Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Secretary of State (U.S. state government)

2007-05-18T15:58:31Z

Jrssr5: added category

''For the United States Secretary of State go [[United States Secretary of State|here]]

'''Secretary of State''' is an official in the state governments of 47 of the 50 states in the [[United States]]. The other 3 states ([[Massachusetts]], [[Pennsylvania]], and [[Virginia]]) have a '''Secretary of the Commonwealth'''.

==Duties==
Most commonly the Secretary of State is the state's chief elections official. They are responsible for overseeing all aspects of state elections, from finances to procedures. The Secretary of State is also usually in the line of succession to the governor.

[[category:United States]]

Secretary of State (U.S. state government)

2007-05-18T15:57:37Z

Jrssr5: update

Secretary of State (U.S. state government)

2007-05-18T15:54:53Z

Jrssr5: create ... more coming

Secretary of State

2007-05-18T15:39:42Z

Jrssr5: create

#REDIRECT[[United States Secretary of State]]

Talk:Conservapedia Commandments

2007-05-18T15:33:25Z

Jrssr5: New page: this is listed as a double re-direct ... can someone fix it? ~~~~

this is listed as a double re-direct ... can someone fix it? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 11:33, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Cambrian

2007-05-18T15:31:37Z

Jrssr5: added info from talk page about cambrian period, so the article isn't just a YEC poster

'''Cambrian'''

{{stub}}
The '''Cambrian''' period was the first period of the [[Paleozoic]] era. Following on from the [[Pre-Cambrian]], it lasted from approximately 543 million years to about 490 million years ago. It was followed by the [[Ordovician]] period. The Cambrian was named by the geologist Adam Sedgwick for Cambria,<ref>http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/sedgwick.html</ref> Latin for [[Wales]], which has large areas of rock originating in, and characteristic of, the period.

The [[Cambrian Radiation]] gave rise to almost all living phyla, but often in extinct forms with small resemblance to typical living species. Common Cambrian fossils are of [[trilobite]]s, and inarticulate [[brachiopod]]s,<ref>http://www.palaeos.com/Paleozoic/Cambrian/Cambrian.htm#bio</ref> [[coral]]s and primitive [[echinoderm]]s. They also include the first vertebrates, primitive jawless fish.

Since many of the organisms of the Cambrian were soft-bodied invertebrates, fossil remains other than shells or carapaces are rare; one notable site for soft-bodied Cambrian invertebrate remains is the [[Burgess Shale]] of [[British Columbia]].<ref>http://wwwalt.uni-wuerzburg.de/palaeontologie/Stuff/casu9.htm</ref>

== Young earth creationist scientists view ==
[[Young earth creationist]] scientists believe that the [[Theory of evolution|evolutionary]] [[Geology|geological]] timescale is in error. <ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54</ref><ref>http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm</ref> These scientists believe that the earth is young and has multiple lines of evidence from the field of geology showing that the earth is young. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/gr11.htm</ref><ref>http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html</ref><ref>http://globalflood.org/</ref> Also, young earth creationist scientists assert that there is an abundance of scientific arguments in addition to geology showing the earth and universe are both approximately 6,000 years in age.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/1842/</ref> In addition, young earth creationist scientists have a number of arguments against the position of an extremely old age for the earth and the universe.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0809_cdk_davies.asp</ref> [[Flood Geology|Flood geologists]] also point out that [[catastrophism]] is increasingly being accepted in the field of geology. <ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/12061.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref> In addition, creationists also assert that old earth uniformitarian geology has numerous [[Anomoly|anomolies]]. For example, creationists cite the work of [[William R. Corliss]] who catalogued numerous anomalies in the old earth uniformatarian geology [[paradigm]]. <ref>http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.net/articles/184</ref> Corliss wrote regarding [[Paraconformity|paraconformities]] the following:

{{cquote|
"Potentially more important to geological thinking are those [[unconformity|unconformities]] that signal large chunks of geological history are missing, even though the strata on either side of the unconformity are perfectly parallel and show no evidence of erosion. Did millions of years fly by with no discernible effect? A possible though controversial inference is that our geological clocks and stratigraphic concepts need working on." William R. Corliss, Unknown Earth (Glen Arm, Maryland: The Sourcebook Project, 1980), p. 219. <ref>http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/flood.html</ref>
}}

The science journal [[New Scientist]] wrote regarding Corliss's work the following: "All I can say to Corliss is carry on cataloging." <ref>http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm</ref> Young earth creationist scientists assert that paraconformaties pose a serious challenge to the old earth uniformitarian geology paradigm. <ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/36.pdf</ref><ref>
http://www.grisda.org/2003-FSC-open/Roth-RecentCreation.htm</ref><ref>http://www.seeking-god.co.uk/id188.htm</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Geological time periods]]

Cambrian

2007-05-18T15:29:46Z

Jrssr5: fixed block quote ... same deal as jurassic

'''Cambrian'''

{{stub}}

== Young earth creationist scientists view ==
[[Young earth creationist]] scientists believe that the [[Theory of evolution|evolutionary]] [[Geology|geological]] timescale is in error. <ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54</ref><ref>http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm</ref> These scientists believe that the earth is young and has multiple lines of evidence from the field of geology showing that the earth is young. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/gr11.htm</ref><ref>http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html</ref><ref>http://globalflood.org/</ref> Also, young earth creationist scientists assert that there is an abundance of scientific arguments in addition to geology showing the earth and universe are both approximately 6,000 years in age.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/1842/</ref> In addition, young earth creationist scientists have a number of arguments against the position of an extremely old age for the earth and the universe.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0809_cdk_davies.asp</ref> [[Flood Geology|Flood geologists]] also point out that [[catastrophism]] is increasingly being accepted in the field of geology. <ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/12061.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref> In addition, creationists also assert that old earth uniformitarian geology has numerous [[Anomoly|anomolies]]. For example, creationists cite the work of [[William R. Corliss]] who catalogued numerous anomalies in the old earth uniformatarian geology [[paradigm]]. <ref>http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.net/articles/184</ref> Corliss wrote regarding [[Paraconformity|paraconformities]] the following:

{{cquote|
"Potentially more important to geological thinking are those [[unconformity|unconformities]] that signal large chunks of geological history are missing, even though the strata on either side of the unconformity are perfectly parallel and show no evidence of erosion. Did millions of years fly by with no discernible effect? A possible though controversial inference is that our geological clocks and stratigraphic concepts need working on." William R. Corliss, Unknown Earth (Glen Arm, Maryland: The Sourcebook Project, 1980), p. 219. <ref>http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/flood.html</ref>
}}

The science journal [[New Scientist]] wrote regarding Corliss's work the following: "All I can say to Corliss is carry on cataloging." <ref>http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm</ref> Young earth creationist scientists assert that paraconformaties pose a serious challenge to the old earth uniformitarian geology paradigm. <ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/36.pdf</ref><ref>
http://www.grisda.org/2003-FSC-open/Roth-RecentCreation.htm</ref><ref>http://www.seeking-god.co.uk/id188.htm</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Geological time periods]]

Jurassic

2007-05-18T15:27:48Z

Jrssr5: i don't think the whole YEC section is necessary, but since it won't go away it might as well not look ugly

The '''Jurassic''' [[period (geology)|period]] is part of the [[geologic system]] of classifying geologic formations.

The Jurassic period is part of the [[Mesozoic]] era, and is divided into Lower, Middle, and Upper epochs. The Jurassic is preceded by the [[Triassic]] era and followed by the [[Cretaceous]] era.

The Jurassic was named from the [[France|French]] word (Jurassique) for the Jura mountains of [[Switzerland]].<ref>[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=jurassic&searchmode=none Online Etymology Dictionary]</ref><ref>[http://www.geol.ucsb.edu/Outreach/TimeScale/jurassic.html Jurassic Period] (Department of Earth Science, University of California, Santa Barbara).</ref>

Under the uniformitarian dates assigned by secular geologists, it represents approximately the period of Earth's history from 200 million years ago to 145 million years ago.<ref>Gradstein, F.M., and Ogg, J.G.,[http://www.stratigraphy.org/scale04.pdf Geologic Time Scale 2004 – Why, How, and Where Next!]</ref>

== Young earth creationist scientists view ==
[[Young earth creationist]] scientists believe that the [[Theory of evolution|evolutionary]] [[Geology|geological]] timescale is in error. <ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54</ref><ref>http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm</ref> These scientists believe that the earth is young and has multiple lines of evidence from the field of geology showing that the earth is young. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/gr11.htm</ref><ref>http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html</ref><ref>http://globalflood.org/</ref> Also, young earth creationist scientists assert that there is an abundance of scientific arguments in addition to geology showing the earth and universe are both approximately 6,000 years in age.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/1842/</ref> In addition, young earth creationist scientists have a number of arguments against the position of an extremely old age for the earth and the universe.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0809_cdk_davies.asp</ref> [[Flood Geology|Flood geologists]] also point out that [[catastrophism]] is increasingly being accepted in the field of geology. <ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/12061.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref> In addition, creationists also assert that old earth uniformitarian geology has numerous [[Anomoly|anomolies]]. For example, creationists cite the work of [[William R. Corliss]] who catalogued numerous anomalies in the old earth uniformatarian geology [[paradigm]]. <ref>http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.net/articles/184</ref> Corliss wrote regarding [[Paraconformity|paraconformities]] the following:

{{cquote|
"Potentially more important to geological thinking are those [[unconformity|unconformities]] that signal large chunks of geological history are missing, even though the strata on either side of the unconformity are perfectly parallel and show no evidence of erosion. Did millions of years fly by with no discernible effect? A possible though controversial inference is that our geological clocks and stratigraphic concepts need working on." William R. Corliss, Unknown Earth (Glen Arm, Maryland: The Sourcebook Project, 1980), p. 219. <ref>http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/flood.html</ref>
}}

The secular science journal [[New Scientist]] wrote regarding Corliss's work the following: "All I can say to Corliss is carry on cataloging." <ref>http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm</ref> Young earth creationist scientists assert that paraconformaties pose a serious challenge to the old earth uniformitarian geology paradigm. <ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/36.pdf</ref><ref>
http://www.grisda.org/2003-FSC-open/Roth-RecentCreation.htm</ref><ref>http://www.seeking-god.co.uk/id188.htm</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Geologic system]]
[[Category:Geological time periods]]

Neanderthal

2007-05-15T01:06:16Z

Jrssr5: fixed block quote format, should fix quote too

The first fossil humanoid to be identified as such, and the best known, named after remains found in the [[Neanderthal]] valley in western [[Germany]] in 1856. ''Homo sapiens neanderthalensis'' is found throughout [[Europe]] and the [[Near East]]. Neanderthal man is associated with the Middle Paleolithic Mousterian tool tradition. <ref> Thieme, Hartmut. "Lower to Midle Paleolithic Huntin Spears, and Lithic Tool Traditions." Archaeology, 13, 2003.</ref>

==Anatomy==
[[Image:Human_Skeleton.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Neanderthal (left) and human (right) skeletons, showing both the similarities and the differences between the species.]]
A Neanderthal was a fully erect biped of stocky build, with a long low skull, prominent brow ridges and [[occiputs]], and a jutting face.
Neanderthals were on average more muscular than humans and lacked a chin, they were social creatures living in small tribes, like the humans of their time, Neanderthals also possessed the skull features required for speech <ref>Neanderthal Myths Neanderthal, Channel 4 [http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/N/neanderthal/]</ref>.
The popular impression of him as a stooping brute is incorrect and derives from the original poor reconstruction in the Neanderthal valley. It has also been suggested that the first individual found suffered from vitamin D deficiency ([[rickets]]) or [[syphilis]].
Whether Neanderthals did interbreed, or if this was even possible remains unknown, so far the small amounts of Neanderthal [[DNA]] found do not suggest a recent genetic link between the species
<ref>Odd man out: Neanderthals and modern humans British Archaeology [http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba51/ba51feat.html]</ref>.

Homo neanderthalensis also had an average brainsize of 1,450 cc with a range from 1,125cc to 1,750cc. Average modern humna brain size is 1,330cc. Many Neanderthal fossils have been recovered showing massive amounts of wear on the teeth, which to many physical anthropologists suggests that the teeth were regularly used for gripping skins during stretching and working.
<ref>Klein, Richard. The Dawn of Human Culture. New York, John Wiley and Sons, 2002.</ref>

==Society==

From http://www.icr.org/article/468/:

"No other organisms, either living or fossil, made tools to make other complex tools, buried their dead, had controlled use of fire, practiced religious ceremonies, used complex syntax in their spoken grammar, and played musical instruments, yet we know from their fossils that Neanderthal engaged in all."

Neanderthals were probably about as intelligent as an average human, they were social creatures living in small tribes, like the humans of their time, studies suggest that Neanderthal tribes interacted less with each other than human tribes did. {{fact}}

Neanderthals had the ability to make fire. They never invented projectile weapons but relied on spears with limited range, even when facing large animals, their robust bodies enabled them to use this hunting style that was considered far too dangerous by humans. {{fact}} A common hunting technique was to drive prey animals off a cliff, or corner them prey and finish them of with spears, much like today's [[Pygmees]] hunt elephants.{{fact}}

Evidence of care for the elderly and the sick has been found <ref>Neanderthals on Trial University of Minnesota, Duluth [http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/troufs/anth1602/video/On_Trial.html]</ref>, they also used medicinal plants, made clothes out of animal skins and used stone tools. Neanderthals performed elaborate burying rituals, suggesting some sort of religion <ref>Early Man Andy Simmons [http://www-staff.it.uts.edu.au/~simmonds/Sophy/early_man.htm]</ref>.
Interestingly archaeologists have never found Neanderthal cave drawings, although handcrafted art has been found <ref>Neanderthal 'face' found in Loire BBC News [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3256228.stm]</ref>.

==History according to Creationists==

[[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] believe that Neanderthals were as fully human as we are.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/worthy-ancestors</ref> This is based on evidence such as:

* The brain size of neanderthalensis meets or exceeds that of humans today.
* They had the ability to speak exactly like humans.
* The skeletons of humans and neanderthalensis are identical in bone count and types. The size differences between the two can be seen today in humans.
* DNA evidence shows neanderthalensis very similar to humans.

From http://www.icr.org/article/468/:

{{cquote|
"The recent recovery of mitochondrial DNA from the right humerus of the Neanderthal remains from Neander Valley near Dusseldorf, Germany, has been of great interest to evolutionists and creationists alike (Krings et al., 1997). Based on the comparison of modern human mt DNA and that taken from the Neanderthal, evolutionists have argued that the "Neanderthal line" diverged from the line of "hominids" leading to modern humans about 600,000 years B.P. without contributing mt DNA to modern Homo sapiens populations. This strongly implies that Neanderthals were a different species from modern humans. However, the above noted interpretation is not scientifically justified. Lubenow (1998) has pointed out that the use of a statistical average of a large modern human sample (994 sequences from 1669 modern humans) compared with the mt DNA sequence from one Neanderthal is not appropriate. Furthermore, the mt DNA sequence differences among modern humans range from 1 to 24 substitutions, with an average of eight substitutions, whereas, the mt DNA sequence differences between modern man and the Neanderthal specimen range from 22 to 36 substitutions, placing Neanderthals, at worst, on the fringes of the modern range."
}}

Harsh conditions due to the [[Ice Age]] after the [[flood|Great flood]] caused human groups to migrate and splinter off to survive. Neanderthal type traits were best suited for the harsh cold. Malnutrition and longer life spans could cause features similar to those seen in Neanderthal skeletons. <ref>Neanderthals are still human [http://www.icr.org/article/468/]</ref>

== History according to evolutionists ==
[[Image:Neanderthal_sites.gif|right|thumb|350px|The last refuges of the Neanderthals, with evolutionary dates.]]

Evolutionists believe that Neanderthal man developed from ''Homo erectus'', though the widespread distribution of intermediate forms hinders an attempt to resolve any single geographical locality as the place of development. The fate of Neanderthals is equally hard to determine, but they are believed to have gone extinct between 28,000 and 24,000 years ago <ref>Neanderthals' 'last rock refuge' ''BBC News'' [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5343266.stm]</ref>, but how or why is unknown: many theories have been presented, these are the most common ones:
* Climate changes. <ref> Climate Change Pushed Neanderthal Into Extinction In Iberian Peninsula ''GeneticArchaeology.com'' [http://www.geneticarchaeology.com/Research/Climate_Change_Pushed_Neanderthal_Into_Extinction_In_Iberian_Peninsula.asp]</ref>
* Competition with other humans over resources.<ref>Did Use of Free Trade Cause Neanderthal Extinction? ''Newswise'' [http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/510666/]</ref>
* Their reliance on meat.<ref>Meaty appetites may have caused Neanderthal extinction ''Science & Spirit'' [http://www.science-spirit.org/archive_cm_detail.php?new_id=317]</ref>
* Assimilation into the larger human population.<ref>The assimilation model, modern human origins in Europe and the extinction of Neanderthals ''Fred H. Smith, Ivor Jankovic, Ivor Karavanic'' [http://www.ffzg.hr/arheo/prap/the%20assimilation%20model.pdf]</ref>
* An interspecies "Zeroth World War".<ref>Odd man out: Neanderthals and modern humans ''British Archaeology'' [http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba51/ba51feat.html]</ref>

Evolutionists consider it likely that a combination of at least some of these factors led to the extinction of the Neanderthals.

Neanderthal Man is not considered to be a direct ancestor of modern humans, but their remains are examples of [[transitional fossil]]s along a subsidiary branch, an evolutionary dead end.{{fact}}

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Primates]]
[[Category:Hominid]]

Quote mining

2007-05-14T23:23:44Z

Jrssr5: expanded upon Andy's edits

'''{{PAGENAME}}''' aka contextomy<ref>http://mcs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/27/4/511</ref>, refers to several practices including taking a portion of a quotation [[out of context]], presenting out-of-date material as current, removing an intervening passage from a quotation without an ellipsis, improper citation, or otherwise manipulating the text. The effect of quote mining is to make it appear that the speaker is making a point contrary to his actual intent when the speaker may be employing rhetoric or explaining his opponents' arguments.

Quote Mining, especially where a list of quotes (a "mine") is produced, reflects a deliberate and systematic misrepresentation of the original view(s) of the author(s). The modern term quote mining was coined in response to intentionally out of context quotes being used to 'prove' [[evolution]] was not supported by prominent scientists, when in fact it is. Its use however has expanded beyond discussions of evolution (examples: [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/05/owen_mcshane_goes_quote_mining.php], [http://reddit.com/info/137ak/comments/c137dj], [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=151147], [http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_08/009300.php]).

==Controversy==
"Quote mining" is a term not recognized by the dictionary, and which is used primarily by defenders of the theory of evolution to oppose the creationist practice of arguing by quotation.<ref>The term "quote mining" shows up on only 34,500 Google pages as of May 14, 2007 (less than one-tenth the number of pages returned when "Conservapedia" is searched, by comparison). At least five out of the first six of those pages returned by Google for a search on "quote mining" were written by evolutionists.</ref>

Aside from the fact that quote mining in and of itself is a disingenuous practice, it also commits the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. Even if the mined quote were factual, the opinion of a single individual, or group of individuals would not affect the actual validity of a scientific theory. Theories are decided on their merit and correspondence to the evidence, not the opinions of "authorities."

