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 21:07, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, I found a document at the movie's website - it's promotional material for the film, the [http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expelled_leadersguide.pdf Leader's Guide]. Although we haven't seen the movie yet, obviously the Leader's Guide and movie are a coordinated effort. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 21:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't see your point. Many evolutionists have claimed that life was magically generated on its own from a primordial soup. Experiments have even attempted to duplicate it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::The ''Time'' reviewer knocked down a straw man of his own creation, by putting words into Ben Stein's mouth: characterizing him as "asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup".

:::The leader's guide - quoted at Rat. Wiki - says: "Darwinian evolution argues that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals, and that over billions of years, this biological accident gave rise to all of life, including humans."

:::The contrast is between '''cell ... arisen whole''' and '''life arose'''.

:::It's not "fair to hear their comments" on what the movie '''didn't say''' - but if they have comments on the movie itself I don't mind those. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:38, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I wasn't trying to debate ID, not at all - let's not forget those words are someone else's words, not mine. Disagree with him if you wish, but don't shoot me - the messenger. I was simply asking that a quote of a journalist's review of the film not be removed simply because one is offended by their negative review of the film? I think the studios wanted to rip up all the review pages when the reviews ofIshtar or Gigli came out? Sure! My own point is one and only one- just because you want to like a movie, doesn't mean it's going to be a good movie. That's all - I'm staying out of the ID debate. MakeTime, as [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: We don't post falsehoods. If a review makes a false claim, then it would generally not be posted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Fair enough, I have no problem with that. But then neither you, nor Ed, nor I have seen the movie, and the reviewer has. Perhaps Stein does indeed ask "for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup". I don't know that he doesn't, and no-one else does yet either. And since other reviewers refer to the same fact, and they have all seen the movie, perhaps he does? [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:50, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: But evolutionists do believe and teach that life arose from a primordial soup. They do not teach that there was divine intervention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:52, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::The actual words used by the reviewer are "[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup." But Ed suggested that this was clearly not so - despite not having seen the film, unlike the reviewer. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:56, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Actually, I will probably need to retract, as it seems Ed has seen the movie. He states quite clearly [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=434051&oldid=434027 here] that the movie does not say that. Although, it does appear he uses the leader's Guide as reference, rather than the movie itself. Which, again, the reviewer has seen. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

No, I haven't seen the movie. If I've made an error here, by assuming that it conforms to the Leader's Guide, I stand corrected. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:04, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Ah, OK Ed, thanks for clarifying that. It'd be great if in future you didn't try and post [[deceit|deceitful]] information you're not party to in the Trustworthy Encyclopedia - or ban users on the basis of your own ignorance. I hope you enjoy the movie. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: TakeTwo, you're not addressing the falsehood. Evolutionists do claim that life arose from a primordial soup, and they teach that. There is nothing "mistaken" by criticizing that view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::ASchlafly, I wasn't, and am not, going to get into the ID debate. Others are more qualified than me to do so. My problem is that Ed Poor claimed to have seen the movie when he hadn't, pulled a quote because he essentially claimed that a journalist at a major national new source was lying, and then banned me when I pointed out that it was the journalist's words, not mine, he was disagreeing with. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: TakeTwo, the quote ''is'' nonsensical and should be deleted, and I'm not encouraged by your refusal to address why. Instead, you launch into an attack against Ed. Decisions can be right for the wrong reason, and your harping on a claim that the reason was wrong does not address the bigger point that the decision to remove the falsehood was right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

But what is the reviewer saying here?
#That Stein is right, except for the passage of time?
#That Stein is wrong?

Evolution says that life came out of the "primordial soup" '''gradually'''. The Leader's Guide points out that ID questions how this could ever have happened.

Some evolutionists say that "[[biological evolution]]" only addresses the issue of how the first living cell gave rise to other forms of life - but others insist that "evolution" includes the origin of life as well. Anyway, ID addresses both issues scientifically, and that's what "the academy" refuses to address - expelling ID advocates rather than discussing their theory that life is too complex to have evolved - either (1) out of the soup originally or (2) from the first cell to humans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:27, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

My reply to "TakeTwo" and his socks:

: Your account should be blocked. I've repeatedly addressed your point and you repeatedly decline to address mine. The review makes a false statement, regardless of what Stein said. We don't post false or misleading statements, regardless of the accuracy of the quote. This separates us from Wikipedia, which does post falsehoods if they can be found in printed publications. We do not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:11, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::''We don't post false or misleading statements, regardless of the accuracy of the quote.''
:::This is a good quote. I have a feeling you and I will be seeing a LOT of it in the future. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:02, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

==Leader's Guide==

I noticed that the article references a "Leader's Guide" accompanying the movie "Expelled". May I add an external link to this document? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:51, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:What is the external link? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 01:07, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
::[http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expelled_leadersguide.pdf Here,] I believe. Appropriate? It raises a lot of interesting general points. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 01:38, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

== Variety... Liberal??? ==

The article calls Variety Magazine liberal. Are they talking about the entertainment industry magazine with the famous slang headlines?

It' an industry business magazine, more like "Steel Makers Today" than "Entertainment Weekly." While its movie or TV reviews probably show biases one way or the other, the magazine itself, the majority of its content, shows no actual bias other than being PRO-business. It simply logs the activities and business dealings of the entertainment business, including those of the very conservative Rupert Murdoch. Chances are, the magazine is as likely to give a positive spin on stories about media consolidation or tax breaks for American media production, not real liberal positions.

I know this site has point of view but not every other media source has to be sifted into "conservative" or "liberal."

: Yes, Variety is a liberal magazine, to appeal to its very liberal audience/industry. You won't find a pro-life piece in there or any other conservative information, because thousands would cancel their subscriptions and advertisers would pull their ads if that ever happened, and the publisher knows it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:53, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::While you won't find a pro-life piece in there you wouldn't find a pro-choice (or anti-life if you will) it is a industry publication ''not'' a newspaper. The only news and opinon it would deal with is movie industry related news and opinon. The bad review this movie recieved will not be read by people outside the industry, although this will impact theature managers decision and they may not show it. Although it looks like the movie is being panned everywhere so this probably won't hurt it much. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 20:14, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

: "DaBoss3", either you're clueless or you're in [[liberal denial]]. The readership of and advertisers for the rag "Variety" are overwhelmingly [[liberal]], and you can bet the publisher caters to its customers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:50, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::The advertising on their [http://www.variety.com/ website] is all "we'll help you break into the industry for money" stuff. It is mostly articles and blogs on the industry. It has a small readership because it has a small target, people intimately connected with the movie industry. It probably does meet your "hollywood values" stuff, but it is not a left wing paper on the level of the New York Times which wants to influence opinon. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 00:04, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::Also as a later sidenote I would care if you did not make fun of my name. I used to get teased at school for having the first name Da. I asked my parents why they called me this and said because your father and grandfather's name. I thought someone call Aschlafly would understand. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 00:38, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Is your last name "Boss" also? [[Deliberate ignorance]] or persistent clinging to a falsehood, such as your claim that Variety magazine is not liberal, unfortunately invites poking fun of your claim to be "Da Boss". Why is it that liberals pick such names?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:32, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Yes my surname is Boss. What is yours Aschlafly? Also I find you claim that my parents were (your American version) liberals offensive. That are staunch [[Liberal Party of Australia]] voters.

:::: Also you called me deliberatly ignorant. Did you look at the website link I gave you? The paper is nothing but fluff and industry news, its kind of hard to call that liberal (although I suppose you would). I and anyone who hasn't divided the world in to red and blue would call it [[apolitical]]. (I notice you don't even have an article on it so I will help you). [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 19:27, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Your name looks like a pseudonym, so the burden of proof is on you. Try to be more polite, too.

:::::As to whether ''V[[ariety]]'' is liberal, if you can show that it is neutral or conservative, I'd love to see evidence for it in our article about it, whenever someone gets around to writing it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:51, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Don't want to overstep my bounds here, but let's review Aschlafly's argument

1 Claims "Variety" is liberal backed by the fact that it does not have a pro-life article in it. Lack of support for one argument does not imply support for the other side. Also insinuates that the readers of "Variety" are liberal and that the magazine would offer appeal to those readers, both statements not supported by an ounce of evidence in this forum.

2 Proceeds to invoke an ad hominem attack on DaBoss3, claiming that he is "clueless" or "in liberal denial," an issue that has yet to be proven by Aschlafly.

3 DaBoss3 takes a ridiculous detour (this I'll acknowledge), which Aschlafly quickly jumps on to circumvent the issue, and combines 2 logical fallacies into one, an ad hominem attack of calling DaBoss3 ignorant and then begging the question, using that claim of ignorance to then assume that he is wrong on the issue of Variety's bias, which is an example of his ignorance.

:::One final note, addressed to the much more reasonable Ed Poor, shouldn't the default status of a publication be apolitical, with the burden of proof (and no, I am not referring to your comment on the burden of proof, I am aware that is a different issue) lying on the person claiming it has bias? --[[User:SeanF|SeanF]] 01:15, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:I just wanted to mention that I deleted the part about Variety having less subscribers than Conservapedia's daily page views. It has no relevance to any sort of argument being presented. --[[User:GeorgeF|GeorgeF]] 18:12, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

==Film Reviews==
I felt that the movie reviews section was clearer when was divided into positive and negative sections--[[User:GabharGneasach|GabharGneasach]] 15:12, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:I want to take my kids to this tonight, and it would be really useful for us, and probably for the movie itself, if you could include one of those movie sites here - if you could put back the RottenTomatoes link, people can go there and find their local theaters, buy tickets, see showtimes,etc. I know the reviews for the film from those stupid liberal sites and papers may not be good, but that doesn't bother any of us as we know what we want to see. (And, in fairness to them, they work technically very well indeed!) I always use rottentomatoes.com to get an quick overview of opinions on a movie before I bring my kids to it, and I think we all knew Expelled was going to be attacked by liberal movie reviewers, so I'm not bothered by it. So I think it would be a good idea to have that link there. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 15:55, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::If you can't figure out how to google stuff like that, I'm not even going to accuse you of being a liberal plant. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:57, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::I think we should all be doing everything we can to help promote this movie, and I simply thought it would help towards that end. You say I wouldn't know how to Google it, but I do - and you end up at Rottentomatoes.com! It's the #1 listed movie review site. I've used it for a few years now. Wouldn't you want to have that on the article? I think it would help. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 16:11, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:::SL, there is a link on our main page to movie theater sites, which I will repeat here just for your benefit. [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php]. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:30, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Oh, OK, yes, I suppose that will work fine, thank you Brian. Shouldn't it be in the article rather than only on the Main page? I wasn't aware of it. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 16:37, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::As this is essentially an encyclopedia, it should not be expected to reflect fast changing items like football league standings. The fast changing stuff is posted on our front page and links to movie showings are more appropriately placed there. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:27, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

I was going to see the movie yesterday, but work intervened. And today I gotta do something for church. I might not even see the film till Monday evening.

I plan to see it in the most liberal section of New York City, the [[Upper West Side]]. I wonder if Stein will get booed by the audience. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:18, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

==If you watched the movie...==
If you '''watched''' the movie, add your comments to this section. If you didn't watch the movie or try to turn this section into a debate session, your comments will be removed.

I watched the premier last night and I enjoyed this movie. [[Ben Stein]] did a great job exposing the scientific community's [[censorship]] of [[Intelligent Design]]. Ben also explained the difference between [[creationism]] and Intelligent Design. Ben also was successful in demonstrating the link between [[atheism]] and the [[theory of evolution]].

I personally believe in creationism and I feel that not allowing the teaching of Intelligent Design is liberal censorship. I applaud Ben for exposing this liberal censorship. I applaud [[Conservapedia]] from promoting this great [[documentary]]. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:39, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks for the positive review, Crocoite. I hope to see the movie this weekend.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
I watched it last night. I theater hopped so I didn't have to pay Stein for the ticket; I advise you all to do the same, as it's not worth your real money. The movie is a travesty. It's basically clips of Stein talking interspersed, in an amateurish way, with clips of the Holocaust. He doesn't try to make an argument as much as shock you with unaffiliated images. -[[User:Seb|Seb]] 10:51, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

: Typical ... [[liberal]] advice. I'm not convinced you even saw the movie, and your advice to rip Stein off is not going to remain on this site. Give us a good reason why your account should not be blocked, if you can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:57, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::Excuse me? Assuming you were serious, isn't that an example of "guilty until proven innocent"? Not to mention a (sadly) somewhat typical double standard.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 13:05, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Since when is a conservapedia account a civil right? --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 13:45, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:Good point, although I'm thinking more of Conservapedia's image.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 16:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for that clarification. ;) I happen to agree that it is usually better for conservapedia not to block people until they have directly broken the commandmnts, but I can't feel that we've wronged anyone who's been blocked for lesser reasons (though I don't do so myself). Nor can we harm anyone (except perhaps ourselves) by having a double standard. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 18:28, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

I took my family to see Expelled last night, and I was surprised at how liberal and obscene it was. They don't mention anything about how Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior, and they include secular music from "The Killers" (how could you allow a band with that name to be included in a Christian movie?) and John Lennon. I thought I would not have to cover my kids eyes and ears for once in a movie theater, but I was proved wrong with this one. I guess the next time a documentary comes out exposing the evil of evolution, I will stay home with my family and watch Passion of the Christ instead. At least that movie has a strong Christian message. -Nathan

I don't think Expelled was meant to be a Christian movie. I just saw it on saturday and I got the impression that the movie was not trying to support the Christian six-day creation, nor did it put forward Christianity in any way-- it merely exposes the intolerant attitude atheist evolutionists have towards intelligent design. In fact labeling the ID movement as "Christian" and "Extremist" is one of the ways that evoltionists try to discredit the science behind intelligent design. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 13:45, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

: Odd reaction, Nathan. I haven't heard that reaction from any Christians I know. Do you shield your kids' eyes and ears when they are in public school also, or when they watch television??? Consider me skeptical about your comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:29, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Aschlafly, my kids attend a private Christian school, and I only allow them to watch Christian shows and movies on television (and only Godtube and Conservapedia online). Consider me skeptical of your true faith in Christianity for thinking that a movie full of secular music and absent of the Lord's message is good. Actually, you stated that you haven't even seen the movie yet, but you're still on here causing controversy; it clearly states at the top that this forum is for people who have seen the movie. It is not for people who want to debate something that they haven't even seen. -Nathan --[[User:john1989|john1989]] 19:00, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

I have seen the movie, and though I am a Christian I thought it was an exellent movie that did stand up for truth. I have trouble being sceptical about anyone's faith just because they liked a movie that wasn't explicitly Christian. There is a fine line between prudence and legalism.

:::Unfortunately, there is no news of a theatre release in the UK. I may have to buy it on DVD in order to see it. A disappointment, because watching a significant event in the company of others is more uplifting than watching it on ones own. :( [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 12:22, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Could any of you who have seen the movie comment on whether or not the ''Time'' review misrepresented Stein? The article here specifically claims it does (saying ''Time'' put words into Stein's mouth, misquoting him, and indulging in character assassination), and it was the cause of much debate here on the Talk pages a few days ago. The ''Time'' review certainly says that "[Stein...asks], for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup". Is that a true representation of what Stein says? Does he actually pose that question, or have ''Time'' deliberately misquoted him? It would be a rather serious offense if they had, and worth contacting them about. [[User:Billa |Billa ]] 14:20, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::I thought the movie was interesting and thought-provoking. My wife came to the profound realization that domesticated species (in which man controls the genetics of the creatures) are in many ways inferior to wild species. Compare the wild turkey or wild cow to the domesticated turkey and domesticated cow and you have an example of what happens when Man controls the gene pool.

::At any rate, I think Stein did a masterful job of presenting the case but he revealed to me the fundamental question of ID as a science (rather than as a belief). Five hundred years ago science banished spells, fairies, ghosts or anything unseen from science. This line of thinking has brought us to our present day point of understanding. We're now ready for a paradigm shift that is just as profound as when spiritualism was separated from science. Science is ready for the skeptical inclusion of spiritualism as part of science. We've matured enough to consider the possibility that God may be in the machine. Even the most ardent skeptic has to agree that it only makes sense to examine the possibility, because we can not prove either side with any certainty.

