Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Essay:Crackpot

2007-05-28T22:09:01Z

Ghoti:

The word '''crackpot''' refers to an eccentric person with an enthusiasm for promoting an unorthodox idea. In an early use of the term, a 1913 observer described a rally in support of the impeached Governor of New York as "a collection of the rarest political crackpots I have ever seen."<ref>"Loyal Few Hear Sulzer Farewell," ''The New York Times,'' October 19, 1913, p. 1.'' Attributed to one Patrick E. McCabe, Clerk to the Court of Impeachment. A letter entitled "Political Crackpots" appeared the next day (p. 6) credited McCabe with "adding the expressive word 'crackpot' to our recently somewhat worn political vocabulary.'" An August 6, 1924 letter (p. 12) said that the term "had made its way into respectable literature." It quotes from p. 301 of Frank Swinnerton's 1923 novel ''Young Felix'' :"'Why you old idiot!' stormed Felix. 'You don't know what an artist is. You old crackpot!'"</ref>

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

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

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

Some distinguishing characteristics of crackpots are:

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

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

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

== See Also ==

* [[Pseudoscience]]
* [http://www.crank.net/ Crank.Net]

==Notes and references==
<references/>

Fiat Money

2007-05-28T22:00:38Z

Ghoti:

'''Fiat''' (Latin: ''it shall be'') [[money]] is [[currency]] that isn't backed by any actual value, such as the [[Gold Standard]], and which has no inherent value. Most modern countries use fiat currency, which is supported soley by people's willingness to accept it and the government's power to force people to accept it.

Fiat money often results in [[inflation]] when the government is unstable.

[http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_04/greene032104.html Fiat Money Systems]

[[Category:Economics]]

Fiat Money

2007-05-28T21:55:20Z

Ghoti: New page: '''Fiat''' money is Money that isn't backed by any actual value, unlike the Gold Standard, and which has no inherent value. Most modern countries use fiat currency, which is suppo...

'''Fiat''' money is [[Money]] that isn't backed by any actual value, unlike the [[Gold Standard]], and which has no inherent value. Most modern countries use fiat currency, which is supported soley by people's willingness to accept it and the government's power to force people to accept it.

Fiat money often results in [[Inflation]] when the government is unstable.

[http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_04/greene032104.html Fiat Money Systems]

[{Category:Economics]]

Money

2007-05-28T21:51:41Z

Ghoti:

==Economic Properties of Money==

Money is defined as something which serves as a means of exchange, a store of value, and a unit of account. The currency which serves as money may be backed by some tangible commodity, such as the [[Gold Standard]], or may be [[Fiat Money]], such as [[Federal Reserve]] notes. Alternatively, trade may be carried on using commodity pay, wherein existing commodities are assigned exchange values but not explicitly designated as money.

==Money Neutrality and the Money Market==

Money may be viewed as neutral or non-neutral regarding the real economy; it is disputed whether changes in the money market cause changes in real markets. The money market itself consists of a money supply (typically fixed for any given period) and a demand function for money. Because the quantity of money is typically exogenously given, the only variable determined in the money market is the price of money.

[[Category:Economics]]

Money

2007-05-28T21:51:20Z

Ghoti:

==Economic Properties of Money==

Money is defined as something which serves as a means of exchange, a store of value, and a unit of account. The currency which serves as money may be backed by some tangible commodity, such as the [[GOld Standard]], or may be [[fiat money]], such as [[Federal Reserve]] notes. Alternatively, trade may be carried on using commodity pay, wherein existing commodities are assigned exchange values but not explicitly designated as money.

==Money Neutrality and the Money Market==

Money may be viewed as neutral or non-neutral regarding the real economy; it is disputed whether changes in the money market cause changes in real markets. The money market itself consists of a money supply (typically fixed for any given period) and a demand function for money. Because the quantity of money is typically exogenously given, the only variable determined in the money market is the price of money.

[[Category:Economics]]

Vandalism

2007-05-28T21:47:44Z

Ghoti:

== Vandalism ==

Vandalism is the willful defacement, destruction or damage to property that does not belong to the vandal.

It is named after the [[Vandals]], who were a Germanic tribe that destroyed [[Rome]].

On [[Conservapedia]], posting facts that a mod doesn't like constitues Vandalism, (as well as [[Terrorism]],) and is punishable by immediate and often permanent banning.

Not that I am bitter.

{{stub2}}

== External Links ==

[http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vandalism Dictionary definition]

Talk:Syphilis

2007-05-27T00:02:26Z

Ghoti: New page: Widespread? In this day and age? --~~~~

Widespread? In this day and age? --[[User:Ghoti|Ghoti]] 20:02, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Should an encyclopedia simply present readers with the factual evidence on issues?

2007-05-27T00:01:27Z

Ghoti: /* NO */

{{debate}}

==YES==

Since you don't believe in this side, I'll take it from here. I believe it is insulting to the readership of an encyclopedia to tell them what they should think. Of course there are some situations where it is hard to establish the exact facts, in which case the opinions of authorities on both sides of the issue should be quoted. However the author of an article should not be entitled to include their own personal view, since this undermines the credibility of the whole article. --[[User:Kelpan|Kelpan]] 14:07, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

==NO==

Often most of the problem is finding out what the facts are. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:59, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, the problem you guys face is that the facts frequently don't jibe with the bill of goods you hope to sell your students, like "The Puritans rejected slavery" (They did not) "Margaret Chase Smith's 'Declaration of Conscience' was an attack on the Democratic Party" (It was an attack on McCarthy and McCarthyism) and "the Democratic Party opposed the Civil Rights Movement" (a blatant attempt to conflate a small wing of the Democratic party with the party itself.) That's why you are answering "no," Ed. Like Stephen Colbert says, you feel that reality has a liberal bias. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:56, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

::On this site, the problem is keeping the facts on the page--the worst enemy of truth is the zealot, and this place seems to have a surplus of zealots with over-active 'delete' keys. --[[User:Ghoti|Ghoti]] 20:01, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

Voltaire

2007-05-26T23:59:32Z

Ghoti:

[[Image:392.jpg|right|thumb|250px]]
Voltaire (pen name of François-Marie Arouet) (1694-1778) was a leading philosopher in the [[Enlightenment]], advocating freedom everywhere and emphasizing his form of reason. He was a [[Deism|deist]] who rejected [[Christianity]] and criticized [[organized religion]]. Voltaire is sometimes called the "Father of the Enlightenment."

