Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:G7mzh

2011-04-21T16:24:05Z

G7mzh: Created page with "Best way to contact me is by email, I can't always log in."

Best way to contact me is by email, I can't always log in.

Green

2009-10-28T20:24:05Z

G7mzh:

'''Green''' is a color made by combining [[yellow]] and [[blue]] pigment. It is a [[primary color]] in light. Green is the color of many plants and living things.

In the poem "Nothing Gold Can Stay", [[Robert Frost]] wrote:

<blockquote>''Nature's first green is gold, her hardest hue to hold.''<ref>http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/a_f/frost/gold.htm</ref></blockquote>

Green is also a term used to refer to environmentally friendly products. So ''green'' energy could be [[hydroelectric]] for instance, instead of [[fossil fuels]].

The color green corresponds to [[wavelength|wavelengths]] of 520 nanometers to 565 nanometers in the [[electromagnetic spectrum]].<ref>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/specol.html#c1</ref>

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

[[Category: Colors]]

Red

2009-10-28T20:20:00Z

G7mzh:

'''Red''' may be any of a number of similar [[color]]s at the lowest frequencies of [[light]] discernible by the [[human]] [[eye]]. Red is one of three [[primary colors]] of light, along with [[green]] and [[blue]]. Red light has a wavelength range of roughly 625-760 nm. Lower frequencies are called [[infrared]], or "below red", and cannot be seen by human eyes, although some infrared frequencies can be felt as heat.<ref>http://www.flickr.com/photos/lensop/sets/72157594342268252/</ref>

Red is supposedly the first color perceived by humans. Brain-injured persons suffering from temporary [[color-blindness]] start to perceive red before they are able to discern any other colors.<ref>http://www.tcrwf.org/PDF/April-2006-Newsletter.pdf</ref> [[Neolithic]] hunter peoples considered red to be the most important color endowed with life-giving powers and thus placed red [[ocher]] into graves of their deceased. This explains funds of [[skeleton]]s embedded in up to 10 kg of red powdered ocher. Neolithic cave painters ascribed [[magic]] powers to the color red. It can be stipulated that they painted [[animal]]s in red ocher or [[iron oxide]] to conjure their fertility.

Protective powers of the color red against evil influence were common belief. Objects, animals and trees were covered in red paint, and warriors painted their axes and spear-catapults red to endow the weapons with magic powers. Some of the Australian aborigines abide by this custom up to the present times. Neolithic hunters and Germanic warriors used to paint their weapons and even themselves in blood of slain animals. Roman gladiators drank blood of their dying adversaries to take over their strength. In other cultures, the newly born were bathed in blood of particularly strong and good looking animals.[[image:VanEyck.jpg‎|'''''Arnolfini Wedding'' by Jan Van Eyck 1434'''|center|300px]]Red painted amulets or red [[gems]], such as [[ruby]] or [[garnet]], were used as charms against the "evil eye". Wearing a red ruby was supposed to bring about invincibility. Red bed-clothes were customary in Germany up to the Middle Ages as protection against the "red illnesses", such as fever, rashes or even miscarriages (famous example is the painting Arnolfini Wedding by Jan Van Eyck, dated 1434).<ref>http://webexhibits.org/pigments/indiv/color/reds2.html</ref>

In [[politics]], red has become the color associated with the [[Republican]] Party since its use by the TV networks on their electoral maps for states won by George W. Bush during the presidential election of 2000.

Red is also used to symbolize [[Communism]] and is prevalent in the flags of China and Soviet Russia. The slogan, "Better Red than dead," was popularized as a way of characterizing the appeasement of [[Communism]] by [[Bertrand Russell]] and his mostly [[British]] supporters.<ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=uIRi0BOvTi4C&pg=PA391&lpg=PA391&dq=%22better+red+than+dead%22+%22Bertrand+Russell%22&source=web&ots=WwFRaEaAmY&sig=h5XEKBrZOQidfBaca9EqJySsISM&hl=en</ref>

The color red corresponds to wavelengths of 625 nanometers to 740 nanometers in the electromagnetic spectrum.<ref>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/specol.html#c1</ref>

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Colors]]

Chromatics

2009-10-28T19:56:10Z

G7mzh: presumably a typo, as the "extra" receptor mentioned will be yellow(ish).

'''Chromatics''' is the science of color. [[Isaac Newton]] showed that white light is composed of many different colors. This can be seen with a [[prism]]; a [[rainbow]] exploits the prismatic quality of raindrops.

Newton also showed that "the colors we observe are the result of how objects interact with the incident, already-colored light, not the result of objects generating the color." <ref>http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Isaac_Newton#Optics</ref>

Most people are trichromats, meaning their eyes have photorecptors for [[red]], [[blue]] and [[green]], but 2-3% of women (so far it has been seen in women only) are tetrachromatic. In addition to the primary colors they have another type of cone in between the red and green. Normally trichromatic people can differentiate about one million colors. Tetrachromats can differentiate upwards of 100 millions colors.<ref>[http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06256/721190-114.stm]</ref>
==References==

<References/>

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Anatomy]]

Talk:Pantomime

2009-10-28T18:42:04Z

G7mzh:

==Audience participation==
It has been a long time since I attended one of these, but is the villain also not "hissed" by the audience? Or am I thinking of something else? --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 15:08, 18 February 2009 (EST)
:More often than not the villain will be booed by the audience and the hero cheered; it's probably worth adding under the Audience Participation heading, just not under a subheading of its own. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 15:11, 18 February 2009 (EST)
::Oh, yes, they are - I've added it to the article. Thanks for the input.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 15:17, 18 February 2009 (EST)
:::Oh no it isn't... (sorry, could not resist) "Exit pursued by a bear" --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 15:20, 18 February 2009 (EST)
::::It's behind you! *Clatters and swearing from offstage* [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 15:23, 18 February 2009 (EST)

== Can YOU help? ==

Thinking ahead somewhat, I'm hoping that this article can be [[Conservapedia:Featured articles|featured]] some time near Christmas this year. Any improvements would therefore be very welcome.

Brits: Please remember that Conservapedia has a predominantly American audience who are likely to be unfamiliar with pantomime, so this subject needs to be explained in some depth.

Thanks in advance.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:12, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== Christopher Biggins?==
Hi- this article is great, but I'm slightly confused by this sentence: "A common exception is the dame: this role is so important and specialised that few people outside the acting profession are able to play it successfully, although some mainstream celebrities such as Chistropher Biggins are well-suited to it." It implies that Christopher Biggins is only a celebrity, whereas he is in fact a 'proper' actor, having done comedy (Porridge/ Some Mothers) and serious stuff (Poldark). Perhaps this sentence could be re-phrased ("Some actors, such a Christopher Biggins, specialise in playing pantomime dames"), or a different example given? [[User:MaryN|MaryN]] 11:19, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks for the input, Mary - I've actioned that suggestion. I didn't know CB had been in Porridge - perhaps you could create an article on him?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:37, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

:: Thanks CP- I have to confess that's the limit of my CB knowledge, but will try and find some more stuff for a possible article at some point!

== Traditional panto==

It might be worth mentioning that the "audience participation" is a relatively modern (20th Century) introduction; I'm thinking of the "traditional Victorian" pantomime as performed by the Players' Theatre, which did not generally use the audience as part of the production.

[[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 14:42, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Gay pride

2009-10-28T18:10:24Z

G7mzh:

{{Protect|TK}}

No, I don't think it's an oxymoron, either - it is just as feasable to take pride in that trait as any other, or of any particular achievement, regardless of whether it is considered something one ought to be proud of.

And ... "passers-by", surely?

[[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 14:10, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

British Broadcasting Corporation

2007-09-15T20:52:02Z

G7mzh: /* Funding */ "Cracker" was Granada, not BBC.

[[Image:BBC Logo 1997-Present.png|right|thumb]]
The '''British Broadcasting Corporation''' is the national public service broadcaster of the [[United Kingdom]]. It is the leading broadcaster in the UK and is regarded as one of the leading broadcasters in the world. In terms of audience figures, it is the largest broadcaster in the world. It was founded in [[London]] in 1927.

The BBC operates eight national television channels[http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/] in the UK and ten national radio stations[http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/]. Alongside these are it's regional television services, which are variations of the national services, and separate regional radio stations.

Outside the UK the best known service is the BBC World Service radio network which transmits in 33 languages to an estimated 163 million listeners a week[http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/05_may/21/global.shtml]. The BBC operates a number of commercially-funded international television channels including BBC World, the international news channel.

== Funding ==
The BBC is a Crown corporation supported by a licensing fee applied to television owners<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/</ref>. The BBC has a ten-year royal charter that defines its purposes and allows it to act somewhat autonomously, and the BBC is ultimately responsible to the [[BBC Trust]] and to the government. The BBC produces many well known television programmes, including ''Bod'', ''Grange Hill'', ''Holby City'', ''Are You Being Served?'', ''Terry and June'', ''Crackerjack'' and ''Doctor Who''.

The BBC repeatedly says it is 'independent' but in fact it clearly has an agenda all of its own. Furthermore, although the BBC is technically not-for-profit, it has an enormous worldwide revenue from the resale of programmes and repeat fees, from the sale of CDs, videos, DVDs, and a wide range of books and magazines. It is in fact a major publisher in its own right.

==BBC News==
BBC News and Current Affairs is the largest news organisation in the world. It has at least 2,000 journalists and 44 news-gathering bureaus, three in the UK and 41 overseas. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/]

==Accusations of Bias==

Although its charter requires it to be impartial, critics often accuse it of bias against [[United States]] and [[Israel]],<ref>http://www.bbcwatch.co.uk/index.html</ref> and because of these complaints of bias, an internal investigation was conducted on the BBC's coverage of the [[Arab-Israeli conflict]]. However, after the investigation was completed, BBC officials decided to withhold the 20,000-word report of the investigation, compiled in 2004 by senior editorial adviser Malcolm Balen. Steven Sugar, a Jewish critic of the BBC, attempted to get access to the report under the 2000 Freedom of Information Act, but was denied by the [[United Kingdom]]'s High Court. The information commissioner, Richard Thomas, backed the BBC's decision to block access to the report, but the information tribunal ruled on appeal in August, 2006, in favour of Steven Sugar. Still, the BBC argued at the High Court in London that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the case, and the High Court ruled in favour of the BBC on April 28, 2007. The BBC maintains that the internal investigation found no deliberate or systematic bias. Conservative MP David Davies commented: "An organisation which is funded partly to scrutinize governments and other institutions in Britain appears to be using tax-payers [sic] money to prevent its customers from finding out how it is operating. That is absolutely indefensible." and called the BBC's actions a "shameful hypocrisy". It has been estimated that the BBC has spent around £200,000 - £300,000 on the case so far.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2044130,00.html</ref>
<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2067542,00.html</ref>

In 2003, Media Tenor, an independent, Bonn-based research group, conducted a study and found that the BBC’s Middle East coverage was 85 percent negative, 15 percent neutral, and 0 percent positive toward Israel.<ref>“Beeb Outdoes Itself”, Tzvi Fleischer, The Review, September 2003, p. 8.</ref>

During a 2006 internal "impartiality summit", BBC executives said they would happily broadcast an image of a [[Bible]] being thrown away, but would not do the same with a [[Koran]]. At the summit, the BBC's Washington correspondent Justin Webb also accused the executives of being anti-American, saying they treated the nation with scorn and derision and no moral weight.