::I highly recommend this movie and would contribute to a fund to pay for high school students to attend this film. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:05, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: I saw the film last night for an article I am writing on the distinctions between British and American Conservatism -- much of it focusing on the two G's: Guns and God -- and I found the piece reasonably well made but utterly fallacious and unconvincingly hysterical. None of the scientific arguments hold up and the suggestions of a witch hunt are feeble beyond belief. Oh and the comments from "Nathan" above are clearly part of a hoax by somebody taking the mickey out of Conservapedia's core readership. It's quite funny, but there's no way it's genuine. [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 14:25, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

::: Everwill, thanks much for your comment and your suggestion of a fund for teenagers to see the movie is a great idea. I'd like to take my class of 40 to see it. KeithJoseph, the second half of your posting makes sense but your first half gives no reasons and does not make sense. "Unconvincingly hysterical"??? That's a new expression that I find incoherent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:29, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

I simply mean that, despite the force of its hysteria, it fails to convince. I don't pretend that the phrase os worthy of Wittgenstein, but it does, I think, make sense (even if you disagree). [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 14:40, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

: [[Evolutionists]] are calling the movie "hysterical", but it's obvious that they are not amused by it. Now you seem to be giving a less obvious meaning to "hysterical", but your new meaning is inconsistent with your adjective "unconvincingly". Perhaps you also found the movie to be "irrationally rational"??? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:12, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, don't you mean adverb? The word unconvincingly, in this context, is an adverb; if we are to nitpick about grammar, then maybe you should be more careful in your own editing process.--[[User:Claypool|Claypool]] 13:36, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Erm? I don't really want to get too caught up in semantics, but you seem to be assuming that I was using "hysterical" in the informal sense, meaning amusing, whereas I meant that Stein exhibits -- to quote the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of hysteria -- "exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement". I really, really wish I had used a different phrase now. Can we pretend I said "unconvincing in its scaremongering" and leave it at that? Good grief! To quote Monty Python, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. Mind you NOBODY expects ... [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 15:26, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

: Your phrase "unconvincingly hysterical" is so absurd that I'm skeptical you even saw the movie. If you did, I doubt you saw it with an open mind if that is your analysis. Your phrase is too ridiculous to be genuine, in my opinion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:40, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I am utterly dumbfounded. I offer a brief review -- admittedly negative -- and, for my troubles, I receive a stream of abuse concerning some supposed grammatical infelicity and I am then called a liar. How, exactly, did your puzzling objections to that phrase lead you to suppose I hadn't seen the film? (Not a rhetorical question.) I saw the film in New York City, which I am visiting for a press junket, and will happily answer any questions on it to prove my honesty. I am happy to say that, to this point, most American conservatives I've encountered have been very civil. You are, happily, not representative in that respect. [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 19:55, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

::: There is nothing uncivil about my remarks. Your phrase about the movie is so absurd that it suggested to me a lack of being a genuine review. If you did see the movie, then I'm convinced you didn't see it with an open mind, and nothing in your "review" suggests otherwise to me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

While I am aware that I have just come off a block and I also am also totally focused on making more substantial edits I still must say that, Aschlafly, your critique of the above gentlemans grammatical use is ''slightly'' childish. We are all adults here and KeithJoseph had a legitimate point.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:56, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::I must concur that Aschlafly's comments seem a bit uncivil ... at first blush. But, there is a certain incivility to calling a bluff in any forum. I cannot remember how many times I sat and politely listened to bold-faced lies. I knew there was no point in letting the braggart or liar know how/why I knew his statements were false so I let them float. In this case, after a bit of thinking, I tend to agree with Aschlafly's assertion that KeithJoseph did not actually watch the movie.

::In ''Expelled'', the camera work is at times annoying and dizzying, with far too many cuts and angle changes. KeithJoseph describes the movie as "reasonably well-made". I would describe it as poorly-made and obvious low budget. This tends to support Aschlafly's theory about KeithJoseph.

::Secondly, KeithJoseph then goes on to describe the piece as "hysterically unconvincing". I have to admit that I heard some young girls laughing in the theatre, but the timing of the laughter seemed to indicate that they agreed with Stein's thesis as the girls laughed early on at some of the most ridiculous atheistic statements in the movie.

::I heard ZERO laughter when Stein was touring the concentration camps and examining where the logic of "natural selection" leads. A reasonable person could disagree with the movie for a number of reasons, but the movie never approached "hysterical" on any level or in any sense of the word. Thus, I tend to agree that KeithJoseph has not actually seen the film.

::This is not to say that reasonable people cannot criticize or disagree with the movie's premise. (For example, I think it was poorly made.) But the criticism should be accurate and reasonable to be taken seriously. For example, a perfectly reasonable comparison which I have read elsewhere is the comparison to Michael Moore's films. (Isn't it odd that Stein is now lumped in with Michael Moore by the same folks who agreed with Michael Moore?)

::At any rate, I have not watched any of Michael Moore's films because I don't want to fund a premise which I categorically reject. Therefore I will stand corrected if my assumptions about the content of Michael Moore's movies are wrong. It is my understanding Michael Moore uses his films to assert a particular point of view. Stein's film is much less ambitious.

::''Expelled'' does not attempt to prove that God exists or that Evolution is wrong. Stein focuses on freedom---the right of all Americans. He documents how scientists are being prevented from examining certain possibilities. Even if these scientists are "wrong" why can't they do research and examine theory? Any rational person must admit that it is possible that an intelligence designed the universe.

::''Expelled'' asks only this question: if ID is a possibility then why can't free scientists explore this possibility? That alone seems perfectly reasonable, and not hysterically unconvincing. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:34, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Couldn't have said it better myself. If you don't mind, I'm going to copy what you said into the body of the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: I am just speeding out the door and will have to wait until tonight to respond to the -- reasonably stated -- comments by Everwill above, but I must just come back to the, by now, very overworked, debate on my use of the word "hysterical". This may involve a distinction between British (or in my case, Irish) English and American English, but when I see the word "hysterical" my first instinct is that the writer is using it in its formal sense. In this case I was suggesting that Stein, despite his sang froid, was panicking unduly about a supposed threat to free speech. He was, in my view, being "hysterical". I never intended to make a comment on whether the film was funny or not and I am really amazed that everyone seems to have taken "hysterical" to mean "hysterically funny". I am even more amazed that so much attention has been focussed on one stray word. Is Bill Clinton editing this page? "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is". [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 14:07, 21 April 2008 (GMT)

::::::It's really not important what you want to parse [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hysterical hysterical] into meaning. It means what it means. But I can accept your rephrasing at face-value and still find your statements do not jive with my understanding of reality.

::::::If by "hysterical" you meant "very", well you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Perhaps the reason I found Mr. Stein's arguments so ... er ... ''hysterically'' convincing, is because I have witnessed that Wall of Oppression first hand. I know that it exists because I have encountered those people who want to crush the idea of Intelligent Design. They have a blood-thirsty religious fanaticism propelling their point of view and they stand upon opinion as if it were fact.

::::::As an aside, I am no Young Earth Creationist. At times, in my life I'm not even sure I believed in a god, as I am forever repulsed by single-minded irrational attachment to dogma. As I learn more, I adjust my world view to accommodate additional facts. I see the YEC crowd as unbending and as unrealistic as the anti-ID atheists. I for one am in favor of letting the facts stand as they are, whether they support the Bible, Anton Levay or the atheist's manifesto. Facts are facts. I think that Stein has done a public service by uncovering the damaging effects of money and bias upon Big Science. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:48, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

And on it goes. The phrase I used was "unconvincingly hysterical" not "hysterically unconvincing". So it hardly seems likely that I meant it to mean "very". If you are going to pull my words apart then please pull apart the correct words. [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 16:09, 21 April 2008 (GMT)

I watched the movie last night. It was a well-made movie; anyone who thinks otherwise is letting their world view and prejudice get in the way of their thinking. Ben Stein made the movie interesting and inspiring. I think the best argument put forth in the movie was not that ID is undeniable fact, but rather that we should have the freedom to express both sides of the argument. If the best Darwinists have is the idea that life came in on the backs of crystals or aliens made us, is this really too much to ask? And they're the ones calling the Bible a bunch of fairy tales XD. It just seems that they'll take anything BUT the Bible. I don't know what you think, but I think that's bad science and a little disturbing. --[[User:David R|David R]][[User talk:David R|talk]] 11:37, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

I have been following this movie's development and was very excited to see that it was given such a widespread release being a documentary. This movie was a much needed work to expose the widespread censorship by evolutionist of any notion of intelligent design. I've found a lot of people have no idea of the level that evolutionist will go to keep their theory "safe" from competing ideas and ultimately reality. In the interviews this movie did a good job of exposing the heart of the issue for those on the persecuting side. While some such as Dawkins are willing to accept the possibility of completely unfounded ideas such as aliens being responsible for creating life, they are unwilling to accept the most obvious of answers that we were created by God. The true issues is not about science, it's about their unwillingness to allow God into their atheistic world view. To quote Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." The irrationality of the atheistic can be clearly seen even by those who have hardened their hearts against any notion of God. This is why they are so adamant against any idea of God as the creator. Once that idea is allowed, they fear their greatest mental stronghold will be demolished. It's no wonder they hold so strongly to their position of power within the scientific and academic community. One thing I have observed in the public arena is that once you question evolution atheistic evolutionist rush to the defense through everything from argument to ridicule. Just look at the films ratings on [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/ IMDB's Expelled Page] It's interesting to note how many have rated this film 1 without even seeing it, offended by the very premise of the movie. The first day there was an initial rush of 1 votes by those that gave this movie a poor rating as soon as they were given the chance. One of issues Stein brought to light in this film was media censorship and ridicule of the intelligent design by the media. Liberal movie critics jumped at the chance to misrepresent this film, and lambasting it's very premise with comments such as [http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/radio/cl-et-expelled18apr18,0,1163561.story an attempt to deceive audiences ] and [http://www.tvguide.com/movies/expelled-intelligence-allowed/review/293361 (an) obvious propaganda piece ] It's apparent one needn't go far to prove that point. I strongly feel this film is a must see for anyone. To comment on the quality of the production, Ben Stein did an excellent job of producing a documentary that is both entertaining and informative. [[User:DanCon|DanCon]] 01:23, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Oh my gosh Nathan! I've grown up my whole life in a Christian missionary home... and I don't mind decent secular music! Besides, the film wasn't a Christian film. It existed to point out a wrong in the scientific community, not to evangalize! My goodness your kids are over sheltered if this movie offended you! [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 17:30, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

==ID and science==

Physical science has self-imposed limits. ID says that limiting the search for explanations is a silly way to account for the appearance of [[design]]. Are criminology and archaeology sciences? Is [[Stonehenge]] properly considered to be ancient ruins, or must we look to physical causes like erosion. Okay, then how about [[crop circles]]? Caused by strange wind patterns, or more likely to be a hoax?

If there is the appearance of design, there must be a designer. Why should this eliminate design as a consideration? Is science judged on its implications? Its adherents don't do that, when it comes to [[Social Darwinism]] and the Nazi [[Holocaust]]. "You can't blame us theoreticians for the conclusions that others draw," they say? Then why should ID be any different?

Anyone who has a [[double standard]] has something to hide or an axe to grind, but scientific theories should stand up to scrutiny. Dismissing or expelling critics are illegitimate means of avoiding a debate over whether materialistic theories are sufficient to explain "apparent evolution". That's all the producers are saying, and every review which changes the subject '''proves their point'''. Putting words in Stein's mouth, telling us how "we already addressed this", etc., are all great debating tactics when you're on stage trying to fool the general public. But science should be above shoddy political tricks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:05, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

: Science limits itself to things that are [[falsifiable]].       Even science teachers and the scientific press get this wrong sometimes, but science's answer to "might there be an intelligent designer?" is ''not'' "no", it's "science doesn't have the tools to evaluate the answer to that question". It's not specific to ID either... if you asked science "is there an [[Falsifiable#Carl Sagan|invisible incorporeal dragon in my garage]]?", the answer would be "on a purely scientific basis, our tools aren't able to evaluate that question".

: The thing is, other fields in education ''are'' able to evaluate questions like that, so they're worth bringing up in the classroom. (science classrooms too, as long as there's an implicit understanding that the discussion is an interdisciplinary one, or that it's about the limits of science) --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 13:50, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::Finally, a voice of reason ... welcome back, Interiot! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:35, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

==Biblical position==
I added a comment that, from a Christian point of view, ID is as a false as evolution. Mr Rayment has just told me - in answer to a question about why the Gap theory is not given "equal time" here Quote:

but really, the YEC view is the only one that actually fits what the Bible says, so this encyclopedia is not going to treat other views as though they have equal validity.

Why, then, was my comment about ID being as false as evolution removed? It is obvious that ID has no validity, why not say so?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:22, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:What part of ID is false (from a Christian point of view)? Surely not the part which says life is to complex to have come into being by natural forces and physical laws alone? If there's a Christian (or any other kind of Creationist) who disagreed, you would have named him. So your comment is not constructive - and is in fact unrelated to discussion about how to improve this article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:07, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
::The excellent "Answers in Genesis" website criticizes ID [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_IDM.asp here] and [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/intelligent-design-movement here]. Some quotes are

::"Acceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions.3 In such instances, a Christian might well see that the metaphorical exorcism of one socio-philosophical demon would have achieved merely its replacement by others, possibly worse."

::and

::Proponents of ID fail to understand that a belief in long ages for the earth formed the foundation of Darwinism.5 If God’s Word is not true concerning the age of the earth, then maybe it’s not true concerning other events of the Creation Week; and maybe God was not a necessary part of the equation for life after all."[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:04, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Answers in Genesis is a resource, not the standard we measure against in our articles. ID, in its pure form, says nothing about specific theology. It simply states that when we take all of the evidence from our world and the universe around us, that it appears we were designed as the 'finished product' of life on our planet would not be what we see today in a solely naturalistic system without outside influence. This would agree with Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or theistic evolution. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:07, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Yes, but Behe, the most well known proponent of ID, is certainly a supporter of, for example, Common Descent. He is one of the people mentioned (I believe) in the film. Presumably you would agree with me that he is wrong? And as wrong as the evolutionists?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 15:11, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Behe is probably the most famous ID proponent in modern times and the man most responsible for seeing Intelligent Design brought to the forefront. That being said, his personal views beyond the idea that there is a design have no importance in Intelligent Design itself. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:19, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::OK Your Mr Poor challenged me to find a Christian and or creationist source which criticized ID. Answers in Genesis is probably the most respected creationist source on the web. I have provided a couple of illustrative quotes which show their point of view. (There are many others that could be found, click the links and read the articles.) If ID only said that there is evidence of design then I would have no problem with it. But it says a lot more than that. It says long timescales and it says common descent. At least that is what the scientific version says. And, as far as I can tell, that is the version this film is about. The "scientific" one.[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 15:41, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::*(Interjecting) Your comment is off-topic. This article is not about ID as much as it as about attempts to silence people who talk about it in academia. Science has nothing to fear from false ideas; rather, it is the antidote to falsehood, error and superstition. If you are saying that one of the excuses the anti-ID camp use to silence their critics is simply to brand it as having "no validity", then *that* can go in the article. Do you have any info about that? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:03, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Again, ID, in its pure form, does not make those claims. You can have different versions within ID, but it's not fair to attribute any particular version as Intelligent Design while disregarding the views of others who also believe in Intelligent Design, but not as you have specified it. Within the secular/atheistic community, the complaint against ID is that it is Young Earth Creationism, just not specifically claiming 6000 years - which is very different from how you define it above. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:49, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
I can do not better than quote from that magnificent resource Answers in Genesis:

"the major problem with the ID movement is a divorce of the Creator from creation. The Creator and His creation cannot be separated; they reflect on each other."

and

"Ironically, despite already drawing the fire aimed at Genesis, the Bible and Christianity, many other prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of the recent creation of a good world, ruined by man’s Fall into sin. For tactical reasons, they have been urged (especially by their coolest and wisest head, Phil Johnson, who does not himself share that hostility) not to publicly condemn their Genesis-believing fellow travelers, although this simmering opposition has burst forth from time to time."