A Frenchman, he wrote "Candide," in which Voltaire described many bad things that happen to Candide in order to make the point that the world could be a better place. Increased freedom was Voltaire's way of improving things.

The late historian Kenneth Clarke described him as possibly the most intelligent man to have ever lived.

==Voltaire on Religion==

Voltaire was very critical of religion, and has been variously categorized as an [[atheist]] or [[deist]].
In his ''Philosophical Dictionary,'' he fantasizes a conversation in which he asks a spirit "Tell me if there have been peoples other than the Christians and the Jews in whom zeal and religion wretchedly transformed into fanaticism, have inspired so many horrible cruelties." The spirit replies "Yes, the [[Muslim|Mohammedans]] were sullied with the same inhumanities, but rarely; and when one asked amman, pity, of them, and offered them tribute, they pardoned.As for the other nations there has not been one right from the existence of the world which has ever made a purely religious war."<ref>http://history.hanover.edu/texts/voltaire/volrelig.html</ref>

Regarding [[Islam]], he said, "I TELL you again, ignorant imbeciles, whom other ignoramuses have made believe that the Mohammedan religion is voluptuous and sensual, there is not a word of truth in it; you have been deceived on this point as on so many others.

Canons, monks, vicars even, if a law were imposed on you not to eat or drink from four in the morning till ten at night, during the month of July, when Lent came at this period; if you were forbidden to play at any game of chance under pain of damnation; if wine were forbidden you under the same pain; if you had to make a pilgrimage into the burning desert; if it were enjoined on you to give at least two and a half per cent. of your income to the poor; if, accustomed to enjoy possession of eighteen women, the number were cut down suddenly by fourteen; honestly, would you dare call that religion sensual?

The Latin Christians have so many advantages over the Mussulmans, I do not say in the matter of war, but in the matter of doctrines; the [[Greek]] Christians have so beaten them latterly from 1769 to 1773, that it is not worth the trouble to indulge in unjust reproaches against Islam.

Try to retake from the Mohammedans all that they usurped; but it is easier to calumniate them.

I hate [[calumny]] so much that I do not want even to impute foolishness to the [[Turkey|Turks]], although I detest them as tyrants over women and enemies of the arts.

I do not know why the historian of the Lower Empire maintains that Mohammed speaks in his Koran of his journey into the sky: Mohammed does not say a word about it; we have proved it.

One must combat ceaselessly. When one has destroyed an error, there is always someone who resuscitates it." <ref>http://history.hanover.edu/texts/voltaire/volmoham.html</ref>

==Voltaire on Democracy==

[[category:philosophers]]

User talk:PF Fox

2007-05-26T23:28:13Z

Ghoti: /* Knock it off */

Block Warning: Do not make edits that subtly change the meaning of the article like you did on fascism, or you will be blocked. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:48, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Fascism ==

A sentence which reads this way: "Allowing only information which supports the far-left state is a common means of fascist control. This is especially pertinant in websites such as Wikipedia which allow liberal-only information through."

Combined with a later sentence in the same entry which reads like this: "Communism represents the extreme left of the political spectrum, while Fascism represents the extreme right."

...renders the entire entry meaningless. If Fascism represents the "extreme right", how can "allowing only information which supports the far-left state" be "a common means of fascist control?"

==Nazi article==
Conservatism and ultra-conservatism ''are'' right-wing. There is also a radical fringe on the far, far right that is neither conservative nor even ultra-conservative. Nazism falls there so it is a correct statement to say Nazis were not conservative. Not everything on the right wing is conservative. Libertarianism falls on the right side of the spectrum too but it is a very distinct thing from conservatism. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 16:32, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==205==
Before you begin using what WP:ATTFAQ describes as obsolete and depracated cource, I invite yo to review this document. [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/%22Operations_of_the_MGB_Residency_at_New_York%2C_1944-45%22]

And what specific point of mine is this supposed to address? Please be specific.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:Ellen Schrecker has deprecated herself, not to mention other obsolete information; since 1995, all the previous 50 years of published material needs to be reviewed.
:Have you read the Moynihan Commission Report? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

On specifically what points did she deprecate herself? And what did I post from those other sources that proved to be untrue?
No, I have not read the Moynihan Commission report. What specifically does it say that renders what I've posted here invalid?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Please do not remove Talk page comments==
Please do not remove Talk page comments. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&diff=next&oldid=32278] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

If I did this it was not deliberate, and I apologize. This system is still new to me. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:49, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Transcripts may have a proper place; but you've filled it up with Schecker material which she herself has deprecated, and the evidence of trolling I predicted around that article, cited above, you had removed from the Talk page. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:12, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The majority of my material did not come from Schrecker, as my own notes indicate. And please tell me what I'd posted that she "deprecated." I'd also like to know how the transcripts from the McCarthy hearings -- including the audio -- qualify as "deprecated" material.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:14, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==McCarthy==

What exactly would you like to add? Post it on my talk page.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Archives ==

I noticed you just added comments to [[User talk:Aschlafly/Archive4]]. This isn't appropriate, seeing as how it is an archived discussion. It's history. Editing it is like, going back to the civil war and letting the south win! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:50, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Sorry. I am trying to put things in their right places, and my comments were a continuation of that discussion. I'll move them someplace more recent. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal? ==

Can you [[User:Richard/Conservapedia_Liberal_List#Suspected_Liberalpedian | confirm your liberal status]]?

==[[Salvador Allende]]==

I may have been unclear on the talk page, based on your response. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Salvador_Allende&diff=70726&oldid=70714]

I was asking if stipulating a single standard helps us write the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:57, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Civility==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=73073&oldid=73068 This] makes two snide remarks in a row.

Such remarks are derogatory in a malicious, superior way. [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/snide]

Perhaps it's just a customary way of speaking where you come from, but I dislike the tone of it. I'd rather you say something pleasant and respectful and to the point, like:
*I feel the burden of proof is on you, not the other editor.

I have blocked you with an expiry time of 2 hours for incivility.

Don't make comments like this. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&curid=10983&diff=73085&oldid=73081&rcid=75727] Focus instead on improving articles - or be elsewhere.

We are not equals, and this is not a game of tit for tat. Sysops at this web site have authority to make the sort of judgments I have been making in the last few days. The only comments I've gotten from senior staff is that I'm too lenient. I suggest you find a better use for your time than hanging around here, sniping at regular contributors. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:15, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm blocking you again, because (1) you seem to have some useful ideas but (2) you still are "attacking the person" instead of "addressing the point".