On June 15, 2007, BBC drew criticism for apologizing over calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel.<ref>http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181813036973&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull</ref>

Details of the BBC's bias were further exposed in an official report<ref>'''Revoir, Paul''', ''BBC comes under fire for institutional Left-wing bias'' [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=462679&in_page_id=1770&ct=5 Daily Mail] June 18, 2007</ref><ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/17/nbbc217.xml BBC report finds bias within corporation], Gary Cleland,''Telegraph'', June 18, 2007.</ref> - in preparation since 2005 - which found that the BBC:
'''*has an "institutional Left-wing bias"
*has “a tendency to 'group think’ with too many staff inhabiting a shared space and comfort zone.”
*promotes anti-Christian sentiment
*promotes anti-American sentiment
*allows schedules to be "hijacked by special interest groups promoting trendy issues"
*over-represents homosexuals
*over-represents ethnic minorities
*fails to reflect the views of the [[British]] public on issues such as [[capital punishment]]
*fails to reflect the broader views of British people
*allows itself to be used by "sinister" campaign groups
*finds it difficult to understand there may be alternative views of the world'''

The BBC also systematically discriminates against [[Scots]] speakers. Although over 1.5 million<ref>[http://www1.ku-eichstaett.de/SLF/EngluVglSW/schule25.pdf Language Policy in Scotland and Northern Ireland]</ref> people speak it there is no service in the language of those licence fee payers<ref>[http://www.scotslanguage.com/article/Trust_the_BBC%3F.html/translate/english Trust the BBC?]</ref><ref>[http://www.artscouncil-ni.org/departs/all/report/research/art_of_ulster_scots.rtf BBC NI less than generous]</ref>.

Paul Dacre, the editor of the British newspaper, the [[Daily Mail]], in his January 2007 Hugh Cudlipp Memorial Lecture, said that "the BBC is, in every corpuscle of its corporate body, against the values of conservatism, with a small "c", which just happen to be the values held by millions of Britons." He also accused the BBC of being hostile to the "traditional Right, Britain's past and British values, America, Ulster Unionism, Euro-scepticism, capitalism and big business, the countryside, Christianity and family values."

==External Links==
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/ BBC official site]
*[http://www.tvlicensing.biz/ BBCresistance - Campaigns against the television licence]
*[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article1942930.ece Bias at the Beeb - official], June 17, 2007, ''UK Times Online''.

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

[[Category:Broadcasting]]

Talk:Nirvana (Band)

2007-08-23T22:19:05Z

G7mzh: New page: Remember there were (are) two bands called Nirvana; this one, and a British band formed in the sixties (and still going according to The Other Place). There's a fan site at http://ukpsych....

Remember there were (are) two bands called Nirvana; this one, and a British band formed in the sixties (and still going according to The Other Place). There's a fan site at http://ukpsych.tripod.com/nirvana.htm but I don't have enough information to write an article.

Any volunteers?
[[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 18:19, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal bias

2007-08-16T14:18:26Z

G7mzh: Example 17

{{Protection Warning}}

== What is ...? ==

This article has no definition of what a Liberal Bias is.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:30, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd go for some citations, too. And some fries. :D [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Should the Daily Show and Colbert Report be on here? Neither make any claim to be unbiased, and Jon Stewart has occasionally derided interviewers (most famously on Crossfire, when he wasn't calling them bad for America) for assuming he was a real news outlet and should be expected to act like one. There's a difference between, say, Air America (Liberal Spin, or Liberal Perspective, depending on how nice you are) and NPR (Liberal Bias) [[User:Momoka|Momoka]] 01:02 15 March 2007

:I agree, but if we remove the "Duh..." cases, we're basically left only with unsourced statements. ;) I'm not sure what the point of the article is, anyway. If the things in question have a liberal bias, just say it in the article and supply a source.</opinion> --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:40, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::I also think this article should include a description of what [[liberal]] bias is so that the [[Conservative]]s amongst us know what to watch out for.
::[[User:JC|JC]] 09:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Unreferenced statements==

Cut from intro:

:The problem with liberal bias is not just the harm which advocacy of false liberal notions does (which is bad enough), but that Liberals are oblivious to their liberalness. Many of them quite literally and sincerely consider themselves "middle of the road" (see [[Dan Rather]], as mentioned in Goldberg's ''[[Bias (book)]]''.

[[user:Hojimachong]] called this "original research". That stings a bit, because I'm a refugee from Wikipedia where "OR" is a big no-no. So I'll try to dig up some referencs for this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 01:21, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, I think I've provided 2 citations for the idea that Liberals are oblivious to their liberalness and 1 citation for Dan Rather calling a Liberal newspaper "middle of the road". This still might not be up to encyclopedia quality, because it's only one source: [[Bernard Goldberg]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 01:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== References that don't support the item they're referencing ==

Everything in it should have a citation.

And the citation should be a published statement by someone authoritative—a recognized conservative is fine, but not "me and my brother"—that ''says the thing in question is liberal.''

What set me off is that there '''is''' a reference for Dan Rather's being considered liberal. But the reference does not say Dan Rather is liberal. It says Dan Rather things the New York Times is middle-of-the-road.

There's a difference between "X says Dan Rather is liberal" and "Dan Rather says Y is middle-of-the-road."

Particularly when no source has been cited for the New York Times' supposed liberal bias. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:43, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
==According to this site==
The nation's major media outlets ''seem'' to be owned by corporations which are by no means "liberal", except, perhaps, in the way they have liberally given to [http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530.php | politicians.]+--[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 11:54, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative bias ==

Could someone who knows please consider writing the matching [[Conservative bias]] article listing Conservative news sources? I am surprised and confused that Conservapedia criticizes Wikipedia by claiming that most Americans are Conservative, but that what I see as America's most reliable news sources are all listed as having a liberal bias. Thankyou. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 11:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
: Done; I don't understand this either (but remember FOX News, purveyor of truth and justice ;), isn't listed), but the powers that be won't appreciate anyone changing it. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

*Please! Whilst the majority of Americans are far more traditional/conservative than the news outlets are, and those who work for them, the fact that Fox News, in unbiased studies (and preception) is less "Liberal", it doesn't make Fox News "Conservative", just fair. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:36, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Why does the Conservative American public continue to buy and read such biased newspapers, radio and television stations, instead of putting their money where their mouth is and creating a reputable conservative alternative? Is Rupert Murdoch the only person who saw the ''majority'' of Americans as a potential market!? Does he/News Corp have major newspapers too, or just the Fox News television channel? --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 23:48, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

*News Corp is one of the world's largest media holding companies. Its holdings includes ''TV Guide'', ''Sky'' and ''Direct-TV'' satellite services, the various ''Fox'' networks, ''Harper-Collins'' publishing, The ''London Times'', New York ''Post'', dozens of newspapers in Australia and the ''20th Century Fox'' motion picture and television studios. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Disney owns ABC, Disney gave GWB's 2000 campaign 640K.
:Westinghouse owns CBS. (No political contributions cited.)
:General Electric owns NBC, GE gave GWB $1.1 million in 2000
:TIME-WARNER TBS owns: CNN, HBO, Cinemax, TBS Superstation, Turner Network Television, Turner Classic Movies, Warner Brothers Television, Cartoon Network, Sega Channel, TNT, Comedy Central (50%), E! (49%), Court TV (50%). Largest owner of cable systems in the US with an estimated 13 million subscribers.
:TIME-WARNER TBS gave GWB $1.6 million in 2000.
:NEWS CORPORATION LTD. / FOX NETWORKS (Rupert Murdoch BoD Phillip Morris):Phillip Morris donated 2.9 million to George W Bush in 2000.
:::::[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 00:25, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Rob, please don't make me embarass you, with your posting of totally distorted and biased figures. You are in my area of expertise, and most of those coroporations gave exactly the same, if not more, to Democratic Party candidates. You have to go to real stats, not moveon.org for them! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::I don't get embarrassed , only enlightened, [http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530.php | here] is my source. I defer to your expertise. Thank you for your kind attention to my little additions around here. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

:::Thanks TK. I meant ''American'' newspapers, as I know News Corp is the largest newspaper publisher in Australia. The only US newspaper you mentioned is the New York Post. Is that a widely-distributed and well-known newspaper like the NY Times and Washington Post, but Conservative? It's not mentioned in the references for liberal/conservative bias, that I can see. Is there widely perceived to be a liberal/conservative bias in the movie houses such as 20th Century Fox? --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:24, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Cracker, the donation amounts to GWB don't tell me much without knowing whether they were given before or after he was the endorsed Republican presidential candidate - did they actually support him against Al Gore/John Kerry, or against other Republicans to ensure they had the right Republican? Note that while I (think I) understand the US political ''process'', I do not have a good grasp on the ''politics'' of the various people, along with many of the other non-American readers here, so may well be asking naive questions to someone in the system. Sorry, but if we don't ask, we don't learn. Your source is dated 2003, but was wrong anyway - it says News Corp owns Ansett Airlines. It sold its 50% interest in early 2000, and the airline went bust in 2001. I don't know if it got any media info wrong. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:24, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I was only providing "who owns what" The campaign contributions just happened to be on the site I cited so I included that as well. I suppose my point was that Westinghouse, GE, News Corp, and Disney are not known in the USA as bastions of liberalism. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

*That site must need some kind of Liberal password, cause it won't resolve for me..... :p --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:00, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::Try it now. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]
::Ouch! --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 02:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::GE and Westinghouse probably care more about Defense and electricity contracts and policies than they do about media bias. If they exercise editorial control, that is likely to be the focus. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 02:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, that would explain NBC hiring Rick Kaplan to run its news. :p Time-Warner, one should see that Ted Turner is one of the largest stockholders. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:19, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== The [[BBC]] ==

Ed Driscoll wrote:
*Austin Bay asked me to guest host the Pajamas Media "Blog Week In Review" podcast this week, so I interviewed Robin Aitken, the former BBC journalist and on-air personality who left the network and has written a new book, very much in the vein of Bernard Goldberg's books on American media bias, titled Can We Trust The BBC. I tried to aim the questions towards an American perspective on the topic, but then, how could I not? Aitken also discussed in depth the BBC's biases regarding Iraq, Israel, and the Palestinians. Regular readers of this blog won't exactly be shocked where the BBC comes down on these issues, but for those who still hold out a belief that the BBC is entirely objective, its an eye-opener. [http://eddriscoll.com/archives/cat_oh_that_liberal_media.php] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:02, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Technically the term "objective" is objective, therefore I wonder if it is differences in culture that can explain any bias by the BBC. Surely the BBC is less geared towards sensationalism then American media and it focuses on the issues that are being discussed rather then simply telling the masses where the majority of their opinion lies. This would be more encouraging of a neutral environment where the individual is left to make their own choices. Britain is considerably less puritian in its customs and culture as well as more liberal. The fact that a liberal bias may exist is less important, though then whether it allows for opposing views to be formed. I am unable to do anything more than simply offer a generalization, however, as issues are exceedingly complex and diverse as are the ways of covering them, but surely the issue is more complex then whether the BBC is biased or not.--[[User:Theseus|Theseus]] 22:16, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== TK? ==

:(Protection log) (diff; hist) . . TK (Talk | contribs) (protected "Liberal bias": Warning of locking soon.... [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

Explain, please... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:50, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

*Just checking to see how many keyholes you're peeping into. :p --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== It's locked? ==
''Note: This page has been locked so that only registered users can edit it.''
I am Gulik's complete lack of surprise. But last I checked, I _am_ a registered user. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 01:34, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Middle of the Road ==
" During a phone conversation, Bernard Goldberg asked him, "What do you consider the New York Times? Rather answered, "Middle of the road." "
:The article uses this quote to prove that Dan Rather has a liberal bias? That seems rather foolish to me considering that if left is liberal and right is conservative the middle would be no bias at all. [[User:Dilbert|Dilbert]] 02:27, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

== Communism for Dummies ==

Can anyone tell me what this is? The others are all famous, but I haven't heard of this one. It was entered by Hektor back in March, and he was later blocked for questionable edits, so I'd just like to verify we don't have a red herring here. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:03, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
:It looks very suspicious. It should be removed because of the circumstances you just described. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 17:05, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

*Sigh. There is a whole line of books with the tag ....."For Dummies" explaining things like "Computers for Dummies", "Windows XP for Dummies", etc. Check Barnes and Noble's website. Or Amazon.com. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:31, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

::Yes my friend I have a few of those, but in regards to liberal bias if that is what was meant then that wouldn't exactly be a good example. I was just wondering if there was some infamous show or newspaper by that name that I wasn't aware of. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:52, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

*Ahh! Wasn't a valid link anyway! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:55, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Media bias ==