==Examples==

An out of context mined quotation <ref>http://www.saintsalive.com/general/wonderfully.htm</ref> (bold), from the full quote <ref>http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1228</ref> (in italics):

<blockquote>"'''''To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.''' Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.''" -- [[Charles Darwin]], from ''[[The Origin of Species]]'', 1859.</blockquote>

An abridged mined quotation <ref>http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030522.html</ref> (bold), from the full quote <ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030505-4.html</ref> (in italics):

<blockquote>"'''''Al Qaeda is on the run. That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly, but surely being decimated.''' Right now, about half of all the top al Qaeda operatives are either jailed or dead. In either case, '''they're not a problem anymore.''' And we'll stay on the hunt. To make sure America is a secure country, the al Qaeda terrorists have got to understand it doesn't matter how long it's going to take, they will be brought to justice.''" -- [[George W. Bush]], May 5, 2003. </blockquote>

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7547/cequotes.html Selected Creation/Evolution Quotes]
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Tools/Quotes.asp Creation Quotes] list from [[Answers in Genesis]]
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Quote-mining (Talk.Origins) Quote-mining - CreationWiki]
* [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html The Quote Mine Project] - hosted by the [[talk.origins]] archive

==See also==
*[[Out of context]]

Talk:Deceit

2007-05-14T22:41:55Z

Jrssr5: moving references back to the bottom

== The assertion "Liberals rarely criticize deceit" ==
The assertion "Liberals rarely criticize deceit" is made in this "article". Please remove this lie immediately. Feel free to make some bizarre anti-abortion reference, after all, this site is ''your blog'', basically, on the [[abortion|issues]] you [[creation|hold dear]]. But if you think "liberals" don't criticize deceit, you're not paying attention. The clearest recent example is the Bush administration's deceit about weapons of mass destruction in order to invade Iraq. See me criticizing it? I'll criticize the <s>Bay</s>[[Gulf of Tonkin]] lies, too, if you need me to be even-handed about presidents lying us into unnecessary wars. [[User:Human|Human]] 20:55, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:Carefull now, the last two users who dared to touch that claim are now banned. While using this site i have learned several new words and phrases, which is nice as i don't speak english as my native language. One of those words is: "concervative fact". And i think it's exactly what we have here. Claim that we liberals are deceivers isn't a lie or gross generalization, it's an concervative fact and claiming otherwise shows liberal bias. Allso like most conservative facts, it dosent need citation or anything to back the claim, facts are facts.

:Okey, and now ill apologize my outburst, but Mr.Aschlafly, i ask you, how would you react if some one accused you of being a deceiver or accepting deceptions with out any other evidence than that you think yourself as conservative? I really ask you to reconcider both the content of this article and the banning of those two users who most likely where offended by it's content and tryed to change it. There is no way one can justify a claim like that in an encyclopedia. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:41, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::Thank you for the warning, [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]], but as much as I try, I cannot seem to get any bannings! Maybe it is because I keep adding to the "[[User:Human/Classic_Conservapedia|encyclopedia]]" that backs up this '''blog'''. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:03, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree: this is not encyclopedia-worth material.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Liberals here protest too much about this entry on [[deceit]]. In both examples, the deceit by liberals is conclusively proven. But did other liberals who joined in the deceit apologize for it? Not that I'm aware. Show me examples of apologies and I'll add them.

: Additional airtight proofs of deceit can be added. But partisan opinions will not be.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Silly me, I keep forgetting that all Liberals are, rather than being individual people with varying opinions on topics, mere appendages of a single world-spanning hivemind, and thus all are guilty for the misdeeds of every one. That's why all political statements made by anyone less Conservative than Pat Robertson have to be prefaced by a three-hour disclaimer renouncing every single evil deed committed by every liberal dating back to Ramses II, right? --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 22:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
::Politicians Lie. It's pretty much in the job description these days.
::I'll run with the Gulf of Tonkin/Johnson/Viet Nam and WMDs/Bush/Iraq lies. By the way, you have a typo at "after communist collapsed". I'd fix it but, well, the article is locked. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:04, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Examples ==

Should these be included as an example of deceit?

Can the following examples of deceit be added to the main page? It is currently locked and a tad bit one sided. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:54, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:What is deceitful about Wolfowitz's statement? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:Also, Tillman could not be used like this, because it is not Tillman being accused of deceit. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:43, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:: One of the reasons to go to war was "removal of troops from Saudi Arabia"[http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-05-30-wolfowitz-iraq_x.htm], however the lack of finding WMDs and the various indications that known faulty/unreliable intelligence was used to come to the WMD claim. That because of bureaucracy, the case for WMDs was the one offered forward to the American people. Not the actual reasons (whatever those may be).
:: I have retitled the section on Pat Tillman.
:: Still, all of these are in the Talk section. Is there merit for moving any of these to the article? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Paul Wolfowitz ===
"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." Paul Wolfowitz, May 28, 2003<ref>[http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2676 U.S. Department of Defense - News Transcript]</ref> --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:What a joke! Click on this one [http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2676] Who made the above quote on May 28, 2003, Paul Wolfowitz or his interviewer, DeYoung? And you present ''this'' as an example of deceit? A little '''''disengenous''''', don't you think, the wrong link, the wrong cite, not even the right person speaking, and calling this as an example of '''''deceit''''' ? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:: [http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0305/S00308.htm The Vanity Fair interview transcript] shows quite clearly:
<blockquote>
Q: Was that one of the arguments that was raised early on by you and others that Iraq actually does connect, not to connect the dots too much, but the relationship between Saudi Arabia, our troops being there, and bin Laden's rage about that, which he's built on so many years, also connects the World Trade Center attacks, that there's a logic of motive or something like that? Or does that read too much into -- 

Wolfowitz: No, I think it happens to be correct. '''The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason''', but -- Hold on one second. 
(Pause) 

Kellems: Sam there may be some value in clarity on the point that it may take years to get post-Saddam Iraq right. It can be easily misconstrued, especially when it comes to -- 

Wolfowitz: There have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. Sorry, hold on again. 
</blockquote>
:: My apologies for using the military transcript asking about the quote instead in which Wolfowitz goes more into what he meant than the Vanity Fair Transcript where it appears he was cut off. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:12, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I see. So you admit to trying to convince us of something other than what the facts are. Thank you. Now, what do we make of this exchange:

::::Q: What do you think all the conspiritorial talk is? Do you have any notion, in Europe and here? What are people looking at this way?

::::Wolfowitz: I think it's pretty obvious and I think it's pretty disgraceful but all you can do is ignore it and go on and get the job done.

::::Q: What is it? I mean some say anti-Semitism. I guess in Europe that would be --

::::Wolfowitz: I just said all I'm going to say about it.

:::Comments? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:28, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: There is has been the accusation of a conspiracy between oil companies which the President is related to, the Saudi goverment, and other such theories. The argument for war that was mentioned in the Vanity Fair article does not have any of these. Look at Wolfowitz's statement "Wolfowitz: There have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. Sorry, hold on again." -- These were the reasons to go to war, not just WMD. By focusing on WMD and only on WMD as was done and selectively choosing the intelligence to present (and ignoring the intelligence that said there were no WMDs), there was a misleading of the American population as to the reason to go to war.
:::: Wolfowitz then said "''The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is the one about which there's the most disagreement within the bureaucracy, even though I think everyone agrees that we killed 100 or so of an al Qaeda group in northern Iraq in this recent go-around, that we've arrested that al Qaeda guy in Baghdad who was connected to this guy Zarqawi whom Powell spoke about in his UN presentation.''" -- In other words, the lack of support of terrorism was debated (and later shown to be correct - there was no connection), and to help the Iraqis was valid but not enough of a reason alone to go to war. Thus we heard 'WMD' repeated over and over again as the reason, even though there was evidence that the source for the WMD project was not reliable and there was no evidence that Sadam had an active WMD program. As to Zarqawi's relationship with al Qaeda read [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5280219/site/newsweek this Newsweek Article]
::::<blockquote>But just last week, in little-noticed remarks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld conceded that Zarqawi’s ties to Al Qaeda may have been much more ambiguous—and that he may have been more a rival than a lieutenant to bin Laden. Zarqawi “may very well not have sworn allegiance to [bin Laden]," Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon briefing. “Maybe he disagrees with him on something, maybe because he wants to be ‘The Man’ himself and maybe for a reason that’s not known to me.” Rumsfeld added that, “someone could legitimately say he’s not Al Qaeda.”</blockquote>
:::: (a year later from the Wolfowitz interview).
:::: Thus, the questions to answer:
::::* Was the intelligence on WMDs known to be lacking or bad by those pushing it? [http://www.wmd.gov/report/report.html#chapter1]
::::** Alternative reading: Was the assumption for "There are WMDs in Iraq, find intelligence to prove it" the case (read the paragraph begining "Rather, they were the product of poor intelligence collection..." from the above link).
::::* Were there other reasons that lead to going to war that contributed to but were not sufficent?
::::* Given the poor intelligence and unconvincing other reasons, was the case for war in Iraq deceitful?
::::--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:32, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: The conspiracy theory relates specifically to anti-Semitism, i.e. conspiracy theories that state flatly a cabal of Jewish conspirators like Wolfowotz, Perle, ''et al'', have suckered the United States into fighting Israel's wars for them. And the conspiracies do not stop there -- they even say these same conspirators blew the World Trade Center up themselves to get the American people involved in the War on Terror. These same conspirators invented lies like WMD to justify their actions. This specifically is the question Tannenhaus asked, and this specifically is the answer Wolfowitz gave with "I think it's pretty obvious and I think it's pretty disgraceful" and refused to comment further. And these conspiracies are rampant in Europe and the Arab world, and I'm sorry, the bogus cover about oil companies, etc. to sanitize this Ameerican brand of anti-Semitism will not fly here.

:::::The 9/11 Commission Report infact cites a link between Saddam and al-Qeade, which is the reference given above. The US had been supporting Kurds in northern Iraq since the Gulf War, and the Kurds were fighting ''both'' Saddam ''and'' al-Qeada, as the Commission Report stated.

:::::As to WMD, this interview doesn't reveal anything new. And there is no reason to speculate that simply because the US Government has not publicly announced much information on this subject, that news organizations accounts are definitive or authoritive.

:::::Ultimately, again, the cited objective of the war was regime change; WMD was cited as one of several reasons for regime change, but the specific objective was regime change, not discovering WMD stockpiles for TV cameras to take pictures of. My appologies again for giving a quick answer on this, because it does warrant more discussion, but I'm a little rushed for time at the moment, and we can go into more detail later on the WMD business. But I'm not certain this is the correct page for what may be an extensive discussion of the matter. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:12, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

(Move indent) Ok, so Wolfowitz says,''"There have always been three fundamental concerns.
:*One is weapons of mass destruction,
:*the second is support for terrorism,
:*the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people."

And Wolfowitz also says, " for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction"

Now we will cite another well established and influencial decisionmaker in the U.S. governement bureacracy. This decision maker, in her own words, had been deeply involved in the subject for a decade. And we will study of the three reasons that the bureaucracy, which includes Wolfowitz and our source, cited as the reason to go to war, in what order do these reasons match Wolfowitz's. Further, the 9/11 Report infact documents several Saddam - al Qeada contacts for several years prior, but Wolfowitz here only refers to "support for terrorism". Here's our cite

:"There is a very easy way for to prevent anyone from being put into harms way and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something that I have followed for a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. There may be progress, we may be destroying his missiles, there is no accounting for the chemical and biological stocks. I just have to respectfully disagree what the proximate cause of any action that might be taken is. [http://www.archive.org/details/HillaryClintonsviewsongoingtowarSaddamandWMDs] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:49, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Jack Abramoff ===
Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials. A bit more digging beyond the guilty plea should identify a signficant amount of deceit in his dealings as a lobbyist. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:29, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:These look like better examples of deceit than those listed in the article. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:41, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Pentagon regarding Pat Tillman ===
There is growing evidence[http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/04/army_tillmanlynch_070424/] to a cover up and use of the death of Pat Tillman as pro war propoganda by making Pat Tillman a hero rather than someone who got killed in a friendly fire incident. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== Can deceit be conservative? ==

I think so, but this page wasn't representing that. If all sides are to have a say, then there should be a kind of balance. At least, if we are to have a bias, we should acknowledge opposing views. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 22:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

== My 2 cents, again ==

What a ''ridiculous'' concept! That conservatives and liberals (whatever those terms may actually mean) have different views on deceit. I will avoid the whole topic of morality not being dependent on religion. Most people in most cultures disapprove of deceit. It has nothing to do with political affiliations. ''People'' are inherently flawed in many ways (see, e.g. Genesis). One doesn't need to be at Liberty U or Eagle Forum or the Vatican to think deceit is wrong; most people know it is wrong, and most practice it, as we are imperfect beings. This entire article is offensive on its face.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 22:26, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

== My viewpoint ==

Wherever there is power to be got, certain people will practise deceit. The Bible does not make distinction between "Liberal" or "Conservative" deceit, it condemns deceit regardless of who practises it.

== Andy...?! ==

You can't delete fact! That's a legitimate footnote from the case! How is it opinion? Surely it's one judge's opinion, but similarly, all judgments of deceit are someone's opinion!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:12, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: Ames, I've explained at least a half-dozen times that opinions are not facts. I'm not going to waste more time on this. This is a warning that your account will be blocked if you continue to waste my time or the time of others on this.

: Judge Jones' opinion is nothing more than an opinion. It is not a fact. There was no judgment on the issue you cite here; there was no appeal allowed; and the opinion is not neutral. Do not waste any more of my time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Whether or not it was "neutral" is not at issue - it's what a judge said, and that's how I described it in the article. Do you need directions to my refutations of ''your'' arguments? They're in your archives, #16, when you choose to answer them. I realize you don't like this case, and that you don't like a lot of case law in America at the moment (Goodridge, hint hint?) but that doesn't mean it's not ''legal fact'' with binding authority, in the first case we clashed over, or a Republican judge's reasoned decision, in the last one. You can't make facts go away by shouting "Bias!"-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:18, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

==Freud==

Most great scientists have their theories disproved. Newton was wrong, Pasteur has been subject ot a great deal of correction. Part of the reason they are great is that they can buildmodels, hypotheses that are open to question. It is easy to make assertions that are opinion or simple observation. To create a model that fits evidence and is later open to testing, particuarly in a field where this has not been the case, is the mark of a great scientist. [[User:stevendavy]] (PhD, since you ask)

A few questions, mr. Schlafly: Are you a practicing psychologist? Can you say with absolute certainty that Freud's methods are useless? Do you have sources that can make this a verifiable fact? Or that can support your claim that Freud lied about his research? [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 17:36, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd mark it as unsourced , but of course the page is blocked? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:31, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:If you tell that some lies, you should give some reference which gives arguments what is incorrect. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 06:43, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::This has to be removed within few days, if no sources found. (Prope correction is not to only remove need for ref.) --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 16:39, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I would also like to see a source for the claim that "liberals continue to teach that Freud was a great scientist." In my experience Freud is routinely studied in intro psych classes because he and his ideas are an important element of the history of the field, but the point is typically made that there is no scientific basis for his theories. And while his theories are useless, research has shown that some of his therapeutic methods are indeed useful (some, not all). [[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:49, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

TK, please, discuss and do not censor things as _you_ want them to be. (Or if you want to only censor, please change rules.) --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 07:52, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks! Ref from scientist found :) That I was simply asking for... --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 11:46, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== And, of course, the page is locked. ==
Good thing, too, or some horrible America-Hater might quote Richard Nixon. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 22:49, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:or George Bush. ish. This is really vulgar abuse sometimes. If only we had a sysop who would listen to reason.... [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::Hey, Flippin! Wouldn't you listen to reason? Gee golly, I wish you were a sysop :-). Or me...-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Why is this locked?! Is this someones "own" encyclopedia? --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 22:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, it belongs to [[user:Aschlafly|Andrew Schlafly]]. He owns the site. It is is his blog, and the sysops are his co-bloggers. The rest of us are just along for the ride. He is a young earth creationist and passionate liberal-hater. People wanted to broaden some of the page to include a bit more reality. Check out what's been happening over at [[astronomy]] this evening for more of the same... [[User:Human|Human]]

: Pages are locked after there is a pattern of violations of [[rules]] on them. I will unlocked [deceit] per ythe requests here, but if there are rule violations, then it will be locke again.

: Human, I suggest you apologize and promise not to attack editors personally here, or your account will be blocked. Also, you seem to violate the 90/10 rule as independent grounds for blocking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::His count here [http://faleg.org/cgi-bin/conservapedia/editcounter_Tool1?username=Human] shows that of his 1175 edits 466 have been to actual articles (that’s about 40% actual editing). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:32, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::This kind of rule should not be used for warnings especially when information at background is not correct. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 14:02, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

Reference 2 in the article is wrongly attributed, to should read '''Pittsburgh Tribune-Review'''. The writer of the article referenced is ''"Jonah Goldberg is editor at large of National Review Online."'' Perhaps the cite should be from NRO?
:::::--[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 02:10, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Is it available online? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== As long as we're listing lies.... ==

How about [http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/04/25/tillman_lynch/index.html The Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch frauds]?
Ah, but I forget myself. Those are PRO-WAR lies, and therefore are a-ok. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 22:42, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

And that sentence about morality comes to mind. wait... I think I threw up a little in my mouth there. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:54, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps we could add [[Ted Haggard]]. At least he admitted he was a ''deceiver''. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 10:43, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yes and no; in the Haggard article, Haggard says, "I am a deceiver and a liar", whereas by contrast, [[Alger Hiss]] denied to his dying day at the age of 92 the evidence against him. And his appologists, despite more evidence piled up since his death, continue deceiving themselves. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:38, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Since Haggard admits his deceit, he should probably be included in the "article" :-P unless you have some objection other than the truth of the allegations.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:52, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:Yes but Haggard is a confessed deceiver, and evidently nolonger deceiving himself. There is a path of redemption and rehabilitation. Hiss by contrast, set up a foundation to institutionalize the lies. Books have been written, Haynes & Klehr's ''In Denial'' for example, about the absurd contortions supposed intellectuals twisted themselves in to, in an effort that many of themselves don't even beleive anymore. The late Molly Ivans said even after KGB Archives were corroborated by [[Venona]] evidence,
::''"The other curious thing about the Hiss case is the psychology of believing that Hiss was a spy, which requires abandoning much of what we know about rational thought.'' [http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/lowsoviet.html]
:There is no comparison. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:34, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Confession vitiates the sin but not the fact. Put him in the "article" as a "former" deceiver if you want, but it's deceit that harmed others, nonetheless.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:43, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

John Lott & the Mary Rosh brouhaha would make another good example. His "If national surveys are correct, 98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack" statement isn't as clear cut, but might also be an example; the situation there is oddly similar to the Bellisiles situation, with mysteriously lost/destroyed records of supposed research. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 15:19, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

==Not that anyone asked==
But this ought to be up here if we are going to make an "encyclopedic" entry for deceit. [[Downing Street Memo]] [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:05, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

==Scooter==
We're forgetting Scooter Libby, ''convicted'' of deceit...--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 23:36, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:But, you forget, he's a Republican, right? As in, right wing, can do no wrong. Did he Profit!?!?! NO! There's no money to be made in lying for the conservative cause. Hence, no "deceit". QED. [[User:Human|Human]] 00:27, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

*Rarely have I read such petty comments, such mean-spirited comments, ''gentlemen''. In Washington, D.C., people of intellect and good manners of both parties, decried his conviction and persecution. Left holding the bag, it is called. I wonder if either of you would hold up being questioned by a Grand Jury about all your activities for the past year? Shame on both of you for not furthering good will and a higher plane of discourse here. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:25, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:*If by "left holding the bag" you mean "others in the administration should have been put on trial for endangering lives and national security in furtherance of petty political payback", then I agree heartily. And if you want to further good will and a higher plane of discourse, you could start by recommending this article for deletion...--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 09:57, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

It's common for the military to deny [[friendly fire]] as a cause. That denial has nothing to do with being a conservative, and there is no evidence the denial in Tillman's case was by a conservative. FDR's Administration denied it also during World War II when a hero was killed by friendly fire.

Abramoff was no conservative.