:Don't say ''you fear it'' but something like this:
:*Please include this information; or,
:*According to (blank) McCarthy did (this action) which had (that result).

:We're not afraid of ideas here. It's not like some children's school library that censors ''Uncle Tom's Cabin'' or ''Huckleberry Finn'' because it might have a scary or offense passage. But like a library, there's a certain standard of decorum. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::The concept of "civility" seems entirely subjective. Maybe we should find a way to codify what you mean, so this user and others have a clue about its ramifications. --[[User:Huey dun gotcha|Huey dun gotcha]] 16:03, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Meet me at [[Conservapedia talk:Civility]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:06, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

It depends on what the issue is, but [[User:Ed_Poor|Ed]] is a reasonable guy.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:32, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

: *blush* thanks, because I would hate to be accused of making ''an excuse for derrailing political discussions heading in directions you dislike into long and pointless quibbles'' --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::You were not who I had in mind, Ed, but I'm sorry, my comments about this "political spectrum" nonsense stand. It's interesting to note that it's almost never invoked when the Communists are referred to as "leftists" -- only when the Nazis (or for that matter, the Klan) are referred to as being on the "right." Why do you think that is? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:26, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::A good question, which has long puzzled me. According to my calculations, Communism is twenty times worse than Nazism. So I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would want to be associated with [[the left]]. Maybe it's because Hitler's side lost, and Life Magazine published pictures of plaintive yet attractive white people from his death camps.

:::Anyway, I added the Communist-Nazi left-right spectrum [[Political spectrum|here]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:51, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I find nothing "puzzling" about it. My experience has been that lately the people most eager to conflate liberalism/leftism with Communism are also the one's most unwilling to acknowledge the fact that Hitler was a right-winger, probably because they assume that since THEY conflate liberalism with Communism, others MUST conflate conservatism with Nazism. Rather than give up their own over-simplified vision of the left they struggle vainly to alter the meaning of "right wing" so that they don't sit on the same bench -- however far down that bench -- as Nazism. Now that the middle of the Twentieth century is falling from living memory, they are trying out a form of revisionism that would have gotten them laughed out of the room if they'd offered it twenty or thirty years ago, in the presence of people who'd actually fought and remembered the Third Reich.

::::I'd be interested in knowing what manner of arithmatic goes into determining that "Communism is twenty times worse than Nazism." (Is it the same math that defines 3,000 murdered people as "a few?") I can only tell you that as someone who remembers the black civil rights era, I can readily see why people would want to be identified with liberalism and the left. I did not know Martin Luther King Jr., or Viola Liuzzo, or Michael Schwerner personally, but I have known other liberals and leftists who I've admired, who fought bravely in World War II (and in some cases, even before that, in the Spanish Civil War,) who literally put their lives on the line working with the poor in Central and South America, forming unions in the American south, striving to ensure black Americans could practice their right to vote in Missisippi and Alabama during the '60s. These were liberals and leftists, Ed. Not conservatives. They were also principled and brave people who were on the correct side of important issues, most of them protecting rights that presumably all Americans -- liberal and conservative -- consider vital. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Don't say stuff like this:
#having a decent regard for the truth.
#If the person uttering this untruth is saying it through ignorance, they need to actually read up on the subject
#they are fracturing the 9th Commandment. ''--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:08, 10 April 2007 (EDT)''

It's not civil. It's inflammatory.

You'd do better to say:
*I disagree with you about what 'wing' Hitler was on.
*We need to get this right.
*Children look up to grown-ups as examples.

Okay? See you tomorrow. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::If the truth is inflammatory here, that's a pity.

::How does that 9th Commandment go again? Seem to remember the words "false witness" in there somewhere...--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==IRC==
Colin and TK are on IRC, irc.freenode.net in channel #conservapedia You're more than welcome to join.
[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 15:44, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
You'd have to get an IRC program, chatzilla for firefox, mIrc.com works well too, but it depends what OS you have and all that.[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

==Standards of scholarship for this site==

You seem to be on a crusade. You have repeatedly inserted your POV (or a widely held POV that you apparently hold) '''as if it were''' an undisputed fact.

Please stop this, or I will suspend your account. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:09, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::Please explain in what manner I've pushed my POV so that I can avoid it in the future. How is Jara's very well-documented death a matter of PF Fox's POV? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:10, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Trolling==
Please note, I do block for trolling. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Salvador_Allende&diff=102666&oldid=102658] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:24, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::And how am I guilty of trolling? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:13, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You write as if you don't understand my remarks about Pinochet. This appears to be a pose. You are blocked for the rest of the week. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

You have impressed senior staff with your significant contributions. Welcome back! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:15, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 10:23, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Booty ==

Booty is the most important element of dancing. Do you agree--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 00:44, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Knock it off ==

Do you want to be blocked again? I reverted your last edit to the article on [[Ann Coulter]]'s book ''Slander'' because it constituted malicious context-dropping. Your block log is getting rather long, and if I have to block you yet again, it will likely be for significantly longer. Consider yourself warned.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:36, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::Oh Heaven forfend that anyone apply CONTEXT! --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:45, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I said the ''dropping'' of context. The full context of anything that Ann Coulter said about anybody consists of the words and deeds of the other person, that provoked whatever she said that ''you'' find outrageous.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:54, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Then by all means, let's include the fact that she considered the women disagreeing with her about how to deal with terrorism and voting for Kerry valid reason for nastily implying that they were enjoying their husbands deaths! How about it? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 20:01, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::First, that's the wrong book.

Well then, my apologies. How silly of me to forget that the primary objection to Slander was the gross inaccuracies that riddle it. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:40, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Second, in ''Godless: The Church of Liberalism'', she gave the real reason for what she said: that they were enjoying the attention they were getting. Have you even read the book that the quote came from? I don't think you have.

Yes, I did read the book. Please explain how claiming that the widows were enjoying the attention they were getting renders her statement about them enjoying their husbands deaths less offensive. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:40, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Part of being an editor is finding things out for yourself--not quoting secondary sources that, in all likelihood, got it wrong.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

It's a good thing that I've read Ann Coulter's books, then, isn't it? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:40, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::No, no it isn't. :) Once you see something like that, you can never unsee it. (But I do admire your taking one for the team like that. --[[User:Ghoti|Ghoti]] 19:28, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

== Al gore sr ==
I cannot read your citation because it requires a login password.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 17:32, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

The word "inhabitants" includes men, women, and children.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:59, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

::Not always. Some readers might assume it just means grown men.