So... since no one can agree whether media etc. are "accused of having liberal bias" or "have well known liberal bias," why don't we follow [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments CP Commandment #2]? If it's so obvious, shouldn't it be written somewhere objective? (And no, that page of out-of-context quotes about minor examples of bias can't be a source; at least not the only source). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 21:29, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:huh? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:58, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
::I seem to be rambling and in need of sleep. Let me try again: we are on the cusp of a revert war over the issue of whether the media is "accused" of having a liberal bias, or whether they have a "well known" liberal bias. Why don't we just add some sources instead of reverting? See [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments CP Commandments #2 and #5], as well as the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Help:Editing_etiquette Editing Etiquette] ''("put your "facts" in neutral terms. For example, Secular geologists believe that the world is 4.5 billion years old is better than The world is 4.5 billion years old")''. According to the rules, both versions of the statement in contention are not acceptible in their current form. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:31, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:::ok.. so you mean like, "according to longtime media watcher and analyst so-and-so the [[MSM]] is dominated by commie stooges & useful idiots", for example? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:42, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Uh, yeah, as long as it follows the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments#_note-1 footnote] to commandment two: "Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others." Though good luck finding an authoritative source calling the NYTimes "commie stooges & useful idiots" ;-) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:57, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

*Great sourcing on the CBS News bias, Rob. I don't think we will see Uncle Walter issuing an apology will we? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 02:05, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

== The United Nations? ==

I'm not sure if the United Nations fits in here. It's a liberal organization, yes, but it wouldn't seem right to put, say, the ACLU or the Democratic Party in here, as it's not a media organization per se. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:50, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
:A gathering of nations in a forum for discussion originally created to prevent a third world war is inherently liberal? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 19:39, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
::Actually, yes, if you use a different definition of the word liberal. In international politic theory the spectrum is more often broken into "realist" and "liberal". In a nutshell, a realist believes in the use of power and force to ensure security and enforce policy, and a liberal believes in organizations to ensure security and enforce policy. In these terms, the UN is the definition of a liberal solution :) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 20:22, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
::: You make [[liberalism]] sound less like [[evil]] than some others here. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 20:24, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
::::In the olden days, Americans could always say, "Let the UN handle it;" thank the Lord for Conservapedia, cause now we can see just exactly what this attitude of letting "UN Peacekeepers handle it" really means: [[United Nations#UN Sexual Abuse Scandals]]. [[User:Robs|Rob Smith]] 20:42, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::"Just let the Americans handle it" worked well too, until the Abu Ghraib pictures were leaked. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:22, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

*Yes! One should be highly offended at terrorists and criminals being humiliated! Of course that is on the same level as stealing billions from the poor, letting hundreds of thousands starve, and aiding anti-Semites.....of course. Kazumaru, see [[Deceit]]. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:48, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

:*Yes indeed. Those sadistic American torture techniques, making Mighty Islamic Warriors of God wear women's panties. What will the neighbors think? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:46, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

:* I appreciate you only disagreeing after you banned me, TK, however... I'm not referring to the panties-on-head thing. I'm referring solely to legitimate acts of torture, like [[Waterboarding]]. And I don't mean surfing.

:* Haven't a clue what any of that has to do with deceit, though... [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 20:32, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

== "More then half of Americans agree that their is liberal media bias"==
Here is an interesting poll which gives more evidence of liberal media bias [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070809222839.jzdcwmy8&show_article=1], you may want to consider adding that information to this article.--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 22:06, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

Actually that ''is'' an interesting poll, but you're reading words into it that's not there. First, it simply says that 'more than half of Americans say new orgs...are biased'. It does '''not''' say 'liberal bias'. Many, many people do indeed believe the MSM is biased, and many believe it is biased towards the right. Bias is most obvious on Fox News, who make a mockery of their tacky marketing phrase 'Fair & Balanced'. Anybody can see their entire output is heavily slanted to the right (cf. the use of the phrase 'Homicide Bombers', the only org outside the White House to use the phrase; even the Army uses the phrase 'Suicide Bomber', as it's more accurate). But bias is also visible in places like the NYT, which have a tendency to bias left.

Bias is everywhere, and the sooner people on the Right understand that the Left believe this too, the better. If all sides of the argument see bias, maybe we should fix our news? [[User:PhilLynott|PhilLynott]] 22:20, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
:That is a very interesting analysis; so liberals are pro-"suicide bomber" whereas right-wingers in the White House and FOX News oppose it. Even the Pentagon has jumped on the liberal bandwagon with this one, defying thier right-wing bosses and cow towing to the liberal slant. Hmmmm, that's news itself. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:30, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
:We should include the quote from Diane Sawyer when she said she was being interviewed for jury duty. A lawyer asked her if she could be objective. She responded with something like, "I'm a journalist. I'm always objective." The Courtroom broke out into a roar of laughter. Sawyer says it was the most embarassing moment of her life. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:12, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, after a second look it did not say liberal bias, thanks for the catch. But still, if you look through the article, it seems to imply leftest bias in the media. --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 22:33, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

*Poor Diane. :-( A long way from those long walks on the beach with Richard Nixon in exile. Sawyer was part of the very small staff working for Nixon post-exile. She had a nible mind, and a fierce dedication to Nixon. Then she moved East, married Mike Nichols...and what happened! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:23, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:*[[Monica Crowley]] now is the spiritual heir of Nixon's thinking, although Hillary Clinton has been the most successful at the ballot box using everything she learned from Nixon. Amazing, how the true heirs of Nixonion thought all seem to be women. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:05, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
*Nixon said several times he was profoundly influenced by his Mother's values and thoughts....--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:21, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

== Example 17 ==

Chamberlain was a Conservative; the last Liberal PM was Lloyd George (1916-22). (Source: http://www.annualreport.gov.uk/output/Page123.asp) [[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 10:18, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Pro-life

2007-08-14T15:39:26Z

G7mzh:

Maybe it should be noted that some so-called "pro-lifers" kill doctors. Very in favour of life, these pro-lifers.

----

Could someone please explain ''why'' the reason for the term "pro-life" is "liberal bias"? Especially when said reason (life begins at conception) is surely in accordiace with Conservapedia thinking?
[[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 11:39, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

Welford

2007-08-08T19:31:40Z

G7mzh: spelling

Welford is a village in [[Berkshire]], southern [[England]], 5 miles north-west of [[Newbury]] and a few hundred yards north of the [[M4]] [[motorway]], to which, however, it has no immediate access.

==External Links==
* [http://www.streetmap.co.uk/streetmap.dll?G2M?X=440924&Y=173068&A=Y&Z=5 Map showing village and surrounding area.]

[[category:United Kingdom]]

US Customary System of Units

2007-07-27T15:06:29Z

G7mzh: /* Ton */

: ''This article describes US Customary units. For instructions on how to convert between US Customary and metric units, see [[English and Metric Units]].''

The '''United States Customary System of Units''' is that system of units of measure in use in the [[United States of America]] since the United States' ratification of the [[Convention on the Meter]]. As a matter of law, all US Customary units are defined in terms of their [[Metric system|metric]] counterparts.

== Length ==
The units of length in the US Customary system are the inch, the foot, the yard, and the mile.

=== Inch ===
One inch was originally the length of three [[barley]] corns, which form a distance approximating the breadth of the bridge of an adult human's nose. Today the inch is defined in terms of the centimeter.

=== Foot (length) ===
The US Customary foot, originally the length of an adult human foot, has a length of twelve inches. In fact, the US Customary foot is much longer than the average length of a human foot today, although some persons have feet that measure longer than this.

=== Yard (length) ===
The yard, originally the length measured from the tip of the nose to the tip of the third finger with the arm fully outstretched, is defined as thirty-six inches, or three feet.

=== Mile (statute) ===
The statute mile, originally intended to approximate the length of a [[Rome|Roman]] mile, is defined as 5,280 feet.

=== Mile (nautical) ===
The ''nautical'' mile, or the distance on the sea corresponding to one minute of latitude at or near the equator, is defined as 6,080 feet. The nautical unit of speed is the ''knot'', which is one nautical mile per hour.

=== Supplementary Units ===
The classical English system has several other units of length that are found in Elizabethan-era literature:

* The ''fathom'' is the length of a rope held between two outstretched arms. It is defined as six feet. It may be used as a unit of depth at sea, but the usual unit of depth at sea is the foot.
* The ''rod'' is the length of a queue of sixteen persons. By convention, the rod is defined as five and one-half yards, or sixteen and one-half feet. 320 rods would therefore make a mile.
* The ''furlong'' is one-eighth of a mile, or 40 rods. It is close in length to the Roman stadium, which was one-eighth of a Roman mile.
* The ''chain'', one-eightieth of a mile or 66 feet. It is used in land measure and on the railways.

== Area ==
Most US Customary units of area are the squares of the units of length. The chief exception to this is the:

=== Acre ===
One ''acre'' is 160 square ''rods''. 640 acres make a square mile.

== Weight ==
The US Customary system uses [[Avoirdupois]] weight. Effective July 1, 1959, the US Customary avoirdupois pound has been set equal to the international pound, and this in turn is based on a prototype pound in the British Exchequer.<ref name=pounddef>[http://www.sizes.com/units/pound_avoirdupois.htm Pound avoirdupois] at Sizes.com</ref> All other units of weight derive from this prototype. To be specific:

=== Pound (force) ===
One [[Avoirdupois Pound|pound]] is either the mass of the international pound (or 0.45359237 [[kilogram]]), or more properly the force that gravity exerts on this mass on the ground on [[earth]].

=== Ounce (force) ===
One ounce is one sixteenth of a pound.

=== Grain ===
The grain is 64.79891 milligrams, and by convention one pound is 7000 grains.<ref name=graindef>[http://www.sizes.com/units/grain.htm Grain] at Sizes.com</ref>

=== Ton ===
One US (or "short") ton is 2,000 pounds. An Imperial ("long") ton is 2,240 pounds. The latter is being replaced by the ''metric ton'' (tonne) of 1,000 kg, or about 2,207 pounds.

=== Supplementary Units ===
Originally the English system defined the ''hundredweight'' (abbreviated cwt) as one hundred pounds. This is slightly heavier than an ancient [[talent]].

== Mass ==
In recognition that weight, being a force, is not an acceptable substitute for the measure of mass, physicists have added a mass unit to the US Customary system: the ''slug''.

=== Slug (mass) ===
One slug is that mass which, when subjected to a force equivalent to a one-pound weight, will accelerate by one foot per second per second. Thus a pound is that force required to accelerate one slug of matter one foot per second per second. A slug would weigh thirty-two pounds on the ground, because the acceleration due to gravity at ground level on [[earth]] is thirty-two feet per second per second.

== Liquid Volume ==
=== Ounce (fluid) ===
One fluid ounce is the volume of [[water]] that weighs one ''avoirdupois'' ounce.

=== Pint ===
One fluid pint is the volume of [[water]] that weighs one ''avoirdupois'' pound. As such, it measures sixteen fluid ounces.

=== Quart ===
One quart is the volume of two pints.

=== Gallon ===
One gallon is the measure of four quarts.

== Power ==
The usual US Customary unit of power is the foot-pound per second, or that power that does, in one second, the work of exerting a one-pound force over one foot. However, by convention, the US Customary system has a much larger unit of power:

=== Horsepower ===
The ''horsepower'' (abbreviated hp) is the power that an average [[horse]] could exert. One horsepower is 550 foot-pounds per second. Engines and motors often have their power rated in horsepower, as a direct measure of the size of a team of horses that would be required to match that engine or motor for power.

[[Category:Unit of measure]]

== References ==
<references/>

US Customary System of Units

2007-07-27T15:00:43Z

G7mzh: /* Supplementary Units */

: ''This article describes US Customary units. For instructions on how to convert between US Customary and metric units, see [[English and Metric Units]].''

The '''United States Customary System of Units''' is that system of units of measure in use in the [[United States of America]] since the United States' ratification of the [[Convention on the Meter]]. As a matter of law, all US Customary units are defined in terms of their [[Metric system|metric]] counterparts.

== Length ==
The units of length in the US Customary system are the inch, the foot, the yard, and the mile.