Freud is taught to high school and college students without any admission of his deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:17, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
:Then why not add the friendly fire deceit example, and the Abramoff example? While pointing out that the deceivers were not representative of Conservatism as defined or interpreted by this site (which is its right to do)? And show the harm each case caused? [[User:Human|Human]] 21:48, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
::*A.S., all due respect--Abramoff was a director of the National Center for Public Policy Research (a conservative think tank); he was College Republican National Committee National Chairman; he has longstanding ties to Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed, among others; he was a member of Citizens for America, a pro-Reagan group that helped Oliver North build support for the Nicaraguan contras; when Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds LLP,a lobbying firm, needed a "conservative, Christian Coalition Republican with strong ties to...Republican leadership", they hired Abramoff; he was a member of GWB's transition team in 2001. And so forth. Sounds like a conservative to me...--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 21:57, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
(<--)
Yah, right. [http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/11/abramoff_report_1.html][http://www.noagenda.org/connections/jack_abramoff/] Abramoff contributions to individual Democrats 1990-2006; need contribs to Democratic oraginizations, too?

*Patty Murray (D-Wash) - $40,980
*Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) - $32,000
*Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) - $31,000
*Harry Reid (D-Nev) - $30,500
*Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) - $28,000
*Tom Daschle (D-SD) - $26,500
*Brad R. Carson (D-Okla) - $18,300
*Chris John (D-La) - $15,000
*Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) - $14,500
*John Breaux (D-La) - $13,750
*Mary L. Landrieu (D-La) - $11,500
*Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md) - $11,000
*Dale E. Kildee (D-Mich) - $10,500
*Barney Frank (D-Mass) - $9,000
*Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo) - $9,000
*Max Baucus (D-Mont) - $9,000
*Peter Deutsch (D-Fla) - $8,500
*Dick Durbin (D-Ill) - $8,000
*Frank Pallone, Jr (D-NJ) - $6,000
*Nick Rahall (D-WVa) - $6,000
*Jon S. Corzine (D-NJ) - $5,000
*Fritz Hollings (D-SC) - $5,000
*Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md) - $5,000
*Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) - $5,000
*Deborah Ann Stabenow (D-Mich) - $5,000
*Xavier Becerra (D-Calif) - $4,523
*Tim Johnson (D-SD) - $4,250
*Kent Conrad (D-ND) - $4,000
*Maria Cantwell (D-Wash) - $3,000
*Kalyn Cherie Free (D-Okla) - $3,000
*Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) - $3,000
*Richard M. Romero (D-NM) - $3,000
*Ed Pastor (D-Ariz) - $3,000
*John B. Larson (D-Conn) - $3,000
*James L. Oberstar (D-Minn) - $3,000
*Brad Sherman (D-Calif) - $3,000
*Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) - $2,500
*Max Cleland (D-Ga) - $2,500
*Gene Taylor (D-Miss) - $2,250
*Doug Dodd (D-Okla) - $2,000
*Jay Inslee (D-Wash) - $2,000
*John D. Dingell (D-Mich) - $2,000
*Joe Baca (D-Calif) - $2,000
*Carl Levin (D-Mich) - $2,000
*C. L. "Butch" Otter (R-Idaho) - $2,000
*Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark) - $2,000
*Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss) - $2,000
*Robert Menendez (D-NJ) - $2,000
*Robert T. Matsui (D-Calif) - $2,000
*Rodney Alexander (D-La) - $2,000
*Sander Levin (D-Mich) - $2,000
*Ron Kind (D-Wis) - $2,000
*Ronnie Shows (D-Miss) - $2,000
*Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn) - $2,000
*Willie Landry Mount (D-La) - $2,000
*Tom Carper (D-Del) - $2,000
*Thomas P. Keefe Jr. (D-Wash) - $2,000
*Nita M. Lowey (D-NY) - $2,000
*Maxine Waters (D-Calif) - $2,000
*Ned Doucet (D-La) - $2,000
*John Neely Kennedy (D-La) - $2,000
*Lane Evans (D-Ill) - $2,000
*Norm Dicks (D-Wash) - $1,500
*Rick Weiland (D-SD) - $1,000
*Ron Wyden (D-Ore) - $1,000
*Tim Holden (D-Pa) - $1,000
*William J. Jefferson (D-La) - $1,000
*Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) - $1,000
*Paul Wellstone (D-Minn) - $1,000
*Pete Stark (D-Calif) - $1,000
*Peter DeFazio (D-Ore) - $1,000
*Mike Thompson (D-Calif) - $1,000
*David Phelps (D-Ill) - $1,000
*Derrick B. Watchman (D-Ariz) - $1,000
*Charles S. Robb (D-Va) - $1,000
*Bill Luther (D-Minn) - $1,000
*Barbara Boxer (D-Calif) - $1,000
*Brian David Schweitzer (D-Mont) - $1,000
*Charles J. Melancon (D-La) - $1,000
*Eliot L. Engel (D-NY) - $1,000
*Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) - $1,000
*Gloria Tristani (D-NM) - $1,000
*Grace Napolitano (D-Calif) - $1,000
*Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) - $1,000
*Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif) - $1,000
*Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) - $1,000
*Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) - $500
*John Kerry (D-Mass) - $500
*Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif) - $500
*Shelley Berkley (D-Nev) - $500

[[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:16, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::: ...can you give us the Republican list :-) ? -'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 23:50, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

*Ah, deceit...Yes, Abramoff's ''clients'' gave money to Democrats, but Jack ''personally'' gave '''only''' to Republicans or Republican PACs. And, while Abramoff's clients gave to Dems, they gave far more to Republicans (which was his clients' opposite pattern from their pre-Abramoff donations, strongly suggesting that Abramoff steered money away from Dems and toward Republicans). --[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 23:54, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

That would be incorrect. Jack never gave his "own" money, any more than I do. As George Wallace said long ago, in one of the few honest and correct statements he ever made: "In Washington, there isn't a dimes worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats". --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:00, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:Try here: http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?key=HK6HE&txtName=Abramoff,%20Jack&txtState=(all%20states)&txtAll=Y&Order=N
--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 00:13, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

: Unfortunately, that link likely won't work very long -- the 'key' bit is a captcha.
::Nice job - though, is there any chance the list below can be sorted by amount, rather than alphabetically, like the list above? [[User:Human|Human]] 13:34, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

A summary:
* Abraham, Spencer: $2000
* Aderholt, Robert: $250
* Alby, Barbara: $1000
* Allen, George: $1000
* American Liberty PAC: $2500
* Americans for a Republican Majority: $22500
* Armey, Dick: $500
* Ashcroft, John: $1000
* Battle Born PAC: $1000
* Bond, Christopher S 'Kit': $1500
* Bordonaro, Molly H: $500
* Bordonaro, Tom: $2000
* Brooks, Susan: $1000
* Brownback, Sam: $500
* Bunning, Jim: $1000
* Burton, Dan: $4000
* Bush, George W: $3000
* Cannon, Chris: $2000
* Cantor, Eric: $5000
* Chambliss, Saxby: $1000
* Chenoweth, Helen: $2000
* Christensen, Jon: $250
* Chrysler, Dick: $250
* Coburn, Tom: $250
* Cochran, Thad: $1000
* Cornyn, John: $1000
* Cox, Christopher: $250
* Crane, Philip M: $2000
* Cremeans, Frank A: $250
* Cubin, Barbara: $250
* Davis, Tom: $500
* DeLay, Tom: $10000
* Dole, Elizabeth: $1000
* Doolittle, John T: $4000
* Dunn, Jennifer: $1000
* Ehrlich, Bob: $500
* Emerson, Mark: $500
* English, Phil: $1000
* Ensign, John: $4000
* Enzi, Mike: $1000
* Faircloth, Lauch: $1500
* Ferguson, Mike: $1000
* First Freedoms Fund: $5000
* Flotron, Francis E: $1000
* Forbes, J Randy: $1000
* Friends of the Big Sky: $5000
* Fund for a Free Market America: $2500
* Funderburk, David: $1000
* Gerow, Charles R: $500
* Gingrey, Phil: $500
* Gormley, William L: $1000
* Gramm, Phil: $1000
* Grant, Carolyn W: $1000
* Grassley, Chuck: $2000
* Gutknecht, Gil: $250
* Hastings, Richard "Doc": $500
* Hawkeye PAC: $5000
* Hayworth, J D: $1250
* Hill, Rick: $250
* Hilleary, Van: $1750
* Hofmeister, Gary A: $1000
* Hutchinson, Tim: $2000
* Hutchison, Claude B Jr: $1000
* Inhofe, James M: $1000
* Isakson, Johnny: $2000
* Istook, Ernest J: $1000
* Janklow, Bill: $250
* Jones, Walter B Jr: $1250
* Kaloi, Kimo: $1000
* Keep Our Majority PAC: $2500
* Keller, Ric: $1000
* Kingston, Jack: $1000
* Largent, Steve: $250
* Latham, Tom: $1000
* Lazio, Rick A: $250
* Leadership PAC 2004: $2000
* Lefever, Tim: $500
* LoBiondo, Frank A: $1000
* McCollum, Bill: $1000
* Metcalf, Jack: $250
* Mitnick, John: $250
* Monday Morning PAC: $2000
* Morella, Connie: $1000
* Nethercutt, George: $500
* Nethercutt, George R Jr: $1000
* New Jersey Republican State Cmte: $5000
* Ney, Bob: $2250
* North Carolina Republican Executive Cmte: $5000
* North, Oliver: $1000
* Ose, Doug: $1000
* Otter, C L 'Butch': $1000
* Paul, Ron: $250
* Perry, Brent: $250
* Phillips, Howard: $500
* Pickering, Charles "Chip" Jr: $3500
* Pirozzi, Elia Vincent: $1000
* Pitts, Joe: $894
* Pombo, Richard: $2000
* Pombo, Richard W: $500
* Preston, Gates et al: $5500
* Regula, Ralph: $1000
* Rehberg, Denny: $2000
* Rely on Your Beliefs: $8500
* Republican Majority Fund: $5000
* Rich PAC: $5000
* Riley, Bob: $1000
* Rohrabacher, Dana: $7500
* Royce, Ed: $500
* Ryan, Paul: $949
* Ryun, Jim: $250
* Saxton, Jim: $0
* Scarborough, Joe: $1000
* Senate Victory Fund: $7000
* Shelby, Richard C: $1000
* Simmons, Rob: $1250
* Simpson, Mike: $1000
* Smith, Bob: $4920
* Smith, Gordon: $250
* Smith, Gordon H: $3000
* Snowbarger, Vince: $250
* Specter, Arlen: $2000
* Stevens, Ted: $1000
* Stockman, Steve: $500
* Sununu, John E: $250
* Susan B Anthony List: $1000
* Talent, James M: $2000
* Tate, Randy: $1000
* Taylor, Charles H: $2250
* Teague, Edward B: $250
* Team PAC: $1000
* Terrell, Suzanne: $3000
* Thune, John: $1000
* United States Family PAC: $3000
* Watts, J C: $250
* Weldon, Curt: $1000
* Weller, Jerry: $500
* Wicker, Roger: $250
* Wilson, Heather: $1000
* Wittig, Suzanne Dear: $250
* Young Jewish Leadership PAC: $985
* Young, Tom: $500
--[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 00:36, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

===Further Abramoff comments===

So - it's agreed, everyone thinks Abramoff was a stinker, so ''why not put his deceit in the article''? [[User:Human|Human]] 00:34, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:Because you are going to have a difficult time assigning partisan motves to the man. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:41, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::Exactly so. One can ascribe political motives to him. Business motives. The press makes up the partisan deal, because everyone loves to embarass someone. Business has no politics other than making more $$. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:52, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::There's no need for a partisan motive. Just a description of his deceit and how it was "bad". [[User:Human|Human]] 13:34, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Hmm. You know, I think I'll agree with RobS here--Abramoff(& Co.) wasn't deceitful so much as corrupt/crooked, which is a different issue. --[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 20:54, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Is not that the point of the article? Corrupt/crooked, deceiving in order to gain? [[User:Human|Human]] 21:17, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Abramoff wasn't a conservative. Not at all. Also, I'm not sure how Abramoff was strikingly ''deceitful''. Does anyone know to what crimes he pled guilty? Was fraud one of them?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:34, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: As a matter of fact, yes, it was. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 00:36, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

**Please, Andy--regardless whether Abramoff was deceitful or just crooked, it's ridiculous to say that he was "not at all" a conservative. As I said above, he was a director of the National Center for Public Policy Research (a conservative think tank); he was College Republican National Committee National Chairman; he has longstanding ties to Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed, among others; he was a member of Citizens for America, a pro-Reagan group that helped Oliver North build support for the Nicaraguan contras; when Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds LLP,a lobbying firm, needed a "conservative, Christian Coalition Republican with strong ties to...Republican leadership", they hired Abramoff; he was a member of GWB's transition team in 2001. And so forth. If he wasn't a conservative, he certainly did a great job of pretending to be one.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 19:39, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Nixon (Richard M.) ==

TK just deleted this addition wthout explanation:

:November 17, 1973, Declaring that "I am not a crook," President [[Richard Nixon]] vigorously defended his record in the [[Watergate]] case and said he had never profited from his public service. "I have earned every cent. And in all of my years of public life I have never obstructed justice," Mr. Nixon said.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/111873-1.htm Watergate Files]</ref>

Nixon almost destroyed the presidency with his deceit on this issue. And yet, a Larry King misquote, presented as a question, is still included? [[User:Human|Human]] 20:53, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

*Sorry! Must have been an edit conflict! Please don't be so suspicious, and try contacting a guy, okay? I haven't blocked a user for contacting me in at least a week! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:27, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

: Conservatives abandoned Nixon by late 1971, well before Watergate occurred, I think. Nixon's fall was just another example of a politician being brought down, for which there are hundreds of examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:37, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::So why not include him? This is not an exercise in conservative-bashing - it's more an attempt to show that not only avowed "liberals" practice deceit upon occasion. And, well, deservedly, get abandoned by conservatives? Anyway, Nixon, was, ironically, the last great liberal President anyway. Wage and price controls? No wonder Cons. abandoned him! EPA, oh, I forget he other big liberal thing he did right now. But you know. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:34, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

: Well, the other problem is that Nixon's crime was not really "deceit". It was a burglary and cover-up. That's not what most people mean by deceit, and it's not similar to other entries. If Nixon is to be added, then Ted Kennedy would be added first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:25, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:::So, add them both. I am as embarrassed by [[Chappaquidick]] as you must be by Watergate? [[User:Human|Human]] 00:42, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::Um, Er, Well, "Cover-up" does tend to involve deceit. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 23:39, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Well, yes, armed robbery by a masked gunman also involves deceit. So does terrorism, in fact. Will people be proposing that we list Bin Laden too? No, that's not what this entry is about. Neither is burglary and denial what this entry is about. The listed examples are what we have in mind here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:43, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Did Bin Laden engage in deceit? Or was he "honest" in his terrorist tactics/goals? Get real with this articvle, before Das Talk, or whatever, mocks it! [[User:Human|Human]] 00:19, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

The "I am not a crook" quotation has '''''absolutely nothing''''' to do with Watergate. In fact, Wikipedia & Wikiquote actually have this correct (last time I looked). And it is only after a lengthy discussion & edit war with User:Will Beback did he finally admit my sourcing in this quote was accurate. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:03, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== TIME FOR A REALITY CHECK!! ==

Human, the crap by Nixon WAS RESTORED, by me, YESTERDAY! Right after you called my attention to the edit conflict. Jeeze....--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:55, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, I saw, and I think I said so, somewhere... Sorry if I didn't say so in the right place at the right time. Thank you, and duly noted, your honesty in this matter. [[User:Human|Human]] 00:21, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:: And then it was removed again, thus the renewed discussion. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 00:36, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::: I deleted it. Clinton, who was impeached, along with many other politicians would need to inserted before Nixon. Nixon's offense was not really "deceit" any more than a masked bank robber's crime would be "deceit".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:40, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Truth is, the misuse of the phrase "I am not a crook", to make Nixon say something he never said, is an example of the deceit of the liberal media. No one ever accused Nixon stealing anything in the Watergate affair. Yet that is what this quote implies. It refers to questions regarding Nixon's personal finances and tax returns--a subject which has nothing to do with Watergate. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:24, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== I intend to delete this article and start again ==

This article is a mess.

It ought to be a legal article and nothing more.

The concept of deceit outside of law is really just a matter for a dictionary definition. This is not a dictionary.

As for the examples, they appear to be mere excuses for people to push their own world-views.

Any objections to my deleting and starting again? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:27, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:Deceit doesn't exist in morality, the stuff parents teach their kids not to do? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:45, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:: I have no problem with parents teaching their children not to deceive. I teach my own children that very lesson. But that is not a justification for retaining this poor quality article.

:: What particular aspects of the article do you say ought be retained? Or are you suggesting material for a new article? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:56, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:::The article states what it is and gives a few well known examples. What's wrong with that? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:03, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:::: As I explained above, the definition of deceit (other, perhaps than the legal definition) is a matter for a dictionary. Further, the examples are a mere excuse for people to push particular barrows. Examples of deceit are, by their very nature, contentious and have no place in an encyclopedia.
:::: Do you suggest the retention of any particular parts of the article or have any suggestions for the new article? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:12, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::I thought it covers the basic elements pretty good. Of course we could always use other good examples, too. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:40, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::: Well, I'm sure you'll like the new version that I'm working on even better! --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:49, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

==Ward Churchill==

I'd be willing to find another source for it (it was widely reported in the news and that site was just the first thing I found), but I'm not sure how this doesn't fit in with the theme of the article. If not, that's fine, but I'm just asking. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:14, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

: I'm indifferent to this. If there are better cites that really prove the deceit, then let's consider it. My only concern is that the other listed items are deceits against the public, while this Churchill incident seems to be a private matter. Also, in most of the other cases people embraced the deceit even knowing it was a lie. I don't want to dilute the great examples we have with less significant examples. Thanks and Godspeed to your fine efforts, Dan.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::That's fine with me. I was just wondering.

I will work on the article on Churchill himself, as I know that he is very influential among the left (I noticed my roommate my freshman year, who is involved in liberal activism, had been reading him). [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:I take it Andy, from reading this thread that you have not noticed my post above. As you can see I have proposed deletion and replacement of the current article (for the reasons stated). I trust you will like the new version. Should be ready soon. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 00:29, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I read your comments, Horace. There is nothing about this entry that should be deleted. The examples are striking, factual, and highly informative. In most of the examples, there was public deceit followed by liberal support of the deceit. This is precisely the kind of information that Conservative is going to provide, without the censorship common on Wikipedia. Feel free to add similar examples of public deceit followed by support of the deceit. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:32, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::: OK. Done. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 00:42, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::: Oop. You reverted the edit. Too controversial? I thought we didn't censor. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 00:50, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Horace, your "example" did not involve any admission of deceit, any charges of deceit, or any embrace of any deceit. Moreover, appeal of this opinion and the dictum was prevented, so it was never reviewed and tested independently. Your example is nothing like the other listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:54, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::: Ho ho ho. Surely you jest! Example 2 contains no admission and no charges (I am not sure what an embrace is in this context - is it different to an admission?). Example 4 is the same (I also note that it is completely unsourced). What is more I regard it as quite astounding that you could assert that a matter which has been tested in court has not been "reviewed and tested independently". So much for the American judicial system!
::: My example was better than most of the current examples in the article. It had it all! Deceit (in the witness box no less) followed by cover up (by this very institution - what better way to demonstrate your non-bias then to report it?) and, to top it all, the matter had been subject to judicial assessment.
::: I guess that means you were right all along. My example was nothing like the other examples. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 01:10, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

*One day you will indeed go too far. You do know that, right? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I just call them as I see them Terrence. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 01:27, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

: Horace, the right to appeal is a basic due process right. The persons you accuse of deceit did not have that right. Moreover, the persons you accuse of deceit did obtain anything of value for their conduct either. Nor did anyone embrace the alleged deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::*A small amount of tact and civility go much further than doing that (calling them as you see them) 100% of the time, no? I just cannot get over the bitterness of some, I sense a real anger by some for being at a place voluntarily, that they knew was Conservative from the beginning. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::: Andrew, my point was that, '''unlike some of the examples actually in the article right now''', the persons who were said to have committed the deceit in my example were adjudged to have done so by a court of law. They at least had the advantage of (what I had always assumed was) a fair hearing by a properly constituted court. What is the relevance of what they received for their lies? I imagine that they thought they would get their reward in heaven. They probably still do.