::And you wouldn't want them MISINTERPRETING the Bible, now, would you? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 00:02, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
:::How about "all the inhabitants"?[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:04, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Nope. Let's be frank about this Bohdan. Joshua's army went in and courageously ran through women, the elderly, children, and babies. Why does saying this bother you? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 00:06, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::It bothers me because its redundant. Your insistance on adding this does show little understanding of ancient warfare though. I warn you that this is considered trollong and trolling is a blockable offense.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:10, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

LOL! Warn away. I'll lose no sleep over it. And I understand enough about ancient warfare to know that killing everyone down to the last infant was NOT the norm (see Numbers 33.) As for it being "redundant" I think what bothers you is that observing exactly what "inhabitants" means in this context is uncomfortably close to the point. Those shots of Joshua's men stomping babies to death woudn't look too great in a DeMille Biblical epic, would it? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 00:15, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

::Well, in other parts of the Bible, Moses' army slaughters everyone EXCEPT virgin teenaged girls. (Guess what they did to them.) And this is supposed to be the basis of our country's morality? I think I'll stick to [[Tom Paine]], thanks. --[[User:Ghoti|Ghoti]] 19:26, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

== == Olberman == ==

Careful, that was an awfully [[Reality-Based Community|Reality-Based]] thing you said. You'll probably get banned for it. --[[User:Ghoti|Ghoti]] 19:24, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

User talk:PF Fox

2007-05-26T23:26:51Z

Ghoti: /* Al gore sr */

Block Warning: Do not make edits that subtly change the meaning of the article like you did on fascism, or you will be blocked. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:48, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Fascism ==

A sentence which reads this way: "Allowing only information which supports the far-left state is a common means of fascist control. This is especially pertinant in websites such as Wikipedia which allow liberal-only information through."

Combined with a later sentence in the same entry which reads like this: "Communism represents the extreme left of the political spectrum, while Fascism represents the extreme right."

...renders the entire entry meaningless. If Fascism represents the "extreme right", how can "allowing only information which supports the far-left state" be "a common means of fascist control?"

==Nazi article==
Conservatism and ultra-conservatism ''are'' right-wing. There is also a radical fringe on the far, far right that is neither conservative nor even ultra-conservative. Nazism falls there so it is a correct statement to say Nazis were not conservative. Not everything on the right wing is conservative. Libertarianism falls on the right side of the spectrum too but it is a very distinct thing from conservatism. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 16:32, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==205==
Before you begin using what WP:ATTFAQ describes as obsolete and depracated cource, I invite yo to review this document. [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/%22Operations_of_the_MGB_Residency_at_New_York%2C_1944-45%22]

And what specific point of mine is this supposed to address? Please be specific.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:Ellen Schrecker has deprecated herself, not to mention other obsolete information; since 1995, all the previous 50 years of published material needs to be reviewed.
:Have you read the Moynihan Commission Report? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

On specifically what points did she deprecate herself? And what did I post from those other sources that proved to be untrue?
No, I have not read the Moynihan Commission report. What specifically does it say that renders what I've posted here invalid?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Please do not remove Talk page comments==
Please do not remove Talk page comments. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&diff=next&oldid=32278] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

If I did this it was not deliberate, and I apologize. This system is still new to me. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:49, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Transcripts may have a proper place; but you've filled it up with Schecker material which she herself has deprecated, and the evidence of trolling I predicted around that article, cited above, you had removed from the Talk page. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:12, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The majority of my material did not come from Schrecker, as my own notes indicate. And please tell me what I'd posted that she "deprecated." I'd also like to know how the transcripts from the McCarthy hearings -- including the audio -- qualify as "deprecated" material.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:14, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==McCarthy==

What exactly would you like to add? Post it on my talk page.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Archives ==

I noticed you just added comments to [[User talk:Aschlafly/Archive4]]. This isn't appropriate, seeing as how it is an archived discussion. It's history. Editing it is like, going back to the civil war and letting the south win! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:50, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Sorry. I am trying to put things in their right places, and my comments were a continuation of that discussion. I'll move them someplace more recent. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal? ==

Can you [[User:Richard/Conservapedia_Liberal_List#Suspected_Liberalpedian | confirm your liberal status]]?

==[[Salvador Allende]]==

I may have been unclear on the talk page, based on your response. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Salvador_Allende&diff=70726&oldid=70714]

I was asking if stipulating a single standard helps us write the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:57, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Civility==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=73073&oldid=73068 This] makes two snide remarks in a row.

Such remarks are derogatory in a malicious, superior way. [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/snide]

Perhaps it's just a customary way of speaking where you come from, but I dislike the tone of it. I'd rather you say something pleasant and respectful and to the point, like:
*I feel the burden of proof is on you, not the other editor.

I have blocked you with an expiry time of 2 hours for incivility.

Don't make comments like this. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&curid=10983&diff=73085&oldid=73081&rcid=75727] Focus instead on improving articles - or be elsewhere.

We are not equals, and this is not a game of tit for tat. Sysops at this web site have authority to make the sort of judgments I have been making in the last few days. The only comments I've gotten from senior staff is that I'm too lenient. I suggest you find a better use for your time than hanging around here, sniping at regular contributors. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:15, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm blocking you again, because (1) you seem to have some useful ideas but (2) you still are "attacking the person" instead of "addressing the point".

:Don't say ''you fear it'' but something like this:
:*Please include this information; or,
:*According to (blank) McCarthy did (this action) which had (that result).

:We're not afraid of ideas here. It's not like some children's school library that censors ''Uncle Tom's Cabin'' or ''Huckleberry Finn'' because it might have a scary or offense passage. But like a library, there's a certain standard of decorum. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::The concept of "civility" seems entirely subjective. Maybe we should find a way to codify what you mean, so this user and others have a clue about its ramifications. --[[User:Huey dun gotcha|Huey dun gotcha]] 16:03, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Meet me at [[Conservapedia talk:Civility]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:06, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

It depends on what the issue is, but [[User:Ed_Poor|Ed]] is a reasonable guy.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:32, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

: *blush* thanks, because I would hate to be accused of making ''an excuse for derrailing political discussions heading in directions you dislike into long and pointless quibbles'' --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::You were not who I had in mind, Ed, but I'm sorry, my comments about this "political spectrum" nonsense stand. It's interesting to note that it's almost never invoked when the Communists are referred to as "leftists" -- only when the Nazis (or for that matter, the Klan) are referred to as being on the "right." Why do you think that is? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:26, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::A good question, which has long puzzled me. According to my calculations, Communism is twenty times worse than Nazism. So I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would want to be associated with [[the left]]. Maybe it's because Hitler's side lost, and Life Magazine published pictures of plaintive yet attractive white people from his death camps.