=== Inch ===
One inch was originally the length of three [[barley]] corns, which form a distance approximating the breadth of the bridge of an adult human's nose. Today the inch is defined in terms of the centimeter.

=== Foot (length) ===
The US Customary foot, originally the length of an adult human foot, has a length of twelve inches. In fact, the US Customary foot is much longer than the average length of a human foot today, although some persons have feet that measure longer than this.

=== Yard (length) ===
The yard, originally the length measured from the tip of the nose to the tip of the third finger with the arm fully outstretched, is defined as thirty-six inches, or three feet.

=== Mile (statute) ===
The statute mile, originally intended to approximate the length of a [[Rome|Roman]] mile, is defined as 5,280 feet.

=== Mile (nautical) ===
The ''nautical'' mile, or the distance on the sea corresponding to one minute of latitude at or near the equator, is defined as 6,080 feet. The nautical unit of speed is the ''knot'', which is one nautical mile per hour.

=== Supplementary Units ===
The classical English system has several other units of length that are found in Elizabethan-era literature:

* The ''fathom'' is the length of a rope held between two outstretched arms. It is defined as six feet. It may be used as a unit of depth at sea, but the usual unit of depth at sea is the foot.
* The ''rod'' is the length of a queue of sixteen persons. By convention, the rod is defined as five and one-half yards, or sixteen and one-half feet. 320 rods would therefore make a mile.
* The ''furlong'' is one-eighth of a mile, or 40 rods. It is close in length to the Roman stadium, which was one-eighth of a Roman mile.
* The ''chain'', one-eightieth of a mile or 66 feet. It is used in land measure and on the railways.

== Area ==
Most US Customary units of area are the squares of the units of length. The chief exception to this is the:

=== Acre ===
One ''acre'' is 160 square ''rods''. 640 acres make a square mile.

== Weight ==
The US Customary system uses [[Avoirdupois]] weight. Effective July 1, 1959, the US Customary avoirdupois pound has been set equal to the international pound, and this in turn is based on a prototype pound in the British Exchequer.<ref name=pounddef>[http://www.sizes.com/units/pound_avoirdupois.htm Pound avoirdupois] at Sizes.com</ref> All other units of weight derive from this prototype. To be specific:

=== Pound (force) ===
One [[Avoirdupois Pound|pound]] is either the mass of the international pound (or 0.45359237 [[kilogram]]), or more properly the force that gravity exerts on this mass on the ground on [[earth]].

=== Ounce (force) ===
One ounce is one sixteenth of a pound.

=== Grain ===
The grain is 64.79891 milligrams, and by convention one pound is 7000 grains.<ref name=graindef>[http://www.sizes.com/units/grain.htm Grain] at Sizes.com</ref>

=== Ton ===
One ton is two thousand pounds.

=== Supplementary Units ===
Originally the English system defined the ''hundredweight'' (abbreviated cwt) as one hundred pounds. This is slightly heavier than an ancient [[talent]].

== Mass ==
In recognition that weight, being a force, is not an acceptable substitute for the measure of mass, physicists have added a mass unit to the US Customary system: the ''slug''.

=== Slug (mass) ===
One slug is that mass which, when subjected to a force equivalent to a one-pound weight, will accelerate by one foot per second per second. Thus a pound is that force required to accelerate one slug of matter one foot per second per second. A slug would weigh thirty-two pounds on the ground, because the acceleration due to gravity at ground level on [[earth]] is thirty-two feet per second per second.

== Liquid Volume ==
=== Ounce (fluid) ===
One fluid ounce is the volume of [[water]] that weighs one ''avoirdupois'' ounce.

=== Pint ===
One fluid pint is the volume of [[water]] that weighs one ''avoirdupois'' pound. As such, it measures sixteen fluid ounces.

=== Quart ===
One quart is the volume of two pints.

=== Gallon ===
One gallon is the measure of four quarts.

== Power ==
The usual US Customary unit of power is the foot-pound per second, or that power that does, in one second, the work of exerting a one-pound force over one foot. However, by convention, the US Customary system has a much larger unit of power:

=== Horsepower ===
The ''horsepower'' (abbreviated hp) is the power that an average [[horse]] could exert. One horsepower is 550 foot-pounds per second. Engines and motors often have their power rated in horsepower, as a direct measure of the size of a team of horses that would be required to match that engine or motor for power.

[[Category:Unit of measure]]

== References ==
<references/>

Talk:Pro-abortion

2007-07-27T14:21:19Z

G7mzh: New page: I know it's a bit late to comment, but how is an explanation of the term "liberal bias"? Or, how would you put it ("the term comes from the idea that...") in a non-liberally-biassed way? -...

I know it's a bit late to comment, but how is an explanation of the term "liberal bias"? Or, how would you put it ("the term comes from the idea that...") in a non-liberally-biassed way?
--[[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 10:21, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association

2007-06-16T18:04:10Z

G7mzh:

{{protected|TK}}
----
Archives: [[/archive 1|01]]
----
Earlier there was a user who tried several times to add a link to NAMBLA's website in the article of that name, and this user was given tacit support and approval by others for his actions. There are people in Conservapedia, including Andy, who '''WILL NEVER TOLERATE''' any site that advocates child molesting, and I don't want to hear the excuses as to NAMBLA's so-called intentions. If I see anyone post a link to a child-molesting site, I will assume they support child molesting and they will never be allowed in this website again. If I see direct evidence that such an editor may be more involved in child molesting then providing a link, then Andy will be notified as well as federal and state law enforcement. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:12, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:Agree 100 percent. There is no need for a "link" to that site. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:48, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:: NAMBLA site visitors are automatically put on the FBI watch list, FYI. Good move, Karajou! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:00, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I beleive the old discussion should be properly archived or restored, and not deleted. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:31, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Rob, I didn't see a quote about it in the article, but I did in recent changes, so keep in mind it's not a "gay activist group." It's a homosexual pedophilia activist group. Gay pedophilia is about as different from homosexuality as straight pedophilia is from heterosexuality :-/ -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:39, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:That is incorrect; [[Harry Hay]] the "founder of the gay movement in America" [http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02511115.htm] in this cite is compared with Thomas Jefferson, [[Emma Goldman]], and Rosa Parks. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:10, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

''Restored text from Archive.''

This source, ''The American Spectator'' Special Report, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10450 When Nancy Met Harry], Jeffrey Lord, 10/5/2006, exrtracted reads as follows,
:"Harry Hay was a fierce advocate of man/boy love. While ''The Chronicle'' simply ignored Harry's views, the North American Man/Boy Love Association was only too delighted to put up a collection of Harry's views on the need for young boys to have older men as sexual partners. Here's just a sample taken from a talk at a New York University forum sponsored by a campus gay group in 1983.

:Said Harry: "Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world."

The text of this conference speech in full is available on NAMBLA's website. I'd say this goes beyond issue advocacy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT) and [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:10, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:Equating gays with NAMBLA, though, is still incorrect, even if one guy was both.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:29, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::It is not simply "one guy", it is the recognized founder of the organized gay rights movement in the US, who coincidently had been a [[CPUSA]] member since the 1930s. And if you haven't heard by now, this particularly is my area of speciality, which I can proudly assert is the cause of my banning from WP. WP:Cold War Portal carries a few articles I authored, one of which is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Soviet_espionage_in_the_United_States History of Soviet Espionage in the United States]. This is an unwritten chapter, the subversive influence of the homosexual movement on American politics and society. I am greatful to User:JeffersonDarcy, becuase I had no reason to ever pursue this on my own, but when I found the precious little nugget about how Harry Hay had been a CPUSA member since the 30s, it filled in a lot of gaps. And we see now how this socially and politically subversive organization took the leadership role in March of 2003 of the anti-War movement. We have living history here that must be documented. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

A lot of movements have people in their fold they're not proud of. Ted Haggart, for one. But the fact that the founder was a creepy doesn't mean the movement isn't still valid, and right.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:36, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:Good. I hope you see the broader picture. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:09, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I have no problem with the article. Indeed, I would like to see all these guys locked up for good. However, it is shameful of you to categorize the article into the Anti-war movement and Liberal Activists. While some of these guys are probably anti-war and liberal, I suspect some are exactly the opposite. Shame on you.--[[User:Trajsmith|Trajsmith]] 13:34, 5 May 2007 (EDT)--[[User:Trajsmith|Trajsmith]] 13:34, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:The problem is NAMBLA publicly provided leadership for the anti-War movement in March 2003. Not surprising since NAMBLA trtaditionally takes controversial positions opposed by mainstream America. mainstream America needs to realize however, it has departed from the mainstream and followed NAMBLA's leadership on this issue. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:24, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== Problem with a source ==

I can't find any connection between the Iraq war and NAMBLA. Can someone point out where this is? The only link I find is to Conservapedia. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:39, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::Also, could you explain their "leadership role?" Sounds like garbage to me. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:41, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:::It's on their website, and cited as such in the article. A link to it comes from their main page. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:42, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::No link on the main page found. sorry. I think someone made this up for ideological gain. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:48, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:::We can't link to NAMBLA. You'd have to google or clusty it and link yourself; be forewarned, you'll go on the FBI watchlist. Clusty shows two NAMBLA Editorials using these search terms < NAMBLA Bulletin, Editorial "War in Iraq?" >. This ''ABC News'' [http://abcnews.go.com/images/pdf/883a24WarUpdateIV.pdf] poll shows 77% supported the War whereas 10% strongly opposed it and 7% somewhat opposed. Clearly NAMBLA was in the forefront by publicy taking a stand against the War before it even started. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:20, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::Why does that merit mention in the article? Should we mention all the groups that ran afoul of the ABC poll? I think this is a lame attempt to connect liberals to this group and an intellectually dishonest attempt at that. It should be removed completely. Otherwise, all you are doing is pushing ideology and specious reasoning. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:39, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:::It seems like a lousy attempt to link all opposition to the war with pedophiles. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:40, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:::: I checked, the ABC poll ''does not mention'' NAMBLA. Please add valid content, not speculation. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:41, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Many, many people opposed the war, not just NAMBLA. Your mistake is you don’t want to admit that 100’s of thousands took part in anti-war protests that month. Also, we now know, ironically, that nambla was ''right.''

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2765215.stm
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0118-03.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/antiwar/story/0,,1111755,00.html
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,896658,00.html

Even the FBI believes the group only has about 1,100 members. You look ridiculous when you claim that their influence had anything to do with the ''world’s'' response to the war. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:49, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:Of course many opposed the War, NAMBLA doesn't constitute 16% of the population. The point being, the so-called "center" has now moved to NAMBLAs position, which NAMBLA has been consistent in. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:56, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::However, you portray it as part of the homosexual agenda to oppose the war, which it most certainly wasn't. If you can show that the ABC poll has ''anything'' to do with NAMBLA, other than your interpetation, I am all ears. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:03, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::BTW, I don't think there is room enough to list anyone else that might be affected by this study if that is what you mean to do. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:05, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:::NAMBLA is not exclusively a pedophile group; it is a group which fits within other liberal activist coalitions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:14, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Ah. So then we can look forward to relevant notations where, say, the Klan supports conservative positions?--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 17:07, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

==Thanks==
Despite opinions about the organisation itself or its objectives, in my view it's a well-written and objective article. I am pleasantly surprised. [[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 14:04, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

Debate:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?

2007-06-01T09:55:25Z

G7mzh: /* Um, No */

{{debate}}

==Theory 1==

Well, I would venture to say that we have not seen the far off ones yet. We can only see the light that has reached the Earth so far. This means that the currently-visible stars are "only" several thousand lightyears away. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 17:16, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: Empircally false. Basic parallax data gets us that there are stars at least 7000 years away and more sophisticated techniques force other stars to be even farther away. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:59, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: What's more of that were true then why have ancient civilisations recorded lots of the stars that were now see? shouldn't there be masses of new ones that the light of which has reached us in the proceeding years? [[User:Ampasand|Ampasand]] 11:23 29 march 2007 (GMT+12)

:The speed of light, Einstein called it "c" is a universal constant. In order for us to see something, light must travel from that object to our eyes. This is how our eyes work. But, the Universe is far older than earth. For all we know, the earth could be infinitely old. Light which left stars that were 7000-8000 light years away is reaching our eyes now, even if the stars are no longer there. Further more, the creation and destruction of stars in a universe as vast as ours can sometimes go un-noticed if not specifically documented. Today, we find new stars occasionally because we have extensive equipment with which to survey the skies. Ancient civiliations didn't. ~Patriot101.