::: Terrence, I contain no bitterness. I just do not like to see conservatism or this site being sullied by unencyclopedic articles. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 01:40, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::: P.S. Andrew, I see you have now added to example 2. That's great but it doesn't really excuse your '''censoring''' of my example, does it? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 01:45, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I merely inserted material from our entry on the subject, which you seemed to deny. As to your claim of a court of law, there were no charges ever brought against the witnesses so your allusion to "a fair hearing" is inapplicable. Also, you continue to overlook that that no appeal was allowed of the opinion. Note also that the witnesses obtained no personal benefit from their alleged deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:55, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::: It still rather leaves Mr. Freud out in the cold, doesn't it?

::: Sorry, you'll have to explain what you mean when you say that no appeal was allowed. Do you mean that the court refused a leave application? If so, so what? It happens all the time.

::: I have already dealt with your point about personal benefit to the witnesses.

::: I never suggested that there were charges against the witnesses. The court just found that they lied. It's pretty simple. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 02:18, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Freud Evidence ==

The following statement...
* [[Sigmund Freud]] lied about his research<ref> The main source for this is Coffi, F., 1996, Freud and the Question of Pseudoscience , discussed at: https://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.asp?control=167&sortorder=authorlast</ref> in order to make it falsely appear that his psychoanalysis had some benefit <ref> However, other writers take issue with this statement. There appears to be debate as to whether results were fabricated through either a feature of, or a flaw in, the psychoanalytic process see: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v22/n08/borc01_.html</ref>. Yet [[liberals]] continue to teach in school that Freud was a great scientist.

...given the references cited, now seems itself to be a candidate for the article. [[user:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]]

: I don't follow your point here. Are you suggesting the addition of citations, or are you denying that Freud lied? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:45, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I noted that a number of people had asked for citations for this, what seems to be quite contentious point. Please let me stress I know absolutely nothing about Psychoanalysis; hjowever, I have found what seems to be the reference that the original author (whoever it was, probably lost in the mists of time) did not supply, i.e. Coffi. From what I have read, Coffi contends that Freud did not so much '''deliberately''' lie as fabricate according to his mindset; in that way, it is a failing in Frued's psychoanalytic process, and the claims Freud made for it, and opens the process up to the accusations of being a pseudoscience and Freud to the accusation of being a quack. The second citation actually addresses this point of view and contends that this sort of result is inevitable from the psychoanalytic process, in that patient and analyist must necessarily come to a shared understanding, which must, by any dialogic process, be fabricated. In other words, whether or not the result of the analysis yields truths or not cannot be easily determined; it might be that an analyst is genuinely uncovering meaning, but on the other hand, he and the patient might be making it all up, and no-one, not even the participants can say for certain. My point in all this, is that given the quagmire that this seems to lay before us, to make a claim that Freud was lying, is at best oversimplistic, and at worst is simply untrue, as there is no evidence that Freud '''deliberately''' lied. This means that it does not actually belong in an article on deceit, and trying to claim that it does when there is no evidence to support it, could well itself be deceitful. --[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 10:00, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

This critics has been refered to many times in Finland: Richard Webster: Why Freud was Wrong. Sin, Science and Psychoanalysis. Harper Collins London 1996. I don't know about contents, but does it have good arguments? --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 10:31, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

What about this: Robyn M. Dawes. 1994. House of Cards: Psychology and Psychotherapy Build on Myth, New York: The Free Press. Said to have proven psychoanalysis has no proven effect. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 11:10, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Freud was fraud? ==

Is it only "liberals" who are beleaving Freud was a great scientist (and psychoanalysis good science)? In Europe and Finland there seems to be also others beleaving to him. And now also scientific sceptics are starting to critisize Freud, not only conservatives. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 11:27, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:I am no advocate of Freud, and if you note above, I am the one who supplied the reference which is not being used selectively in the article to support the contention that Freud lied. The point is well made above that this may be oversimplistic, or itself a dishonest way of looking at the evidence. It appears (I have now done some more reading) that there is a recognised danger in psych. of the doctor starting off with preconceived notions and fitting the evidence to those theories. Unfortunately we ALL do this; it's a way of life, and it's part of the human condition. This is why there are heated debates on CP from both sides, intransigent - people as Paul Simon once remarked "... a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest". My point is this: it is so embedded in the human psyche to do this, that we cannot speak of it as deceit, or if it is, then we need to expand the article to discuss it more fully. From what I have read, I do not believe that Freud was deceitful. Misguided, a poor scientist, maybe, but deceitful, no. If you want to label him as a liar and a rogue who deliberately set out to devceive people, then I think that you ought to use the same criteria that you would need if he were still alive, i.e. that if you were to say these things, you had better have some good evidence to back your statements or have a damn good lawyer who could fend off the inevitable lawsuit which will follow. On the evidence that you have presented you could expect that Freud would slap a lawsuit for libel on you --[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 12:28, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

==10 Commandments==
I don't think the reference about removing the 10 Commandments from schools really shows that you're going for. The decision was to remove any physical depiction of the 10 Commandments, which has nothing to do with whether morals are taught in schools. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 12:20, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

: "Nothing to do with morals are taught in schools"? You can't be serious. That's like saying "2+2=4" has nothing with whether "2+3=5". If the Ten Commandments can't be on the wall, then they can't be taught for [[normative]] purposes in textbooks either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::Yes I am serious. To use your example you don't need a poster that says 2+2=4 to learn that or to know it. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 18:41, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== contradiction in the definition ==

I am not sure why I am getting involved with this, but here goes:

* " Deceit is the fraudulent representation of a material fact, made intentionally or recklessly or without reasonable basis and with the intent to induce reliance on the falsehood".
* "Traditionally deceit was taught as being wrong and in violation of the Ten Commandments" -"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor".

The logic implied therefore is that'''all deceit'' is prohibited by the 10 commandments.

However, bearing "false witness against a neighbour" is not the same as "fraudulent misrepresentation of a material fact", and does not encompass all the things that the latter could possible include. For example, claiming that you have a PhD when you do not have one is clearly deceit, but I cannot find anything in the 10 commandments that tells me I should not do it. I am not stealing; I am not bearing false witness against a neighbour. Am I coveting? I don't think so. As far as the ten commandments is concerned, I can get away with it.

Under these circumstances, the statement concerning the 10C needs to be amended to say:
"Deceit has traditionally been viwed as being morally wrong and in many respects it is in violation of the Ten Commandments, especially those deceits which involve harm or malpractice to another person" --[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 16:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:Sometimes deceit can also be stealing - if you are trying to get advantages by deceiving. For example that kind of telling you have a PhD can have this kind of wrong motive. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 17:36, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Most crimes entail deceit, but the point here is when deceit is the primary wrongdoing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::You seem to be missing the point. I am not saying deceit is right, far from it. I am saying that the statement that "deceit is ... in violation of the Ten Commandments" is not correct, as some deceits are NOT in violation of any of the 10 commandments.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 18:23, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Sean, I thought I made the change you requested. Sure, some deceits are justified, just as self-defense can justify killing in rare circumstances. But the statement is correct, that deceit has traditionally been taught as being wrong under the Ten Commandments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Apologies, had missed that in the article, I was still responding to the stuff on the talk pages. Thank You. I shall now go back to what I know best.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 18:37, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

Talk:Deceit

2007-05-14T22:41:21Z

Jrssr5: /* 10 Commandments */

== The assertion "Liberals rarely criticize deceit" ==
The assertion "Liberals rarely criticize deceit" is made in this "article". Please remove this lie immediately. Feel free to make some bizarre anti-abortion reference, after all, this site is ''your blog'', basically, on the [[abortion|issues]] you [[creation|hold dear]]. But if you think "liberals" don't criticize deceit, you're not paying attention. The clearest recent example is the Bush administration's deceit about weapons of mass destruction in order to invade Iraq. See me criticizing it? I'll criticize the <s>Bay</s>[[Gulf of Tonkin]] lies, too, if you need me to be even-handed about presidents lying us into unnecessary wars. [[User:Human|Human]] 20:55, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:Carefull now, the last two users who dared to touch that claim are now banned. While using this site i have learned several new words and phrases, which is nice as i don't speak english as my native language. One of those words is: "concervative fact". And i think it's exactly what we have here. Claim that we liberals are deceivers isn't a lie or gross generalization, it's an concervative fact and claiming otherwise shows liberal bias. Allso like most conservative facts, it dosent need citation or anything to back the claim, facts are facts.

:Okey, and now ill apologize my outburst, but Mr.Aschlafly, i ask you, how would you react if some one accused you of being a deceiver or accepting deceptions with out any other evidence than that you think yourself as conservative? I really ask you to reconcider both the content of this article and the banning of those two users who most likely where offended by it's content and tryed to change it. There is no way one can justify a claim like that in an encyclopedia. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:41, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::Thank you for the warning, [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]], but as much as I try, I cannot seem to get any bannings! Maybe it is because I keep adding to the "[[User:Human/Classic_Conservapedia|encyclopedia]]" that backs up this '''blog'''. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:03, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree: this is not encyclopedia-worth material.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Liberals here protest too much about this entry on [[deceit]]. In both examples, the deceit by liberals is conclusively proven. But did other liberals who joined in the deceit apologize for it? Not that I'm aware. Show me examples of apologies and I'll add them.

: Additional airtight proofs of deceit can be added. But partisan opinions will not be.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Silly me, I keep forgetting that all Liberals are, rather than being individual people with varying opinions on topics, mere appendages of a single world-spanning hivemind, and thus all are guilty for the misdeeds of every one. That's why all political statements made by anyone less Conservative than Pat Robertson have to be prefaced by a three-hour disclaimer renouncing every single evil deed committed by every liberal dating back to Ramses II, right? --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 22:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
::Politicians Lie. It's pretty much in the job description these days.
::I'll run with the Gulf of Tonkin/Johnson/Viet Nam and WMDs/Bush/Iraq lies. By the way, you have a typo at "after communist collapsed". I'd fix it but, well, the article is locked. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:04, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Examples ==

Should these be included as an example of deceit?

Can the following examples of deceit be added to the main page? It is currently locked and a tad bit one sided. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:54, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:What is deceitful about Wolfowitz's statement? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:Also, Tillman could not be used like this, because it is not Tillman being accused of deceit. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:43, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:: One of the reasons to go to war was "removal of troops from Saudi Arabia"[http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-05-30-wolfowitz-iraq_x.htm], however the lack of finding WMDs and the various indications that known faulty/unreliable intelligence was used to come to the WMD claim. That because of bureaucracy, the case for WMDs was the one offered forward to the American people. Not the actual reasons (whatever those may be).
:: I have retitled the section on Pat Tillman.
:: Still, all of these are in the Talk section. Is there merit for moving any of these to the article? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Paul Wolfowitz ===
"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." Paul Wolfowitz, May 28, 2003<ref>[http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2676 U.S. Department of Defense - News Transcript]</ref> --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:What a joke! Click on this one [http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2676] Who made the above quote on May 28, 2003, Paul Wolfowitz or his interviewer, DeYoung? And you present ''this'' as an example of deceit? A little '''''disengenous''''', don't you think, the wrong link, the wrong cite, not even the right person speaking, and calling this as an example of '''''deceit''''' ? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:: [http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0305/S00308.htm The Vanity Fair interview transcript] shows quite clearly:
<blockquote>
Q: Was that one of the arguments that was raised early on by you and others that Iraq actually does connect, not to connect the dots too much, but the relationship between Saudi Arabia, our troops being there, and bin Laden's rage about that, which he's built on so many years, also connects the World Trade Center attacks, that there's a logic of motive or something like that? Or does that read too much into -- 

Wolfowitz: No, I think it happens to be correct. '''The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason''', but -- Hold on one second. 
(Pause) 

Kellems: Sam there may be some value in clarity on the point that it may take years to get post-Saddam Iraq right. It can be easily misconstrued, especially when it comes to -- 

Wolfowitz: There have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. Sorry, hold on again. 
</blockquote>
:: My apologies for using the military transcript asking about the quote instead in which Wolfowitz goes more into what he meant than the Vanity Fair Transcript where it appears he was cut off. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:12, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I see. So you admit to trying to convince us of something other than what the facts are. Thank you. Now, what do we make of this exchange:

::::Q: What do you think all the conspiritorial talk is? Do you have any notion, in Europe and here? What are people looking at this way?

::::Wolfowitz: I think it's pretty obvious and I think it's pretty disgraceful but all you can do is ignore it and go on and get the job done.

::::Q: What is it? I mean some say anti-Semitism. I guess in Europe that would be --

::::Wolfowitz: I just said all I'm going to say about it.

:::Comments? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:28, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: There is has been the accusation of a conspiracy between oil companies which the President is related to, the Saudi goverment, and other such theories. The argument for war that was mentioned in the Vanity Fair article does not have any of these. Look at Wolfowitz's statement "Wolfowitz: There have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. Sorry, hold on again." -- These were the reasons to go to war, not just WMD. By focusing on WMD and only on WMD as was done and selectively choosing the intelligence to present (and ignoring the intelligence that said there were no WMDs), there was a misleading of the American population as to the reason to go to war.
:::: Wolfowitz then said "''The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is the one about which there's the most disagreement within the bureaucracy, even though I think everyone agrees that we killed 100 or so of an al Qaeda group in northern Iraq in this recent go-around, that we've arrested that al Qaeda guy in Baghdad who was connected to this guy Zarqawi whom Powell spoke about in his UN presentation.''" -- In other words, the lack of support of terrorism was debated (and later shown to be correct - there was no connection), and to help the Iraqis was valid but not enough of a reason alone to go to war. Thus we heard 'WMD' repeated over and over again as the reason, even though there was evidence that the source for the WMD project was not reliable and there was no evidence that Sadam had an active WMD program. As to Zarqawi's relationship with al Qaeda read [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5280219/site/newsweek this Newsweek Article]
::::<blockquote>But just last week, in little-noticed remarks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld conceded that Zarqawi’s ties to Al Qaeda may have been much more ambiguous—and that he may have been more a rival than a lieutenant to bin Laden. Zarqawi “may very well not have sworn allegiance to [bin Laden]," Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon briefing. “Maybe he disagrees with him on something, maybe because he wants to be ‘The Man’ himself and maybe for a reason that’s not known to me.” Rumsfeld added that, “someone could legitimately say he’s not Al Qaeda.”</blockquote>
:::: (a year later from the Wolfowitz interview).
:::: Thus, the questions to answer:
::::* Was the intelligence on WMDs known to be lacking or bad by those pushing it? [http://www.wmd.gov/report/report.html#chapter1]
::::** Alternative reading: Was the assumption for "There are WMDs in Iraq, find intelligence to prove it" the case (read the paragraph begining "Rather, they were the product of poor intelligence collection..." from the above link).
::::* Were there other reasons that lead to going to war that contributed to but were not sufficent?
::::* Given the poor intelligence and unconvincing other reasons, was the case for war in Iraq deceitful?
::::--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:32, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: The conspiracy theory relates specifically to anti-Semitism, i.e. conspiracy theories that state flatly a cabal of Jewish conspirators like Wolfowotz, Perle, ''et al'', have suckered the United States into fighting Israel's wars for them. And the conspiracies do not stop there -- they even say these same conspirators blew the World Trade Center up themselves to get the American people involved in the War on Terror. These same conspirators invented lies like WMD to justify their actions. This specifically is the question Tannenhaus asked, and this specifically is the answer Wolfowitz gave with "I think it's pretty obvious and I think it's pretty disgraceful" and refused to comment further. And these conspiracies are rampant in Europe and the Arab world, and I'm sorry, the bogus cover about oil companies, etc. to sanitize this Ameerican brand of anti-Semitism will not fly here.

:::::The 9/11 Commission Report infact cites a link between Saddam and al-Qeade, which is the reference given above. The US had been supporting Kurds in northern Iraq since the Gulf War, and the Kurds were fighting ''both'' Saddam ''and'' al-Qeada, as the Commission Report stated.

:::::As to WMD, this interview doesn't reveal anything new. And there is no reason to speculate that simply because the US Government has not publicly announced much information on this subject, that news organizations accounts are definitive or authoritive.

:::::Ultimately, again, the cited objective of the war was regime change; WMD was cited as one of several reasons for regime change, but the specific objective was regime change, not discovering WMD stockpiles for TV cameras to take pictures of. My appologies again for giving a quick answer on this, because it does warrant more discussion, but I'm a little rushed for time at the moment, and we can go into more detail later on the WMD business. But I'm not certain this is the correct page for what may be an extensive discussion of the matter. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:12, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

(Move indent) Ok, so Wolfowitz says,''"There have always been three fundamental concerns.
:*One is weapons of mass destruction,
:*the second is support for terrorism,
:*the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people."

And Wolfowitz also says, " for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction"

Now we will cite another well established and influencial decisionmaker in the U.S. governement bureacracy. This decision maker, in her own words, had been deeply involved in the subject for a decade. And we will study of the three reasons that the bureaucracy, which includes Wolfowitz and our source, cited as the reason to go to war, in what order do these reasons match Wolfowitz's. Further, the 9/11 Report infact documents several Saddam - al Qeada contacts for several years prior, but Wolfowitz here only refers to "support for terrorism". Here's our cite

:"There is a very easy way for to prevent anyone from being put into harms way and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something that I have followed for a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. There may be progress, we may be destroying his missiles, there is no accounting for the chemical and biological stocks. I just have to respectfully disagree what the proximate cause of any action that might be taken is. [http://www.archive.org/details/HillaryClintonsviewsongoingtowarSaddamandWMDs] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:49, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Jack Abramoff ===
Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials. A bit more digging beyond the guilty plea should identify a signficant amount of deceit in his dealings as a lobbyist. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:29, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:These look like better examples of deceit than those listed in the article. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:41, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Pentagon regarding Pat Tillman ===
There is growing evidence[http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/04/army_tillmanlynch_070424/] to a cover up and use of the death of Pat Tillman as pro war propoganda by making Pat Tillman a hero rather than someone who got killed in a friendly fire incident. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== Can deceit be conservative? ==

I think so, but this page wasn't representing that. If all sides are to have a say, then there should be a kind of balance. At least, if we are to have a bias, we should acknowledge opposing views. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 22:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

== My 2 cents, again ==

What a ''ridiculous'' concept! That conservatives and liberals (whatever those terms may actually mean) have different views on deceit. I will avoid the whole topic of morality not being dependent on religion. Most people in most cultures disapprove of deceit. It has nothing to do with political affiliations. ''People'' are inherently flawed in many ways (see, e.g. Genesis). One doesn't need to be at Liberty U or Eagle Forum or the Vatican to think deceit is wrong; most people know it is wrong, and most practice it, as we are imperfect beings. This entire article is offensive on its face.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 22:26, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

== My viewpoint ==

Wherever there is power to be got, certain people will practise deceit. The Bible does not make distinction between "Liberal" or "Conservative" deceit, it condemns deceit regardless of who practises it.

== Andy...?! ==

You can't delete fact! That's a legitimate footnote from the case! How is it opinion? Surely it's one judge's opinion, but similarly, all judgments of deceit are someone's opinion!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:12, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: Ames, I've explained at least a half-dozen times that opinions are not facts. I'm not going to waste more time on this. This is a warning that your account will be blocked if you continue to waste my time or the time of others on this.