:::Anyway, I added the Communist-Nazi left-right spectrum [[Political spectrum|here]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:51, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I find nothing "puzzling" about it. My experience has been that lately the people most eager to conflate liberalism/leftism with Communism are also the one's most unwilling to acknowledge the fact that Hitler was a right-winger, probably because they assume that since THEY conflate liberalism with Communism, others MUST conflate conservatism with Nazism. Rather than give up their own over-simplified vision of the left they struggle vainly to alter the meaning of "right wing" so that they don't sit on the same bench -- however far down that bench -- as Nazism. Now that the middle of the Twentieth century is falling from living memory, they are trying out a form of revisionism that would have gotten them laughed out of the room if they'd offered it twenty or thirty years ago, in the presence of people who'd actually fought and remembered the Third Reich.

::::I'd be interested in knowing what manner of arithmatic goes into determining that "Communism is twenty times worse than Nazism." (Is it the same math that defines 3,000 murdered people as "a few?") I can only tell you that as someone who remembers the black civil rights era, I can readily see why people would want to be identified with liberalism and the left. I did not know Martin Luther King Jr., or Viola Liuzzo, or Michael Schwerner personally, but I have known other liberals and leftists who I've admired, who fought bravely in World War II (and in some cases, even before that, in the Spanish Civil War,) who literally put their lives on the line working with the poor in Central and South America, forming unions in the American south, striving to ensure black Americans could practice their right to vote in Missisippi and Alabama during the '60s. These were liberals and leftists, Ed. Not conservatives. They were also principled and brave people who were on the correct side of important issues, most of them protecting rights that presumably all Americans -- liberal and conservative -- consider vital. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Don't say stuff like this:
#having a decent regard for the truth.
#If the person uttering this untruth is saying it through ignorance, they need to actually read up on the subject
#they are fracturing the 9th Commandment. ''--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:08, 10 April 2007 (EDT)''

It's not civil. It's inflammatory.

You'd do better to say:
*I disagree with you about what 'wing' Hitler was on.
*We need to get this right.
*Children look up to grown-ups as examples.

Okay? See you tomorrow. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::If the truth is inflammatory here, that's a pity.

::How does that 9th Commandment go again? Seem to remember the words "false witness" in there somewhere...--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==IRC==
Colin and TK are on IRC, irc.freenode.net in channel #conservapedia You're more than welcome to join.
[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 15:44, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
You'd have to get an IRC program, chatzilla for firefox, mIrc.com works well too, but it depends what OS you have and all that.[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

==Standards of scholarship for this site==

You seem to be on a crusade. You have repeatedly inserted your POV (or a widely held POV that you apparently hold) '''as if it were''' an undisputed fact.

Please stop this, or I will suspend your account. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:09, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::Please explain in what manner I've pushed my POV so that I can avoid it in the future. How is Jara's very well-documented death a matter of PF Fox's POV? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:10, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Trolling==
Please note, I do block for trolling. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Salvador_Allende&diff=102666&oldid=102658] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:24, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::And how am I guilty of trolling? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:13, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You write as if you don't understand my remarks about Pinochet. This appears to be a pose. You are blocked for the rest of the week. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

You have impressed senior staff with your significant contributions. Welcome back! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:15, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 10:23, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Booty ==

Booty is the most important element of dancing. Do you agree--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 00:44, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Knock it off ==

Do you want to be blocked again? I reverted your last edit to the article on [[Ann Coulter]]'s book ''Slander'' because it constituted malicious context-dropping. Your block log is getting rather long, and if I have to block you yet again, it will likely be for significantly longer. Consider yourself warned.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:36, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::Oh Heaven forfend that anyone apply CONTEXT! --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:45, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I said the ''dropping'' of context. The full context of anything that Ann Coulter said about anybody consists of the words and deeds of the other person, that provoked whatever she said that ''you'' find outrageous.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:54, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Then by all means, let's include the fact that she considered the women disagreeing with her about how to deal with terrorism and voting for Kerry valid reason for nastily implying that they were enjoying their husbands deaths! How about it? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 20:01, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::First, that's the wrong book.

Well then, my apologies. How silly of me to forget that the primary objection to Slander was the gross inaccuracies that riddle it. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:40, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Second, in ''Godless: The Church of Liberalism'', she gave the real reason for what she said: that they were enjoying the attention they were getting. Have you even read the book that the quote came from? I don't think you have.

Yes, I did read the book. Please explain how claiming that the widows were enjoying the attention they were getting renders her statement about them enjoying their husbands deaths less offensive. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:40, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Part of being an editor is finding things out for yourself--not quoting secondary sources that, in all likelihood, got it wrong.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

It's a good thing that I've read Ann Coulter's books, then, isn't it? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:40, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== Al gore sr ==
I cannot read your citation because it requires a login password.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 17:32, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

The word "inhabitants" includes men, women, and children.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:59, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

::Not always. Some readers might assume it just means grown men.

::And you wouldn't want them MISINTERPRETING the Bible, now, would you? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 00:02, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
:::How about "all the inhabitants"?[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:04, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Nope. Let's be frank about this Bohdan. Joshua's army went in and courageously ran through women, the elderly, children, and babies. Why does saying this bother you? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 00:06, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::It bothers me because its redundant. Your insistance on adding this does show little understanding of ancient warfare though. I warn you that this is considered trollong and trolling is a blockable offense.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:10, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

LOL! Warn away. I'll lose no sleep over it. And I understand enough about ancient warfare to know that killing everyone down to the last infant was NOT the norm (see Numbers 33.) As for it being "redundant" I think what bothers you is that observing exactly what "inhabitants" means in this context is uncomfortably close to the point. Those shots of Joshua's men stomping babies to death woudn't look too great in a DeMille Biblical epic, would it? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 00:15, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

::Well, in other parts of the Bible, Moses' army slaughters everyone EXCEPT virgin teenaged girls. (Guess what they did to them.) And this is supposed to be the basis of our country's morality? I think I'll stick to [[Tom Paine]], thanks. --[[User:Ghoti|Ghoti]] 19:26, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

== == Olberman == ==

Careful, that was an awfully [[Reality-Based Community|Reality-Based]] thing you said. You'll probably get banned for it. --[[User:Ghoti|Ghoti]] 19:24, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

User talk:PF Fox

2007-05-26T23:24:46Z

Ghoti: == Olberman ==

Block Warning: Do not make edits that subtly change the meaning of the article like you did on fascism, or you will be blocked. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:48, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Fascism ==

A sentence which reads this way: "Allowing only information which supports the far-left state is a common means of fascist control. This is especially pertinant in websites such as Wikipedia which allow liberal-only information through."