: The stars that are 7000-8000 light years away, speaking relatively, are our close neighbors in the Milky Way galaxy. Our galaxy is 100,000 light years in diameter and contains about 100,000,000 stars. There are hundreds of BILLIONS of galaxies (100,000,000,000+). The most distant light our telescopes have detected comes from recently discovered stars 13-14 billion light years away. That means that light has been traveling at 185,000 MILES PER SECOND for 14,000,000,000 years to reach us from those stars. --[[User:CastleVania|CastleVania]] 22:12, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps, the Universe really is billions of years old. Perhaps the Genisis account is merely refering to the creation etc. from the perspective of the Earth. Perhaps God is, say, eternal. Couldn't matter and the elements be eternal too? {{Unsigned|Brigham's Homeboy}}

:That's very close to the white-hole cosmology of Russell Humphreys (see below). According to it, the ''fringes'' of the universe are billions of years old, but the ''near-center'' of the universe--where we are--is much younger. In short, time did not flow uniformly throughout the universe--and until relatively recently, in our region, time did not flow at all.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==Theory 2==
When God created the universe, he also created a complete ray of light extending between the star and the Earth. The light that we see ''now'' was created only a few thousand years ago. It looks as if it came from the star, but it really didn't; it was created in mid-air, or mid-space as it were, a few thousand light-years away. The light that started travelling from the star itself at its instant of creation will not reach us for millions of years (or perhaps never if the Earth does not last that long).

<
* = star
- = ray of light
O = Earth
> = where the light we see today was when the Universe was created

BEFORE CREATION:
[Void]
AFTER CREATION of star, Earth, ''and'' complete ray of light all at the same instant
*------------------------------------------------->----O

A few thousand years after Creation (today)
*----------------------------------------------------->O

As opposed to:
AFTER CREATION:
* O

Millions of years later (still can't see star)
*--------------------- O

Millions and millions of years later (still can't see star)
*--------------------------------------------- O

Millions and millions and millions of years later (finally can see star)
*------------------------------------------------------O

The language of the Bible, "Let there be light," even can be read as supporting this.

This theory is absolutely ridiculous. The stars we see in the sky are millions of light years away, and we can see them because the earth has existed for far longer than a few thousand years. Astronomers can tell roughly how old a star is, and they know that the ones you see at night are older than a few thousand years.

No, I do not believe this. (But I can't prove it's not true.) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:27, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Dpbsmith: This is the essence of why this is religion not science, it can't be proven/disproven... [[User:Jesput|Jespur]]

: Jesput, the same is true for science. Science cannot prove anything at all. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: This is a variant of omphalism and essentially asserts that God has deliberately deceived humans. I don't think most people would want to believe in a deceptive deity and in any event, it would contradict the verse in Isaiah that says that God is truth. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:01, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: Couldn't God have added the verse in Isaiah to make us believe that He is saying the truth? [[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 04:00, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

If God is trying to fake us out, He certainly did His best to make it a CONVINCING fake. Just check out those scientists who've been fooled into thinking an entire galaxy was ripped in two several billion years ago. <ref> [http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070302_galaxy_rip.html Galaxy Ripped to Shreds]</ref>{{Unsigned|Fullmetajacket}}

: I'm sorry, this is a nice theory, but JoshuaZ is right, it's a type of omphalism, and assumes that God deliberately tricked us. At some point, [[Occam's Razor]] has to kick in here. But wow, this light argument sure does rip YEC to shreds.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::The theory does not insinuate that God is deceptive. In Genesis, he talks to Abraham about his descendants and how they will be as numerous as the stars in the sky. What if God made the stars like that, not to deceive humans in any way, but to use them for His own purpose, such as using them as a metaphor? (By the way, how is making rays of light any form of deception? How are we being "tricked" by this creation?) --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Rays of light carry information; they're records of past events. If light was really created in transit, then we've witnessed the death of stars which never actually existed in the first place. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Descartes approached a similar problem in his meditations. The way out of it was to say that since God is good, God would not do something to intentionally deceive our senses and thus we can trust them. I believe that it is valid to continue that to say that it is reasonable to trust our extended senses that this planet is a several billion years old. Otherwise (as Descartes would say), God is a deceiver and then would not be the most perfect being that can be imagined. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Fraid that's the logical conclusion. Then again, [[theory of evolution|a lot of things on this site]] are quite disconnected from logic.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 10:08, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: I respect everyone's beliefs here, but I find that the most beautiful resolution for myself is to see God as operating above our level of existence. Why would He speak of a day as the same mundane day you and I experience? The saying that 1,000 years to us is but a blink of an eye to Him comes to mind. I believe that the days in Genesis simply weren't literally days in terms of the Earth spinning around once, but they were days as God experiences them in his higher existence. I find it unfathomable that God would deceive us with empirical evidence like red-shifted light from stars and dinosaur fossils and so on. God is not that petty.. God is love, and God is honest, as he asks us to be. --[[User:CastleVania|CastleVania]] 22:17, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Theory 3 ==

C is not actually constant. All measurements on Earth indicate that it is, but beyond our Solar System it could easily be faster, slower, moving through wormholes to appear faster, etc. Hubble's Law says that the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it moves away due to universal expansion, so why couldn't light be similarly expanded with distance? So many of our assumptions about the universe rely on our belief that things happen the same way everywhere - a huge leap of faith for a scientist. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 13:05, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:I don't know whether you knew, but the official definition of the [[meter]] now assumes that C is constant. The meter is defined in terms of C! Someone needs to set up some periodic re-measurements of the orange-red line from the spectrum of [[krypton]]-86 that provided the most recent definition of the meter: 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of this radiation. If that number starts to rise, then we know that C is slowing, as [[Barry Setterfield]] has stated.

:I have another variation on this theory, however: what if C were originally much faster, is now the speed at which we now find it, and is not going to change anymore? Except that I have an [[Occam's razor]] problem with that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:I don't dispute at all that the meter is based upon C, but it hardly matters whether it is or not. Either C is constant or it isn't, no matter what units you use. Rather than C slowing since time began, I was thinking more the velocity of C being a function of its distance away from us. Also, your theory satisfies Occam's razor equally well or better than the Big Bang does, so I see no problem with it logically. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 03:28, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Einsteins Theory of Relativity explained how light appears to move at different speeds when the distance is great and the relative speeds are great as it often is in planetary physics. However, this in no way means that c is not a universal constant. Nothing exsists in nature with a real velocity that is relative to the distance it is being viewed.

This hypothosis sounds awkwardly non-falsifyable. It is proposed that light used to travel faster than it does today, but conveniently stoped slowing down before measurement became possible. How can it be determined either way? Also, this would not be a slight slowdown... its going to require light travel a lot faster. The most distant objects known are ten billion light-years away<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1432321.stm</ref>. So, even assuming light slowed from its super-speed to todays speed in a single instant as soon as civilisation emerged, thats going to require it used to travel about 1.67 million times as fast as today to achieve the 6000-year target figure. Im not a physicist, but I dont think thats even remotely possible. A little variation, perhaps, but a factor that huge... it would require adjusting too many other figures to keep the formulae valid. Permiativity of free space, planks constant, a lot of very fundamental things. -- Suricou

::Actually, the [[Hubble Ultra Deep Field]] picture includes galaxies from around 13 billion years ago. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:19, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:The basic problem with any variable-c model is that the entire observational record is exactly consistent with constant c. So we're left with two types of model; the one Terry mentions, where c changed in an unobservable way in the distant past, and the one Daniel mentions, where c is different in other parts of the Universe, but these differences manage to leave every observation we make exactly as we would expect if no such change had happened. That essentially leaves us with two different ways of saying "sure, the Universe ''looks'' old, but because of an unobservable, untestable effect, it really isn't." Which may be ''true'', but it'll never be good science. May as well propose that we all live in the Matrix and be done with it. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:30, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, theory is out - of course, should have realised earlier. If C is altered, the knock-on effect ould include a shift in emmission spectrum. That would be very easily observed in distant stars. As it isn't observed, that means C must be constantish. Perhaps just a little variation, but not a 1.67-million-times factor. I think that just about kills the 'C is faster elsewhere' idea. - Suricou

== White-hole Cosmology ==
The universe began as a white hole. Initially, as matter expanded into it, time did not flow--because the very space-time continuum had four dimensions of space and none of time. Eventually, time began to flow at the outer fringes of the expanding ball of matter, and this region of timeliness worked its way back to the center. So the earth really is six thousand or so years old--by clocks on the earth, which are the only clocks that need to matter to us. By any clock on the outer fringes, the cosmos might well be twenty billion years old. The light impinges on us now because it was always impinging on the border of the region of timelessness until that region shrank away to nothing.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/White_hole_cosmology White hole cosmology] by [[CreationWiki]]</ref>--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:15, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Not bad, what about the four-day simultaneous harmonic Time Cube?<ref>[http://timecube.com/ Time Cube] by Doctor Gene Ray</ref> {{Unsigned|Fullmetajacket}}

:Cute. Very cute. And incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:36, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:Falsified by the distinct absence of massive blueshifting of distant light sources. I highly doubt anybody's even attempted to formalize this as a solution to Einstein's field equations, either, which would be a prerequisite for it to be considered a coherent proposition at all. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:25, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I dug out a few of Humphrey's papers defending this model and reached two basic conclusions. One, as I suspected, there ''is'' no model, merely handwaving. Two, he doesn't actually understand GR. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's obvious, given the idiocy of the theory. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 09:23, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::For those who are interested, I get into some of the problems with Humphreys' model(s) [[User_talk:Tsumetai/TJ|here]]. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== Silliness ==
Physics has had for many years more-than-adequate explanations. All of these verbal acrobatics into non-falsifiable theories to try to get around physical fact are humorus. Wouldn't it be easier for those who deny physics to just say "I accept physics, and God is mysterious and powerful enough to make it happen."?
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Proverbs 25:2

It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 22:58, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wise words [[User:Cracker|Cracker]], wise words indeed. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 19:33, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== This About Kills YEC ==
The Starlight Problem is scientifically unsolvable assuming a young universe. You either have to make up pseudoscience, or concede that YEC is based on faith alone, but science disproves it. Agreed?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:07, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems to me that you are basically correct. I cannot think of any kind of reasonable way out of this. Why has no-one thought of this argument earlier? I knew, for example that relativity and creation were in direct conflict; basically if you create something out of nothing, then this creates huge issues with gravitational fields etc., but this question is so simple, especially the fact that stars were supposedly created, but you have to either accept that they are al lot nearer (say a couple of light-days), or that Adam and Eve would not be able to see starlight for years. This effectively kills off Young Earth Creation. Wonderful. That';s that obne sorted, now to set about Intelligent Design.--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 06:21, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

== Theory 4? ==
While it is perhaps not a direct answer to the question, a very plausible explanation is that the universe is ''not'' young, and that light from distant stars has therefore had ample time to reach Earth.--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 22:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why 6000 years? ==

Why 6000 years? I mean the Bible doesn't mention when the universe was created anywhere, the date of 4000 BC was actually thought up by scholars in the 17th century [http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_date1.htm], so I don't really see why people try to defend that date as if it were God's word.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Because when you start at 562 BC (the death of [[Nebuchadnezzar II]], and then subtract lengths of reign of the last eight kings of the [[Southern Kingdom]] of ancient [[Israel]], and then go back through the synchronized starts-of-reign of the kings of the Divided Kingdoms [[Northern Kingdom|Northern]] and Southern, and then take the time between the Exodus and the groundbreaking of the [[Temple of Jerusalem]], add a time for the Sojourn in Egypt, and then backtrack the birthdates of the patriarchs and go clear back to Adam, you arrive at 4004 BC if you assume a "late-in-life siring" of [[Abraham]] by his father, and a "short sojourn" in Egypt. What we defend is the proposition that the earth is no older than are these generations of the patriarchs, the length of the sojourn in Egypt, and so forth up to the present day. The Bible does not allow for an unnamed and large number of years between the birth of the [[earth]] and the creation of [[Adam]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:26, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Then what about that flood and the civilization of Atlantis, did that civilization just sprung up out of no where? And if Noah really did repopulate the Earth (I'm thinking there would be some serious inbreed issues there) wouldn't that have taken a while as well?