: Judge Jones' opinion is nothing more than an opinion. It is not a fact. There was no judgment on the issue you cite here; there was no appeal allowed; and the opinion is not neutral. Do not waste any more of my time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Whether or not it was "neutral" is not at issue - it's what a judge said, and that's how I described it in the article. Do you need directions to my refutations of ''your'' arguments? They're in your archives, #16, when you choose to answer them. I realize you don't like this case, and that you don't like a lot of case law in America at the moment (Goodridge, hint hint?) but that doesn't mean it's not ''legal fact'' with binding authority, in the first case we clashed over, or a Republican judge's reasoned decision, in the last one. You can't make facts go away by shouting "Bias!"-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:18, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

==Freud==

Most great scientists have their theories disproved. Newton was wrong, Pasteur has been subject ot a great deal of correction. Part of the reason they are great is that they can buildmodels, hypotheses that are open to question. It is easy to make assertions that are opinion or simple observation. To create a model that fits evidence and is later open to testing, particuarly in a field where this has not been the case, is the mark of a great scientist. [[User:stevendavy]] (PhD, since you ask)

A few questions, mr. Schlafly: Are you a practicing psychologist? Can you say with absolute certainty that Freud's methods are useless? Do you have sources that can make this a verifiable fact? Or that can support your claim that Freud lied about his research? [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 17:36, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd mark it as unsourced , but of course the page is blocked? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:31, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:If you tell that some lies, you should give some reference which gives arguments what is incorrect. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 06:43, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::This has to be removed within few days, if no sources found. (Prope correction is not to only remove need for ref.) --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 16:39, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I would also like to see a source for the claim that "liberals continue to teach that Freud was a great scientist." In my experience Freud is routinely studied in intro psych classes because he and his ideas are an important element of the history of the field, but the point is typically made that there is no scientific basis for his theories. And while his theories are useless, research has shown that some of his therapeutic methods are indeed useful (some, not all). [[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:49, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

TK, please, discuss and do not censor things as _you_ want them to be. (Or if you want to only censor, please change rules.) --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 07:52, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks! Ref from scientist found :) That I was simply asking for... --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 11:46, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== And, of course, the page is locked. ==
Good thing, too, or some horrible America-Hater might quote Richard Nixon. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 22:49, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:or George Bush. ish. This is really vulgar abuse sometimes. If only we had a sysop who would listen to reason.... [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::Hey, Flippin! Wouldn't you listen to reason? Gee golly, I wish you were a sysop :-). Or me...-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Why is this locked?! Is this someones "own" encyclopedia? --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 22:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, it belongs to [[user:Aschlafly|Andrew Schlafly]]. He owns the site. It is is his blog, and the sysops are his co-bloggers. The rest of us are just along for the ride. He is a young earth creationist and passionate liberal-hater. People wanted to broaden some of the page to include a bit more reality. Check out what's been happening over at [[astronomy]] this evening for more of the same... [[User:Human|Human]]

: Pages are locked after there is a pattern of violations of [[rules]] on them. I will unlocked [deceit] per ythe requests here, but if there are rule violations, then it will be locke again.

: Human, I suggest you apologize and promise not to attack editors personally here, or your account will be blocked. Also, you seem to violate the 90/10 rule as independent grounds for blocking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::His count here [http://faleg.org/cgi-bin/conservapedia/editcounter_Tool1?username=Human] shows that of his 1175 edits 466 have been to actual articles (that’s about 40% actual editing). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:32, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::This kind of rule should not be used for warnings especially when information at background is not correct. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 14:02, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

Reference 2 in the article is wrongly attributed, to should read '''Pittsburgh Tribune-Review'''. The writer of the article referenced is ''"Jonah Goldberg is editor at large of National Review Online."'' Perhaps the cite should be from NRO?
:::::--[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 02:10, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Is it available online? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== As long as we're listing lies.... ==

How about [http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/04/25/tillman_lynch/index.html The Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch frauds]?
Ah, but I forget myself. Those are PRO-WAR lies, and therefore are a-ok. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 22:42, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

And that sentence about morality comes to mind. wait... I think I threw up a little in my mouth there. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:54, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps we could add [[Ted Haggard]]. At least he admitted he was a ''deceiver''. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 10:43, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yes and no; in the Haggard article, Haggard says, "I am a deceiver and a liar", whereas by contrast, [[Alger Hiss]] denied to his dying day at the age of 92 the evidence against him. And his appologists, despite more evidence piled up since his death, continue deceiving themselves. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:38, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Since Haggard admits his deceit, he should probably be included in the "article" :-P unless you have some objection other than the truth of the allegations.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:52, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:Yes but Haggard is a confessed deceiver, and evidently nolonger deceiving himself. There is a path of redemption and rehabilitation. Hiss by contrast, set up a foundation to institutionalize the lies. Books have been written, Haynes & Klehr's ''In Denial'' for example, about the absurd contortions supposed intellectuals twisted themselves in to, in an effort that many of themselves don't even beleive anymore. The late Molly Ivans said even after KGB Archives were corroborated by [[Venona]] evidence,
::''"The other curious thing about the Hiss case is the psychology of believing that Hiss was a spy, which requires abandoning much of what we know about rational thought.'' [http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/lowsoviet.html]
:There is no comparison. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:34, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Confession vitiates the sin but not the fact. Put him in the "article" as a "former" deceiver if you want, but it's deceit that harmed others, nonetheless.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:43, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

John Lott & the Mary Rosh brouhaha would make another good example. His "If national surveys are correct, 98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack" statement isn't as clear cut, but might also be an example; the situation there is oddly similar to the Bellisiles situation, with mysteriously lost/destroyed records of supposed research. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 15:19, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

==Not that anyone asked==
But this ought to be up here if we are going to make an "encyclopedic" entry for deceit. [[Downing Street Memo]] [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:05, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

==Scooter==
We're forgetting Scooter Libby, ''convicted'' of deceit...--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 23:36, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:But, you forget, he's a Republican, right? As in, right wing, can do no wrong. Did he Profit!?!?! NO! There's no money to be made in lying for the conservative cause. Hence, no "deceit". QED. [[User:Human|Human]] 00:27, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

*Rarely have I read such petty comments, such mean-spirited comments, ''gentlemen''. In Washington, D.C., people of intellect and good manners of both parties, decried his conviction and persecution. Left holding the bag, it is called. I wonder if either of you would hold up being questioned by a Grand Jury about all your activities for the past year? Shame on both of you for not furthering good will and a higher plane of discourse here. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:25, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:*If by "left holding the bag" you mean "others in the administration should have been put on trial for endangering lives and national security in furtherance of petty political payback", then I agree heartily. And if you want to further good will and a higher plane of discourse, you could start by recommending this article for deletion...--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 09:57, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

It's common for the military to deny [[friendly fire]] as a cause. That denial has nothing to do with being a conservative, and there is no evidence the denial in Tillman's case was by a conservative. FDR's Administration denied it also during World War II when a hero was killed by friendly fire.

Abramoff was no conservative.

Freud is taught to high school and college students without any admission of his deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:17, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
:Then why not add the friendly fire deceit example, and the Abramoff example? While pointing out that the deceivers were not representative of Conservatism as defined or interpreted by this site (which is its right to do)? And show the harm each case caused? [[User:Human|Human]] 21:48, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
::*A.S., all due respect--Abramoff was a director of the National Center for Public Policy Research (a conservative think tank); he was College Republican National Committee National Chairman; he has longstanding ties to Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed, among others; he was a member of Citizens for America, a pro-Reagan group that helped Oliver North build support for the Nicaraguan contras; when Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds LLP,a lobbying firm, needed a "conservative, Christian Coalition Republican with strong ties to...Republican leadership", they hired Abramoff; he was a member of GWB's transition team in 2001. And so forth. Sounds like a conservative to me...--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 21:57, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
(<--)
Yah, right. [http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/11/abramoff_report_1.html][http://www.noagenda.org/connections/jack_abramoff/] Abramoff contributions to individual Democrats 1990-2006; need contribs to Democratic oraginizations, too?

*Patty Murray (D-Wash) - $40,980
*Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) - $32,000
*Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) - $31,000
*Harry Reid (D-Nev) - $30,500
*Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) - $28,000
*Tom Daschle (D-SD) - $26,500
*Brad R. Carson (D-Okla) - $18,300
*Chris John (D-La) - $15,000
*Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) - $14,500
*John Breaux (D-La) - $13,750
*Mary L. Landrieu (D-La) - $11,500
*Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md) - $11,000
*Dale E. Kildee (D-Mich) - $10,500
*Barney Frank (D-Mass) - $9,000
*Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo) - $9,000
*Max Baucus (D-Mont) - $9,000
*Peter Deutsch (D-Fla) - $8,500
*Dick Durbin (D-Ill) - $8,000
*Frank Pallone, Jr (D-NJ) - $6,000
*Nick Rahall (D-WVa) - $6,000
*Jon S. Corzine (D-NJ) - $5,000
*Fritz Hollings (D-SC) - $5,000
*Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md) - $5,000
*Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) - $5,000
*Deborah Ann Stabenow (D-Mich) - $5,000
*Xavier Becerra (D-Calif) - $4,523
*Tim Johnson (D-SD) - $4,250
*Kent Conrad (D-ND) - $4,000
*Maria Cantwell (D-Wash) - $3,000
*Kalyn Cherie Free (D-Okla) - $3,000
*Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) - $3,000
*Richard M. Romero (D-NM) - $3,000
*Ed Pastor (D-Ariz) - $3,000
*John B. Larson (D-Conn) - $3,000
*James L. Oberstar (D-Minn) - $3,000
*Brad Sherman (D-Calif) - $3,000
*Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) - $2,500
*Max Cleland (D-Ga) - $2,500
*Gene Taylor (D-Miss) - $2,250
*Doug Dodd (D-Okla) - $2,000
*Jay Inslee (D-Wash) - $2,000
*John D. Dingell (D-Mich) - $2,000
*Joe Baca (D-Calif) - $2,000
*Carl Levin (D-Mich) - $2,000
*C. L. "Butch" Otter (R-Idaho) - $2,000
*Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark) - $2,000
*Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss) - $2,000
*Robert Menendez (D-NJ) - $2,000
*Robert T. Matsui (D-Calif) - $2,000
*Rodney Alexander (D-La) - $2,000
*Sander Levin (D-Mich) - $2,000
*Ron Kind (D-Wis) - $2,000
*Ronnie Shows (D-Miss) - $2,000
*Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn) - $2,000
*Willie Landry Mount (D-La) - $2,000
*Tom Carper (D-Del) - $2,000
*Thomas P. Keefe Jr. (D-Wash) - $2,000
*Nita M. Lowey (D-NY) - $2,000
*Maxine Waters (D-Calif) - $2,000
*Ned Doucet (D-La) - $2,000
*John Neely Kennedy (D-La) - $2,000
*Lane Evans (D-Ill) - $2,000
*Norm Dicks (D-Wash) - $1,500
*Rick Weiland (D-SD) - $1,000
*Ron Wyden (D-Ore) - $1,000
*Tim Holden (D-Pa) - $1,000
*William J. Jefferson (D-La) - $1,000
*Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) - $1,000
*Paul Wellstone (D-Minn) - $1,000
*Pete Stark (D-Calif) - $1,000
*Peter DeFazio (D-Ore) - $1,000
*Mike Thompson (D-Calif) - $1,000
*David Phelps (D-Ill) - $1,000
*Derrick B. Watchman (D-Ariz) - $1,000
*Charles S. Robb (D-Va) - $1,000
*Bill Luther (D-Minn) - $1,000
*Barbara Boxer (D-Calif) - $1,000
*Brian David Schweitzer (D-Mont) - $1,000
*Charles J. Melancon (D-La) - $1,000
*Eliot L. Engel (D-NY) - $1,000
*Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) - $1,000
*Gloria Tristani (D-NM) - $1,000
*Grace Napolitano (D-Calif) - $1,000
*Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) - $1,000
*Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif) - $1,000
*Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) - $1,000
*Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) - $500
*John Kerry (D-Mass) - $500
*Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif) - $500
*Shelley Berkley (D-Nev) - $500

[[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:16, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::: ...can you give us the Republican list :-) ? -'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 23:50, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

*Ah, deceit...Yes, Abramoff's ''clients'' gave money to Democrats, but Jack ''personally'' gave '''only''' to Republicans or Republican PACs. And, while Abramoff's clients gave to Dems, they gave far more to Republicans (which was his clients' opposite pattern from their pre-Abramoff donations, strongly suggesting that Abramoff steered money away from Dems and toward Republicans). --[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 23:54, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

That would be incorrect. Jack never gave his "own" money, any more than I do. As George Wallace said long ago, in one of the few honest and correct statements he ever made: "In Washington, there isn't a dimes worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats". --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:00, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:Try here: http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?key=HK6HE&txtName=Abramoff,%20Jack&txtState=(all%20states)&txtAll=Y&Order=N
--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 00:13, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

: Unfortunately, that link likely won't work very long -- the 'key' bit is a captcha.
::Nice job - though, is there any chance the list below can be sorted by amount, rather than alphabetically, like the list above? [[User:Human|Human]] 13:34, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

A summary:
* Abraham, Spencer: $2000
* Aderholt, Robert: $250
* Alby, Barbara: $1000
* Allen, George: $1000
* American Liberty PAC: $2500
* Americans for a Republican Majority: $22500
* Armey, Dick: $500
* Ashcroft, John: $1000
* Battle Born PAC: $1000
* Bond, Christopher S 'Kit': $1500
* Bordonaro, Molly H: $500
* Bordonaro, Tom: $2000
* Brooks, Susan: $1000
* Brownback, Sam: $500
* Bunning, Jim: $1000
* Burton, Dan: $4000
* Bush, George W: $3000
* Cannon, Chris: $2000
* Cantor, Eric: $5000
* Chambliss, Saxby: $1000
* Chenoweth, Helen: $2000
* Christensen, Jon: $250
* Chrysler, Dick: $250
* Coburn, Tom: $250
* Cochran, Thad: $1000
* Cornyn, John: $1000
* Cox, Christopher: $250
* Crane, Philip M: $2000
* Cremeans, Frank A: $250
* Cubin, Barbara: $250
* Davis, Tom: $500
* DeLay, Tom: $10000
* Dole, Elizabeth: $1000
* Doolittle, John T: $4000
* Dunn, Jennifer: $1000
* Ehrlich, Bob: $500
* Emerson, Mark: $500
* English, Phil: $1000
* Ensign, John: $4000
* Enzi, Mike: $1000
* Faircloth, Lauch: $1500
* Ferguson, Mike: $1000
* First Freedoms Fund: $5000
* Flotron, Francis E: $1000
* Forbes, J Randy: $1000
* Friends of the Big Sky: $5000
* Fund for a Free Market America: $2500
* Funderburk, David: $1000
* Gerow, Charles R: $500
* Gingrey, Phil: $500
* Gormley, William L: $1000
* Gramm, Phil: $1000
* Grant, Carolyn W: $1000
* Grassley, Chuck: $2000
* Gutknecht, Gil: $250
* Hastings, Richard "Doc": $500
* Hawkeye PAC: $5000
* Hayworth, J D: $1250
* Hill, Rick: $250
* Hilleary, Van: $1750
* Hofmeister, Gary A: $1000
* Hutchinson, Tim: $2000
* Hutchison, Claude B Jr: $1000
* Inhofe, James M: $1000
* Isakson, Johnny: $2000
* Istook, Ernest J: $1000
* Janklow, Bill: $250
* Jones, Walter B Jr: $1250
* Kaloi, Kimo: $1000
* Keep Our Majority PAC: $2500
* Keller, Ric: $1000
* Kingston, Jack: $1000
* Largent, Steve: $250
* Latham, Tom: $1000
* Lazio, Rick A: $250
* Leadership PAC 2004: $2000
* Lefever, Tim: $500
* LoBiondo, Frank A: $1000
* McCollum, Bill: $1000
* Metcalf, Jack: $250
* Mitnick, John: $250
* Monday Morning PAC: $2000
* Morella, Connie: $1000
* Nethercutt, George: $500
* Nethercutt, George R Jr: $1000
* New Jersey Republican State Cmte: $5000
* Ney, Bob: $2250
* North Carolina Republican Executive Cmte: $5000
* North, Oliver: $1000
* Ose, Doug: $1000
* Otter, C L 'Butch': $1000
* Paul, Ron: $250
* Perry, Brent: $250
* Phillips, Howard: $500
* Pickering, Charles "Chip" Jr: $3500
* Pirozzi, Elia Vincent: $1000
* Pitts, Joe: $894
* Pombo, Richard: $2000
* Pombo, Richard W: $500
* Preston, Gates et al: $5500
* Regula, Ralph: $1000
* Rehberg, Denny: $2000
* Rely on Your Beliefs: $8500
* Republican Majority Fund: $5000
* Rich PAC: $5000
* Riley, Bob: $1000
* Rohrabacher, Dana: $7500
* Royce, Ed: $500
* Ryan, Paul: $949
* Ryun, Jim: $250
* Saxton, Jim: $0
* Scarborough, Joe: $1000
* Senate Victory Fund: $7000
* Shelby, Richard C: $1000
* Simmons, Rob: $1250
* Simpson, Mike: $1000
* Smith, Bob: $4920
* Smith, Gordon: $250
* Smith, Gordon H: $3000
* Snowbarger, Vince: $250
* Specter, Arlen: $2000
* Stevens, Ted: $1000
* Stockman, Steve: $500
* Sununu, John E: $250
* Susan B Anthony List: $1000
* Talent, James M: $2000
* Tate, Randy: $1000
* Taylor, Charles H: $2250
* Teague, Edward B: $250
* Team PAC: $1000
* Terrell, Suzanne: $3000
* Thune, John: $1000
* United States Family PAC: $3000
* Watts, J C: $250
* Weldon, Curt: $1000
* Weller, Jerry: $500
* Wicker, Roger: $250
* Wilson, Heather: $1000
* Wittig, Suzanne Dear: $250
* Young Jewish Leadership PAC: $985
* Young, Tom: $500
--[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 00:36, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

===Further Abramoff comments===

So - it's agreed, everyone thinks Abramoff was a stinker, so ''why not put his deceit in the article''? [[User:Human|Human]] 00:34, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:Because you are going to have a difficult time assigning partisan motves to the man. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:41, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::Exactly so. One can ascribe political motives to him. Business motives. The press makes up the partisan deal, because everyone loves to embarass someone. Business has no politics other than making more $$. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:52, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::There's no need for a partisan motive. Just a description of his deceit and how it was "bad". [[User:Human|Human]] 13:34, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Hmm. You know, I think I'll agree with RobS here--Abramoff(& Co.) wasn't deceitful so much as corrupt/crooked, which is a different issue. --[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 20:54, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Is not that the point of the article? Corrupt/crooked, deceiving in order to gain? [[User:Human|Human]] 21:17, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Abramoff wasn't a conservative. Not at all. Also, I'm not sure how Abramoff was strikingly ''deceitful''. Does anyone know to what crimes he pled guilty? Was fraud one of them?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:34, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: As a matter of fact, yes, it was. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 00:36, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

**Please, Andy--regardless whether Abramoff was deceitful or just crooked, it's ridiculous to say that he was "not at all" a conservative. As I said above, he was a director of the National Center for Public Policy Research (a conservative think tank); he was College Republican National Committee National Chairman; he has longstanding ties to Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed, among others; he was a member of Citizens for America, a pro-Reagan group that helped Oliver North build support for the Nicaraguan contras; when Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds LLP,a lobbying firm, needed a "conservative, Christian Coalition Republican with strong ties to...Republican leadership", they hired Abramoff; he was a member of GWB's transition team in 2001. And so forth. If he wasn't a conservative, he certainly did a great job of pretending to be one.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 19:39, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Nixon (Richard M.) ==

TK just deleted this addition wthout explanation:

:November 17, 1973, Declaring that "I am not a crook," President [[Richard Nixon]] vigorously defended his record in the [[Watergate]] case and said he had never profited from his public service. "I have earned every cent. And in all of my years of public life I have never obstructed justice," Mr. Nixon said.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/111873-1.htm Watergate Files]</ref>

Nixon almost destroyed the presidency with his deceit on this issue. And yet, a Larry King misquote, presented as a question, is still included? [[User:Human|Human]] 20:53, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

*Sorry! Must have been an edit conflict! Please don't be so suspicious, and try contacting a guy, okay? I haven't blocked a user for contacting me in at least a week! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:27, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

: Conservatives abandoned Nixon by late 1971, well before Watergate occurred, I think. Nixon's fall was just another example of a politician being brought down, for which there are hundreds of examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:37, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::So why not include him? This is not an exercise in conservative-bashing - it's more an attempt to show that not only avowed "liberals" practice deceit upon occasion. And, well, deservedly, get abandoned by conservatives? Anyway, Nixon, was, ironically, the last great liberal President anyway. Wage and price controls? No wonder Cons. abandoned him! EPA, oh, I forget he other big liberal thing he did right now. But you know. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:34, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

: Well, the other problem is that Nixon's crime was not really "deceit". It was a burglary and cover-up. That's not what most people mean by deceit, and it's not similar to other entries. If Nixon is to be added, then Ted Kennedy would be added first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:25, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:::So, add them both. I am as embarrassed by [[Chappaquidick]] as you must be by Watergate? [[User:Human|Human]] 00:42, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::Um, Er, Well, "Cover-up" does tend to involve deceit. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 23:39, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Well, yes, armed robbery by a masked gunman also involves deceit. So does terrorism, in fact. Will people be proposing that we list Bin Laden too? No, that's not what this entry is about. Neither is burglary and denial what this entry is about. The listed examples are what we have in mind here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:43, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Did Bin Laden engage in deceit? Or was he "honest" in his terrorist tactics/goals? Get real with this articvle, before Das Talk, or whatever, mocks it! [[User:Human|Human]] 00:19, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

The "I am not a crook" quotation has '''''absolutely nothing''''' to do with Watergate. In fact, Wikipedia & Wikiquote actually have this correct (last time I looked). And it is only after a lengthy discussion & edit war with User:Will Beback did he finally admit my sourcing in this quote was accurate. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:03, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== TIME FOR A REALITY CHECK!! ==

Human, the crap by Nixon WAS RESTORED, by me, YESTERDAY! Right after you called my attention to the edit conflict. Jeeze....--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:55, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, I saw, and I think I said so, somewhere... Sorry if I didn't say so in the right place at the right time. Thank you, and duly noted, your honesty in this matter. [[User:Human|Human]] 00:21, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:: And then it was removed again, thus the renewed discussion. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 00:36, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::: I deleted it. Clinton, who was impeached, along with many other politicians would need to inserted before Nixon. Nixon's offense was not really "deceit" any more than a masked bank robber's crime would be "deceit".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:40, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Truth is, the misuse of the phrase "I am not a crook", to make Nixon say something he never said, is an example of the deceit of the liberal media. No one ever accused Nixon stealing anything in the Watergate affair. Yet that is what this quote implies. It refers to questions regarding Nixon's personal finances and tax returns--a subject which has nothing to do with Watergate. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:24, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== I intend to delete this article and start again ==

This article is a mess.