Combined with a later sentence in the same entry which reads like this: "Communism represents the extreme left of the political spectrum, while Fascism represents the extreme right."

...renders the entire entry meaningless. If Fascism represents the "extreme right", how can "allowing only information which supports the far-left state" be "a common means of fascist control?"

==Nazi article==
Conservatism and ultra-conservatism ''are'' right-wing. There is also a radical fringe on the far, far right that is neither conservative nor even ultra-conservative. Nazism falls there so it is a correct statement to say Nazis were not conservative. Not everything on the right wing is conservative. Libertarianism falls on the right side of the spectrum too but it is a very distinct thing from conservatism. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 16:32, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==205==
Before you begin using what WP:ATTFAQ describes as obsolete and depracated cource, I invite yo to review this document. [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/%22Operations_of_the_MGB_Residency_at_New_York%2C_1944-45%22]

And what specific point of mine is this supposed to address? Please be specific.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:Ellen Schrecker has deprecated herself, not to mention other obsolete information; since 1995, all the previous 50 years of published material needs to be reviewed.
:Have you read the Moynihan Commission Report? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

On specifically what points did she deprecate herself? And what did I post from those other sources that proved to be untrue?
No, I have not read the Moynihan Commission report. What specifically does it say that renders what I've posted here invalid?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Please do not remove Talk page comments==
Please do not remove Talk page comments. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&diff=next&oldid=32278] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

If I did this it was not deliberate, and I apologize. This system is still new to me. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:49, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Transcripts may have a proper place; but you've filled it up with Schecker material which she herself has deprecated, and the evidence of trolling I predicted around that article, cited above, you had removed from the Talk page. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:12, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The majority of my material did not come from Schrecker, as my own notes indicate. And please tell me what I'd posted that she "deprecated." I'd also like to know how the transcripts from the McCarthy hearings -- including the audio -- qualify as "deprecated" material.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:14, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==McCarthy==

What exactly would you like to add? Post it on my talk page.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Archives ==

I noticed you just added comments to [[User talk:Aschlafly/Archive4]]. This isn't appropriate, seeing as how it is an archived discussion. It's history. Editing it is like, going back to the civil war and letting the south win! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:50, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Sorry. I am trying to put things in their right places, and my comments were a continuation of that discussion. I'll move them someplace more recent. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal? ==

Can you [[User:Richard/Conservapedia_Liberal_List#Suspected_Liberalpedian | confirm your liberal status]]?

==[[Salvador Allende]]==

I may have been unclear on the talk page, based on your response. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Salvador_Allende&diff=70726&oldid=70714]

I was asking if stipulating a single standard helps us write the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:57, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Civility==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=73073&oldid=73068 This] makes two snide remarks in a row.

Such remarks are derogatory in a malicious, superior way. [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/snide]

Perhaps it's just a customary way of speaking where you come from, but I dislike the tone of it. I'd rather you say something pleasant and respectful and to the point, like:
*I feel the burden of proof is on you, not the other editor.

I have blocked you with an expiry time of 2 hours for incivility.

Don't make comments like this. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&curid=10983&diff=73085&oldid=73081&rcid=75727] Focus instead on improving articles - or be elsewhere.

We are not equals, and this is not a game of tit for tat. Sysops at this web site have authority to make the sort of judgments I have been making in the last few days. The only comments I've gotten from senior staff is that I'm too lenient. I suggest you find a better use for your time than hanging around here, sniping at regular contributors. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:15, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm blocking you again, because (1) you seem to have some useful ideas but (2) you still are "attacking the person" instead of "addressing the point".

:Don't say ''you fear it'' but something like this:
:*Please include this information; or,
:*According to (blank) McCarthy did (this action) which had (that result).

:We're not afraid of ideas here. It's not like some children's school library that censors ''Uncle Tom's Cabin'' or ''Huckleberry Finn'' because it might have a scary or offense passage. But like a library, there's a certain standard of decorum. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::The concept of "civility" seems entirely subjective. Maybe we should find a way to codify what you mean, so this user and others have a clue about its ramifications. --[[User:Huey dun gotcha|Huey dun gotcha]] 16:03, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Meet me at [[Conservapedia talk:Civility]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:06, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

It depends on what the issue is, but [[User:Ed_Poor|Ed]] is a reasonable guy.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:32, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

: *blush* thanks, because I would hate to be accused of making ''an excuse for derrailing political discussions heading in directions you dislike into long and pointless quibbles'' --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::You were not who I had in mind, Ed, but I'm sorry, my comments about this "political spectrum" nonsense stand. It's interesting to note that it's almost never invoked when the Communists are referred to as "leftists" -- only when the Nazis (or for that matter, the Klan) are referred to as being on the "right." Why do you think that is? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:26, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::A good question, which has long puzzled me. According to my calculations, Communism is twenty times worse than Nazism. So I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would want to be associated with [[the left]]. Maybe it's because Hitler's side lost, and Life Magazine published pictures of plaintive yet attractive white people from his death camps.

:::Anyway, I added the Communist-Nazi left-right spectrum [[Political spectrum|here]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:51, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I find nothing "puzzling" about it. My experience has been that lately the people most eager to conflate liberalism/leftism with Communism are also the one's most unwilling to acknowledge the fact that Hitler was a right-winger, probably because they assume that since THEY conflate liberalism with Communism, others MUST conflate conservatism with Nazism. Rather than give up their own over-simplified vision of the left they struggle vainly to alter the meaning of "right wing" so that they don't sit on the same bench -- however far down that bench -- as Nazism. Now that the middle of the Twentieth century is falling from living memory, they are trying out a form of revisionism that would have gotten them laughed out of the room if they'd offered it twenty or thirty years ago, in the presence of people who'd actually fought and remembered the Third Reich.