Surely it is obvious that there is a problem with ID?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 16:14, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:I'm not sure you're listening. Intelligent Design is the idea that the evidence in the world and cosmos shows shows that we are designed. Of course different people under that umbrella aren't going to agree with each other. So? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:28, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::If you'd like to mention in the [[Intelligent Design]] article the fact that it has been criticized by some elements within Christianity, I look forward to seeing that. Be sure, however, not to '''misrepresent''' this POV as a "standard view".

::Conservatives have varied opinions. Christians have varied opinions. We agree to disagree, rather than to claim that one view is held by all. (Aside from the basics, such as "God exists", of course! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:33, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

ID is a scientific approach that finds fault with evolution and says that a creator must be present because nature has signs of design in it. What's un-Christian about that? [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 17:34, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Long timescales and common descent is theistic evolution, not ID. ID does not take a stance on whether the earth is young or old... stop putting words in it's mouth! [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 17:36, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:Who are you talking to? If you want to debate, we should have several [[Debate Topics]] related to this issue - and you are free to create another page. But this "talk page" is only for discussion of ways to improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:40, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

== Eugenics ==

We discuss the impact in Nazi Germany, but it didn't stop there. The United States had its own program to sterilize inferiors prior to World War II with some at the time even complaining that the Nazis were pulling ahead of us. The impact of evolutionary thought was taking hold across all Western culture. Thankfully that ended when the horrors of the Holocaust were seen, but it was certainly a striking time in our own history as well - and one that is usually ignored so as not to show the path we went down with "survival of the fittest" even in our own country. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:18, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

: Right. Fortunately, America had people who stood up to the movement and objected, like [[William Jennings Bryan]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:41, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::The film mentions the connection between Darwinism and eugenics - IIRC it says how many people the U.S. sterilized. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:24, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==Wikipedia chimes in==
The movie's article on Wikipedia is highly biased (no surprise) and "semi-protected", which in practice means that ordinary people can't edit it. Sort of proves the film's point, I'd say.

: Right. That will be the next new point 1 in [[Bias in Wikipedia]]. All too predictable that Wikipedia would impose its bias with respect to this movie.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:49, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:Whereas the Conservapedia article is unbiased and open for all to edit, yes? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 10:10, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

I created an account to edit this article, but it appears to be locked

: The entry was locked only for a very brief time and only due to vandalism. This is in contrast with Wikipedia, which locked its entry for an indefinite, continuing period for the purpose of ideological censorship.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:37, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

As someone who has worked on both the Wikipedia and Conservapedia articles on this topic, I can attest that the Wikipedia article is indeed highly biased (though it is getting better, with collaborative editing), but this article has problems with bias (in the opposite direction) as well, as some editors seem to have introduced personal opinion and unsourced speculation since I last worked on the article. I'm currently trying to improve this situation. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 14:05, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Imposing your view point ==

Walton One, you are the one actually trying to impose your view point. This is a conservative encyclopedia and we cannot treat it like your personal propoganda. Please do not impose a liberal point of view. It is conservapedia not liberalpedia. --[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 14:27, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:While you may not agree with Walton One's changes, work with him constructively. Our goal is truth. We happen to believe it is found in Conservative ideals, but it is not our intention to cut off the dialogue of a user who has been around for some time and contributed articles to our site in the past that were thorough and educational. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:05, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:(To Heffalump) I am a conservative not a liberal, and I don't have a strong personal opinion about the film or about ID. I am trying to ensure the article is neutral and factual, by removing personal opinion and speculation, as per point 5 of the [[Conservapedia Commandments]]: ''Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages.'' I am not imposing any viewpoint on the article. I realise it is difficult to strike the right balance on such a controversial topic, but we can at least try to be even-handed. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 15:06, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==[[Theistic evolution]]==

This is mentioned in the film, but very briefly. I wish I had a transcript as my notes are incomplete.

One of the men they interviewed said that evolution is incompatible with creationism, despite attempts by Darwinists to enlist liberal Christians. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:32, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==Full rewrite needed==

Now that I've seen the film, I'm entirely dissatisfied with the article (except the intro and some of the external links).

Basically, the existing version of this article is centered on the POV of ID opponents, rather than being based on the film. While it is okay to voice criticism of the film, first the article should summarize the film and then go into detail about the narrative, composition, look and feel, and especially the points it makes.

If there are any rebuttals to its points, that should come next.

Peripheral points, such as general evolution vs. ID debate, should be minimal. Like a brief summary and then a link to one of our [[Debate Topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:36, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==Make your voice heard==

If your contribution or comment has been reverted, and you think this is just as bad as what the Darwinists have been doing to their opponents, come to [[Conservapedia:Censorship]] and voice your opinion. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 06:57, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

==[[Eugenics]] and the [[Holocaust]]==

A major complaint about the film is its exposure of the ideological linkage between Darwinism's "[[survival of the fittest]]" idea, and the [[Social Darwinism]] based on it. Critics insinuate (or state outright?) that the film unfairly blames the theory of evolution for what demagogues and despots did with it.

However, the film mentions at least twice that no one is blaming all evolutionists for sterilizations and mass murder. But it does point out the precise way in which Hitler used Darwin's ideas to support Nazi ideology.

This needs to be explained better in the article. We should not print a unsubstantiated accusations here; critics can make their false accusations on their own websites - even if that is an abuse of the freedom of speech - because there should be no censorship in academic debate.

But a trustworthy encyclopedia is not a newspaper; there is no rush to be first to "break a story". Contributors should watch the movie and write about what the remember seeing and hearing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:38, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

* I suspected before watching the film that critics were misrepresenting it, in terms of its presentation of the links between Darwinism, Eugenics and the Holocaust. The typical screed went, "How dare they say evolution is responsible for Nazi genocide?"
* As I watched the film, I made notes of the places where the film makers took pains to make precisely the opposite point of what those critics had said. So I think I was justified in removing their "reviews" on the grounds of simply not being trustworthy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:45, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

::I am of the belief that most of our 'reviews' and viewpoints of individuals detracts from the article, which should be about the movie itself. The article comes across as a back and forth pull of reviews. It doesn't flow. In other words it's sounding a bit like WP. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:::No, it's sounding precisely like Associated Press, the cream of liberal news media.

:::Here's a nice review or summary:

:::*“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” is a feature-length documentary film about researchers, professors, and academics who claim to have been marginalized, silenced, or threatened with academic expulsion because of their challenges to some or all parts of Darwin’s theory of evolution. Makers of the documentary said the movie doesn't seek to champion intelligent design as the sole truth but calls for more academic freedom, where challenges to any scientific theory including Darwinism would be fairly considered. [http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080421/32048_%5C'Expelled%5C'_Explodes_into_Top_10_Box_Office.htm]

== They keep having to lock the WP article ==

It's just a regular comedy of errors over there. Sometimes it's a full lock and sometimes it's a block of anonymous users. Is it any wonder WP is garbage? Exactly how people think it's a reliable source for anything but the most basic, non-controversial things is beyond me. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:13, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

: Very well put, Jinxmchue. I find [[Wikipedia]] to be worthless for anything of real interest. How [[Wikipedia]] is handling [[Expelled]] is just one of over 100 [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:42, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::I finally took at a look at their version, and now I see where all the changes are coming from to our version, which I have been reverting. They are simply plagiarizing WP - ironic, in view of the media flap over the animation [[Premise Media]] allegedly plagiarized from Harvard. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:37, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm not trying to be rude... but why is it that when Wikipedia locks an article, it's liberal bias. But one of our own admins he [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AExpelled%3A_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=433467&oldid=433465 consdered locking it] because he assumed there would be vandalsim, which is fine. Also, Jinxmchue mocks the blocking of anon. users, but doesn't acknowledge that this site doesn't even allow anon. edits (not that I don't understand why) and for some time, it was common practice to block entire ranges of IP addresses to prevent vandals. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 23:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Al Franken

2008-04-24T03:43:10Z

DrCB: /* Changes */

Talk:Black Entertainment Television

2008-04-22T04:37:14Z

DrCB:

Talk:Black Entertainment Television

2008-04-22T04:33:39Z

DrCB:

==scientist==

How can someone be an amateur scientist? That's like saying someone is an amateur pastor or an amateur internet user. There is no official definition of a professional scientist. It seems as if it comes down to I don't like him so I'll discredit him however I can. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 19:48, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:Sentence removed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:57, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::I replaced the line about James Randi. I don't think anyone, liberal or conservative, can argue in defense of so called "faith healers" like Popoff... He hurt a lot of people very badly in the name of god to line his pockets. His debunking was very well known and a very infamous moment in Televangelism(sp?). I think the line is very pertinent to the article. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 00:27, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Here;s another [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUkCmkcuU4U&feature=related link] dealing with it. This is the actual Tonight Show Episode [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 00:29, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Fine, I don't care about having the line. However, without formal training, he is an amatuer. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 00:30, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Science isn't something you need formal training for. A seven year old who wonders if things fall down all the time and devises an "experiment" to test their theory is a scientist. Labcoats and PHD's don't make a scientist. There is no such thing as an amateur scientist. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 00:33, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Black Entertainment Television

2008-04-22T04:29:21Z

DrCB:

Talk:Black Entertainment Television

2008-04-22T04:27:44Z

DrCB:

Black Entertainment Television

2008-04-22T04:24:04Z

DrCB: readded... please see talk page

'''BET''' is an [[acronym]] for ''Black Entertainment Television''. BET is a cable network geared toward African Americans. It features lightly censored music videos and a morning line up of religious programming. It's run by [[Viacom]], parent company of [[MTV]].

==Criticism==

BET has run into much criticism from African American activists, who claim the channel perpetuates harmful black stereotypes. The hop-hip videos BET is best known for often contain misogynistic, materialistic, and/or violent themes. The protests have forced BET to heavily censor content from the videos, sometimes cutting entire verses from videos. Others have pointed out the irony in the network's choice to broadcast Rap and Hip Hop videos while showing strong religious programming as well. Several critics refer to BET as "Black Exploitation Television," comparing the channel to a minstrel show. They also point out that BET is currently owned and operated by Viacom, which is led by Philippe Dauman, a white person.

BET has also found criticism from the Christian evangelical community. Aside from the music and programming content, they've also complained about the morning religious lineup. BET broadcasts evangelical TV shows every morning, including Robert Tilton, Don Stewart, and Peter Popoff. All three have been found guilty of heading fraud ministries, with Popoff's ministry losing its tax-exempt status in Canada. Scientist James Randi notoriously debunked Popoff several times, including a famous spot on The Tonight Show in 1988<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ-7beRITYM</ref>

==External Links==
*[http://www.bet.com/ Official Website]

==References and notes ==
<div class="references-small" style="column-count:2;-moz-column-count:2;">
<references/>
</div>

[[Category:Cable TV Networks]]

Talk:Black Entertainment Television

2008-04-21T23:48:43Z

DrCB: New page: ==scientist== How can someone be an amateur scientist? That's like saying someone is an amateur pastor or an amateur internet user. There is no official definition of a professional sci...

Black Entertainment Television

2008-04-21T22:34:01Z

DrCB: Can we keep the buzz words to a minimum please

'''BET''' is an [[acronym]] for ''Black Entertainment Television''. BET is a cable network geared toward African Americans. It features lightly censored music videos and a morning line up of religious programming. It's run by [[Viacom]], parent company of [[MTV]].

==Criticism==

BET has run into much criticism from African American activists, who claim the channel perpetuates harmful black stereotypes. The hop-hip videos BET is best known for often contain misogynistic, materialistic, and/or violent themes. The protests have forced BET to heavily censor content from the videos, sometimes cutting entire verses from videos. Others have pointed out the irony in the network's choice to broadcast Rap and Hip Hop videos while showing strong religious programming as well. Several critics refer to BET as "Black Exploitation Television," comparing the channel to a minstrel show. They also point out that BET is currently owned and operated by Viacom, which is led by Philippe Dauman, a white person.

BET has also found criticism from the Christian evangelical community. Aside from the music and programming content, they've also complained about the morning religious lineup. BET broadcasts evangelical TV shows every morning, including Robert Tilton, Don Stewart, and Peter Popoff. All three have been found guilty of heading fraud ministries, with Popoff's ministry losing its tax-exempt status in Canada. Scientist James Randi notoriously debunked Popoff on The Tonight Show in 1988.

==External Links==
*[http://www.bet.com/ Official Website]

[[Category:Cable TV Networks]]

Black Entertainment Television

2008-04-21T05:56:56Z

DrCB: minor grammar issues

'''BET''' is an [[acronym]] for ''Black Entertainment Television''. BET is a cable network geared toward African Americans. It features lightly censored music videos and a morning line up of religious programming. It's run by [[Viacom]], parent company of [[MTV]].

==Criticism==

BET has run into much criticism from African American activists, who claim the channel perpetuates harmful black stereotypes. The hop-hip videos BET is best known for often contain misogynistic, materialistic, and/or violent themes. The protests have forced BET to heavily censor content from the videos, sometimes cutting entire verses from videos. Others have pointed out the irony in the network's choice to broadcast Rap and Hip Hop videos while showing strong religious programming as well. Several critics refer to BET as "Black Exploitation Television," comparing the channel to a minstrel show. They also point out that BET is currently owned and operated by Viacom, which is led by Philippe Dauman, a white person.

BET has also found criticism from the Christian evangelical community. Aside from the music and programming content, they've also complained about the morning religious lineup. BET broadcasts evangelical TV shows every morning, including Robert Tilton, Don Stewart, and Peter Popoff. All three have been found guilty of heading fraud ministries, with Popoff's ministry losing it's tax-exempt status in Canada. Scientist James Randi notoriously debunked Popoff on The Tonight Show in 1988.

==External Links==
*[http://www.bet.com/ Official Website]

[[Category:Cable TV Networks]]

Talk:Al Franken

2008-04-20T20:04:17Z

DrCB: /* Changes */

Al Franken

2008-04-20T17:13:42Z

DrCB: Undo revision 435323 by Special:Contributions/Learn together (User talk:Learn together) At least it'll be accurate for five more minutes

[[Image:Al franken.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Al Franken''' is a [[liberal]] activist and former radio host for the [[Air America]] network. Franken worked as a comedian, writer and performer on the television program ''[[Saturday Night Live]]'' and the star and screenwriter of the motion picture ''[[Stuart Saves His Family]].''

Franken calls conservatives "nasty, hateful people", yet:
* he quipped to the Harvard Crimson: "I dislike homosexuals. I was glad when that [Harvard] homosexual got killed." <ref>http://www.gaypatriot.net/2007/01/18/al-frankens-anti-gay-past/</ref><ref>http://lloydletta.blogspot.com/2007/01/al-franken-jokes-about-murder-of-gay.html</ref><ref>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=112149</ref>
* he wrote in ''Lying Liars'' that a "Methodist minister had had his head up his ass" in a dispute about the Bible<ref>"Do you know what God’s punishment is for liars?" [the minister] asked me ... "God’s punishment for liars is that they believe their own lies." The minister was referring to 2 Thess 2:10-12 which says substantially that.</ref>

His radio show was originally going to be called "The Liberal Show." Upon debut, it was known as "The O'Franken Factor," a name Franken chose to parody [[Bill O'Reilly]] and taunt him into a lawsuit, getting his show free publicity. When the lawsuit failed to materialize, the show was renamed "The Al Franken Show."