It ought to be a legal article and nothing more.

The concept of deceit outside of law is really just a matter for a dictionary definition. This is not a dictionary.

As for the examples, they appear to be mere excuses for people to push their own world-views.

Any objections to my deleting and starting again? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:27, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:Deceit doesn't exist in morality, the stuff parents teach their kids not to do? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:45, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:: I have no problem with parents teaching their children not to deceive. I teach my own children that very lesson. But that is not a justification for retaining this poor quality article.

:: What particular aspects of the article do you say ought be retained? Or are you suggesting material for a new article? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:56, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:::The article states what it is and gives a few well known examples. What's wrong with that? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:03, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:::: As I explained above, the definition of deceit (other, perhaps than the legal definition) is a matter for a dictionary. Further, the examples are a mere excuse for people to push particular barrows. Examples of deceit are, by their very nature, contentious and have no place in an encyclopedia.
:::: Do you suggest the retention of any particular parts of the article or have any suggestions for the new article? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:12, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::I thought it covers the basic elements pretty good. Of course we could always use other good examples, too. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:40, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::: Well, I'm sure you'll like the new version that I'm working on even better! --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:49, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

==Ward Churchill==

I'd be willing to find another source for it (it was widely reported in the news and that site was just the first thing I found), but I'm not sure how this doesn't fit in with the theme of the article. If not, that's fine, but I'm just asking. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:14, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

: I'm indifferent to this. If there are better cites that really prove the deceit, then let's consider it. My only concern is that the other listed items are deceits against the public, while this Churchill incident seems to be a private matter. Also, in most of the other cases people embraced the deceit even knowing it was a lie. I don't want to dilute the great examples we have with less significant examples. Thanks and Godspeed to your fine efforts, Dan.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::That's fine with me. I was just wondering.

I will work on the article on Churchill himself, as I know that he is very influential among the left (I noticed my roommate my freshman year, who is involved in liberal activism, had been reading him). [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:I take it Andy, from reading this thread that you have not noticed my post above. As you can see I have proposed deletion and replacement of the current article (for the reasons stated). I trust you will like the new version. Should be ready soon. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 00:29, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I read your comments, Horace. There is nothing about this entry that should be deleted. The examples are striking, factual, and highly informative. In most of the examples, there was public deceit followed by liberal support of the deceit. This is precisely the kind of information that Conservative is going to provide, without the censorship common on Wikipedia. Feel free to add similar examples of public deceit followed by support of the deceit. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:32, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::: OK. Done. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 00:42, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::: Oop. You reverted the edit. Too controversial? I thought we didn't censor. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 00:50, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Horace, your "example" did not involve any admission of deceit, any charges of deceit, or any embrace of any deceit. Moreover, appeal of this opinion and the dictum was prevented, so it was never reviewed and tested independently. Your example is nothing like the other listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:54, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::: Ho ho ho. Surely you jest! Example 2 contains no admission and no charges (I am not sure what an embrace is in this context - is it different to an admission?). Example 4 is the same (I also note that it is completely unsourced). What is more I regard it as quite astounding that you could assert that a matter which has been tested in court has not been "reviewed and tested independently". So much for the American judicial system!
::: My example was better than most of the current examples in the article. It had it all! Deceit (in the witness box no less) followed by cover up (by this very institution - what better way to demonstrate your non-bias then to report it?) and, to top it all, the matter had been subject to judicial assessment.
::: I guess that means you were right all along. My example was nothing like the other examples. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 01:10, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

*One day you will indeed go too far. You do know that, right? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I just call them as I see them Terrence. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 01:27, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

: Horace, the right to appeal is a basic due process right. The persons you accuse of deceit did not have that right. Moreover, the persons you accuse of deceit did obtain anything of value for their conduct either. Nor did anyone embrace the alleged deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::*A small amount of tact and civility go much further than doing that (calling them as you see them) 100% of the time, no? I just cannot get over the bitterness of some, I sense a real anger by some for being at a place voluntarily, that they knew was Conservative from the beginning. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::: Andrew, my point was that, '''unlike some of the examples actually in the article right now''', the persons who were said to have committed the deceit in my example were adjudged to have done so by a court of law. They at least had the advantage of (what I had always assumed was) a fair hearing by a properly constituted court. What is the relevance of what they received for their lies? I imagine that they thought they would get their reward in heaven. They probably still do.

::: Terrence, I contain no bitterness. I just do not like to see conservatism or this site being sullied by unencyclopedic articles. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 01:40, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::: P.S. Andrew, I see you have now added to example 2. That's great but it doesn't really excuse your '''censoring''' of my example, does it? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 01:45, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I merely inserted material from our entry on the subject, which you seemed to deny. As to your claim of a court of law, there were no charges ever brought against the witnesses so your allusion to "a fair hearing" is inapplicable. Also, you continue to overlook that that no appeal was allowed of the opinion. Note also that the witnesses obtained no personal benefit from their alleged deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:55, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::: It still rather leaves Mr. Freud out in the cold, doesn't it?

::: Sorry, you'll have to explain what you mean when you say that no appeal was allowed. Do you mean that the court refused a leave application? If so, so what? It happens all the time.

::: I have already dealt with your point about personal benefit to the witnesses.

::: I never suggested that there were charges against the witnesses. The court just found that they lied. It's pretty simple. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 02:18, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Freud Evidence ==

The following statement...
* [[Sigmund Freud]] lied about his research<ref> The main source for this is Coffi, F., 1996, Freud and the Question of Pseudoscience , discussed at: https://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.asp?control=167&sortorder=authorlast</ref> in order to make it falsely appear that his psychoanalysis had some benefit <ref> However, other writers take issue with this statement. There appears to be debate as to whether results were fabricated through either a feature of, or a flaw in, the psychoanalytic process see: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v22/n08/borc01_.html</ref>. Yet [[liberals]] continue to teach in school that Freud was a great scientist.

...given the references cited, now seems itself to be a candidate for the article. [[user:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]]

: I don't follow your point here. Are you suggesting the addition of citations, or are you denying that Freud lied? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:45, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I noted that a number of people had asked for citations for this, what seems to be quite contentious point. Please let me stress I know absolutely nothing about Psychoanalysis; hjowever, I have found what seems to be the reference that the original author (whoever it was, probably lost in the mists of time) did not supply, i.e. Coffi. From what I have read, Coffi contends that Freud did not so much '''deliberately''' lie as fabricate according to his mindset; in that way, it is a failing in Frued's psychoanalytic process, and the claims Freud made for it, and opens the process up to the accusations of being a pseudoscience and Freud to the accusation of being a quack. The second citation actually addresses this point of view and contends that this sort of result is inevitable from the psychoanalytic process, in that patient and analyist must necessarily come to a shared understanding, which must, by any dialogic process, be fabricated. In other words, whether or not the result of the analysis yields truths or not cannot be easily determined; it might be that an analyst is genuinely uncovering meaning, but on the other hand, he and the patient might be making it all up, and no-one, not even the participants can say for certain. My point in all this, is that given the quagmire that this seems to lay before us, to make a claim that Freud was lying, is at best oversimplistic, and at worst is simply untrue, as there is no evidence that Freud '''deliberately''' lied. This means that it does not actually belong in an article on deceit, and trying to claim that it does when there is no evidence to support it, could well itself be deceitful. --[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 10:00, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

This critics has been refered to many times in Finland: Richard Webster: Why Freud was Wrong. Sin, Science and Psychoanalysis. Harper Collins London 1996. I don't know about contents, but does it have good arguments? --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 10:31, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

What about this: Robyn M. Dawes. 1994. House of Cards: Psychology and Psychotherapy Build on Myth, New York: The Free Press. Said to have proven psychoanalysis has no proven effect. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 11:10, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Freud was fraud? ==

Is it only "liberals" who are beleaving Freud was a great scientist (and psychoanalysis good science)? In Europe and Finland there seems to be also others beleaving to him. And now also scientific sceptics are starting to critisize Freud, not only conservatives. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 11:27, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:I am no advocate of Freud, and if you note above, I am the one who supplied the reference which is not being used selectively in the article to support the contention that Freud lied. The point is well made above that this may be oversimplistic, or itself a dishonest way of looking at the evidence. It appears (I have now done some more reading) that there is a recognised danger in psych. of the doctor starting off with preconceived notions and fitting the evidence to those theories. Unfortunately we ALL do this; it's a way of life, and it's part of the human condition. This is why there are heated debates on CP from both sides, intransigent - people as Paul Simon once remarked "... a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest". My point is this: it is so embedded in the human psyche to do this, that we cannot speak of it as deceit, or if it is, then we need to expand the article to discuss it more fully. From what I have read, I do not believe that Freud was deceitful. Misguided, a poor scientist, maybe, but deceitful, no. If you want to label him as a liar and a rogue who deliberately set out to devceive people, then I think that you ought to use the same criteria that you would need if he were still alive, i.e. that if you were to say these things, you had better have some good evidence to back your statements or have a damn good lawyer who could fend off the inevitable lawsuit which will follow. On the evidence that you have presented you could expect that Freud would slap a lawsuit for libel on you --[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 12:28, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

==10 Commandments==
I don't think the reference about removing the 10 Commandments from schools really shows that you're going for. The decision was to remove any physical depiction of the 10 Commandments, which has nothing to do with whether morals are taught in schools. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 12:20, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

: "Nothing to do with morals are taught in schools"? You can't be serious. That's like saying "2+2=4" has nothing with whether "2+3=5". If the Ten Commandments can't be on the wall, then they can't be taught for [[normative]] purposes in textbooks either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::Yes I am serious. To use your example you don't need a poster that says 2+2=4 to learn that or to know it. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 18:41, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

== contradiction in the definition ==

I am not sure why I am getting involved with this, but here goes:

* " Deceit is the fraudulent representation of a material fact, made intentionally or recklessly or without reasonable basis and with the intent to induce reliance on the falsehood".
* "Traditionally deceit was taught as being wrong and in violation of the Ten Commandments" -"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor".

The logic implied therefore is that'''all deceit'' is prohibited by the 10 commandments.

However, bearing "false witness against a neighbour" is not the same as "fraudulent misrepresentation of a material fact", and does not encompass all the things that the latter could possible include. For example, claiming that you have a PhD when you do not have one is clearly deceit, but I cannot find anything in the 10 commandments that tells me I should not do it. I am not stealing; I am not bearing false witness against a neighbour. Am I coveting? I don't think so. As far as the ten commandments is concerned, I can get away with it.

Under these circumstances, the statement concerning the 10C needs to be amended to say:
"Deceit has traditionally been viwed as being morally wrong and in many respects it is in violation of the Ten Commandments, especially those deceits which involve harm or malpractice to another person" --[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 16:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:Sometimes deceit can also be stealing - if you are trying to get advantages by deceiving. For example that kind of telling you have a PhD can have this kind of wrong motive. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 17:36, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Most crimes entail deceit, but the point here is when deceit is the primary wrongdoing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::You seem to be missing the point. I am not saying deceit is right, far from it. I am saying that the statement that "deceit is ... in violation of the Ten Commandments" is not correct, as some deceits are NOT in violation of any of the 10 commandments.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 18:23, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Sean, I thought I made the change you requested. Sure, some deceits are justified, just as self-defense can justify killing in rare circumstances. But the statement is correct, that deceit has traditionally been taught as being wrong under the Ten Commandments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Apologies, had missed that in the article, I was still responding to the stuff on the talk pages. Thank You. I shall now go back to what I know best.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 18:37, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Positive Statement

2007-05-14T22:41:03Z

Jrssr5: wikify

A positive statement expresses a judgment about whether a situation is desirable or undesirable (hence the term "positive"). "The world would be a better place if the [[moon]] were made of green cheese" is a positive statement because it expresses a judgment about what ought to be. Notice that there is no way of disproving this statement. If you disagree with it, you have no sure way of convincing someone who believes the statement that he is wrong.

Mockery

2007-05-14T18:55:30Z

Jrssr5: wikify

'''Mockery''' is a kind of [[jeer]]ing or showing [[contempt]] by [[derision]] or [[parody]], often in the form of a composition that imitates somebody's style in a [[humor]]ous or [[satire|satirical]] way.

Mockery is not always a sign of a defect in the thing being mocked. The tactic of mocking someone or their work is multi-pronged.

It is used to dismiss the person's work, so that others don't even take a look at it. [[Liberal]]s, [[conservative]]s, and groups from all across the [[political spectrum]] do this, so as to distract people from seeing the real [[fact]]s. It's a variant of [[ad hominem]], like saying [[scientist]]s who disagree with the [[United Nations]] are "in the pay of Big Oil".

It is used to make the person lose confidence in what they are doing. "Ha, ha, you're [[stupid]]! Give up! You'll never succeed!" The idea is to bring someone down to one's own level, i.e., a "do nothing".

Mockery is also used to create confusion. Each of the books on Bushisms published during the 2000 and 2004 election campaigns was a subtle blend of [[gaffe]]s and digs. The gaffes were just verbatim transcripts of the sort of error any [[politics|politician]] makes when replying too quickly to a reporter's question. "One of my concerns is that the health care not be as good as it can possibly be." (Obviously by ''not be'' he meant ''is not'') There is no reason to collect and show these for one politician while never showing the same kind of error made by another politician, unless you are trying to make the '''false point''' that your candidate is infallible and your opponent is incompetent. The digs were [[grammar|grammatically]] correct statements of fact, which the author of the book simply disagree with. The point of including them among the [[malapropism]]s and slips of the tongue is to insinuate that these statements were indications of incompetence. Actually, they only reveal the [[prejudice]] of the author.

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.answers.com/topic/mockery a dictionary definition] ''Scornfully contemptuous ridicule; derision.''

Talk:Mockery

2007-05-14T18:38:12Z

Jrssr5:

Shouldn't the personal comments be removed, or at least rephrased? The word "I" does not really belong in an encyclopedia article. By the way, conservatives use mockery, too. And wouldn't a good case example be the Emporer's New Clothes (where mockery would have exposed his vanity)? [[User:Human|Human]] 14:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Good point, mockery isn't always evil. Swift satirized the established church with his egg-shaped island, and his Modest Proposal is, well, a sort of "poster child" of mockery (see [[Satire]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:29, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

How can you honestly have this statement in here "Liberals always do this, so as to distract people from seeing the real facts." Liberals ALWAYS do this? I think this is taking things a step past conservative bias. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 12:23, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:That is a pretty broad and bold statement to make. I'm sure there's a conservative or two out there that has mocked someone before too, should we include that as well? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:38, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

2007-05-14T18:07:13Z

Jrssr5:

[[Image:Bgnfy6n.jpg|right|thumb]]

'''Mahmoud Ahmadinejad''' is the current president of the [[Iran|Islamic Republic of Iran]], and the former mayor of [[Tehran]]. Since coming to power, on a campaign based on stamping out corruption, in 2005, he has pursued an agenda defined by support of Islamic fundamentalism, strong anti-Americanism, and anti-Zionism. Under Ahmadinejad's rule Iran has put a large amount of effort into [[Nuclear program of Iran|producing nuclear technology]], possibly for nuclear weapons, although Iran has not yet been successful in this endeavor.[[Image:Hostage.jpg|thumb|240px|right|The AP photo.]]

The inset photo taken 26 years prior shows a man looking very much like a younger version of today's Ahmadinejad at the time of the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis as someone involved with the hostage taking. Five former American hostages have stated that Ahmadinejad was one of their captors. A former US intelligence officer, said "I recognized him right off. … I remember so much his hatred of Americans. It just emanated from every pore of his body." <ref>*[http://www.danielpipes.org/article/4115 Ahmadinejad - Hostage Taker?], Daniel Pipes ''Kommersant'' (Moscow daily), November 13, 2006.</ref> However, one American hostage disputes this claim. <ref>http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014049.php</ref>

Ahmadinajed's foreign policies have been criticized by many within his country and government, who think he is too extreme and will cause their country to be attacked by the [[United States]].

Former Israeli prime minister [[Benjamin Netanyahu]] has often compared Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to [[Adolf Hitler]].

==Rerefences==
<references/>

[[Category:Iran]]
[[Category:Heads of state]]

Second Law of Thermodynamics

2007-05-14T17:51:59Z

Jrssr5: this stuff can go under a YEC article, no need here as it doesn't explain what the 2nd law is

The '''Second Law of Thermodynamics''' states that the [[entropy]] of an isolated system tends to increase. <ref> “Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself -- and that is what the second law is all about.” Isaac Asimov, Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 6 </ref>

According to this law, it is impossible to build a [[perpetual motion machine]], and entropy in a completely closed system must either increase or remain constant.

There are three different types of systems that the Second Law of Thermodynamics can apply to:

* Isolated system - Does not exchange matter or energy with its surroundings
* Closed system - Exchanges energy, but not matter, with its surroundings
* Open system - Exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]

Gardasil

2007-05-14T16:21:10Z

Jrssr5: Undo revision 160355 by Special:Contributions/Aftermatt (User talk:Aftermatt) cite source if claim is to stay

The '''HPV vaccine''' is a [[vaccine]] designed to prevent infection by one or more strains of [[human papillomavirus]], a virus which is endemic in the human population and which approximately 80% of sexually active adults carry.