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:I can't comment on Atlantis, because I have seen no documentation that I would consider reliable. If you can document that a city named Atlantis actually existed, then by all means put a message on my Talk page or send me an e-mail. Or better yet, write an article of your own titled "Atlantis" and fill it in with everything you know.

:Concerning Noah, of course that took awhile. But the generations from Noah to Abraham were about ten, give or take. Why not go to {{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=11|verses=10-26|version=KJV}} and count them? Notice also that the lifespans of the generations from Shem to Abraham dropped about ninety percent, and in a hurry.

:Concerning inbreeding: The tremendous lifespans of pre-Flood man suggest strongly that the damaging ionizing radiation that creates so much genetic damage today, simply wasn't an issue. Again, the lifespan of man dropped, and dropped hard, after the Flood. Thus, inbreeding wasn't such a hazard then as it is today.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 15:12, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Atlantis is just what I call the civilization Noah was born in, but 10 generations, that would give, starting with 4 breeding couples and assuming every couple of every generation has 6 healthy children: 8*(3^10) = 470.000 people by 2000 BC, while archealogists assume a world population of 30 million around that time, of course archaelogists also found a lot of things older than 6000 years, including human settlements.

As for the inbreeding, don't make up pseudoscience as you go along, degeneration is caused by the way genetics works, radiation would only make it worse, but is not the main factor.

And no, humans cannot live for 900 years, not without very advanced technology anyway.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

==Um, No==

The problem discussed here is irrelevant if you think that, just maybe, the universe might be ''really'' old. As many sages far more sagacious than I have said, why would "God lie to us"? He apparently made a ''very'' old universe, from our perspective. Why are we to argue with the evidence? He ''expects'' us to figure this stuff out, and dwells in His joy when we do. With every advance, we get closer to knowing the Mind of God - the true goal of philosophy. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:24, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

It's also irrelevant if you believe that God either created the Universe as an operating mechanism - it hit the ground running, if you like - rather than kicking off the Big Bang, or that the creation referred to in the Bible refers only to the Earth (or the Solar System).

The former would also include the creation of fossils and so forth, and would mean that the Universe was created by God to ''appear'' (to us) to be so many billion years old, but its true age is unknown and unknowable. The Starlight Problem, Carbon-14 levels, etc., are all part of the bluebrint.

The latter idea, that the Universe existed previously and Genesis refers to the the creation of the Earth, is easier (in some ways), and nothing in the scripture goes against it. In fact, references to "the void" could refer to this region of space in its unpopulated state. Further down, "Let there be light" could be the creation of Sol, and night and day the fixing of the Earth's rotational speed.
[[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 05:55, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

Plumbing

2007-06-01T09:13:27Z

G7mzh: etymology added

'''Plumbing''' describes the systems of pipes, fixtures and appliances we use to move potable (drinking) [[water]] into and through our [[home]]s and [[building]]s, heat it, use it, and safely dispose of the wastewater. The tradesman who is a trained expert in doing this work in accordance with [[building code]]s is called a plumber. Plumbing is one of the [[building trades]].

The word comes from ''plumbum'', the [[Latin]] word for [[lead]], from which water pipes were originally made. Lead ceased to be used for pipework in the 1960s because of its toxicity, but may still be found in older properties.

Water usually enters the system either from a public wwater main via a meter, or from a private well and pressure tank. it is then conveyed under pressure to the various fixtures that need it. One main appliance is the hot water heater, after which a series of pipes usually runs in parallel with the cold water pipes.

At the fixtures we are able to use the hot and cold water, for washing, bathing, irrigation, and sanitation. Each of these fixtures, with the exception of [[irrigation]], also feature a connection to the drain, waste, and vent piping system (DWV). The DWV plumbing safely directs the soiled water to a public sewer line or a private [[septic system]], while providing safe ventilation for sewer gases and to prevent siphoning of the traps, which are water filled joints that prevent sewer gases from entering the building. The water used in irrigation simply returns to the environment directly.

If a building uses a hot water or steam [[heating system]], while it is connected to the fresh water supply, it is basically a closed system. It is also installed and maintained by plumbers.

British Broadcasting Corporation

2007-06-01T08:49:16Z

G7mzh:

[[Image:BBC Logo 1997-Present.png|right|thumb]]

The '''BBC''' ('''British Broadcasting Corporation''') is a public sector [[television]] and [[radio]] broadcaster in the [[United Kingdom]]. It is the leading broadcaster in the [[United Kingdom]] and is regarded as one of the leading broadcasters in the world. In terms of audience figures, it is the largest broadcaster in the world. It was founded in [[London]] in 1927.

The BBC operates seven national television channels in the UK and seven national radio networks, as well as the BBC World Service radio network. Outside the UK the BBC operates BBC World TV, BBC America TV, BBC Canada TV and BBC Prime TV.

The BBC is a [[crown corporation]] supported by tax money, specifically a licensing fee applied to television owners<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/</ref>. However, the government allows it to operate somewhat autonomously. The BBC produces many well known television programs, including ''Bod'', ''Grange Hill'', ''Holby City'', ''Are You Being Served?'', ''Terry and June'', ''Crackerjack'' and [[Doctor Who]].

==BBC News==

BBC News, part of the [[British Broadcasting Corporation]] (BBC) is the largest news reporting organisation in the world. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_3970000/newsid_3975900/3975913.stm]

==Bias==
The BBC has often been accused of bias against [[United States]] and [[Israel]],<ref>http://www.bbcwatch.co.uk/index.html</ref> and because of these complaints of bias, an internal investigation was conducted on the BBC's coverage of the [[Arab-Israeli conflict]]. However, after the investigation was completed, BBC officials decided to withhold the 20,000-word report of the investigation, compiled in 2004 by senior editorial adviser Malcolm Balen. Steven Sugar, a Jewish critics of the BBC, attempted to get access to the report under the 2000 Freedom of Information Act, but was denied by the [[United Kingdom]]'s High Court. The information commissioner, Richard Thomas, backed the BBC's decision to block access to the report, but the information tribunal ruled on appeal in August, 2006, in favour of Steven Sugar. Still, the BBC argued at the High Court in London that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the case, and the High Court ruled in favour of the BBC on April 28, 2007. The BBC maintains that the internal investigation found no deliberate or systematic bias. Conservative MP David Davies commented: "An organisation which is funded partly to scrutinise governments and other institutions in Britain appears to be using tax-payers [sic] money to prevent its customers from finding out how it is operating. That is absolutely indefensible." and called the BBC's actions a "shameful hypocrisy". It has been estimated that the BBC has spent around £200,000 - £300,000 on the case so far.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2044130,00.html</ref><ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=444074&in_page_id=1770</ref><ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2067542,00.html</ref>

==External Links==
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/ BBC official site]
*[http://www.tvlicensing.biz/ BBCresistance - Campaigns against the television licence]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Broadcasting]]

Talk:British Broadcasting Corporation

2007-05-30T14:10:57Z

G7mzh: /* Bias */

== Redirect ==
Should [[BBC]] redirect here? Would seem logical. [[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 13:59, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== Bias ==

The source used to justify the statement that the BBC has a political bias is a newspaper which itself has a political bias (of the opposite extreme). That's mad. {{unsigned|Ferret}}

By its charter, the BBC is required to be impartial (which was e.g. an issue in the Hutton Inquiry); this - of course - is difficult to achieve and often leads to the accusation of being biased. IMHO, it would be useful to add this information into the text. {{unsigned|Gux}}

: Good idea. Please go ahead and add it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:00, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I agree - it gets into just as much trouble with Labour governments as with Tory ones. To say it has an inherent liberal bias is misleading I think. Successive governments have taken a soft line on this because they understand that nobody wants a state broadcaster which feels unable to be critical of the government - that's the sort of thing that happens in dictatorships not in modern democracies. [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 09:16, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

I object to the liberal euphemism "license fee" instead of tax. The BBC gets revenues from a mandatory, govt-enforced tax on everyone with TV, regardless of whether they watch the BBC. That is a tax. Why call it a fee? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:33, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Licence fee is the official name for it. Only people who watch television have to pay it. We have many types of licence, for which a flat fee is payable, fishing, driving, pilot. It is the generally accepted term in the UK. [[User:Gerrard|Gerrard]] 18:46, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

: In the USA and the rest of the world, it is called a tax. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:51, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't see the relevance of stating that Americans don't understand the funding structure of the ''British'' Broadcasting Corporation. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 19:13, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Strictly doesn't tax go to the government? All the lecnise fee goes to the BBC. The government don't get any of it. [[User:DollarsAndSense|DollarsAndSense]] 18:52, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

: The BBC is an agency of the UK government. Yes, the government collects a tax from the UK residents with TVs, and disburses the tax money to the BBC. Some British citizens don't like to admit that they get their news from official government radio and TV, but that's the way it is. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:51, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:: The BBC is an autonomous public corporation established by a royal charter, in a similar way to many universities and professional bodies. It's an 'emanation of the state', but not part of the government. The distinction between state and government might be hard to fathom for those more familiar with the situation in the USA where state and government are often seen as synonymous. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 04:42, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't know what "liberal euphemism" means. The television licence fee is collected by (a company under contract to) the BBC, and is used solely to finance the corporation. None of it is collected by, or given to, the government. The BBC is not a state organisation; it guards its independence staunchly.

:::To say the BBC is financed by a tax gives the incorrect impression that the money is supplied by government funds. [[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 10:10, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

And some Americans don't like to admit that they get their news from for-profit corporations whose mandate is to increase shareholder wealth, but that's the way it is. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 22:53, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

This is slightly OT, but I have issues with people who complain about taxes. RSchlafly - do you not believe in your country? If you believe in it, and want to be a member of it, you must pay taxes. Otherwise you are a non-functioning member of society. [[User:Feichineejits|Feichineejits]] 23:13, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Welford

2007-05-29T20:32:39Z

G7mzh: Spelling fixed, map link added

Welford is a village in [[Berkshire]], southern [[England]], 5 miles north-west of [[Newbury]] and a few hunderd yards north of the [[M4]] [[motorway]], to which, however, it has no immediate access.

==External Links==
* [http://www.streetmap.co.uk/streetmap.dll?G2M?X=440924&Y=173068&A=Y&Z=5 Map showing village and surrounding area.]

British Broadcasting Corporation

2007-05-29T20:13:45Z

G7mzh: It doesn't get money from taxation or government.

[[Image:BBC Logo 1997-Present.png|right|thumb]]

The '''BBC''' ('''British Broadcasting Corporation''') is a public sector [[television]] and [[radio]] broadcaster in the [[United Kingdom]]. It is the leading broadcaster in the [[United Kingdom]] and is regarded as one of the leading broadcasters in the world. In terms of audience figures, it is the largest broadcaster in the world. It was founded in [[London]] in 1927.

The BBC operates seven national television channels in the UK and seven national radio networks, as well as the BBC World Service radio network. Outside the UK the BBC operates BBC World TV, BBC America TV, BBC Canada TV and BBC Prime TV.

The BBC is a [[crown corporation]] financed by a television licence fee. However, the government allows it to operate somewhat autonomously. The BBC produces many well known television programs, including ''Bod'', ''Grange Hill'', ''Holby City'', ''Are You Being Served?'', ''Terry and June'', ''Crackerjack'' and ''[[Doctor Who]]''.