He announced that he would run for a [[Senate]] seat in [[Minnesota]] in 2008 as a [[Democrat]]. Franken's past comments have led to questions about whether or not he will alienate himself from the important undecided swing voters.<ref>http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1083904.html Star Tribune retrieved 6 April, 2007</ref>

== Books by Franken ==

*''Oh The Things that I know! A Guide to Success, or Failing That, Happiness,''
*''Why Not Me,'' (a "journal" kept through the fictional "Franken for President" campaign)
*''I'm Good Enough, I'm Smart Enough and Doggone it, People like me.'' (In Character as Stuart Smiley)
*''Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot (a satirical look at [[ad hominem]] attacks in political debate)
*''[[Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them]]A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right'' (examining what he believes are inaccurate and misleading statments made by right wing pundits, particularly [[Ann Coulter]], [[Bill O'Reilly]] and [[Sean Hannity]])
*''The Truth (With Jokes)'' A look at how [[George W Bush]] beat [[John Kerry]] in the 2004 Election with what Al Franken calls the "Fears, Smears, and Queers strategy".

==References==
<references/>

==Links==
*[http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0291253/ Al Franken] at the Internet Movie Database
*[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1142525 Al Franken] at National Public Radio

{{DEFAULTSORT: Franken, Al}}
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Authors]]
[[category:Broadcasters]]

Talk:Al Franken

2008-04-20T17:12:12Z

DrCB: /* Changes */

Black Entertainment Television

2008-04-19T18:25:45Z

DrCB: added critics. section

'''BET''' is an [[acronym]] for ''Black Entertainment Television''. BET is a cable network geared toward African Americans. It features lightly censored music videos and a morning line up of religious programming. It's run by [[Viacom]], parent company of [[MTV]].

==Criticism==

BET has run into much criticism from African American activists, who claim the channel perpetuates harmful black stereotypes. The hop-hip videos BET is best known for often contain misogynistic, materialistic, and/or violent themes. The protests have forced BET to heavily censor content from the videos, sometimes cutting entire verses from videos. Others have pointed out the irony in the network's choice to broadcast Rap and Hip Hop videos while showing strong religious programming as well. Several critics refer to BET as "Black Exploitation Television," comparing the channel to a minstrel show. Several critics also point out that BET is currently owned and operated by Viacom, which is led by Philippe Dauman, a white person.

BET has also found criticism from the Christian evangelical community. Aside from the music and programming content, they've also complained about the morning religious lineup. BET broadcasts evangelical TV shows every morning, including Robert Tilton, Don Stewart, and Peter Popoff. All three have been found guilty of heading fraud ministries, with Popoff's ministry losing it's tax-exempt status in Canada. Scientist James Randi notoriously debunked Popoff on The Tonight Show in 1988.

==External Links==
*[http://www.bet.com/ Official Website]

[[Category:Cable TV Networks]]

Talk:Al Franken

2008-04-18T16:26:45Z

DrCB:

Al Franken

2008-04-18T16:18:03Z

DrCB: Major changes. Please see talk page

[[Image:Al franken.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Al Franken''' is a [[liberal]] activist and former radio host for the [[Air America]] network. Franken worked as a comedian, writer and performer on the television program ''[[Saturday Night Live]]'' and the star and screenwriter of the motion picture ''[[Stuart Saves His Family]].''

Franken calls conservatives "nasty, hateful people", yet:
* he quipped to the Harvard Crimson: "I dislike homosexuals. I was glad when that [Harvard] homosexual got killed." <ref>http://www.gaypatriot.net/2007/01/18/al-frankens-anti-gay-past/</ref><ref>http://lloydletta.blogspot.com/2007/01/al-franken-jokes-about-murder-of-gay.html</ref><ref>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=112149</ref>
* he wrote in ''Lying Liars'' that a "Methodist minister had had his head up his ass" in a dispute about the Bible<ref>"Do you know what God’s punishment is for liars?" [the minister] asked me ... "God’s punishment for liars is that they believe their own lies." The minister was referring to 2 Thess 2:10-12 which says substantially that.</ref>

His radio show was originally going to be called "The Liberal Show." Upon debut, it was known as "The O'Franken Factor," a name Franken chose to parody [[Bill O'Reilly]] and taunt him into a lawsuit, getting his show free publicity. When the lawsuit failed to materialize, the show was renamed "The Al Franken Show."

He announced that he would run for a [[Senate]] seat in [[Minnesota]] in 2008 as a [[Democrat]]. Franken's past comments have led to questions about whether or not he will alienate himself from the important undecided swing voters.<ref>http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1083904.html Star Tribune retrieved 6 April, 2007</ref>

== Books by Franken ==

*''Oh The Things that I know! A Guide to Success, or Failing That, Happiness,''
*''Why Not Me,'' (a "journal" kept through the fictional "Franken for President" campaign)
*''I'm Good Enough, I'm Smart Enough and Doggone it, People like me.'' (In Character as Stuart Smiley)
*''Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot (a satirical look at [[ad hominem]] attacks in political debate)
*''[[Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right]]'' (examining what he believes are inaccurate and misleading statments made by right wing pundits, particularly [[Ann Coulter]], [[Bill O'Reilly]] and [[Sean Hannity]])
*''The Truth (With Jokes)'' A look at how [[George W Bush]] beat [[John Kerry]] in the 2004 Election with what Al Franken calls the "Fears, Smears, and Queers strategy".

==References==
<references/>

==Links==
*[http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0291253/ Al Franken] at the Internet Movie Database
*[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1142525 Al Franken] at National Public Radio

{{DEFAULTSORT: Franken, Al}}
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Authors]]
[[category:Broadcasters]]

Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-17T05:04:51Z

DrCB: helps if I spell it right

There is already a page on [[Expelled]]. Merge the categories over here? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:14, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== Including Criticism ==

I have to disagree with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&curid=55627&diff=388348&oldid=388346 this edit.] While I don't think the critics' arguments have merit, I think we should include them. People who believe in creationism or intelligent design have nothing to hide; let's not appear that we do, by removing a criticism section.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 13:47, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:See [[strawman fallacy]]. I don't know that the film portrays intelligent design as an alternative scientific theory to evolution. According to what I've read so far, it portrays the establishment as '''suppressing''' discussion of whether there can '''be''' any such alternatives. Do you see the difference? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:59, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::Oops. You're right; that doesn't bear on the movie, it bears on the theory. Good call on removing it, sorry. Thank you!-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 14:01, 15 February 2008 (EST)

==Counterarguments==

Has anyone argued that the film's thesis is untrue? Or are we just going to get the usual liberal backlash complaining that interviewees were "tricked" into exposing the truth? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:30, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:The main point of the film is that there's a vast, far-reaching conspiracy by the Evolutionists to stifle the teaching of the idea that a magical man created everything exactly as it is now. As for proving it untrue... Well, how can we possibly prove there ISN'T A conspiracy against the teaching of unscientific dogma under the guise of science? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:20, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:: You should take up cricket: You're good at putting a negative spin on things! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:36, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::: Why thank you, Philip. Somebody here needs to take off the rose coloured glasses, yes? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Or clean their glasses. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:35, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: You're not very good with metaphors, are you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::: Hmmmm. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 7 March 2008 (EST)

==Bribery==
Oh deary me. I cite the website itself with its message of "Force kids to watch our film and get money!" and you still revert my edit stating that the producers have been ACCUSED of attempted bribery. Tell me, Philip, what would be a better source than the website in question? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:The problem is not (this time) with the choice of web-site, but with what it's claimed to be saying. The site says nothing about bribing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:37, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::Ah, yes. Encouraging mandatory field trips (Question 2.) and saying the schools can return the ticket stubs for donations '''certainly''' isn't bribery. Aside from that, I said that that's the site that was cited. How about I simply add that they've been accused with no source? Hmm? Would that appease you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:10, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::: The main definition of "bribe", according to my dictionary, is "any valuable consideration given or promised for ''corrupt behaviour'' in the performance of any official or public duty" (my emphasis), and this is what use of the word here would suggest. Yet there is no basis for putting that in the article, beyond a non-notable blog. Therefore, it should not go in, full stop. What ''could'' go in is a mention along the lines that the producers of the movie are encouraging schools to take their students to see it, but I don't really think that's of sufficient relevance to warrant a mention. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::It seems to match the definition given perfectly. What's your problem, then? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: My problem is that it ''doesn't' match the definition, unless you have an odd definition of "corrupt behaviour". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause.

What we need for this article is a discussion (or better yet, a '''description''') of the thesis and the specific points made in the film - one which regrettably I have not seen yet. Along with this, we welcome any reports of noteworthy critiques of the film's thesis.

Complaints by the group which in engages in censorship, that they were tricked into testifying against themselves, are irrelevant. "No fair! I thought I was bragging, not confessing!"

Our mission here is to provide trustworthy information. So unless Dawkins, et al., are '''taking back''' what they said, then the lack of candidness on the part of the producer's is hardly germane. Unless you want to make an argument that academic dishonesty is so prevalent, so cavalier, and so devious that exposing it requires extraordinary detective work! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:22, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:"Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause." Please, show me where I've encouraged bribery to support my "cause."
:So... In order to expose the academic dishonesty of this secret cabal, you must use academic dishonesty? The ends don't justify the means, my tinfoil hat wearing friend. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::What standard of [[academic dishonesty]] do you suggest we '''all''' avoid while collaborating here? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::: He was blocked for 3 months, so you'll be waiting a while for an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

== Stating my reasons ==

I changed some wording that may make me seem like a liberal...I'm not. I simply did so in order to make the article as unbiased as possible. If you want proof of my views look at all the trouble I've gotten into on the Wikipedia version of this talk page. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 09:39, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
: I don't think it's serious enough to revert, but in doing so the wording now gives the impression that it doesn't necessarily succeed in this. Not having seen the film, I can't really comment on the accuracy of that, but Conservapedia aims to be accurate rather than neutral, and if being neutral gives a false impression, then it's not for the better.
: You also added a line about criticism, footnoted to a paragraph that said nothing about the criticism, and which had no source. Could you clarify that please?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:17, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:The Orlando Sentinel's movie reviewer snuck into a private screening and then blasted the film in his reviews. Several other editors have done the same. We were talking about it over at wikipedia and I couldn't find the source cite. So I took a quote we we were discussing at the talk page and used it as the temporary source. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:16, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I've always found that its better to say that something attempts to do something than to say it does something. If you say it does something than it someone will come along and claim that it doesn't. Its just a way to be safe. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:18, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:Where does your last reference come from? You quote it, but you don't state the source. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:25, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

So we should say that NASA ''attempted'' to send men to the moon rather than saying that they actually did? The point is, we say things as though they are true when we are satisfied that they ''are'' true, and by that I don't mean that ''nobody'' disputes it (some argue, for example, that NASA didn't really send men to the moon). At Conservapedia we reject a lot of ideological objection. A lot of the objection to things like this movie are ideological. That's not to say, of course, that the people objecting are wrong; we still have to be careful to ensure that what we say is correct, but we don't qualify statements that we believe are clearly true just because people with a different ideology object. However, in this case, as I said, I've not seen the movie (and presumably nobody else here has yet), so I can't say whether it does succeed in its objective.

To clarify some of that, when a court decides if a defendant is guilty of a criminal offence, it does so "beyond reasonable doubt". When a court decides who is at fault in a civil matter, it does so on the basis of probabilities. In neither case are the matters normally settled with absolutely no doubt at all. If they were that clear, the criminal defendant would plead guilty and the civil participants would not even bring the matter to court, but settle it themselves. In both cases, the court decides according to the level of "proof" appropriate to the circumstances. Note also that the court is unable to test the matter scientifically. The court is making its decision on a unique past event, and that event is not repeatable; it's not able to be studied in a scientific way. (This doesn't deny that scientific tests can be made about some of the supporting evidence, such as DNA found at the scene.) Similarly, whether this movie achieves its results, although not a past event, is difficult if not impossible to determine in a scientific way, as it concerns people's motives (i.e. it likely does demonstrate suppression and persecution, but it's further arguing that this is deliberate. How do you scientifically test for deliberateness?) But this lack of ability to scientifically test does not prevent courts from making decisions, and neither should it prevent this encyclopedia from stating what is clearly the case (on those occasions when it ''is'' clearly the case), regardless of the objections of people with opposing ideological views.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

== opps ==

My mistake..
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 15:06, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

==Alleged Copyright Violation==

Why was this material simply deleted? [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 01:04, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-17T05:04:04Z

DrCB:

There is already a page on [[Expelled]]. Merge the categories over here? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:14, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== Including Criticism ==

I have to disagree with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&curid=55627&diff=388348&oldid=388346 this edit.] While I don't think the critics' arguments have merit, I think we should include them. People who believe in creationism or intelligent design have nothing to hide; let's not appear that we do, by removing a criticism section.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 13:47, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:See [[strawman fallacy]]. I don't know that the film portrays intelligent design as an alternative scientific theory to evolution. According to what I've read so far, it portrays the establishment as '''suppressing''' discussion of whether there can '''be''' any such alternatives. Do you see the difference? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:59, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::Oops. You're right; that doesn't bear on the movie, it bears on the theory. Good call on removing it, sorry. Thank you!-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 14:01, 15 February 2008 (EST)

==Counterarguments==

Has anyone argued that the film's thesis is untrue? Or are we just going to get the usual liberal backlash complaining that interviewees were "tricked" into exposing the truth? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:30, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:The main point of the film is that there's a vast, far-reaching conspiracy by the Evolutionists to stifle the teaching of the idea that a magical man created everything exactly as it is now. As for proving it untrue... Well, how can we possibly prove there ISN'T A conspiracy against the teaching of unscientific dogma under the guise of science? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:20, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:: You should take up cricket: You're good at putting a negative spin on things! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:36, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::: Why thank you, Philip. Somebody here needs to take off the rose coloured glasses, yes? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Or clean their glasses. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:35, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: You're not very good with metaphors, are you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::: Hmmmm. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 7 March 2008 (EST)

==Bribery==
Oh deary me. I cite the website itself with its message of "Force kids to watch our film and get money!" and you still revert my edit stating that the producers have been ACCUSED of attempted bribery. Tell me, Philip, what would be a better source than the website in question? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:The problem is not (this time) with the choice of web-site, but with what it's claimed to be saying. The site says nothing about bribing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:37, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::Ah, yes. Encouraging mandatory field trips (Question 2.) and saying the schools can return the ticket stubs for donations '''certainly''' isn't bribery. Aside from that, I said that that's the site that was cited. How about I simply add that they've been accused with no source? Hmm? Would that appease you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:10, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::: The main definition of "bribe", according to my dictionary, is "any valuable consideration given or promised for ''corrupt behaviour'' in the performance of any official or public duty" (my emphasis), and this is what use of the word here would suggest. Yet there is no basis for putting that in the article, beyond a non-notable blog. Therefore, it should not go in, full stop. What ''could'' go in is a mention along the lines that the producers of the movie are encouraging schools to take their students to see it, but I don't really think that's of sufficient relevance to warrant a mention. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::It seems to match the definition given perfectly. What's your problem, then? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: My problem is that it ''doesn't' match the definition, unless you have an odd definition of "corrupt behaviour". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause.

What we need for this article is a discussion (or better yet, a '''description''') of the thesis and the specific points made in the film - one which regrettably I have not seen yet. Along with this, we welcome any reports of noteworthy critiques of the film's thesis.

Complaints by the group which in engages in censorship, that they were tricked into testifying against themselves, are irrelevant. "No fair! I thought I was bragging, not confessing!"