The only HPV vaccine currently on the market is Merck's Gardasil. A GlaxoSmithKline vaccine, Cervarix, is awaiting FDA approval.<ref>[http://www.vaccinerx.com/news/cervical-cancer/cervarix---glaxo-hpv-vaccine-filed-with-fda-20070330-160-26.html Cervarix - Glaxo HPV Vaccine Filed With FDA (VaccineRX)]</ref>

Gardasil protects against types 6, 11, 16 and 18 of HPV, which are primarily sexually transmitted diseases. These strains of HPV have been associated with 70% of cervical cancer cases and may also play a role in the development of other types of cancer <ref>[http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV]</ref>. In June 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first HPV vaccine based on observance of elevated [[antibody]] levels in a double blind clinical trial involving over 20,000 subjects. <ref> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5602a1.htm</ref>

The HPV vaccine does not protect against other sexually transmitted diseases (e.g., chlamydia, herpes, hepatitis, trichomoniasis, gonorrhea, syphilis, [[HIV]], [[AIDS]], etc.). The vaccine is not recommended for use in pregnant women or girls.<ref>http://www.fda.gov/cber/label/hpvmer013007LB.pdf</ref>

The long-term consequences of the HPV vaccine are not known and there have not been any long-term studies. Children in the 9-year-old age group have been monitored for only 18 months, and there have been no studies on the carcinogenic risk or the general toxicity of the vaccine itself. However, Between July 2006 and January 2007, there were 82 reports of adverse events filed with the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System ([[VAERS]]) following the receipt of the vaccine. However, under clinical trial conditions, the reports of adverse or severe reactions were not any higher for those receiving the vaccine versus those receiving a placebo.

A study published February 28, 2007 in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) disclosed that only about 3% of all women are ever infected in their lifetime by the particular types of HPV (Types 6, 11, 16, 18) targeted by the vaccine.

Merck manufactures the HPV vaccine and sells it for $360 ($120 per shot in a three-shot series). Its package insert explains the limitations of the vaccine and describes its testing for safety and efficacy.<ref>http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf</ref>

The cost for buying and administering the three-dose vaccine is about $500 per child.

The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], the Texas Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics do not support making this vaccine mandatory.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5RNAYlAxmo</ref>

A list of pending statutes in NJ for the HPV vaccine is [[HPV vaccine NJ|here]].

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
[http://www.cdc.gov/nip/ACIP/minutes/acip-min-jun06.txt Advisory Panel on Immunization Practices]

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5RNAYlAxmo Debate on the HPV vaccine]

[[Category:Vaccines]]

Talk:Deceit

2007-05-14T16:20:00Z

Jrssr5: /* Freud was fraud? */

== The assertion "Liberals rarely criticize deceit" ==
The assertion "Liberals rarely criticize deceit" is made in this "article". Please remove this lie immediately. Feel free to make some bizarre anti-abortion reference, after all, this site is ''your blog'', basically, on the [[abortion|issues]] you [[creation|hold dear]]. But if you think "liberals" don't criticize deceit, you're not paying attention. The clearest recent example is the Bush administration's deceit about weapons of mass destruction in order to invade Iraq. See me criticizing it? I'll criticize the <s>Bay</s>[[Gulf of Tonkin]] lies, too, if you need me to be even-handed about presidents lying us into unnecessary wars. [[User:Human|Human]] 20:55, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:Carefull now, the last two users who dared to touch that claim are now banned. While using this site i have learned several new words and phrases, which is nice as i don't speak english as my native language. One of those words is: "concervative fact". And i think it's exactly what we have here. Claim that we liberals are deceivers isn't a lie or gross generalization, it's an concervative fact and claiming otherwise shows liberal bias. Allso like most conservative facts, it dosent need citation or anything to back the claim, facts are facts.

:Okey, and now ill apologize my outburst, but Mr.Aschlafly, i ask you, how would you react if some one accused you of being a deceiver or accepting deceptions with out any other evidence than that you think yourself as conservative? I really ask you to reconcider both the content of this article and the banning of those two users who most likely where offended by it's content and tryed to change it. There is no way one can justify a claim like that in an encyclopedia. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:41, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::Thank you for the warning, [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]], but as much as I try, I cannot seem to get any bannings! Maybe it is because I keep adding to the "[[User:Human/Classic_Conservapedia|encyclopedia]]" that backs up this '''blog'''. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:03, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree: this is not encyclopedia-worth material.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Liberals here protest too much about this entry on [[deceit]]. In both examples, the deceit by liberals is conclusively proven. But did other liberals who joined in the deceit apologize for it? Not that I'm aware. Show me examples of apologies and I'll add them.

: Additional airtight proofs of deceit can be added. But partisan opinions will not be.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Silly me, I keep forgetting that all Liberals are, rather than being individual people with varying opinions on topics, mere appendages of a single world-spanning hivemind, and thus all are guilty for the misdeeds of every one. That's why all political statements made by anyone less Conservative than Pat Robertson have to be prefaced by a three-hour disclaimer renouncing every single evil deed committed by every liberal dating back to Ramses II, right? --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 22:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
::Politicians Lie. It's pretty much in the job description these days.
::I'll run with the Gulf of Tonkin/Johnson/Viet Nam and WMDs/Bush/Iraq lies. By the way, you have a typo at "after communist collapsed". I'd fix it but, well, the article is locked. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:04, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Examples ==

Should these be included as an example of deceit?

Can the following examples of deceit be added to the main page? It is currently locked and a tad bit one sided. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:54, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:What is deceitful about Wolfowitz's statement? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:Also, Tillman could not be used like this, because it is not Tillman being accused of deceit. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:43, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:: One of the reasons to go to war was "removal of troops from Saudi Arabia"[http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-05-30-wolfowitz-iraq_x.htm], however the lack of finding WMDs and the various indications that known faulty/unreliable intelligence was used to come to the WMD claim. That because of bureaucracy, the case for WMDs was the one offered forward to the American people. Not the actual reasons (whatever those may be).
:: I have retitled the section on Pat Tillman.
:: Still, all of these are in the Talk section. Is there merit for moving any of these to the article? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Paul Wolfowitz ===
"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." Paul Wolfowitz, May 28, 2003<ref>[http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2676 U.S. Department of Defense - News Transcript]</ref> --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:What a joke! Click on this one [http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2676] Who made the above quote on May 28, 2003, Paul Wolfowitz or his interviewer, DeYoung? And you present ''this'' as an example of deceit? A little '''''disengenous''''', don't you think, the wrong link, the wrong cite, not even the right person speaking, and calling this as an example of '''''deceit''''' ? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:: [http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0305/S00308.htm The Vanity Fair interview transcript] shows quite clearly:
<blockquote>
Q: Was that one of the arguments that was raised early on by you and others that Iraq actually does connect, not to connect the dots too much, but the relationship between Saudi Arabia, our troops being there, and bin Laden's rage about that, which he's built on so many years, also connects the World Trade Center attacks, that there's a logic of motive or something like that? Or does that read too much into -- 

Wolfowitz: No, I think it happens to be correct. '''The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason''', but -- Hold on one second. 
(Pause) 

Kellems: Sam there may be some value in clarity on the point that it may take years to get post-Saddam Iraq right. It can be easily misconstrued, especially when it comes to -- 

Wolfowitz: There have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. Sorry, hold on again. 
</blockquote>
:: My apologies for using the military transcript asking about the quote instead in which Wolfowitz goes more into what he meant than the Vanity Fair Transcript where it appears he was cut off. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:12, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I see. So you admit to trying to convince us of something other than what the facts are. Thank you. Now, what do we make of this exchange:

::::Q: What do you think all the conspiritorial talk is? Do you have any notion, in Europe and here? What are people looking at this way?

::::Wolfowitz: I think it's pretty obvious and I think it's pretty disgraceful but all you can do is ignore it and go on and get the job done.

::::Q: What is it? I mean some say anti-Semitism. I guess in Europe that would be --

::::Wolfowitz: I just said all I'm going to say about it.

:::Comments? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:28, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: There is has been the accusation of a conspiracy between oil companies which the President is related to, the Saudi goverment, and other such theories. The argument for war that was mentioned in the Vanity Fair article does not have any of these. Look at Wolfowitz's statement "Wolfowitz: There have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. Sorry, hold on again." -- These were the reasons to go to war, not just WMD. By focusing on WMD and only on WMD as was done and selectively choosing the intelligence to present (and ignoring the intelligence that said there were no WMDs), there was a misleading of the American population as to the reason to go to war.
:::: Wolfowitz then said "''The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is the one about which there's the most disagreement within the bureaucracy, even though I think everyone agrees that we killed 100 or so of an al Qaeda group in northern Iraq in this recent go-around, that we've arrested that al Qaeda guy in Baghdad who was connected to this guy Zarqawi whom Powell spoke about in his UN presentation.''" -- In other words, the lack of support of terrorism was debated (and later shown to be correct - there was no connection), and to help the Iraqis was valid but not enough of a reason alone to go to war. Thus we heard 'WMD' repeated over and over again as the reason, even though there was evidence that the source for the WMD project was not reliable and there was no evidence that Sadam had an active WMD program. As to Zarqawi's relationship with al Qaeda read [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5280219/site/newsweek this Newsweek Article]
::::<blockquote>But just last week, in little-noticed remarks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld conceded that Zarqawi’s ties to Al Qaeda may have been much more ambiguous—and that he may have been more a rival than a lieutenant to bin Laden. Zarqawi “may very well not have sworn allegiance to [bin Laden]," Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon briefing. “Maybe he disagrees with him on something, maybe because he wants to be ‘The Man’ himself and maybe for a reason that’s not known to me.” Rumsfeld added that, “someone could legitimately say he’s not Al Qaeda.”</blockquote>
:::: (a year later from the Wolfowitz interview).
:::: Thus, the questions to answer:
::::* Was the intelligence on WMDs known to be lacking or bad by those pushing it? [http://www.wmd.gov/report/report.html#chapter1]
::::** Alternative reading: Was the assumption for "There are WMDs in Iraq, find intelligence to prove it" the case (read the paragraph begining "Rather, they were the product of poor intelligence collection..." from the above link).
::::* Were there other reasons that lead to going to war that contributed to but were not sufficent?
::::* Given the poor intelligence and unconvincing other reasons, was the case for war in Iraq deceitful?
::::--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:32, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: The conspiracy theory relates specifically to anti-Semitism, i.e. conspiracy theories that state flatly a cabal of Jewish conspirators like Wolfowotz, Perle, ''et al'', have suckered the United States into fighting Israel's wars for them. And the conspiracies do not stop there -- they even say these same conspirators blew the World Trade Center up themselves to get the American people involved in the War on Terror. These same conspirators invented lies like WMD to justify their actions. This specifically is the question Tannenhaus asked, and this specifically is the answer Wolfowitz gave with "I think it's pretty obvious and I think it's pretty disgraceful" and refused to comment further. And these conspiracies are rampant in Europe and the Arab world, and I'm sorry, the bogus cover about oil companies, etc. to sanitize this Ameerican brand of anti-Semitism will not fly here.

:::::The 9/11 Commission Report infact cites a link between Saddam and al-Qeade, which is the reference given above. The US had been supporting Kurds in northern Iraq since the Gulf War, and the Kurds were fighting ''both'' Saddam ''and'' al-Qeada, as the Commission Report stated.

:::::As to WMD, this interview doesn't reveal anything new. And there is no reason to speculate that simply because the US Government has not publicly announced much information on this subject, that news organizations accounts are definitive or authoritive.

:::::Ultimately, again, the cited objective of the war was regime change; WMD was cited as one of several reasons for regime change, but the specific objective was regime change, not discovering WMD stockpiles for TV cameras to take pictures of. My appologies again for giving a quick answer on this, because it does warrant more discussion, but I'm a little rushed for time at the moment, and we can go into more detail later on the WMD business. But I'm not certain this is the correct page for what may be an extensive discussion of the matter. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:12, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

(Move indent) Ok, so Wolfowitz says,''"There have always been three fundamental concerns.
:*One is weapons of mass destruction,
:*the second is support for terrorism,
:*the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people."

And Wolfowitz also says, " for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction"

Now we will cite another well established and influencial decisionmaker in the U.S. governement bureacracy. This decision maker, in her own words, had been deeply involved in the subject for a decade. And we will study of the three reasons that the bureaucracy, which includes Wolfowitz and our source, cited as the reason to go to war, in what order do these reasons match Wolfowitz's. Further, the 9/11 Report infact documents several Saddam - al Qeada contacts for several years prior, but Wolfowitz here only refers to "support for terrorism". Here's our cite

:"There is a very easy way for to prevent anyone from being put into harms way and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something that I have followed for a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. There may be progress, we may be destroying his missiles, there is no accounting for the chemical and biological stocks. I just have to respectfully disagree what the proximate cause of any action that might be taken is. [http://www.archive.org/details/HillaryClintonsviewsongoingtowarSaddamandWMDs] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:49, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Jack Abramoff ===
Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials. A bit more digging beyond the guilty plea should identify a signficant amount of deceit in his dealings as a lobbyist. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:29, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:These look like better examples of deceit than those listed in the article. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:41, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Pentagon regarding Pat Tillman ===
There is growing evidence[http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/04/army_tillmanlynch_070424/] to a cover up and use of the death of Pat Tillman as pro war propoganda by making Pat Tillman a hero rather than someone who got killed in a friendly fire incident. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== Can deceit be conservative? ==

I think so, but this page wasn't representing that. If all sides are to have a say, then there should be a kind of balance. At least, if we are to have a bias, we should acknowledge opposing views. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 22:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

== My 2 cents, again ==

What a ''ridiculous'' concept! That conservatives and liberals (whatever those terms may actually mean) have different views on deceit. I will avoid the whole topic of morality not being dependent on religion. Most people in most cultures disapprove of deceit. It has nothing to do with political affiliations. ''People'' are inherently flawed in many ways (see, e.g. Genesis). One doesn't need to be at Liberty U or Eagle Forum or the Vatican to think deceit is wrong; most people know it is wrong, and most practice it, as we are imperfect beings. This entire article is offensive on its face.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 22:26, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

== My viewpoint ==

Wherever there is power to be got, certain people will practise deceit. The Bible does not make distinction between "Liberal" or "Conservative" deceit, it condemns deceit regardless of who practises it.

== Andy...?! ==

You can't delete fact! That's a legitimate footnote from the case! How is it opinion? Surely it's one judge's opinion, but similarly, all judgments of deceit are someone's opinion!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:12, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: Ames, I've explained at least a half-dozen times that opinions are not facts. I'm not going to waste more time on this. This is a warning that your account will be blocked if you continue to waste my time or the time of others on this.

: Judge Jones' opinion is nothing more than an opinion. It is not a fact. There was no judgment on the issue you cite here; there was no appeal allowed; and the opinion is not neutral. Do not waste any more of my time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Whether or not it was "neutral" is not at issue - it's what a judge said, and that's how I described it in the article. Do you need directions to my refutations of ''your'' arguments? They're in your archives, #16, when you choose to answer them. I realize you don't like this case, and that you don't like a lot of case law in America at the moment (Goodridge, hint hint?) but that doesn't mean it's not ''legal fact'' with binding authority, in the first case we clashed over, or a Republican judge's reasoned decision, in the last one. You can't make facts go away by shouting "Bias!"-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:18, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

==Freud==

Most great scientists have their theories disproved. Newton was wrong, Pasteur has been subject ot a great deal of correction. Part of the reason they are great is that they can buildmodels, hypotheses that are open to question. It is easy to make assertions that are opinion or simple observation. To create a model that fits evidence and is later open to testing, particuarly in a field where this has not been the case, is the mark of a great scientist. [[User:stevendavy]] (PhD, since you ask)

A few questions, mr. Schlafly: Are you a practicing psychologist? Can you say with absolute certainty that Freud's methods are useless? Do you have sources that can make this a verifiable fact? Or that can support your claim that Freud lied about his research? [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 17:36, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd mark it as unsourced , but of course the page is blocked? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:31, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:If you tell that some lies, you should give some reference which gives arguments what is incorrect. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 06:43, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::This has to be removed within few days, if no sources found. (Prope correction is not to only remove need for ref.) --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 16:39, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I would also like to see a source for the claim that "liberals continue to teach that Freud was a great scientist." In my experience Freud is routinely studied in intro psych classes because he and his ideas are an important element of the history of the field, but the point is typically made that there is no scientific basis for his theories. And while his theories are useless, research has shown that some of his therapeutic methods are indeed useful (some, not all). [[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:49, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

TK, please, discuss and do not censor things as _you_ want them to be. (Or if you want to only censor, please change rules.) --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 07:52, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks! Ref from scientist found :) That I was simply asking for... --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 11:46, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== And, of course, the page is locked. ==
Good thing, too, or some horrible America-Hater might quote Richard Nixon. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 22:49, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:or George Bush. ish. This is really vulgar abuse sometimes. If only we had a sysop who would listen to reason.... [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::Hey, Flippin! Wouldn't you listen to reason? Gee golly, I wish you were a sysop :-). Or me...-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Why is this locked?! Is this someones "own" encyclopedia? --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 22:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, it belongs to [[user:Aschlafly|Andrew Schlafly]]. He owns the site. It is is his blog, and the sysops are his co-bloggers. The rest of us are just along for the ride. He is a young earth creationist and passionate liberal-hater. People wanted to broaden some of the page to include a bit more reality. Check out what's been happening over at [[astronomy]] this evening for more of the same... [[User:Human|Human]]

: Pages are locked after there is a pattern of violations of [[rules]] on them. I will unlocked [deceit] per ythe requests here, but if there are rule violations, then it will be locke again.

: Human, I suggest you apologize and promise not to attack editors personally here, or your account will be blocked. Also, you seem to violate the 90/10 rule as independent grounds for blocking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::His count here [http://faleg.org/cgi-bin/conservapedia/editcounter_Tool1?username=Human] shows that of his 1175 edits 466 have been to actual articles (that’s about 40% actual editing). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:32, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::This kind of rule should not be used for warnings especially when information at background is not correct. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 14:02, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

Reference 2 in the article is wrongly attributed, to should read '''Pittsburgh Tribune-Review'''. The writer of the article referenced is ''"Jonah Goldberg is editor at large of National Review Online."'' Perhaps the cite should be from NRO?
:::::--[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 02:10, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Is it available online? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== As long as we're listing lies.... ==

How about [http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/04/25/tillman_lynch/index.html The Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch frauds]?
Ah, but I forget myself. Those are PRO-WAR lies, and therefore are a-ok. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 22:42, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

And that sentence about morality comes to mind. wait... I think I threw up a little in my mouth there. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:54, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps we could add [[Ted Haggard]]. At least he admitted he was a ''deceiver''. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 10:43, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yes and no; in the Haggard article, Haggard says, "I am a deceiver and a liar", whereas by contrast, [[Alger Hiss]] denied to his dying day at the age of 92 the evidence against him. And his appologists, despite more evidence piled up since his death, continue deceiving themselves. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:38, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Since Haggard admits his deceit, he should probably be included in the "article" :-P unless you have some objection other than the truth of the allegations.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:52, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:Yes but Haggard is a confessed deceiver, and evidently nolonger deceiving himself. There is a path of redemption and rehabilitation. Hiss by contrast, set up a foundation to institutionalize the lies. Books have been written, Haynes & Klehr's ''In Denial'' for example, about the absurd contortions supposed intellectuals twisted themselves in to, in an effort that many of themselves don't even beleive anymore. The late Molly Ivans said even after KGB Archives were corroborated by [[Venona]] evidence,
::''"The other curious thing about the Hiss case is the psychology of believing that Hiss was a spy, which requires abandoning much of what we know about rational thought.'' [http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/lowsoviet.html]
:There is no comparison. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:34, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Confession vitiates the sin but not the fact. Put him in the "article" as a "former" deceiver if you want, but it's deceit that harmed others, nonetheless.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:43, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

John Lott & the Mary Rosh brouhaha would make another good example. His "If national surveys are correct, 98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack" statement isn't as clear cut, but might also be an example; the situation there is oddly similar to the Bellisiles situation, with mysteriously lost/destroyed records of supposed research. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 15:19, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

==Not that anyone asked==
But this ought to be up here if we are going to make an "encyclopedic" entry for deceit. [[Downing Street Memo]] [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:05, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

==Scooter==
We're forgetting Scooter Libby, ''convicted'' of deceit...--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 23:36, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:But, you forget, he's a Republican, right? As in, right wing, can do no wrong. Did he Profit!?!?! NO! There's no money to be made in lying for the conservative cause. Hence, no "deceit". QED. [[User:Human|Human]] 00:27, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

*Rarely have I read such petty comments, such mean-spirited comments, ''gentlemen''. In Washington, D.C., people of intellect and good manners of both parties, decried his conviction and persecution. Left holding the bag, it is called. I wonder if either of you would hold up being questioned by a Grand Jury about all your activities for the past year? Shame on both of you for not furthering good will and a higher plane of discourse here. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:25, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:*If by "left holding the bag" you mean "others in the administration should have been put on trial for endangering lives and national security in furtherance of petty political payback", then I agree heartily. And if you want to further good will and a higher plane of discourse, you could start by recommending this article for deletion...--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 09:57, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

It's common for the military to deny [[friendly fire]] as a cause. That denial has nothing to do with being a conservative, and there is no evidence the denial in Tillman's case was by a conservative. FDR's Administration denied it also during World War II when a hero was killed by friendly fire.