::::I'd be interested in knowing what manner of arithmatic goes into determining that "Communism is twenty times worse than Nazism." (Is it the same math that defines 3,000 murdered people as "a few?") I can only tell you that as someone who remembers the black civil rights era, I can readily see why people would want to be identified with liberalism and the left. I did not know Martin Luther King Jr., or Viola Liuzzo, or Michael Schwerner personally, but I have known other liberals and leftists who I've admired, who fought bravely in World War II (and in some cases, even before that, in the Spanish Civil War,) who literally put their lives on the line working with the poor in Central and South America, forming unions in the American south, striving to ensure black Americans could practice their right to vote in Missisippi and Alabama during the '60s. These were liberals and leftists, Ed. Not conservatives. They were also principled and brave people who were on the correct side of important issues, most of them protecting rights that presumably all Americans -- liberal and conservative -- consider vital. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Don't say stuff like this:
#having a decent regard for the truth.
#If the person uttering this untruth is saying it through ignorance, they need to actually read up on the subject
#they are fracturing the 9th Commandment. ''--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:08, 10 April 2007 (EDT)''

It's not civil. It's inflammatory.

You'd do better to say:
*I disagree with you about what 'wing' Hitler was on.
*We need to get this right.
*Children look up to grown-ups as examples.

Okay? See you tomorrow. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::If the truth is inflammatory here, that's a pity.

::How does that 9th Commandment go again? Seem to remember the words "false witness" in there somewhere...--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==IRC==
Colin and TK are on IRC, irc.freenode.net in channel #conservapedia You're more than welcome to join.
[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 15:44, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
You'd have to get an IRC program, chatzilla for firefox, mIrc.com works well too, but it depends what OS you have and all that.[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

==Standards of scholarship for this site==

You seem to be on a crusade. You have repeatedly inserted your POV (or a widely held POV that you apparently hold) '''as if it were''' an undisputed fact.

Please stop this, or I will suspend your account. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:09, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::Please explain in what manner I've pushed my POV so that I can avoid it in the future. How is Jara's very well-documented death a matter of PF Fox's POV? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:10, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Trolling==
Please note, I do block for trolling. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Salvador_Allende&diff=102666&oldid=102658] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:24, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::And how am I guilty of trolling? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:13, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You write as if you don't understand my remarks about Pinochet. This appears to be a pose. You are blocked for the rest of the week. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

You have impressed senior staff with your significant contributions. Welcome back! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:15, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 10:23, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Booty ==

Booty is the most important element of dancing. Do you agree--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 00:44, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Knock it off ==

Do you want to be blocked again? I reverted your last edit to the article on [[Ann Coulter]]'s book ''Slander'' because it constituted malicious context-dropping. Your block log is getting rather long, and if I have to block you yet again, it will likely be for significantly longer. Consider yourself warned.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:36, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::Oh Heaven forfend that anyone apply CONTEXT! --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:45, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I said the ''dropping'' of context. The full context of anything that Ann Coulter said about anybody consists of the words and deeds of the other person, that provoked whatever she said that ''you'' find outrageous.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:54, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Then by all means, let's include the fact that she considered the women disagreeing with her about how to deal with terrorism and voting for Kerry valid reason for nastily implying that they were enjoying their husbands deaths! How about it? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 20:01, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::First, that's the wrong book.

Well then, my apologies. How silly of me to forget that the primary objection to Slander was the gross inaccuracies that riddle it. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:40, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Second, in ''Godless: The Church of Liberalism'', she gave the real reason for what she said: that they were enjoying the attention they were getting. Have you even read the book that the quote came from? I don't think you have.

Yes, I did read the book. Please explain how claiming that the widows were enjoying the attention they were getting renders her statement about them enjoying their husbands deaths less offensive. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:40, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Part of being an editor is finding things out for yourself--not quoting secondary sources that, in all likelihood, got it wrong.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

It's a good thing that I've read Ann Coulter's books, then, isn't it? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:40, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== Al gore sr ==
I cannot read your citation because it requires a login password.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 17:32, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

The word "inhabitants" includes men, women, and children.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:59, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

::Not always. Some readers might assume it just means grown men.

::And you wouldn't want them MISINTERPRETING the Bible, now, would you? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 00:02, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
:::How about "all the inhabitants"?[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:04, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Nope. Let's be frank about this Bohdan. Joshua's army went in and courageously ran through women, the elderly, children, and babies. Why does saying this bother you? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 00:06, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::It bothers me because its redundant. Your insistance on adding this does show little understanding of ancient warfare though. I warn you that this is considered trollong and trolling is a blockable offense.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:10, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

LOL! Warn away. I'll lose no sleep over it. And I understand enough about ancient warfare to know that killing everyone down to the last infant was NOT the norm (see Numbers 33.) As for it being "redundant" I think what bothers you is that observing exactly what "inhabitants" means in this context is uncomfortably close to the point. Those shots of Joshua's men stomping babies to death woudn't look too great in a DeMille Biblical epic, would it? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 00:15, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

== == Olberman == ==

Careful, that was an awfully [[Reality-Based Community|Reality-Based]] thing you said. You'll probably get banned for it. --[[User:Ghoti|Ghoti]] 19:24, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

User:Ghoti

2007-05-26T23:15:55Z

Ghoti: New page: {{userboxtop}} {{User NoArbBlk}} {{User noBush}} {{User patriot questions authority}} {{userboxbottom}}

Talk:Keith Olbermann

2007-05-26T23:06:24Z

Ghoti:

What factual mistakes were in the removed paragraph?--[[User:Nomine Cervus|Nomine Cervus]] 00:15, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

If one is going to make a factual assertion ("Democrat", "activist"), provide cites.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 13:51, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Wow, that's a wacky argument. "Olbermann never adressed the fact that Jack Bauer has demonstrated that the proper use of force against terrorists produce the results we need in the war on terror." Maybe that's because Jack Bauer is '''a fictional character in a story'''?
::And to think some people this that it's the [[Dungeons and Dragons]] players who can't tell [[reality]] from [[fantasy]].... ---[[User:Ghoti|Ghoti]] 19:06, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

Keith Olbermann

2007-05-26T23:04:00Z

Ghoti:

[[Image:Keith-ratingslie.jpg|right|thumb|300px]]
'''Keith Olbermann''' is a [[liberal]] [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] political commentator and activist, formerly a sportscaster on ESPN. He currently hosts ''Countdown,'' a nightly news and commentary program on [[MSNBC]].