Our mission here is to provide trustworthy information. So unless Dawkins, et al., are '''taking back''' what they said, then the lack of candidness on the part of the producer's is hardly germane. Unless you want to make an argument that academic dishonesty is so prevalent, so cavalier, and so devious that exposing it requires extraordinary detective work! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:22, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:"Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause." Please, show me where I've encouraged bribery to support my "cause."
:So... In order to expose the academic dishonesty of this secret cabal, you must use academic dishonesty? The ends don't justify the means, my tinfoil hat wearing friend. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::What standard of [[academic dishonesty]] do you suggest we '''all''' avoid while collaborating here? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::: He was blocked for 3 months, so you'll be waiting a while for an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

== Stating my reasons ==

I changed some wording that may make me seem like a liberal...I'm not. I simply did so in order to make the article as unbiased as possible. If you want proof of my views look at all the trouble I've gotten into on the Wikipedia version of this talk page. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 09:39, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
: I don't think it's serious enough to revert, but in doing so the wording now gives the impression that it doesn't necessarily succeed in this. Not having seen the film, I can't really comment on the accuracy of that, but Conservapedia aims to be accurate rather than neutral, and if being neutral gives a false impression, then it's not for the better.
: You also added a line about criticism, footnoted to a paragraph that said nothing about the criticism, and which had no source. Could you clarify that please?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:17, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:The Orlando Sentinel's movie reviewer snuck into a private screening and then blasted the film in his reviews. Several other editors have done the same. We were talking about it over at wikipedia and I couldn't find the source cite. So I took a quote we we were discussing at the talk page and used it as the temporary source. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:16, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I've always found that its better to say that something attempts to do something than to say it does something. If you say it does something than it someone will come along and claim that it doesn't. Its just a way to be safe. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:18, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:Where does your last reference come from? You quote it, but you don't state the source. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:25, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

So we should say that NASA ''attempted'' to send men to the moon rather than saying that they actually did? The point is, we say things as though they are true when we are satisfied that they ''are'' true, and by that I don't mean that ''nobody'' disputes it (some argue, for example, that NASA didn't really send men to the moon). At Conservapedia we reject a lot of ideological objection. A lot of the objection to things like this movie are ideological. That's not to say, of course, that the people objecting are wrong; we still have to be careful to ensure that what we say is correct, but we don't qualify statements that we believe are clearly true just because people with a different ideology object. However, in this case, as I said, I've not seen the movie (and presumably nobody else here has yet), so I can't say whether it does succeed in its objective.

To clarify some of that, when a court decides if a defendant is guilty of a criminal offence, it does so "beyond reasonable doubt". When a court decides who is at fault in a civil matter, it does so on the basis of probabilities. In neither case are the matters normally settled with absolutely no doubt at all. If they were that clear, the criminal defendant would plead guilty and the civil participants would not even bring the matter to court, but settle it themselves. In both cases, the court decides according to the level of "proof" appropriate to the circumstances. Note also that the court is unable to test the matter scientifically. The court is making its decision on a unique past event, and that event is not repeatable; it's not able to be studied in a scientific way. (This doesn't deny that scientific tests can be made about some of the supporting evidence, such as DNA found at the scene.) Similarly, whether this movie achieves its results, although not a past event, is difficult if not impossible to determine in a scientific way, as it concerns people's motives (i.e. it likely does demonstrate suppression and persecution, but it's further arguing that this is deliberate. How do you scientifically test for deliberateness?) But this lack of ability to scientifically test does not prevent courts from making decisions, and neither should it prevent this encyclopedia from stating what is clearly the case (on those occasions when it ''is'' clearly the case), regardless of the objections of people with opposing ideological views.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

== opps ==

My mistake..
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 15:06, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

==Alleged Copywrite violation==

Why was this material simply deleted? [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 01:04, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Global warming theory

2008-04-17T03:55:12Z

DrCB:

=="Hypothesis"==
A hypothesis is not identical to a theory. According to the Merriam-Webster Online, a hypothesis is "an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument."
This article is about a theory, defined as "the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another." In the interest of accuracy, this article should not state "Global warming theory is... a hypothesis." The two words are not synonyms--[[User:NotAnIdeologue|NotAnIdeologue]] 12:30, 29 November 2007 (EST)

A hypothesis is an educated guess, not an assumption used for the sake of an argument, did you forget 10th grade science?

This article is terrible! Its characterization of what AGW proponents claim is completely wrong.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 00:22, 2 March 2008 (EST)

==rewrite==

I would like to completely rewrite this article. As it stands now, it's simply one or two sentences that go out of their way to attack global warming. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 18:33, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:It needs a definition of the theory from someone who actually espouses the theory. Asking Art Robinson for a definition of global warming theory is like asking a candidate for office to define his opponent's tax plan. You might get an exaggeration, you might get an outright lie, you will most likely not get the truth. I keep meaning to rewrite it myself, but I can never seem to get around to it.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 23:37, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

::Exactly my feelings.... I will start a draft on this and see if I can get it up soon [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 23:55, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Category talk:Judicial Activism

2008-04-17T02:45:26Z

DrCB: New page: ==Just wondering== Is it just me? or are al these examples of Judicial activism... shall we say... leaning a certain way... It seems as if every time they rule in favor of Conservatives i...

==Just wondering==

Is it just me? or are al these examples of Judicial activism... shall we say... leaning a certain way... It seems as if every time they rule in favor of Conservatives it's a darn fine ruling, but if they rule liberal... It's an activist judge... What's the deal? [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 22:45, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Al Franken

2008-04-16T23:01:53Z

DrCB:

Global warming theory

2008-04-16T22:58:12Z

DrCB: we've been through this before... please don't start

'''Global warming theory''' is the [[theory]] that human actions are responsible for the [[warming trend]] that has been in progress since the bottom of the [[Little Ice Age]] - at about the time of the [[American Revolutionary War]]. [http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1834.htm]

[[Category:Global Warming]]

Talk:Global warming theory

2008-04-16T22:33:42Z

DrCB:

Global warming theory

2008-04-16T22:31:28Z

DrCB: removing unneeded word. If it were proven, it would be a law

'''Global warming theory''' is the theory that human actions are responsible for the [[warming trend]] that has been in progress since the bottom of the [[Little Ice Age]] - at about the time of the [[American Revolutionary War]]. [http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1834.htm]

[[Category:Global Warming]]

Talk:Al Franken

2008-04-16T22:14:25Z

DrCB:

Talk:Al Franken

2008-04-15T23:02:49Z

DrCB: /* Quote */

Talk:Al Franken

2008-04-15T22:34:16Z

DrCB:

MySpace

2008-04-15T21:53:35Z

DrCB:

'''MySpace''' is an online social networking site which allows users to create custom profiles, write diaries (commonly know as [[blog]]s), and upload photos and videos. As of March 2007, over 130 Million people use MySpace.
==Criticism==
*Many adults have criticized MySpace as being a hotbed for pedophiles and other undesirable users.
*Many users do not know how much or how little information to put online, sometimes causing them to put far too much personal information online, where anyone can read it. <ref>[http://www.csoonline.com.au/index.php/id;1561163121;fp;16;fpid;0 "Mr. Safety keeps watch on MySpace security"]</ref>
*Others have criticized it for being the very demise of real-life relationships, instead forcing those relationships onto the internet.
*Several people have voiced complaints of teenagers posting suggestive or otherwise inappropriate pictures of themselves. They claim that Myspace has not done enough to protect minors from the dangers associated with the internet. Myspace responded by implementing a "private" setting for profiles, blocking access to strangers, but this and other security features have done little to sway critics.

==References==
<references/>
[[category:information technology]]

Talk:Al Franken

2008-04-15T21:48:36Z

DrCB:

April Fool's Day

2008-04-15T21:44:42Z

DrCB: adding some examples

'''April Fools' Day''' is the first day of April and is known for practical jokes. The custom is believed to have originated in [[France]] in 1564 when [[New Year's Day]] was changed from April 1st to January 1st. Those continuing to observe April 1st were ridiculed.

==Well Known April Fools Pranks==

*Taco Bell issuing a press release claiming the purchase of the Liberty Bell from the [[United States]] Government. The release also stated that National Landmark would be renamed the Taco Liberty Bell <ref>http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/Hoaxipedia/Taco_Liberty_Bell/</ref>

*The Infamous BBC "documentary" about Spaghetti Farmers in Switzerland, including discussion of the Spaghetti Weavel <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/1/newsid_2819000/2819261.stm</ref>

*Several pranks by Blizzard Corp. maker of the MMORPG World of Warcraft <ref>http://www.wowinsider.com/2008/03/31/april-fools-days-of-blizzards-past/</ref>

== Sources ==

The New American Desk Encyclopedia, Penguin Group, 1989

==References and notes ==
<div class="references-small" style="column-count:2;-moz-column-count:2;">
<references/>
</div>

[[Category: Customs]]

Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse

2008-04-15T21:33:46Z

DrCB:

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center> </noinclude>
=Abuse Complaints=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive1|1]]

== Wrongly block from Conservapedia ==

I tried to transfer five Wikipedia political articles to Conservapedia Sunday evening but was blocked at my home computer. I have been able to log in at the office computer. Once one is blocked, he cannot make any contact from that particular computer. Apparently, the one who blocked me, I cannot remember the moniker, but it started with a "J", thought that I had just scooped up some articles from Wikipedia. I have written 100 percent of those articles. Four are about conservatives.

The articles were:

*Billy J. Guin
*Allison R. Kolb
*Hall M. Lyons
*Ben C. Toledano, all Louisiana Republicans

*and Roy R. Theriot, a Democrat.

Wikipedia does not want the articles after 12 to 18 months on the site.

Conservapedia allows a transfer if the author wrote the article on Wikipedia.

I should be unblocked and have these five articles reverted to the screen, particularly the four on conservatives.

Please unblock me,

Billy Hathorn

bhathorn

I can also get you several dozen Wikipedia articles still on the screen about conservatives if you would like them.

:You were unblocked six hours after being blocked[http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Blockip/Bhathorn]. Are you sure that you are still getting a block, or is it just that you've encountered the [[Conservapedia:Editor's guide#Restrictions|night-editing restrictions]]?
: If you ''are'' still getting a block, perhaps you should write to a sysop (see the "Email this user" link in the left column of a sysop's user page; but you must have your own e-mail set to do this), particularly if it's your IP address that is the problem.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:59, 19 December 2007 (EST)
::bhathorn, I deleted your pages because they were copied straight from Wikipedia. This site does not allow that unless it is your own work. You've been unblocked because the articles you copied have been verified by another administrator. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 07:02, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== Micheal Moore ==

In the talk section, there is article with an image of Moore in high school, and with the quote <blockquote>
He looks like a lovely young lady. Too bad about the way things worked out. Scorpio 10:43, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
</blockquote>
Isn't this against the rules? Now I realize it is called '''Conserv'''apedia, but isn't this even going a little too far?
[[user:thegovernator|thegovernator]]
:That's the talk page, not the main space. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:10, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Oh, i see, well nevemind then, I just thought I should bring it up in case it was. [[user:thegovernator|thegovernator]]

== Unblocking User:LardoBolger? ==

I've been trying to get my account unblocked ([[User:LardoBolger|Lardo Bolger]]) For nearly two months now and have mailed several sysops, including Ed Poor and Aschlafly.

I have received no response from either but dead silence, but I was fortunate enough to get at least ONE reply from Iduan, so my thanks to him. Another thanks to Learn Together for possibly inquring my block, as TK emailed me with boastful words amounting to having more power than everyone else except Schlafly himself.

Due to the nature that the block message reads "Atheistic Deceit" by TK, when I had made inquiry of his blocking to AtheistKathryn as deceitful, and the fact that sysops neither reply or act to my emails, I feel a bit discriminated against. Not only that, but the insults TK said to me just shows the lack of accountability here. Seeing as he also banned another user with the statement that atheists aren't welcome on CP, it would seem but obvious to consider discrimination of religion, even though ''I'm not Atheist.''

Among all this, not one reason I was blocked, just wild accusations and insults. I'm hoping this doesn't truly define how Conservapedia works. I never saw in the rules that being accused of Atheist, reporting/inquiring sysop abuse, or having a promiscuous mother (as was said by TK, among many other things) justifies a block here. Perhaps the rules should be changed so future editors can keep their mothers, religion, and thoughts of equality in check. Also, when signing up, it says "Real name (Optional)", so my username obviously didn't reflect my real name. However, that was also used to define why I was blocked by TK, and I feel I should say everything in one go.

I ''apologize'' for not ''understanding'' what I did wrong, and I apologize for using a different account to get a response (if any) since email seems to be only an option to read here. [[User:PhilB|PhilB]] 14:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:I can't see exactly why you were blocked, so I am just offering the benefit of the doubt and unblocking you. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:58, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Thank you VERY much, mister Fox! By all means, watch my edits if you have any suspicions! :) [[User:LardoBolger|LardoBolger]] 15:01, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== [[User:GoObama]] ==

POV pusher. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 22:41, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:Began vandalizing after I warned him. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 22:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::Andy's dealt with him. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Aschlafly's Removal of Legitimate Information ==

After repeated edits of the Barack Obama article to include the following fully cited, unbiased, and completely factual information:

Both [[Democrats]] and [[Republicans]] have accused him of avoiding controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. The prime example being, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" 129 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> However, this is not unusual given the nature of the Illinois Senate as each senator votes through the use of three buttons, green for yes, red for no, and yellow for present. As Illinois political writer and blogger Rich Miller has said, "not all 'present' votes are cowardly, including those cast by then-state Sen. Obama."<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437</ref> Chris Mooney, a professor of [[political science]] at the University of Illinois, Springfield, sheds further light on the situation: "Mooney and other state capitol watchers and players say Illinois lawmakers often vote 'present' as part of a larger party or issue bloc strategy."<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then successfully for [[U.S. Senate]], in which he defeated Republican candidate [[Alan Keyes]], also an [[African American]].<ref>http://www.ilsenate.com/default.asp</ref>

Aschlafly, has threatened to ban me if I am to edit it again. However my edits were completely neutral in nature and only served to remove opinionated and accusative language and to elaborate upon the voting "present" controversy so that people will have a better understanding of both the Illinois Senate and why Sen. Obama voted in such a way.

On the talk page I have repeatedly defended the position as well as asked Aschlafly to refrain from removing the edits and at the very least, give some sort of justification for removal, something which he has yet to do. His only responses have been that what he said is right, giving no justification or information to support his claims, and to threaten me with banning if I am to edit the article again.

It is my personal belief on the matter, that he is using his administrative powers to enforce his opinion as fact and to limit attempts by others like myself, from trying to improve Conservapedia to be more neutral and factual.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 16:23, 17 February 2008 (EST)

== Karajou's block of Jimmy is unwarranted ==

I believe Karajou has abused his position as a sysop and blocked [[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] simply for disagreeing with him. Now, I could understand if Jimmy had been vulgar or insulting, but it's plain from reading the discussion at [[Talk: Obama on rifles]] that this was not the case. Jimmy was blocked for suggesting that a significant number of active and retired military members are Democrats and/or liberals. Karajou claimed in his [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jimmy block notice] that Jimmy was insulting and denigrating service members. This clearly isn't the case. I believe Jimmy should be unblocked at the very least. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:37, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:How do you know that "Jimmy was blocked for suggesting that a significant number of active and retired military members are Democrats and/or liberals" rather than for something else? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:09, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::That's the only thing I saw in the discussion that could remotely be considered insulting and what's more is that it was the last statement Jimmy made immediately prior to being blocked. Do me a favor and read the page and tell me where you think Jimmy insults or denigrates service members? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:59, 27 February 2008 (EST)
:::Is there no response? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 16:47, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Regarding the lack of response, I think I saw your response when checking my watchlist whilst at work on Thursday, but didn't have time then to respond. Once home, I overlooked it because it was no longer highlighted on my watchlist. Sorry about that.
:::: It's often the case that a block is imposed not for a specific comment or edit, but for a pattern of edits or a bad attitude. Based on comments that Karajou has made to me, I gather that this is the case with Jimmy. Regardless, Jimmy has written to me and I will be passing his concerns on to Karajou for review (Karajou's "e-mail this user" link doesn't work).
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:59, 1 March 2008 (EST)

== Block of SSchultz ==

It seems to me that Karajou has blocked SSchultz for very little cause. As far as I can tell, SSchultz wasn't lying about anything; he just made the mistaken factual assumption that sections of the ''O'Bannon'' article were copied from Wikipedia. Naming the primary source when the accusation was made would have alleviated any confusion and the matter would have been closed. --Jimmy 20:32, 5 March 2008 (EST)
: I guess you should be careful about making an accusation based on an assumption. But in any case, SSchultz has indicated elsewhere that he is not wanting to return. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:39, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Index item - Bible is for C**ts ==

I think you should remove this item from the index. It redirects to the "Bible" page. The word used carries a sexual meaning that is not appropriate for this site.