==BBC News==

BBC News, part of the [[British Broadcasting Corporation]] (BBC) is the largest news reporting organisation in the world. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_3970000/newsid_3975900/3975913.stm]

==Bias==
The BBC has often been accused of bias against [[United States]] and [[Israel]],<ref>http://www.bbcwatch.co.uk/index.html</ref> and because of these complaints of bias, an internal investigation was conducted on the BBC's coverage of the [[Arab-Israeli conflict]]. However, after the investigation was completed, BBC officials decided to withhold the 20,000-word report of the investigation, compiled in 2004 by senior editorial adviser Malcolm Balen. Steven Sugar, a Jewish critics of the BBC, attempted to get access to the report under the 2000 Freedom of Information Act, but was denied by the [[United Kingdom]]'s High Court. The information commissioner, Richard Thomas, backed the BBC's decision to block access to the report, but the information tribunal ruled on appeal in August, 2006, in favour of Steven Sugar. Still, the BBC argued at the High Court in London that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the case, and the High Court ruled in favour of the BBC on April 28, 2007. The BBC maintains that the internal investigation found no deliberate or systematic bias. Conservative MP David Davies commented: "An organisation which is funded partly to scrutinise governments and other institutions in Britain appears to be using tax-payers [sic] money to prevent its customers from finding out how it is operating. That is absolutely indefensible." and called the BBC's actions a "shameful hypocrisy". It has been estimated that the BBC has spent around £200,000 - £300,000 on the case so far.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2044130,00.html</ref><ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=444074&in_page_id=1770</ref><ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2067542,00.html</ref>

==External Links==
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/ BBC official site]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Broadcasting]]

Kirriemuir

2007-05-27T21:51:14Z

G7mzh: fixed link

'''Kirriemuir''' is a market town and administrative centre in [[Angus]], eastern [[Scotland]]. It was founded in the fifteenth century as a baronial [[burgh]]. Its industry was formerly based on the manufacture of jute sacking, an activity strongly allied to the local Tayside potato growing economy. [[J.M.Barrie]], author of [[Peter Pan]], was born in Kirriemuir and described it as a "wee reid tounie". The town's name is widely known because of the traditional Scottish folk air ''The Ball of Kirriemuir'', celebrating the beauty and virtue of Scottish womanhood.

==Web links==
[http://www.kirriemuironline.co.uk Kirrie]

[[Category:Scottish Towns and Cities]]

Talk:Essay:Court Rules for Gay Club, but Gives School Alternatives

2007-05-26T10:43:31Z

G7mzh:

When I was at school, anything that didn't need urgent immediate action was stuck on the notice board.

Though I can't see why the gay group ''shouldn't'' be able to use the PA system. --[[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 06:40, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Court Rules for Gay Club, but Gives School Alternatives

2007-05-26T10:40:33Z

G7mzh: New page: When I was at school, anything that didn't need urgent immediate action was stuck on the notice board. Though I can't see why the gay group 'shouldn't' be able to use the PA system. --~~...

When I was at school, anything that didn't need urgent immediate action was stuck on the notice board.

Though I can't see why the gay group 'shouldn't' be able to use the PA system. --[[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 06:40, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

Big Bang theory

2007-05-26T10:35:57Z

G7mzh: /* Big Bang Theory Dissent Letter */ Hoyle coined the term "Big Bang".

[[Image:Universe expansion.png|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the universe emerged from an extremely dense and hot state called the ''original singularity''.]]
[[Image:End of universe.jpg|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the 3 possible geometry of the universe depends on value of the ''[[cosmological constant]]''.]]
The '''Big Bang Theory''' is the current dominant scientific hypothesis explaining the creation of the Universe. Big bang theories are actually a ''class'' of scientific models that describe the Universe as expanding from a very hot, dense state approximately 13.7 billion years ago. It was first proposed by [[Georges-Henri Lemaitre]] and evidence for the expansion was observed by [[Edwin Hubble]]<ref>Hubble, E. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp. 168-173.</ref>. Later [[George Gamow]] predicted that the Big Bang would leave an observable microwave background radiation (or CMBR). This radiation was subsequently discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at [[Bell Labs]] and found to be close to that predicted by Gamow (Gamow predicted a background radiation level equivalent to a roughly 3K black body object, and the observed level is that of a 2.725K body). Pensiaz and Wilson were awarded a Nobel Prize in 1978 for their work.

The term "Big Bang" implies an explosion of matter into pre-existing space, but the theory actually indicates that space is dynamic and more space is constantly created in the interstices between particles as the density of the universe falls. Big Bang theorists state that the Hubble [[redshift]] is a consequence of this stretching of the fabric of space.

Observations of distant supernovae indicate that the Universe is actually undergoing accelerated expansion<ref>Riess, A. G., et al. The Astronomical Journal, Volume 116, Issue 3, pp. 1009-1038.</ref><ref>Perlmutter, S., et al. The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 517, Issue 2, pp. 565-586.</ref> and galaxy surveys<ref>[http://www.sdss.org/dr5/ Sloan Digital Sky Survey]</ref><ref>Tegmark, M., et al. Physical Review D, vol. 74, Issue 12.</ref> and recent observations of the microwave background<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe]</ref><ref>See, for example, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603449</ref> have corroborated these claims. Conventional wisdom is that the acceleration is caused by some sort of [[dark energy]], which has not yet been directly observed.

== Big Bang Theory Dissent Letter ==
The Big Bang Theory has had many dissenters including the British astronomer Sir [[Fred Hoyle]], the Nobel Prize winner [[Hannes Alfven]], and astronomers [[Geoffrey Burbidge]] and [[Halton Arp]]. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref> It was Hoyle who coined the term, although he used it disparagingly.

In 2004, a ‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ disputing the big bang theory was signed by 33 scientists and has been published on the internet and in the science journal [[New Scientist]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0601skepticism.asp</ref> The dissent letter has subsequently been signed by hundreds of individuals around the world. <ref>http://www.cosmologystatement.org/</ref> Professional cosmologists are actively creating models (some of which contradict the Bing Bang scenario) and collecting data that probe the specific nature of the earliest observable aspects of the Universe.

==Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views==
Most [[Atheist]]s believe in the Big Bang theory. This is paradoxical since they could not explain who set off the Big Bang.

Many scientists who believe in the Big Bang Theory are [[Evolutionist]]s, though not all are. One can believe that God both created the Universe AND laid out the plan for all life in the Big Bang, as opposed to the idea that life evolved randomly after the Big Bang.

Young earth creationist scientists contest the Big Bang Theory stating that it is scientifically unsound
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref>
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref>, though few creationist criticisms are found in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Some Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists argue that the Big Bang is in fact mentioned in the Bible. <ref>[http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first]</ref> Some Christian apologists who believe in an old earth, such as [[William Craig]] use the Big Bang as an apologetic, arguing that it proves that the universe had a beginning. <ref>Strobel, Lee. ''The Case for a Creator''. Zondervan, 2004. </ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]

ALF

2007-05-25T13:02:51Z

G7mzh:

'''ALF''' is an [[acronym]] for "All Loving Father", and refers to The Lord [[God]], and sometimes [[Jesus]] Christ (both of whom figure strongly into the [[Christianity|Christian]] [[Faith]]).

'''The A. L. F.''' is also the [[Animal Liberation Front]], a militant animal activist group engaged in domestic [[terrorism]] activities.

ALF is an abbreviation of "[[Alien]] Life Form," an expression made popular by a [[television]] series of that name made in the 1980s.

The Onion

2007-05-25T12:44:34Z

G7mzh:

''The Onion'' is a weekly parody newspaper that pokes fun of whoever is in charge. It does not have any political agenda beyond making fun of authority figures. The Onion was originally a school newspaper for the [[University of Wisconsin-Madison]] and has since grown to national distribution.

== External link ==

[http://www.theonion.com/ The Onion]

User:G7mzh

2007-05-25T12:37:33Z

G7mzh:

I suppose I'd better put something here!

I'm English and live in southern England; I hope that doesn't put you all off me!

I'll probably add some articles, and correct the more extreme howlers when I find them - I'm sure some people just make stuff up.

== Religion ==

I have been a practising Christian for some seven years now, and am active within my church. Although raised as a Catholic, I no longer define myself by denomination.

== Politics ==

I'm not familiar witn the US descriptions of "conservative" or "liberal", (the British ones don't correspond) so I can't tell you where I come in that scale. On the four-quadrant [http://www.politicalcompass.org Political Compass], I'm in the bottom-left segment, somewhere near Ghandi and Nelson Mandela.

I support equality for all, public education, and universal health care. I don't support positive discrimination, taxation unrelated to income, or a totally market-driven economy. (I don't want a totally state-controlled one either, though). I support private free enterprise, but some things are too important to be left to the guy who wants to fill his pockets.

User:G7mzh

2007-05-25T12:25:23Z

G7mzh: /* Politics */

I suppose I'd better put something here!

I'm English and live in southern England; I hope that doesn't put you all off me!

I'll probably add some articles, and correct the more extreme howlers when I find them - I'm sure some people just make stuff up.

== Politics ==

I'm not familiar witn the US descriptions of "conservative" or "liberal", (the British ones don't correspond) so I can't tell you where I come in that scale. On the four-quadrant [http://www.politicalcompass.org Political Compass], I'm in the bottom-left segment, somewhere near Ghandi and Nelson Mandela.

I support equality for all, public education, and universal health care. I don't support positive discrimination, taxation unrelated to income, or a totally market-driven economy. (I don't want a totally state-controlled one either, though). I support private free enterprise, but some things are too important to be left to the guy who wants to fill his pockets.

Pro-life

2007-05-10T15:37:09Z

G7mzh: New page: '''Pro-life''' is the name given to people or organisations that oppose abortion, under some or all circumstances. The name comes from the belief that life begins at the moment of [[c...

'''Pro-life''' is the name given to people or organisations that oppose [[abortion]], under some or all circumstances.

The name comes from the belief that life begins at the moment of [[conception]], and that removal of the foetus is equivalent to the [[murder]] of a person at any time after birth.

==See Also==
* [[Pro-choice]]
* [[Abortion controversy]]

==External Links==
* [http://www.prolifealliance.com/ National Pro-Life Alliance]
* [http://www.lifeuk.org LIFE]

Pro-abortion

2007-05-10T15:27:59Z

G7mzh: New page: '''Pro-choice''' is the name given to people or organisations who are in favour of abortion, under some or all circumstances; some believe that a woman should have the right to termina...

'''Pro-choice''' is the name given to people or organisations who are in favour of [[abortion]], under some or all circumstances; some believe that a woman should have the right to terminate her pregnancy for any reason, including as a method of [[contraception]], while others maintain that it should only be used in special cases.

The name comes from the concept that a woman should be in charge of her own body and eveything within it, including her foetus.

==See Also==
* [[Pro-life]]
* [[Abortion controversy]]
* [[Planned Parenthood]]

==External Links==
* [http://www.ippf.org/ Planned Parenthood]
* [http://www.bpas.org British Pregnancy Advisory Service]

British Broadcasting Corporation

2007-05-06T21:57:04Z

G7mzh: Previous undo undone - it wasn't vandalism.

[[Image:BBC Logo 1997-Present.png|right|thumb|BBC logo.]]

'''BBC''' ('''British Broadcasting Corporation''') is [[liberal bias|liberally biased]] <ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770 We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News]</ref> public sector [[television]] and [[radio]] broadcaster in the [[United Kingdom]]. It is the leading broadcaster in the [[United Kingdom]] and is regarded as one of the leading broadcasters in the world. In terms of audience figures, it is the largest broadcaster in the world. It was founded in [[London]] in 1927.

The BBC operates seven national television channels in the UK and seven national radio networks, as well as the BBC World Service radio network. Outside the UK the BBC operates BBC World TV, BBC America TV, BBC Canada TV and BBC Prime TV.

The BBC is entirely owned by the UK government, however under its charter it operates entirely independently of government control. The BBC produces many well known television programs, including Bod, Grange Hill, Holby City, Are you being served? and [[Doctor Who]].