In July of 2006, the [[Anti-Defamation League]] filed a complaint to MSNBC because of Olbermann's repeated use of the [[Nazi]] salute while attacking popular commentator [[Bill O'Reilly]] on his television show and in public.<ref>http://www.adl.org/media_watch/tv/20060728-MSNBC.htm</ref>

==Keith Olbermann 24 controversy==
The '''Keith Olbermann 24 controversy''' concerns a January 2007 incident in which [[liberal]] [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] political commentator Keith Olbermann attacked the popular FOX television series ''24'' with rather bizarre claims.

On the January 16, 2007 edition of Olbermann's show, ''Countdown with Keith Olbermann'', he launched into a tirade, accusing the widely acclaimed ''[[24]]'' of "fearmongering" and being "propaganda designed to keep people thinking about domestic terrorism to keep us scared". He suggested the show actually has a political agenda to aid the [[Republican Party|Republican Party]], rhetorically asking, "is it a program-length commercial for one political party?" Olbermann even suggested in a subtle manner that the show should be taken off the air with the rhetorical question, "if the irrational right can claim that the news is fixed to try to alter people's minds or that networks should be boycotted for nudity or for immorality, shouldn't those same groups be saying ''24'' should be taken off of TV because it's naked [[brainwashing]]?"

All of this was in response to the January 15 broadcast of ''24'' in which a low-grade nuclear weapon is detonated in the [[Valencia]] community of [[Los Angeles]] by a [[terrorist]] group.

Interestingly, Olbermann never criticized other apocalyptic scenarios depicted in fiction such as that featured in the [[CBS]] television series ''[[Jericho]]'', nor has he voiced concerns over the neutrality of other politically oriented shows like the liberal ''The [[West Wing]]'' and ''[[Commander in Chief]]''.

On the February 2, 2007 edition of ''[[Countdown]]'', Olbermann gave the show the "bronze" in his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment.

Olbermann never adressed the fact that [[Jack Bauer]] has, despite being a [[fictional character]] in a story, has demonstrated that the proper use of force against terrorists produce the results we need in the war on terror.

===See Also===
*[http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2IwYTc1MTVlMTU0ZDZlN2ViZGI0YzJmZWJiZjBhZTE= Keith Olbermann: "24" is a Right-Wing Plot]

*[http://newsbusters.org/node/10206 Olbermann Denounces '24' as Part of Pro-Bush 'Fearmongering' and 'Brainwashing']

*[http://newsbusters.org/node/10224 Olbermann Hates '24', NewsBusters, and All References to Terrorism]

*[http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/syuhas_20070118.html MSNBC's Very Own Conspiracy Nut: Keith Olbermann & Fox's fictional TV show '24']

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obADH-gUG5o Video of Olbermann's accusations]

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
:[[Olbermann Watch]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Olbermann, Keith}}

[[Category:Broadcasters|Olbermann, Keith]]
[[category:liberal activists|Olbermann, Keith]]

Keith Olbermann

2007-05-26T23:02:15Z

Ghoti: /* Keith Olbermann 24 controversy */

[[Image:Keith-ratingslie.jpg|right|thumb|300px]]
'''Keith Olbermann''' is a [[liberal]] [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] political commentator and activist, formerly a sportscaster on ESPN. He currently hosts ''Countdown,'' a nightly news and commentary program on [[MSNBC]].

In July of 2006, the [[Anti-Defamation League]] filed a complaint to MSNBC because of Olbermann's repeated use of the [[Nazi]] salute while attacking popular commentator [[Bill O'Reilly]] on his television show and in public.<ref>http://www.adl.org/media_watch/tv/20060728-MSNBC.htm</ref>

==Keith Olbermann 24 controversy==
The '''Keith Olbermann 24 controversy''' concerns a January 2007 incident in which [[liberal]] [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] political commentator Keith Olbermann attacked the popular FOX television series ''24'' with rather bizarre claims.

On the January 16, 2007 edition of Olbermann's show, ''Countdown with Keith Olbermann'', he launched into a tirade, accusing the widely acclaimed ''24'' of "fearmongering" and being "propaganda designed to keep people thinking about domestic terrorism to keep us scared". He suggested the show actually has a political agenda to aid the [[Republican Party|Republican Party]], rhetorically asking, "is it a program-length commercial for one political party?" Olbermann even suggested in a subtle manner that the show should be taken off the air with the rhetorical question, "if the irrational right can claim that the news is fixed to try to alter people's minds or that networks should be boycotted for nudity or for immorality, shouldn't those same groups be saying ''24'' should be taken off of TV because it's naked brainwashing?"

All of this was in response to the January 15 broadcast of ''24'' in which a low-grade nuclear weapon is detonated in the Valencia community of Los Angeles by a terrorist group.

Interestingly, Olbermann never criticized other apocalyptic scenarios depicted in fiction such as that featured in the CBS television series ''Jericho'', nor has he voiced concerns over the neutrality of other politically oriented shows like the liberal ''The West Wing'' and ''Commander in Chief''.

On the February 2, 2007 edition of ''Countdown'', Olbermann gave the show the "bronze" in his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment.

Olbermann never adressed the fact that Bauer has, despite being a fictional character in a story, has demonstrated that the proper use of force against terrorists produce the results we need in the war on terror.

===See Also===
*[http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2IwYTc1MTVlMTU0ZDZlN2ViZGI0YzJmZWJiZjBhZTE= Keith Olbermann: "24" is a Right-Wing Plot]

*[http://newsbusters.org/node/10206 Olbermann Denounces '24' as Part of Pro-Bush 'Fearmongering' and 'Brainwashing']

*[http://newsbusters.org/node/10224 Olbermann Hates '24', NewsBusters, and All References to Terrorism]

*[http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/syuhas_20070118.html MSNBC's Very Own Conspiracy Nut: Keith Olbermann & Fox's fictional TV show '24']

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obADH-gUG5o Video of Olbermann's accusations]

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
:[[Olbermann Watch]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Olbermann, Keith}}

[[Category:Broadcasters|Olbermann, Keith]]
[[category:liberal activists|Olbermann, Keith]]