== Abuse by Crocoite ==
Once again I believe Crocoite has abused his position as a Conservapedia Sysop. Yesterday DHayes mentioned several articles that blatantly violated the Conservapedia commandments and guidelines, then stated his honest opinion that such articles do not belong in a trustworthy encyclopedia. Seven minutes after helping and receiving thanks from Conservative for pointing out a problem with a link in an article, Crocoite blocked DHayes for one day. After I told Conservative about the block, Crocoite did the same thing to me. But it doesn't stop there. TomMoore was also blocked for a day when he pointed out Crocoite's abuse of power.

When will it end? Crocoite has blocked me twice so far and I never even violated any of the guidelines and commandments linked from the main page. Even when following the editing guidelines on his talk page, '''''(''If the article is not protected'' Don't just complain on the talk pages. You're an editor... make the changes)''''' I managed to violate an unwritten rule that he apparently made up on the spot. My efforts to confirm these unwritten rules with Mr. Schlafly were unsuccessful.

As of 14:49, 15 March, there is a new rule posted on Crocoite's talk page. ''''' "Some of the editors on Conservapedia will see one of their buddies get banned and they will rush to their defense. You will receive a 1 day ban if I ban another user and you "tattle" to another sysop or post your tattle to other talk pages. After you return from your block, you should concern yourself with improving Conservapedia or your next block will be longer." ''''' By the way, DHayes is not a buddy of mine. Unfortunately I was blocked at 00:37, over 14 hours prior to this new rule being posted on his talk page. Maybe I am being unreasonable, but I think it is common sense to post a change in the rules and then start the enforcement. But that's just me. According to the guidelines page, the only rules are on the commandment and guidelines pages, not Crocoite's talk page. Yet apparently this sysop has determined that he can add rules to suit his personal taste whenever he wants. I have unfortunately run afoul of two of these rules.

This is my first post after my block has expired, and yes Mr. Crocoite, it is geared towards "improving Conservapedia". Such abuses of power will not help this encyclopedia. Punishing editors for writing constructive criticism will only turn this encyclopedia into a 'cult of personality' for the Sysops that abuse their power. I fully expect to be blocked again for pointing out the obvious problems that are occurring here, but then again, maybe that won't happen. We shall see. --Jimmy 00:45, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

== Censored words ==
When I first heard about conservapedia I thought, "Excellent, a place to talk to like minded individuals", however I am shocked at the fact that this 'family friendly' encyclopedia allows obscenity. No matter what the subject, the term Ed Poor used (and the complaint that was deleted) is NEVER ok. As you say many times yourself, there are children reading this. Also if your sysops can use this term without any warning or blocking then you have opened the floodgates and now everyone can feel as though the can use such terms. Again I stress that such terms are obscene no matter what the context. If nothing is done about this I can only assume that conservapedia is not willing to adhere to its own rules, that the sysops are above the law and I will not consider contributing to what I once thought was clean educational resource.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
: In at least partial defence of Ed Poor, I would point out or remind you (and others) that although there are some words that almost everyone considers unacceptable, there are others that are more borderline, that some consider unacceptable and others consider acceptable. Furthermore (and I don't know if this applies in your case), there are words that some societies (e.g. America) considers acceptable or unacceptable but which other consider the opposite. Personally, this Aussie agrees with you regarding the word that Ed Poor used in an uncensored way. He, however, clearly considers that word to be acceptable. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:10, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the rational reply Phillip. I will drop this matter now, having got a well thought out answer such as yours but before I do my I just say that I dont believe there is an english speaking country (I have been all over the world) where the word f*** is acceptable. There is nothing borderline about it and as Andy harps on about this being a clean, high quality resource I thought more would be done about it. You sysops need to set the example. I will settle the matter now but I do not wish to see anymore swearing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 14:06, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

:Don't be a d***. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:33, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

==Blocked by Ed Poor==
I would like to complain about my recent block from Edpoor.... The block reason states that I was blocked for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:DrCB insult] But [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADrCB&diff=423551&oldid=422078 this] message shows another motive. I was blocked because I "insulted" Edpoor's friend TK. The edit in question is [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Europeanunion&diff=prev&oldid=421684 this message] to a user. I simply stated my opinion. I did not "insult" TK. Also, I find the very flimsy excuse of "last dozen or so contributions (being) talk" as thinly veiled at best. I sent the sysop the following message via email:

Please forgive me if this is comes across as hostile, it's not meant to...
But I feel you are mistaken. Of my 20 posts this site, they are categorized
as the following:
*2 Changes to my user page
*2 changes to the Al Franken page (one which is simply correcting a typo I
missed)
*6 Changes to Main page talk
*1 Message to Mr Schlafly
*2 Messages to Crocite pointing out a violation of rules
*2 Posts to the Bob Jones University Page (again, one correction of a
mistake)
*1 Message to Bohdan asking about how things work here
*1 Post to the Marijuana talk page to request a change (the page is blocked)
*1 Change to the Schlockumentary page (removing red links)
*1 Changes to the Lawrence V Texas page where I added a brand new summary to
the top of the article for clarity and 1 message to EuropeanUnion
The last post is obviously the one I got blocked for, and forgive me saying
this... But that is completely hypocritical. I simply expressed my opinion
to another user, I didn't broadcast it on the main page, I didn't insult TK
on his userpage, I simply offered advice to a new user.

I would also like to say, Sir, that I find it funny that I'm getting blocked
for insulting TK when he himself as given free run to insult and patronize
anyone he gets the urge to. As I look at other postings, I find it clear
that you are friends, but I don't think revenge blocks because someone posts
something bad about one of your friends is very democratic.</blockquote>

The response I got, in my opinion, reveals the motives even more:

"In other words, you're prepared to take it back and apologize if reinstated?
Uncle Ed"

To which I responded:

"Under no circumstances. I have done nothing wrong here. I simply gave another user an
honest example of my opinion as regarding another user. I see no reason to apologize. My
last dozen edits were not all talk. As a matter of fact, even when you take out the
doubles for correction and leave the non-talk talk posts, my posts are 5/20 or 25% main
space edits. I would rather sit out the three days that give in to the fact that TK is
invincible and can do what he pleases but if another user says anything unflattering about
him they get blocked."</blockquote>

I'm appalled at the blatant abuse of sysop power. I was told that this was the formal page to complain about such matters and thought I would leave my messages here. If there are any questions, feel free to leave them here or contact me through my email, which is enabled. Thank you [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 00:14, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:'''Sysop reply:''' If you realize you were "insulting my friend" then you agree it was an insult? Anyway, today's comment ''you approach everything with such hostility'' violates [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]]. So come back next week if you want to help the project. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:32, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
:: Where did he "realize" that he was "insulting"? He specifically denied doing so. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:54, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Might I ask why I was reverted and blocked for making the same statement that Phil did minutes later? My comment was about a potential misinterpretation of the OP's complaint which appears IMO to have resulted in it being ignored. Given that the whole purpose of the Desk is to deal with issues before they have an ongoing impact and therefore has an important place on CP, it would seem to me that attempting to clarify a posting is anything but "pointless arguing". [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 05:43, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I thank everyone for their support. But I ask that the whole situation be dropped. I don't think anything is going to come of this and I don't want anyone getting in trouble on my behalf. Thank you [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 17:33, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse

2008-04-10T04:14:38Z

DrCB:

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center> </noinclude>
=Abuse Complaints=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive1|1]]

== Wrongly block from Conservapedia ==

I tried to transfer five Wikipedia political articles to Conservapedia Sunday evening but was blocked at my home computer. I have been able to log in at the office computer. Once one is blocked, he cannot make any contact from that particular computer. Apparently, the one who blocked me, I cannot remember the moniker, but it started with a "J", thought that I had just scooped up some articles from Wikipedia. I have written 100 percent of those articles. Four are about conservatives.

The articles were:

*Billy J. Guin
*Allison R. Kolb
*Hall M. Lyons
*Ben C. Toledano, all Louisiana Republicans

*and Roy R. Theriot, a Democrat.

Wikipedia does not want the articles after 12 to 18 months on the site.

Conservapedia allows a transfer if the author wrote the article on Wikipedia.

I should be unblocked and have these five articles reverted to the screen, particularly the four on conservatives.

Please unblock me,

Billy Hathorn

bhathorn

I can also get you several dozen Wikipedia articles still on the screen about conservatives if you would like them.

:You were unblocked six hours after being blocked[http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Blockip/Bhathorn]. Are you sure that you are still getting a block, or is it just that you've encountered the [[Conservapedia:Editor's guide#Restrictions|night-editing restrictions]]?
: If you ''are'' still getting a block, perhaps you should write to a sysop (see the "Email this user" link in the left column of a sysop's user page; but you must have your own e-mail set to do this), particularly if it's your IP address that is the problem.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:59, 19 December 2007 (EST)
::bhathorn, I deleted your pages because they were copied straight from Wikipedia. This site does not allow that unless it is your own work. You've been unblocked because the articles you copied have been verified by another administrator. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 07:02, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== Micheal Moore ==

In the talk section, there is article with an image of Moore in high school, and with the quote <blockquote>
He looks like a lovely young lady. Too bad about the way things worked out. Scorpio 10:43, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
</blockquote>
Isn't this against the rules? Now I realize it is called '''Conserv'''apedia, but isn't this even going a little too far?
[[user:thegovernator|thegovernator]]
:That's the talk page, not the main space. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:10, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Oh, i see, well nevemind then, I just thought I should bring it up in case it was. [[user:thegovernator|thegovernator]]

== Unblocking User:LardoBolger? ==

I've been trying to get my account unblocked ([[User:LardoBolger|Lardo Bolger]]) For nearly two months now and have mailed several sysops, including Ed Poor and Aschlafly.

I have received no response from either but dead silence, but I was fortunate enough to get at least ONE reply from Iduan, so my thanks to him. Another thanks to Learn Together for possibly inquring my block, as TK emailed me with boastful words amounting to having more power than everyone else except Schlafly himself.

Due to the nature that the block message reads "Atheistic Deceit" by TK, when I had made inquiry of his blocking to AtheistKathryn as deceitful, and the fact that sysops neither reply or act to my emails, I feel a bit discriminated against. Not only that, but the insults TK said to me just shows the lack of accountability here. Seeing as he also banned another user with the statement that atheists aren't welcome on CP, it would seem but obvious to consider discrimination of religion, even though ''I'm not Atheist.''

Among all this, not one reason I was blocked, just wild accusations and insults. I'm hoping this doesn't truly define how Conservapedia works. I never saw in the rules that being accused of Atheist, reporting/inquiring sysop abuse, or having a promiscuous mother (as was said by TK, among many other things) justifies a block here. Perhaps the rules should be changed so future editors can keep their mothers, religion, and thoughts of equality in check. Also, when signing up, it says "Real name (Optional)", so my username obviously didn't reflect my real name. However, that was also used to define why I was blocked by TK, and I feel I should say everything in one go.

I ''apologize'' for not ''understanding'' what I did wrong, and I apologize for using a different account to get a response (if any) since email seems to be only an option to read here. [[User:PhilB|PhilB]] 14:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:I can't see exactly why you were blocked, so I am just offering the benefit of the doubt and unblocking you. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:58, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Thank you VERY much, mister Fox! By all means, watch my edits if you have any suspicions! :) [[User:LardoBolger|LardoBolger]] 15:01, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== [[User:GoObama]] ==

POV pusher. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 22:41, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:Began vandalizing after I warned him. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 22:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::Andy's dealt with him. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Aschlafly's Removal of Legitimate Information ==

After repeated edits of the Barack Obama article to include the following fully cited, unbiased, and completely factual information:

Both [[Democrats]] and [[Republicans]] have accused him of avoiding controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. The prime example being, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" 129 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> However, this is not unusual given the nature of the Illinois Senate as each senator votes through the use of three buttons, green for yes, red for no, and yellow for present. As Illinois political writer and blogger Rich Miller has said, "not all 'present' votes are cowardly, including those cast by then-state Sen. Obama."<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437</ref> Chris Mooney, a professor of [[political science]] at the University of Illinois, Springfield, sheds further light on the situation: "Mooney and other state capitol watchers and players say Illinois lawmakers often vote 'present' as part of a larger party or issue bloc strategy."<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then successfully for [[U.S. Senate]], in which he defeated Republican candidate [[Alan Keyes]], also an [[African American]].<ref>http://www.ilsenate.com/default.asp</ref>

Aschlafly, has threatened to ban me if I am to edit it again. However my edits were completely neutral in nature and only served to remove opinionated and accusative language and to elaborate upon the voting "present" controversy so that people will have a better understanding of both the Illinois Senate and why Sen. Obama voted in such a way.

On the talk page I have repeatedly defended the position as well as asked Aschlafly to refrain from removing the edits and at the very least, give some sort of justification for removal, something which he has yet to do. His only responses have been that what he said is right, giving no justification or information to support his claims, and to threaten me with banning if I am to edit the article again.

It is my personal belief on the matter, that he is using his administrative powers to enforce his opinion as fact and to limit attempts by others like myself, from trying to improve Conservapedia to be more neutral and factual.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 16:23, 17 February 2008 (EST)

== Karajou's block of Jimmy is unwarranted ==

I believe Karajou has abused his position as a sysop and blocked [[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] simply for disagreeing with him. Now, I could understand if Jimmy had been vulgar or insulting, but it's plain from reading the discussion at [[Talk: Obama on rifles]] that this was not the case. Jimmy was blocked for suggesting that a significant number of active and retired military members are Democrats and/or liberals. Karajou claimed in his [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jimmy block notice] that Jimmy was insulting and denigrating service members. This clearly isn't the case. I believe Jimmy should be unblocked at the very least. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:37, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:How do you know that "Jimmy was blocked for suggesting that a significant number of active and retired military members are Democrats and/or liberals" rather than for something else? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:09, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::That's the only thing I saw in the discussion that could remotely be considered insulting and what's more is that it was the last statement Jimmy made immediately prior to being blocked. Do me a favor and read the page and tell me where you think Jimmy insults or denigrates service members? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:59, 27 February 2008 (EST)
:::Is there no response? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 16:47, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Regarding the lack of response, I think I saw your response when checking my watchlist whilst at work on Thursday, but didn't have time then to respond. Once home, I overlooked it because it was no longer highlighted on my watchlist. Sorry about that.
:::: It's often the case that a block is imposed not for a specific comment or edit, but for a pattern of edits or a bad attitude. Based on comments that Karajou has made to me, I gather that this is the case with Jimmy. Regardless, Jimmy has written to me and I will be passing his concerns on to Karajou for review (Karajou's "e-mail this user" link doesn't work).
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:59, 1 March 2008 (EST)

== Block of SSchultz ==

It seems to me that Karajou has blocked SSchultz for very little cause. As far as I can tell, SSchultz wasn't lying about anything; he just made the mistaken factual assumption that sections of the ''O'Bannon'' article were copied from Wikipedia. Naming the primary source when the accusation was made would have alleviated any confusion and the matter would have been closed. --Jimmy 20:32, 5 March 2008 (EST)
: I guess you should be careful about making an accusation based on an assumption. But in any case, SSchultz has indicated elsewhere that he is not wanting to return. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:39, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Index item - Bible is for C**ts ==

I think you should remove this item from the index. It redirects to the "Bible" page. The word used carries a sexual meaning that is not appropriate for this site.

== Abuse by Crocoite ==
Once again I believe Crocoite has abused his position as a Conservapedia Sysop. Yesterday DHayes mentioned several articles that blatantly violated the Conservapedia commandments and guidelines, then stated his honest opinion that such articles do not belong in a trustworthy encyclopedia. Seven minutes after helping and receiving thanks from Conservative for pointing out a problem with a link in an article, Crocoite blocked DHayes for one day. After I told Conservative about the block, Crocoite did the same thing to me. But it doesn't stop there. TomMoore was also blocked for a day when he pointed out Crocoite's abuse of power.