==BBC News==

BBC News, part of the [[British Broadcasting Corporation]] (BBC) is the largest news reporting organization in the world. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_3970000/newsid_3975900/3975913.stm]

==External Links==
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/ BBC official site]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Broadcasting]]

Talk:Yahweh

2007-05-06T21:39:15Z

G7mzh:

The name "Yahweh" does '''not''' mean "I am what I am," or any variation of this. When God says to Moses in Exod 3:14 that he should tell the Israelites that "I Am" sent him, the Hebrew verb ")ehyeh" ("I am") is being translated rather literally into English. The name "Yahweh" is probably related to the Hebrew root that means "to be," and perhaps even to derived forms meaning "he is" or "he causes to be." Also, it is inaccurate to say that Hebrew did not have vowels. Hebrew in the bibilical period was ''written'' without signs to indicate vowels, but the language most certainly had vowel sounds. This article is inaccurate, misleading, and must be drastically rewritten.

:Well put! See what you think in a few minutes' time --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:33, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==The name of Who?==
Just because the ancient Israelites spelt their name of God (and indeed most other words) without the vowels, for us to do so seems affected.

There's a few other oddities in the article, too: "early versions" of the Bible using LORD in place of YHVH/Jehovah, the 5th commandment, and the confusion about who's name it was.

Unless there's policy otherwise, I'll tidy it up a bit.

--[[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 17:39, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

User:G7mzh

2007-04-15T13:20:46Z

G7mzh: New page: I suppose I'd better put something here! I'm English and live in southern England; I hope that doesn't put you all off me! I'll probably add some articles, and correct the more extreme h...

I suppose I'd better put something here!

I'm English and live in southern England; I hope that doesn't put you all off me!

I'll probably add some articles, and correct the more extreme howlers when I find them - I'm sure some people just make stuff up.

== Politics ==

I'm not familiar witn the US descriptions of "conservative" or "liberal", (the British ones don't correspond) so I can't tell you where I come in that scale. On the four-quadrant graph (link when I can find it), I'm in the bottom-left segment, but not by very far, somewhere near Ghandi and Nelson Mandela.

I support equality for all, public education, and universal health care. I don't support positive discrimination, taxation unrelated to income, or a totally market-driven economy. (I don't want a totally state-controlled one either, though). I support private free enterprise, but some things are too important to be left to the guy who wants to fill his pockets.

Talk:British Broadcasting Corporation

2007-04-13T17:59:45Z

G7mzh:

Should [[BBC]] redirect here? Would seem logical. [[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 13:59, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:British Broadcasting Corporation

2007-04-13T17:59:07Z

G7mzh: New page: Should [[BBC}} redirect here? Would seem logical.~~~~

Should [[BBC}} redirect here? Would seem logical.[[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 13:59, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

British Broadcasting Corporation

2007-04-13T17:56:31Z

G7mzh: Crossroads was not a BBC show.

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is the leading broadcaster in the United Kingdom and is regarded as one of the leading broadcasters in the world.

The BBC operates seven national television channels in the UK and seven national radio networks, as well as the BBC World Service radio network. Outside the UK the BBC operates BBC World TV, BBC America TV, BBC Canada TV and BBC Prime TV.

The BBC is entirely owned by the UK government, however under its charter it operates entirely independently of government control. The BBC produces many well known television programmes, including [[Are you being served?]] and [[Doctor Who]].
[[Category:broadcasting]]

Talk:BBC

2007-04-13T17:55:14Z

G7mzh:

I live in the UK. I am an evangelical Christian.

I heard a radio article this morning on BBC radio about conservapedia as an alternative to wikipedia. Although the BBC is often liberal, I felt the item gave Conservapedia a fair hearing. Unfortunately, I was rather disappointed by some of your complaints against Wikipedia - direct from your representative's mouth. One of the main concerns seemed to be that Wikipedia use non-US English, and that it was anti-american in its editorial stance.

I have to be honest. As a non-American, I found the inference that US English was the higher form of our shared language to be somewhat offensive, and small minded. If Wikipedia choses to use standard English, how is that any more or less morally acceptable than a wiki that uses American English? I don't believe that American is any more God's special country than the UK, France, or even Nigeria could claim to be? Where does this superiority complex come from?

I am concerned that Conservapedia has missed the point that is is part of the www - WORLD wide web, not the American web. As a Christian, I welcome an alternative viewpoint to Wikipedia. I do not, however, relish the idea that Christian = proAmerican and that the only audience you are serving is American. I ask that you consider your worldwide audience/potential contributors. I would add, I'm not anti American - I've been to your country many times and have many friends there. I'm just not American.

(Name withheld)

:'''A Conservapedia editor responds:'''

:Dear Sir,

:Thank you for your feedback. We have many friends in England also, and I once had the pleasure of being involved in litigation with your barristers across the pond. Many Americans older than I fondly recall coming to your aid in World War II when things were looking quite bleak in London.

:Certainly no offen'''s'''e is intended by preferring the American spelling of words here on Conservapedia. The American spelling is typically more economical in its use of letters, and more people prefer the American spelling to the old British spelling.

:I do wonder why you refer to your spelling as "standard English." Could you join us on Conservapedia and explain that for us?

:Cheers, --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:44, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::'''A Conservapedia user responds:'''

::I think that the editor's reply to our British friend is an excellent one, and really demonstrates what Conservapedia is all about, particularly the reference to World War II. The point concerning the more economical approach to spelling embodied by American English is consistent with the philosophy behind the shorter and more concise articles on Conservapedia (when contrasted with other, more verbose online encyclopedias), an approach to language which one of our British friend's very own countrymen, Mr. George Orwell, would have found familiar.

::Cheerio, --[[User:Tooner440|Tooner440]] 00:35, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::: Thanks, I really appreciated your comments above!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:44, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::You are most welcome!--[[User:Tooner440|Tooner440]] 01:11, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== A British Wikipedian says ==

Hello there. I couldn't help noticing that you did not answer a single thing of that persons queries (except your spelling one, although that does not explain why its non-use makes Wikipedia anti-American). I myself am not anti-American, but I do not see how your arguments make sense.

For example- In your rules you state you are neutral in facts, for example you will call a terrorist group a terrorist group, yet a terrorist group is a point of view, not a fact. In your definition you state it as the use of violence or intimidation to pursue political objectives. In that case, any army in the World is a terrorist organisation.

: Perhaps our definition should be improved. But we're not going to use political correct terminology to epitomize terrorism. Call it what it really is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:23, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Point 2- Your articles are many times more biased than wikipedia. One of my edits was removed within minutes for being "liberal censorship of conservative facts", that is stating science. A large collection of users with more liberal, international views may become biased, but a small group who make a single demographic faction with pre-set ideas and relying on the consensus of a few individuals really does fulfil the meaning of the word "Wikiality" (see wikipedia on the subject). The internet is not the American Wide web.

: Not sure what your point is here. No one seriously disputes that Wikipedia is more liberal than the American public. Jimmy Wales has even admitted this, though of course he won't say how much more liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:23, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Point 3- Many of your articles lack reliable sources or do not mention facts. For example, in Evolution it states that there are no transitional fossils. Perhaps you have not heard of "Archaeopteryx" or "Cynodont". One article linked to a site which didn't exist, while another cited Conservapedia! Wikipedia may have its flaws but their rule clearly disallows that from happening!

: I have heard of Archaeopteryx and I believe my comments about it were edited out. What Wikipedia rule are you citing? Regardless, stay tuned and watch Conservapedia grow.

Oh, and finally, I do not see how WW2 is connected to the conversation, nor why it was commented as being a particularly relevant point when it was the most irrelevant point on the page, especially as the Battle of Britain was over. I fully appreciate the sacrifice of our American friends in their fight against fascism and for the freedom of Europe, but "come to our aid when things were looking bleak". Perhaps you should touch up on your history.

: Thank you, but I've studied this period of history thoroughly. Let's not understate what America did for Britain in WWII, OK?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:23, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
::We should never understate the enourmous assistance given by America to the entire of Europe and indeed the World (given that it was a World War), however the Americans only gave that assistance because they were forced to retaliate to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour. America would not otherwise have joined the war. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 10:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I remind you that I'm not anti-American or anti-Christian, but I see your response and most of your site to be fundamentally lacking of any substance whatsoever, incredibly biased and hypocritical, extremely prejudice against Liberals and full of blackwhite remarks (see "Newspeak" from 1984). I agree with my fellow countryman's remarks, and if anything, you could argue that I'm anti-you. I hope we can both see your site succeed (the Internet has very few generally new things nowadays) and my constructive criticism has been helpful. If you have read this far, my congratulations at reading to the end rather than deleting this “liberal propaganda”

: You are obviously liberal in your perspective. I don't expect all liberals to like this site. But more open-minded ones will.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:23, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Signing out for undoubtedly the last time, your atheist friend, --[[User:Ben|Ben]] 16:19, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

PS. Perhaps you do not know what the definition for “Liberal” is. The dictionary defines it as…

1). Less strict, Tolerant
2). Free from prejudice or bigotry
3). Characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts
4). Of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
“Naturally these are all bad things, although… “

: Those are lovely euphemisms that have virtually no basis in political reality. We define [[liberal]] as it really is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:23, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Careful, Andy! Your bias is showing! But then again, you have a point. Racial profiling, torture, wiretapping, et al, are all pretty tolerant.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:25, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Please enlighten me by defining liberal "as it really is". Further more, you still didn't answer point 2. You mentioned that Wikipedia is more liberal which, although true, is never disputed on this page. Perhaps you misunderstood? And finally, then you say "which rule is this?", I mean this rule on the page "Wikipedia: Citing sources":

"Wikipedia articles and categories cannot be used as sources."

: OK, we're making progress. We both agree that Wikipedia is more liberal than the American public.

: Doesn't our entry [[liberal]] define the term? I'll check after posting this. A meaningful definition would have to include censorship of prayer from the classroom, even when every single parent, student and teacher wants a prayer, and forced taxpayer-funding of abortion, even for taxpayers who morally object.

: Wikipedia's byzantine rules are only selectively enforced in a way that reflects its bias. One of my major objections is how Wikipedia does allow, and even implicitly encourages, the citation of journalistic opinion as fact. In this manner many factual assertions presented in Wikipedia are, upon further investigation, merely a liberal opinion that was published somewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:44, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Should this page redirect to [[British Broadcasting Corporation]]? It seems daft having two entries for the same thing. [[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 13:55, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Basil Brush

2007-04-13T17:50:34Z

G7mzh:

Or was he a glove puppet in the shape of a fox?
The jury's out on this one.

Maybe just a sockpuppet.

This article is gibberish. Basil Brush was a children's TV puppet (as was Sooty).

The Thorpe/Scott/Newton case was something entirely different. [[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 13:50, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Exothermic reaction

2007-03-15T15:17:31Z

G7mzh:

In chemistry, an exothermic reaction is one that generates heat.

==See also==

[[Endothermic]]

Euro

2007-03-15T14:20:51Z

G7mzh: Changed "continental Europe" to EU (includes Ireland) and added exchange rates.

The euro is the common [[currency]] in the [[European Union]] today. Use of the euro began in January 2002, and 12 nations switched their currency immediately to the euro. It is the counterpart to the dollar in the United States.

In the United Kingdom the currency is still the [[pound]], but there is pressure to convert to the euro that is used throughout Europe. Many conservatives in England ([[Tories]])resist conversion to the European currency because a reliance on someone else's currency represents a loss in sovereignty and control. In particular, there is fear of England becoming dependent on the fiscal policies of the larger combination of Germany, Italy, and France.

By the end of 2006, after about five years of the euro, a French magazine reported that 52% of the French feel that the euro is a "bad thing". French workers now blame the euro for price hikes and job losses. 71% of French [[blue-collar workers]] say the euro has hurt them personally. The Telegraph, 12-27-06.

As of March 2007, the euro is worth approximately US$1.30 or GB£0.70.

Cable News Network

2007-03-15T13:01:41Z

G7mzh: expanded

'''CNN''' (officially the '''Cable News Network''') is the oldest 24 hour cable news channel in the [[United States]]. First started in 1980 by [[Ted Turner]] it is a division of the Turner Broadcasting System, which is owned by Time Warner.

From its origin as a cable-only service, CNN now broadcasts worldwide by satellite, with programs presented from studios in several countries in addition to their headquarters in Atlanta. Some regions receive locally produced opt-outs (under the name "CNN International"), and there are also broadcasts in [[Spanish]] and Turkish.