When will it end? Crocoite has blocked me twice so far and I never even violated any of the guidelines and commandments linked from the main page. Even when following the editing guidelines on his talk page, '''''(''If the article is not protected'' Don't just complain on the talk pages. You're an editor... make the changes)''''' I managed to violate an unwritten rule that he apparently made up on the spot. My efforts to confirm these unwritten rules with Mr. Schlafly were unsuccessful.

As of 14:49, 15 March, there is a new rule posted on Crocoite's talk page. ''''' "Some of the editors on Conservapedia will see one of their buddies get banned and they will rush to their defense. You will receive a 1 day ban if I ban another user and you "tattle" to another sysop or post your tattle to other talk pages. After you return from your block, you should concern yourself with improving Conservapedia or your next block will be longer." ''''' By the way, DHayes is not a buddy of mine. Unfortunately I was blocked at 00:37, over 14 hours prior to this new rule being posted on his talk page. Maybe I am being unreasonable, but I think it is common sense to post a change in the rules and then start the enforcement. But that's just me. According to the guidelines page, the only rules are on the commandment and guidelines pages, not Crocoite's talk page. Yet apparently this sysop has determined that he can add rules to suit his personal taste whenever he wants. I have unfortunately run afoul of two of these rules.

This is my first post after my block has expired, and yes Mr. Crocoite, it is geared towards "improving Conservapedia". Such abuses of power will not help this encyclopedia. Punishing editors for writing constructive criticism will only turn this encyclopedia into a 'cult of personality' for the Sysops that abuse their power. I fully expect to be blocked again for pointing out the obvious problems that are occurring here, but then again, maybe that won't happen. We shall see. --Jimmy 00:45, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

== Ed Poors bad language ==
When I first heard about conservapedia I thought, "Excellent, a place to talk to like minded individuals", however I am shocked at the fact that this 'family friendly' encyclopedia allows obscenity. No matter what the subject, the term Ed Poor used (and the complaint that was deleted) is NEVER ok. As you say many times yourself, there are children reading this. Also if your sysops can use this term without any warning or blocking then you have opened the floodgates and now everyone can feel as though the can use such terms. Again I stress that such terms are obscene no matter what the context. If nothing is done about this I can only assume that conservapedia is not willing to adhere to its own rules, that the sysops are above the law and I will not consider contributing to what I once thought was clean educational resource.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
: In at least partial defence of Ed Poor, I would point out or remind you (and others) that although there are some words that almost everyone considers unacceptable, there are others that are more borderline, that some consider unacceptable and others consider acceptable. Furthermore (and I don't know if this applies in your case), there are words that some societies (e.g. America) considers acceptable or unacceptable but which other consider the opposite. Personally, this Aussie agrees with you regarding the word that Ed Poor used in an uncensored way. He, however, clearly considers that word to be acceptable. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:10, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the rational reply Phillip. I will drop this matter now, having got a well thought out answer such as yours but before I do my I just say that I dont believe there is an english speaking country (I have been all over the world) where the word f*** is acceptable. There is nothing borderline about it and as Andy harps on about this being a clean, high quality resource I thought more would be done about it. You sysops need to set the example. I will settle the matter now but I do not wish to see anymore swearing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 14:06, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

==Ed Poor Behavior==
I would like to complain about my recent block from Edpoor.... The block reason states that I was blocked for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:DrCB insult] But [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADrCB&diff=423551&oldid=422078 this] message shows another motive. I was blocked because I "insulted" Edpoor's friend TK. The edit in question is [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Europeanunion&diff=prev&oldid=421684 this message] to a user. I simply stated my opinion. I did not "insult" TK. Also, I find the very flimsy excuse of "last dozen or so contributions (being) talk" as thinly veiled at best. I sent the sysop the following message via email:

Please forgive me if this is comes across as hostile, it's not meant to...
But I feel you are mistaken. Of my 20 posts this site, they are categorized
as the following:
*2 Changes to my user page
*2 changes to the Al Franken page (one which is simply correcting a typo I
missed)
*6 Changes to Main page talk
*1 Message to Mr Schlafly
*2 Messages to Crocite pointing out a violation of rules
*2 Posts to the Bob Jones University Page (again, one correction of a
mistake)
*1 Message to Bohdan asking about how things work here
*1 Post to the Marijuana talk page to request a change (the page is blocked)
*1 Change to the Schlockumentary page (removing red links)
*1 Changes to the Lawrence V Texas page where I added a brand new summary to
the top of the article for clarity and 1 message to EuropeanUnion
The last post is obviously the one I got blocked for, and forgive me saying
this... But that is completely hypocritical. I simply expressed my opinion
to another user, I didn't broadcast it on the main page, I didn't insult TK
on his userpage, I simply offered advice to a new user.

I would also like to say, Sir, that I find it funny that I'm getting blocked
for insulting TK when he himself as given free run to insult and patronize
anyone he gets the urge to. As I look at other postings, I find it clear
that you are friends, but I don't think revenge blocks because someone posts
something bad about one of your friends is very democratic.</blockquote>

The response I got, in my opinion, reveals the motives even more:

"In other words, you're prepared to take it back and apologize if reinstated?
Uncle Ed"

To which I responded:

"Under no circumstances. I have done nothing wrong here. I simply gave another user an
honest example of my opinion as regarding another user. I see no reason to apologize. My
last dozen edits were not all talk. As a matter of fact, even when you take out the
doubles for correction and leave the non-talk talk posts, my posts are 5/20 or 25% main
space edits. I would rather sit out the three days that give in to the fact that TK is
invincible and can do what he pleases but if another user says anything unflattering about
him they get blocked."</blockquote>

I'm appalled at the blatant abuse of sysop power. I was told that this was the formal page to complain about such matters and thought I would leave my messages here. If there are any questions, feel free to leave them here or contact me through my email, which is enabled. Thank you [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 00:14, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Lawrence v. Texas

2008-04-03T23:00:34Z

DrCB: Adding summary

{{discrimlaw}}
{{caselaw|Lawrence v. Texas|539 U.S. 558|2003}}

Lawrence v. Texas was an landmark Supreme Court case where the Court found, by a vote of 6-3, that a Texas Sodomy Law which criminalized homsexual behavior was unconstitional. Although the court had addressed the same issue in 1986 (Bowers v. Hardwick where it upheld a similar Georgia statute by ruling there was no constitutional "right to privacy") The majority held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. Lawrence invalidated similar laws throughout the United States criminalizing homosexual activity between consenting adults acting in private.

The case attracted much public attention, and the outcome became cause for celebration within the homosexual rights movement. Conversly, Lawrence V. Texas is consistently derided by conservatives as an extreme example of judicial activism.

== Facts of the Case, and Appellate Proceedings ==
The dilemma in ''Lawrence'' arose when a police officer, visiting John Geddes Lawrence's home on an unrelated matter, accidentally observed him engaged in homosexual conduct with his partner. The officer charged a violation of the Texas statute criminalizing sodomy between homosexuals. The statute made it clear that the statute only applied to homosexuals, and defined sodomy as sexual conduct ''per os'' or ''per anum'', rather than the narrow understanding of the term in common parlance. Much is made of the actual case itself. For one, it is argued that it was a test-case, deliberately staged by the plaintiffs to challenge the Texas statute.

Although a conviction was upheld at the trial level, the state of Texas quickly lost on appeal to the Texas intermediate appellate court, which sought to prevent the case from going to the federal Supreme Court by giving a quick victory to Lawrence, where it perceived that a likely liberal/moderate alliance would strike down the statute, issuing a landmark victory for [[gay rights]] which the Texas Supreme Court sought to avoid. Giving Lawrence a victory, after all, would prevent any incentive to appeal. However, after this decision was reached, the full court sought review of the case, and in a vote of 7 to 2 re-instated the conviction, allowing Lawrence's appeal to the Supreme Court. These sorts of procedural mishaps often attend cases of great constitutional moment.

Previous case law had held that regulations against sodomy were legal.<ref>''Bowers v. Hardwick'', 478 U.S. 186. Justice Brennan sharply dissented from this case, in a dissenting opinion in many ways more liberal than the holding the Court ultimately accepted in ''Lawrence''.</ref> ''Lawrence'' would specifically overrule ''Bowers.''

== Holding of the Majority, by Justice Kennedy ==
On ''certiorari'' to the Supreme Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy found the law to be unconstitutional on the grounds of [[substantive due process]], writing an opinion which was joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and John Paul Stevens. Kennedy defined Lawrence's rights under the Constitution at a high level of abstraction, arguing that the Texas statute violated the right to intimate conduct in a relationship. Such a definition of the right (accomplished without using the word "privacy," which seems the obvious doctrinal hook to [[Griswold v. Connecticut|''Griswold'']]) avoided defining sodomy itself as a specific & fundamental right, and instead simply stated that the state had no right to intrude upon intimate relationships.

By avoiding defining intimate, private conduct as a fundamental right, Kennedy certainly side-stepped [[strict scrutiny]], forestalling recognizing homosexuals as a class protected by the higher standard of review normally reserved for only race and gender classifications. But it must be argued that Kennedy's opinion is in fact something slightly more than rational basis review, for Kennedy states that enforcing the morality of the majority can never be the state interest advanced by a law - an earth-shattering revelation if referring to [[rational basis review]], but not truly groundbreaking if referencing a higher level of review. Kennedy's opinion, then, is perhaps an iteration of a halfway point between the doctrines, an idea of "rational basis review with teeth," that signifies the Court's willingness to apply strict scrutiny to classifications based on sexuality, but just not yet. In that sense, the opinion is puzzling. It disallows moral legislation, but under exactly what standard of review? The answer is unclear.

While working largely within the framework of due process, Kennedy made overtures to the doctrine of the equal protection clause, suggesting that he imagines conduct (protected by the due process clause) and status (protected by the equal protection clause) in very close harmony with each other in the case of sexuality. If Kennedy imagines conduct and status as similar, and legally almost indistinguishable, he is arguably advancing the legal status of homosexuals even more than the opinion suggests ''prima facie''. Indeed, the doctrinal dovetailing can be seen as reminiscent of the watershed case ''[[Loving v. Virginia]]'', which blended due process and equal protection doctrines as allies against racism.<ref>Pamela S. Karlan, ''Loving Lawrence,'' preliminary draft.</ref>

This large victory for [[gay rights]], though, is tempered by the fact that Kennedy explicitly rejects the idea that the holding of the case, or its implications, could be used as a foundation for building a case for [[gay marriage]].<ref>Specifically, Kennedy states that the state may still classify on the basis of morality to regulate "an institution that the law protects." This is commonly understood to mean one thing - marriage.</ref>

In reaching his opinion, Kennedy noted favorably the international trend in support of gay rights.

== Concurring Opinion, by [[Sandra Day O'Connor|Justice Sandra Day O'Connor]]==
Justice O'Connor concurred in the outcome of the case, but suggested an equal protection basis for the holding. Specifically, she sought to reconcile her concurrence in this opinion with her concurrence in ''Bowers v. Hardwick'', the case which allowed anti-sodomy laws, and which ''Lawrence'' specifically overturns.

To avoid this difficulty, and reconcile the cognitive dissonance it may create, she used the equal protection clause (instead of resting the grounds on [[substantive due process]]), and deliberately avoiding using or even implying a [[strict scrutiny]] standard, O'Connor applied [[rational basis review]] to find that since Texas' sodomy law banned the practice ''only'' by gays, it classified without a compelling state interest. She argued that she would uphold ''Bowers'' again, today, since it banned sodomy outright, and not only sodomy practiced by homosexuals. In this sense Justice O'Connor furthered her opinion in [[Romer v. Evans|''Romer'']], by again finding an equal protection basis for protecting homosexual conduct.

== [[Antonin Scalia|Justice Scalia's]] Dissent ==
Justice Scalia filed a scathing dissent in this case. He argued that if morality is no longer sufficient justification for regulation, then ''Lawrence'' contains the dicta that "ate the rule of law." He further argued that the Court's willingness to overrule ''Bowers'' is hypocritical, considering that the doctrine of ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' is (in his mind) significantly more flawed and less workable, blasting the Court for being unfaithful to its litmus test for overturning bad law as iterated in the the ''stare decisis'' & reliance-based holding of ''Casey v. Planned Parenthood.''<ref>''Casey v. Planned Parenthood'', 505 U.S. 833, opinion of the Court, section III.</ref> Scalia ended by criticizing the Court for selling out to the "homosexual agenda."

Scalia also argued that, despite Justice Kennedy's promises, the case clearly opens the door for the constitutional legalization of gay marriage.

== References ==
<references/>
[[category:judicial activism]]
[[category:law]]
[[Category:United States History]]
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]

Schlockumentary

2008-04-03T22:44:32Z

DrCB: removing red links

'''Schlockumentary''' is a term referring to [[documentary]] films that use [[junk science]] or highly [[bias]]ed research methods intended to arrive at [[partisan]] or [[conspiracy|conspiratorial]] conclusions. <ref>[http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/12/michael_moore_issues_iraq_with.html Michael Moore Issues Iraq Withdrawal Fatwa], By Noel Sheppard, ''American Thinker'', December 04, 2006.</ref>

==Origins==
Schlockumentary is a word that combines [[Yiddish]] schlock, or junk <ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,865066-2,00.html Block That Schlock], ''TIME magazine'', Nov. 23, 1959</ref>, with documentary.

Schlockumentary is a lexical change made up of larger parts (sometimes whole parts) of words, usually initial syllables of other words, sometimes the first part of one word and the last part of another, combined into a pronounceable word. <ref>[http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/popcult/handouts/lexchange.html Lexical Change], Harold Schiffman, 4/8/2004 </ref>

==Examples==
*''[[America: From Freedom to Fascism]]''
*''[[Michael Moore|Fahrenheit 9/11]]''
*''[[Fox_News_Channel#Fair_and_Balanced|Outfoxed]]''
*''[[Loose Change]]''
*''[[An Inconvenient Truth]]''
*''[[Sicko]]''
*''[[The 11th Hour]]''
*''Super Size Me''
*''Bowling for Columbine''

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
*[[Mockumentary]]

[[Category:Cinema]]
[[Category:Schlockumentary| ]]

Talk:Marijuana

2008-04-03T22:40:36Z

DrCB:

Is this entry a joke? "Favored by many liberals, especially hippies"? Yes, I can guess I can envision some liberals liking marijuana, but that doesn't mean that they all, or even most of them favor it conclusively. And do hippies really even exist anymore? It seems to be an antiquated/obsolete/broad term. And I seem to recall our President having used marijuana and cocaine. Hrm. Essentially, this entry strikes me as a hilarious joke. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:17, 10 March 2007 (EST)
:Where are the citations for this article? Marijauna was not illegal until the Roosevelt administration. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]] 13:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Where to start? Firstly Marijuana, or more correctly, Cannabis, is a Schedule I drug in the United States because all Tetrahydrocannabinols aside from synthetic THC are Schedule I. Many conservatives and liberals alike favor the legalization of Cannibis, and I agree with Cracker about the term hippie being rather antiquated. The effects of Cannabis can include the effects listed, along with others. It is no longer considered a gateway drug by the majority of researchers, this label is primarily only used by those opposed to its legalization. It's medicinal use is still hotly debated, but I think that the current information on its use in medicine is rather limited and should be expanded. Lastly, why does in matter if Clinton smoked marijuana? This seems to be gossip at most. --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 16:10, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:It is well-known and well-sourced that legalization of Marijuana is a political position favored almost exclusively by liberals. Hmm, do you think perhaps they want to legalize it because they smoke it? --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm pretty sure NORML which is a advocacy group for the legalization of Marijuana includes many conservatives and Libertarians in its ranks. And almost all Libertarians seek the legalization of Marijuana on the basis of principle not because they're users, after all less government interference is what they seek. --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 16:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::Ron Paul, Larry Elder and William Buckley are not liberal.--[[User:Nomine Cervus|Nomine Cervus]] 00:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Funny how the source given for liberals favoring legalizing marijuana is about Libertarians supporting its legalization. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 16:32, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh, I definitely take the Libertarian view on this issue. If tobacco is going to be legal, this should be too. Needless regulation. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 04:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:Hooray for another supporter. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 04:10, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Illegal drug ==
Who keeps calling it an "illegal drug"? It is possible to get federal approval for using it, under the Controlled Substances Act. Furthermore, many states allow it under medical marijuana laws. Yes, the drug is commonly abused, and sold illegally, but it is not an illegal drug. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:In nearly every concievable use, it is an illegal drug. Lots of illegal things can be done by people with a permit/approval, but that doesn't change the fact that they are almost always illegal. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: That is just not true. There are 1000s of legal medical marijuana users in California. There are some in other states as well.
:: The existence of illegal use does not make it an illegal drug. A lot of the Viagra use is derived from black-market purchases, but you would not call Viagra an illegal drug. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::How about "illegal in most states", or "legal in some states with prescription"; or "has been decriminalized in some states". Something to that effect. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:02, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: 1000s of legal medical marijuana users in California, as opposed to California's population of 33.8 million. The U.S. kills hundreds, if not thousands, of death row inmates every year, in a perfectly legal manner. This doesn't mean that wanton killing is legal. And I really think it's usually considered an illegal drug. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Technically it is a "Controlled Substance" not an "Illegal Drug." That way some people can use it, but if you don't have the proper authorization, it is illegal.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::I think we can agree upon that wording? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Perfect. And blatantly factual. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:53, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Actually, despite legalization by some states for medicinal purposes or private use in small quantities, it still remains a controlled substance by the federal government and is not allowed for medicinal or recreational use. Though it disappoints me, it still remains more or less illegal in the U.S. ([http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2007/03/terminal_illness_is_no_excuse.html see here]) [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

How can something put here by our Lord be made illegal? What grounds do we really have to override God? Marijuana has proven Medicinal, entheogenic and social benefits, and also promotes creative and abstract thought. In the Bible there is a possible reference to cannabis

“And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.” -- Genesis 1: 29-30

Doesn't it seem slightly blasphemous to make one of Gods herbs illegal? [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 16:53, 31 January 2008 (BDT)

== Angel Raich ==
This section has been copied from wikiepedia and so I am removing it not only as a copyright violation but this is conservapedia and just brionging stuff from wikipedia defeats the point, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 13:27, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

DOES NOBODY HERE OWN A DICTIONARY? "Colloquial" means "slang" or "casual speech." Marijuana is or is not an illegal drug, but it is not "colloquially known" as one. Marijuana is "colloquaily known"
as pot, grass, weed, etc.

== Appraisal of its effects/consequences ==
RobS is on one, ''again''. He just reverted this eminently sensible addition below. Does anyone else feel that this honest appraisal ''promotes'' its use?

:In low doses, marijuana induces mild euphoria followed by a sense of general relaxation and well-being. Users often report heightened perceptions of music, colours and taste. Its effects at these doses are best likened to those of moderate alcohol consumption, but without the same degree of motor impairment and without the disinhibition towards aggression. Indeed, it is virtually impossible to start a fight when stoned.

:In higher doses, marijuana can induce mild to moderate hallucenations. Unlike the direct distortions of sense perception produced by [[LSD]] or [[psilocybin]], these hallucenations are mostly "internal," i.e. they are simply functions of the user's hyper-stimulated imagination. There is a small risk of adverse side-effects and their likelihood increases with the dosage. They range from the merely inconvenient (short-term memory loss), through to the somewhat unnerving (paranoia/anxiety) and finally to the downright unpleasant (overwhelming disorientation/vomiting).

:Chronic misuse of marijuana has been widely recognised as a significant risk factor for those with a predisposition towards developing various mental illnesses, particularly [[schizophrenia]]. Even for those without such a predisposition, chronic misuse oftens results in the user becoming both very bored and very boring. The key seems to be remembering what the word "recreational" means and moderating one's level of use accordingly.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 18:07, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:Conservapedia is not going to use sales pitches to induce people to use illegal drugs. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:20, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

What the sweet ____ are you on about? I simply say what it does - from direct first hand experience, I might add. Have you ever been stoned, RobS? One of the key things in teaching kids about drugs is that you need to be truthful about ''why'' people use it. If you focus purely on the negatives, then your message is flatly contradicted by a wealth of anecdotal evidence from the child's peer group. You end up looking like an idiot and being completely ignored. --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 18:32, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree: you really can't start a fight when stoned, just try the "left handed cigarette" once!
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

''Allegedly'' harmful affects. Would somebody please make the change. Unfortunately it would be unethical to perform an experiment that could conclude its harm, as it is a controlled substance. Kind of convenient for conservatives, eh? --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 22:44, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

Can we unlock this article now so factual information may be added? It is rather annoying to see an article as important as this be locked for so long for reasons that amount to nothing.

Yeah, most of the stuff seems... suspect. Especially the driving claim. A comparison against legal things, such as, say, alcohol would be nice. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:13, 16 January 2008 (EST)

==Request==

this page is locked, but I wanted to make a few changes. I wanted to remove the link from Larry Elder, as that page does not exsist. I would also like to add a few things about the referendums in Colorado [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 18:40, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

User talk:Europeanunion

2008-04-03T22:05:11Z

DrCB:

{{welcome|sig=[[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:00, 29 March 2008 (EDT)}}
:Welcome to Conservapedia. I really like your userpage; you make a lot of good points. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:00, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
:PS: while "liberal" may mean "moderate" across the sea, "-4.00/-7.18" well... isn't ;-)

==Advice==

Hello, and welcome to Conservapedia. I've been watching your attempts to contribute, specifically on the [[Liberal]] article. I would advise you stop at once, as that page is a personal favorite of many sysops and the owner himself. There is no point in trying, because all of your edits will be reverted and eventually you will simply be blocked. I also saw your interaction with TK. In my opinion (and I will be warned or blocked for this) he is simply a bully, but has friends in high places and you cannot win against him with rational thought and logic. However, I welcome your Europeon views here and hope that you'll become a lasting contributor. I advise you do as I do and ignore the contentious articles and edit wherever you can. [[User:DrCB|DrCB]] 18:05, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

User talk:DeanS

2008-03-21T03:18:01Z

DrCB:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
'''IF YOU NEED IMMEDIATE HELP AND I AM NOT HERE PLEASE GO HERE FOR A LIST OF Administrators/Sysops''': [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Listusers%26group%3Dsysop Sysop list]
</blockquote>

{| align=center border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #f0c0c0; background: #e0e0e1; margin: 2em;"
! width=40% style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | No Ping-ponging Conversations!
! style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | Archive Policy
|-
| width=40% style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | Conversations are easier to read if they stay on one page. If I leave a message on your talk page, please respond there; I'm watching it. If you start a conversation here, I'll reply here, so please watch this page.
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | Conversations which have not had additions in 14 days ''may'' be archived. Or just deleted and recreation prohibited. My "castle", my rules. A 'conversation' is a group of messages delimited by a heading. Hopefully this will allow conversations to stay in one place long enough for people who are interested to read the whole thing, without leading to an overly long page. Make sure you sign your posts, please.
|}

[[User talk:Crocoite/Archive1|Archive1]]
[[User talk:Crocoite/Archive2|Archive2]]
[[User talk:Crocoite/Archive3|Archive3]]

==Bible==
Do you know of any Bible related articles that need to be created?[[User:Kuli|Kuli]] 20:26, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:You can start with all the red links in the [[Bible]] article. Thanks for asking. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 21:18, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
==Email==
I have repeadetly tried to get my email confirmation code, but I still haven't recieved it yet, as such, using the email this user, is not available to me yet--[[User:Kuli|Kuli]] 16:03, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

== URGENT ==

[[Apage]] did something bad to [[Al Gore]](d*** that spam filter!!!!)

:He was blocked by another sysop. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 18:01, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

I don't know how to revert [[User:MCollins|MCollins]] 17:16, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:What do you mean? --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 18:01, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

== Unlock request ==

Crocoite, could you please unlock [[theater]]? I'm not sure why it's locked (there's never been any vandalism) and a user wants to make some corrections. Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:51, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

:Another sysop unlocked the article. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 23:01, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

==User==
I would like to request that you look at [http://www.conservapedia.com/User:FellowChristian16 This user's] page. It seems to be a large advertisment. thank you [[User:DrCB|DrCB]] 21:25, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

:I removed the references to the personal wiki. Thanks for the alert. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 23:00, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
::No problem, glad I could help [[User:DrCB|DrCB]] 23:18, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

User talk:HenryS

2008-03-21T01:35:33Z

DrCB:

Now I see that you are back. Great. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:08, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Welcome back!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:14, 11 January 2008 (EST)

: Are you back? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:21, 5 February 2008 (EST)

== My vandal counter ==

It's there, but I had to hide it, because it attracted too many <s>Bohdans</s> vandals. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:03, 5 February 2008 (EST)

Could you have a read of [[Holodomor denial]]. Thanks.--[[User:Bandurist|Bandurist]] 12:30, 23 February 2008 (EST)

== Sysop ==

Welcome back to your Sysop status, Bohdan! We've missed you, and your expertise about Eastern Europe.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:46, 29 February 2008 (EST)
:Thanks! But I might not be very active... Nevertheles, I will try to help. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 14:58, 29 February 2008 (EST)
::Congratulations Bohdan. [[User:Absentismens|Absentismens]] 01:26, 3 March 2008 (EST)

== Question ==

Is there a place I can ask the community as a whole something?--'''''[[User:FellowChristian16|Fellow]][[User talk:FellowChristian16|Christian16]]''''' 16:36, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

I also have a question. Currently there are three broken redirects. Should I delete the redirects and request deletion of the page? or just name the pages and allow a sysop to delete them? [[User:DrCB|DrCB]] 21:35, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Al Franken

2008-03-21T01:30:41Z

DrCB: sorry. Still learning how to wikicode properly

[[Image:Al franken.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Al Franken''' is a radical [[liberal]] comedian and former radio host for the [[Air America]] network. Franken is best remembered as a writer and performer on the television program ''[[Saturday Night Live]]'' and the star and screenwriter of the motion picture ''[[Stuart Saves His Family]].'' He announced that he would run for a [[Senate]] seat in [[Minnesota]] in 2008 as a [[Democrat]]. What some people perceive as Franken's rudeness, vulgarity, and his tendency to make outrageously offensive comments have led to questions about whether or not he will alienate himself from the important undecided swing voters<ref>http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1083904.html Star Tribune retrieved 6 April, 2007</ref>.

Franken calls conservatives "nasty, hateful people" but once told told the Harvard Crimson: "I dislike
homosexuals. I was glad when that [Harvard] homosexual got killed."

His radio show was originally going to be called "The Liberal Show." Upon debut, it was known as "The O'Franken Factor," a name Franken chose to parody [[Bill O'Reilly]] and taunt him into a lawsuit, getting his show free publicity. When the lawsuit failed to materialize, the show was renamed "The Al Franken Show."
== Books by Franken ==

*''Oh The Things that I know! A Guide to Success, or Failing That, Happiness,''
*''Why Not Me,'' (a "journal" kept through the fictional "Franken for President" campaign)
*''I'm Good Enough, I'm Smart Enough and Doggone it, People like me.'' (In Character as Stuart Smiley)
*''Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot (a satirical look at [[ad hominem]] attacks in political debate)
*''Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right'' (examining what he believes are inaccurate and misleading statments made by right wing pundits, particularly [[Ann Coulter]], [[Bill O'Reilly]] and [[Sean Hannity]])
*''The Truth (with jokes)'' (a look at how [[George W Bush]] beat [[John Kerry]] in the 2004 Election with what Al Franken calls the "Fears, Smears, and Queers strategy").

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Franken, Al}}
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Authors]]
[[category:Broadcasters]]

Al Franken

2008-03-21T01:30:03Z

DrCB:

[[Image:Al franken.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Al Franken''' is a radical [[liberal]] comedian and former radio host for the [[Air America]] network. Franken is best remembered as a writer and performer on the television program ''[[Saturday Night Live]]'' and the star and screenwriter of the motion picture ''[[Stuart Saves His Family]].'' He announced that he would run for a [[Senate]] seat in [[Minnesota]] in 2008 as a [[Democrat]]. What some people perceive as Franken's rudeness, vulgarity, and his tendency to make outrageously offensive comments have led to questions about whether or not he will alienate himself from the important undecided swing voters<ref>http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1083904.html Star Tribune retrieved 6 April, 2007</ref>.

Franken calls conservatives "nasty, hateful people" but once told told the Harvard Crimson: "I dislike
homosexuals. I was glad when that [Harvard] homosexual got killed."

His radio show was originally going to be called "The Liberal Show." Upon debut, it was known as "The O'Franken Factor," a name Franken chose to parody [Bill O'Reilly] and taunt him into a lawsuit, getting his show free publicity. When the lawsuit failed to materialize, the show was renamed "The Al Franken Show."
== Books by Franken ==

*''Oh The Things that I know! A Guide to Success, or Failing That, Happiness,''
*''Why Not Me,'' (a "journal" kept through the fictional "Franken for President" campaign)
*''I'm Good Enough, I'm Smart Enough and Doggone it, People like me.'' (In Character as Stuart Smiley)
*''Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot (a satirical look at [[ad hominem]] attacks in political debate)
*''Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right'' (examining what he believes are inaccurate and misleading statments made by right wing pundits, particularly [[Ann Coulter]], [[Bill O'Reilly]] and [[Sean Hannity]])
*''The Truth (with jokes)'' (a look at how [[George W Bush]] beat [[John Kerry]] in the 2004 Election with what Al Franken calls the "Fears, Smears, and Queers strategy").

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Franken, Al}}
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Authors]]
[[category:Broadcasters]]

User talk:DeanS

2008-03-21T01:25:47Z

DrCB:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
'''IF YOU NEED IMMEDIATE HELP AND I AM NOT HERE PLEASE GO HERE FOR A LIST OF Administrators/Sysops''': [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Listusers%26group%3Dsysop Sysop list]
</blockquote>

{| align=center border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #f0c0c0; background: #e0e0e1; margin: 2em;"
! width=40% style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | No Ping-ponging Conversations!
! style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | Archive Policy
|-
| width=40% style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | Conversations are easier to read if they stay on one page. If I leave a message on your talk page, please respond there; I'm watching it. If you start a conversation here, I'll reply here, so please watch this page.
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | Conversations which have not had additions in 14 days ''may'' be archived. Or just deleted and recreation prohibited. My "castle", my rules. A 'conversation' is a group of messages delimited by a heading. Hopefully this will allow conversations to stay in one place long enough for people who are interested to read the whole thing, without leading to an overly long page. Make sure you sign your posts, please.
|}

[[User talk:Crocoite/Archive1|Archive1]]
[[User talk:Crocoite/Archive2|Archive2]]
[[User talk:Crocoite/Archive3|Archive3]]

==Bible==
Do you know of any Bible related articles that need to be created?[[User:Kuli|Kuli]] 20:26, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:You can start with all the red links in the [[Bible]] article. Thanks for asking. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 21:18, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
==Email==
I have repeadetly tried to get my email confirmation code, but I still haven't recieved it yet, as such, using the email this user, is not available to me yet--[[User:Kuli|Kuli]] 16:03, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

== URGENT ==

[[Apage]] did something bad to [[Al Gore]](d*** that spam filter!!!!)

:He was blocked by another sysop. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 18:01, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

I don't know how to revert [[User:MCollins|MCollins]] 17:16, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:What do you mean? --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 18:01, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

== Unlock request ==

Crocoite, could you please unlock [[theater]]? I'm not sure why it's locked (there's never been any vandalism) and a user wants to make some corrections. Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:51, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

==User==
I would like to request that you look at [http://www.conservapedia.com/User:FellowChristian16 This user's] page. It seems to be a large advertisment. thank you [[User:DrCB|DrCB]] 21:25, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

User:DrCB

2008-03-17T05:03:05Z

DrCB:

Nothing really to say... but I hate the redlink in my signature. I will say that I am a practicing surgeon in the Denver Metro Area, and would consider myself very conservative. As a doctor, I say a prayer before every operation. While this has made the subject of scorn and ridicule from my fellows, I refuse to change my behavior. [[User:DrCB|DrCB]] 01:03, 17 March 2008 (EDT)