Abramoff was no conservative.

Freud is taught to high school and college students without any admission of his deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:17, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
:Then why not add the friendly fire deceit example, and the Abramoff example? While pointing out that the deceivers were not representative of Conservatism as defined or interpreted by this site (which is its right to do)? And show the harm each case caused? [[User:Human|Human]] 21:48, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
::*A.S., all due respect--Abramoff was a director of the National Center for Public Policy Research (a conservative think tank); he was College Republican National Committee National Chairman; he has longstanding ties to Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed, among others; he was a member of Citizens for America, a pro-Reagan group that helped Oliver North build support for the Nicaraguan contras; when Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds LLP,a lobbying firm, needed a "conservative, Christian Coalition Republican with strong ties to...Republican leadership", they hired Abramoff; he was a member of GWB's transition team in 2001. And so forth. Sounds like a conservative to me...--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 21:57, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
(<--)
Yah, right. [http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/11/abramoff_report_1.html][http://www.noagenda.org/connections/jack_abramoff/] Abramoff contributions to individual Democrats 1990-2006; need contribs to Democratic oraginizations, too?

*Patty Murray (D-Wash) - $40,980
*Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) - $32,000
*Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) - $31,000
*Harry Reid (D-Nev) - $30,500
*Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) - $28,000
*Tom Daschle (D-SD) - $26,500
*Brad R. Carson (D-Okla) - $18,300
*Chris John (D-La) - $15,000
*Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) - $14,500
*John Breaux (D-La) - $13,750
*Mary L. Landrieu (D-La) - $11,500
*Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md) - $11,000
*Dale E. Kildee (D-Mich) - $10,500
*Barney Frank (D-Mass) - $9,000
*Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo) - $9,000
*Max Baucus (D-Mont) - $9,000
*Peter Deutsch (D-Fla) - $8,500
*Dick Durbin (D-Ill) - $8,000
*Frank Pallone, Jr (D-NJ) - $6,000
*Nick Rahall (D-WVa) - $6,000
*Jon S. Corzine (D-NJ) - $5,000
*Fritz Hollings (D-SC) - $5,000
*Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md) - $5,000
*Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) - $5,000
*Deborah Ann Stabenow (D-Mich) - $5,000
*Xavier Becerra (D-Calif) - $4,523
*Tim Johnson (D-SD) - $4,250
*Kent Conrad (D-ND) - $4,000
*Maria Cantwell (D-Wash) - $3,000
*Kalyn Cherie Free (D-Okla) - $3,000
*Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) - $3,000
*Richard M. Romero (D-NM) - $3,000
*Ed Pastor (D-Ariz) - $3,000
*John B. Larson (D-Conn) - $3,000
*James L. Oberstar (D-Minn) - $3,000
*Brad Sherman (D-Calif) - $3,000
*Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) - $2,500
*Max Cleland (D-Ga) - $2,500
*Gene Taylor (D-Miss) - $2,250
*Doug Dodd (D-Okla) - $2,000
*Jay Inslee (D-Wash) - $2,000
*John D. Dingell (D-Mich) - $2,000
*Joe Baca (D-Calif) - $2,000
*Carl Levin (D-Mich) - $2,000
*C. L. "Butch" Otter (R-Idaho) - $2,000
*Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark) - $2,000
*Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss) - $2,000
*Robert Menendez (D-NJ) - $2,000
*Robert T. Matsui (D-Calif) - $2,000
*Rodney Alexander (D-La) - $2,000
*Sander Levin (D-Mich) - $2,000
*Ron Kind (D-Wis) - $2,000
*Ronnie Shows (D-Miss) - $2,000
*Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn) - $2,000
*Willie Landry Mount (D-La) - $2,000
*Tom Carper (D-Del) - $2,000
*Thomas P. Keefe Jr. (D-Wash) - $2,000
*Nita M. Lowey (D-NY) - $2,000
*Maxine Waters (D-Calif) - $2,000
*Ned Doucet (D-La) - $2,000
*John Neely Kennedy (D-La) - $2,000
*Lane Evans (D-Ill) - $2,000
*Norm Dicks (D-Wash) - $1,500
*Rick Weiland (D-SD) - $1,000
*Ron Wyden (D-Ore) - $1,000
*Tim Holden (D-Pa) - $1,000
*William J. Jefferson (D-La) - $1,000
*Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) - $1,000
*Paul Wellstone (D-Minn) - $1,000
*Pete Stark (D-Calif) - $1,000
*Peter DeFazio (D-Ore) - $1,000
*Mike Thompson (D-Calif) - $1,000
*David Phelps (D-Ill) - $1,000
*Derrick B. Watchman (D-Ariz) - $1,000
*Charles S. Robb (D-Va) - $1,000
*Bill Luther (D-Minn) - $1,000
*Barbara Boxer (D-Calif) - $1,000
*Brian David Schweitzer (D-Mont) - $1,000
*Charles J. Melancon (D-La) - $1,000
*Eliot L. Engel (D-NY) - $1,000
*Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) - $1,000
*Gloria Tristani (D-NM) - $1,000
*Grace Napolitano (D-Calif) - $1,000
*Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) - $1,000
*Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif) - $1,000
*Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) - $1,000
*Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) - $500
*John Kerry (D-Mass) - $500
*Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif) - $500
*Shelley Berkley (D-Nev) - $500

[[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:16, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::: ...can you give us the Republican list :-) ? -'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 23:50, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

*Ah, deceit...Yes, Abramoff's ''clients'' gave money to Democrats, but Jack ''personally'' gave '''only''' to Republicans or Republican PACs. And, while Abramoff's clients gave to Dems, they gave far more to Republicans (which was his clients' opposite pattern from their pre-Abramoff donations, strongly suggesting that Abramoff steered money away from Dems and toward Republicans). --[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 23:54, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

That would be incorrect. Jack never gave his "own" money, any more than I do. As George Wallace said long ago, in one of the few honest and correct statements he ever made: "In Washington, there isn't a dimes worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats". --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:00, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:Try here: http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?key=HK6HE&txtName=Abramoff,%20Jack&txtState=(all%20states)&txtAll=Y&Order=N
--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 00:13, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

: Unfortunately, that link likely won't work very long -- the 'key' bit is a captcha.
::Nice job - though, is there any chance the list below can be sorted by amount, rather than alphabetically, like the list above? [[User:Human|Human]] 13:34, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

A summary:
* Abraham, Spencer: $2000
* Aderholt, Robert: $250
* Alby, Barbara: $1000
* Allen, George: $1000
* American Liberty PAC: $2500
* Americans for a Republican Majority: $22500
* Armey, Dick: $500
* Ashcroft, John: $1000
* Battle Born PAC: $1000
* Bond, Christopher S 'Kit': $1500
* Bordonaro, Molly H: $500
* Bordonaro, Tom: $2000
* Brooks, Susan: $1000
* Brownback, Sam: $500
* Bunning, Jim: $1000
* Burton, Dan: $4000
* Bush, George W: $3000
* Cannon, Chris: $2000
* Cantor, Eric: $5000
* Chambliss, Saxby: $1000
* Chenoweth, Helen: $2000
* Christensen, Jon: $250
* Chrysler, Dick: $250
* Coburn, Tom: $250
* Cochran, Thad: $1000
* Cornyn, John: $1000
* Cox, Christopher: $250
* Crane, Philip M: $2000
* Cremeans, Frank A: $250
* Cubin, Barbara: $250
* Davis, Tom: $500
* DeLay, Tom: $10000
* Dole, Elizabeth: $1000
* Doolittle, John T: $4000
* Dunn, Jennifer: $1000
* Ehrlich, Bob: $500
* Emerson, Mark: $500
* English, Phil: $1000
* Ensign, John: $4000
* Enzi, Mike: $1000
* Faircloth, Lauch: $1500
* Ferguson, Mike: $1000
* First Freedoms Fund: $5000
* Flotron, Francis E: $1000
* Forbes, J Randy: $1000
* Friends of the Big Sky: $5000
* Fund for a Free Market America: $2500
* Funderburk, David: $1000
* Gerow, Charles R: $500
* Gingrey, Phil: $500
* Gormley, William L: $1000
* Gramm, Phil: $1000
* Grant, Carolyn W: $1000
* Grassley, Chuck: $2000
* Gutknecht, Gil: $250
* Hastings, Richard "Doc": $500
* Hawkeye PAC: $5000
* Hayworth, J D: $1250
* Hill, Rick: $250
* Hilleary, Van: $1750
* Hofmeister, Gary A: $1000
* Hutchinson, Tim: $2000
* Hutchison, Claude B Jr: $1000
* Inhofe, James M: $1000
* Isakson, Johnny: $2000
* Istook, Ernest J: $1000
* Janklow, Bill: $250
* Jones, Walter B Jr: $1250
* Kaloi, Kimo: $1000
* Keep Our Majority PAC: $2500
* Keller, Ric: $1000
* Kingston, Jack: $1000
* Largent, Steve: $250
* Latham, Tom: $1000
* Lazio, Rick A: $250
* Leadership PAC 2004: $2000
* Lefever, Tim: $500
* LoBiondo, Frank A: $1000
* McCollum, Bill: $1000
* Metcalf, Jack: $250
* Mitnick, John: $250
* Monday Morning PAC: $2000
* Morella, Connie: $1000
* Nethercutt, George: $500
* Nethercutt, George R Jr: $1000
* New Jersey Republican State Cmte: $5000
* Ney, Bob: $2250
* North Carolina Republican Executive Cmte: $5000
* North, Oliver: $1000
* Ose, Doug: $1000
* Otter, C L 'Butch': $1000
* Paul, Ron: $250
* Perry, Brent: $250
* Phillips, Howard: $500
* Pickering, Charles "Chip" Jr: $3500
* Pirozzi, Elia Vincent: $1000
* Pitts, Joe: $894
* Pombo, Richard: $2000
* Pombo, Richard W: $500
* Preston, Gates et al: $5500
* Regula, Ralph: $1000
* Rehberg, Denny: $2000
* Rely on Your Beliefs: $8500
* Republican Majority Fund: $5000
* Rich PAC: $5000
* Riley, Bob: $1000
* Rohrabacher, Dana: $7500
* Royce, Ed: $500
* Ryan, Paul: $949
* Ryun, Jim: $250
* Saxton, Jim: $0
* Scarborough, Joe: $1000
* Senate Victory Fund: $7000
* Shelby, Richard C: $1000
* Simmons, Rob: $1250
* Simpson, Mike: $1000
* Smith, Bob: $4920
* Smith, Gordon: $250
* Smith, Gordon H: $3000
* Snowbarger, Vince: $250
* Specter, Arlen: $2000
* Stevens, Ted: $1000
* Stockman, Steve: $500
* Sununu, John E: $250
* Susan B Anthony List: $1000
* Talent, James M: $2000
* Tate, Randy: $1000
* Taylor, Charles H: $2250
* Teague, Edward B: $250
* Team PAC: $1000
* Terrell, Suzanne: $3000
* Thune, John: $1000
* United States Family PAC: $3000
* Watts, J C: $250
* Weldon, Curt: $1000
* Weller, Jerry: $500
* Wicker, Roger: $250
* Wilson, Heather: $1000
* Wittig, Suzanne Dear: $250
* Young Jewish Leadership PAC: $985
* Young, Tom: $500
--[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 00:36, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

===Further Abramoff comments===

So - it's agreed, everyone thinks Abramoff was a stinker, so ''why not put his deceit in the article''? [[User:Human|Human]] 00:34, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:Because you are going to have a difficult time assigning partisan motves to the man. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:41, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::Exactly so. One can ascribe political motives to him. Business motives. The press makes up the partisan deal, because everyone loves to embarass someone. Business has no politics other than making more $$. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:52, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::There's no need for a partisan motive. Just a description of his deceit and how it was "bad". [[User:Human|Human]] 13:34, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Hmm. You know, I think I'll agree with RobS here--Abramoff(& Co.) wasn't deceitful so much as corrupt/crooked, which is a different issue. --[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 20:54, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Is not that the point of the article? Corrupt/crooked, deceiving in order to gain? [[User:Human|Human]] 21:17, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Abramoff wasn't a conservative. Not at all. Also, I'm not sure how Abramoff was strikingly ''deceitful''. Does anyone know to what crimes he pled guilty? Was fraud one of them?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:34, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: As a matter of fact, yes, it was. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 00:36, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

**Please, Andy--regardless whether Abramoff was deceitful or just crooked, it's ridiculous to say that he was "not at all" a conservative. As I said above, he was a director of the National Center for Public Policy Research (a conservative think tank); he was College Republican National Committee National Chairman; he has longstanding ties to Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed, among others; he was a member of Citizens for America, a pro-Reagan group that helped Oliver North build support for the Nicaraguan contras; when Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds LLP,a lobbying firm, needed a "conservative, Christian Coalition Republican with strong ties to...Republican leadership", they hired Abramoff; he was a member of GWB's transition team in 2001. And so forth. If he wasn't a conservative, he certainly did a great job of pretending to be one.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 19:39, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Nixon (Richard M.) ==

TK just deleted this addition wthout explanation:

:November 17, 1973, Declaring that "I am not a crook," President [[Richard Nixon]] vigorously defended his record in the [[Watergate]] case and said he had never profited from his public service. "I have earned every cent. And in all of my years of public life I have never obstructed justice," Mr. Nixon said.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/111873-1.htm Watergate Files]</ref>

Nixon almost destroyed the presidency with his deceit on this issue. And yet, a Larry King misquote, presented as a question, is still included? [[User:Human|Human]] 20:53, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

*Sorry! Must have been an edit conflict! Please don't be so suspicious, and try contacting a guy, okay? I haven't blocked a user for contacting me in at least a week! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:27, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

: Conservatives abandoned Nixon by late 1971, well before Watergate occurred, I think. Nixon's fall was just another example of a politician being brought down, for which there are hundreds of examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:37, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::So why not include him? This is not an exercise in conservative-bashing - it's more an attempt to show that not only avowed "liberals" practice deceit upon occasion. And, well, deservedly, get abandoned by conservatives? Anyway, Nixon, was, ironically, the last great liberal President anyway. Wage and price controls? No wonder Cons. abandoned him! EPA, oh, I forget he other big liberal thing he did right now. But you know. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:34, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

: Well, the other problem is that Nixon's crime was not really "deceit". It was a burglary and cover-up. That's not what most people mean by deceit, and it's not similar to other entries. If Nixon is to be added, then Ted Kennedy would be added first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:25, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:::So, add them both. I am as embarrassed by [[Chappaquidick]] as you must be by Watergate? [[User:Human|Human]] 00:42, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::Um, Er, Well, "Cover-up" does tend to involve deceit. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 23:39, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Well, yes, armed robbery by a masked gunman also involves deceit. So does terrorism, in fact. Will people be proposing that we list Bin Laden too? No, that's not what this entry is about. Neither is burglary and denial what this entry is about. The listed examples are what we have in mind here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:43, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Did Bin Laden engage in deceit? Or was he "honest" in his terrorist tactics/goals? Get real with this articvle, before Das Talk, or whatever, mocks it! [[User:Human|Human]] 00:19, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

The "I am not a crook" quotation has '''''absolutely nothing''''' to do with Watergate. In fact, Wikipedia & Wikiquote actually have this correct (last time I looked). And it is only after a lengthy discussion & edit war with User:Will Beback did he finally admit my sourcing in this quote was accurate. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:03, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== TIME FOR A REALITY CHECK!! ==

Human, the crap by Nixon WAS RESTORED, by me, YESTERDAY! Right after you called my attention to the edit conflict. Jeeze....--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:55, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, I saw, and I think I said so, somewhere... Sorry if I didn't say so in the right place at the right time. Thank you, and duly noted, your honesty in this matter. [[User:Human|Human]] 00:21, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:: And then it was removed again, thus the renewed discussion. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 00:36, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::: I deleted it. Clinton, who was impeached, along with many other politicians would need to inserted before Nixon. Nixon's offense was not really "deceit" any more than a masked bank robber's crime would be "deceit".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:40, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Truth is, the misuse of the phrase "I am not a crook", to make Nixon say something he never said, is an example of the deceit of the liberal media. No one ever accused Nixon stealing anything in the Watergate affair. Yet that is what this quote implies. It refers to questions regarding Nixon's personal finances and tax returns--a subject which has nothing to do with Watergate. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:24, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== I intend to delete this article and start again ==

This article is a mess.

It ought to be a legal article and nothing more.

The concept of deceit outside of law is really just a matter for a dictionary definition. This is not a dictionary.

As for the examples, they appear to be mere excuses for people to push their own world-views.

Any objections to my deleting and starting again? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:27, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:Deceit doesn't exist in morality, the stuff parents teach their kids not to do? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:45, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:: I have no problem with parents teaching their children not to deceive. I teach my own children that very lesson. But that is not a justification for retaining this poor quality article.

:: What particular aspects of the article do you say ought be retained? Or are you suggesting material for a new article? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:56, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:::The article states what it is and gives a few well known examples. What's wrong with that? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:03, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:::: As I explained above, the definition of deceit (other, perhaps than the legal definition) is a matter for a dictionary. Further, the examples are a mere excuse for people to push particular barrows. Examples of deceit are, by their very nature, contentious and have no place in an encyclopedia.
:::: Do you suggest the retention of any particular parts of the article or have any suggestions for the new article? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:12, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::I thought it covers the basic elements pretty good. Of course we could always use other good examples, too. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:40, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::: Well, I'm sure you'll like the new version that I'm working on even better! --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:49, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

==Ward Churchill==

I'd be willing to find another source for it (it was widely reported in the news and that site was just the first thing I found), but I'm not sure how this doesn't fit in with the theme of the article. If not, that's fine, but I'm just asking. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:14, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

: I'm indifferent to this. If there are better cites that really prove the deceit, then let's consider it. My only concern is that the other listed items are deceits against the public, while this Churchill incident seems to be a private matter. Also, in most of the other cases people embraced the deceit even knowing it was a lie. I don't want to dilute the great examples we have with less significant examples. Thanks and Godspeed to your fine efforts, Dan.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::That's fine with me. I was just wondering.

I will work on the article on Churchill himself, as I know that he is very influential among the left (I noticed my roommate my freshman year, who is involved in liberal activism, had been reading him). [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:I take it Andy, from reading this thread that you have not noticed my post above. As you can see I have proposed deletion and replacement of the current article (for the reasons stated). I trust you will like the new version. Should be ready soon. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 00:29, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I read your comments, Horace. There is nothing about this entry that should be deleted. The examples are striking, factual, and highly informative. In most of the examples, there was public deceit followed by liberal support of the deceit. This is precisely the kind of information that Conservative is going to provide, without the censorship common on Wikipedia. Feel free to add similar examples of public deceit followed by support of the deceit. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:32, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::: OK. Done. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 00:42, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::: Oop. You reverted the edit. Too controversial? I thought we didn't censor. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 00:50, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Horace, your "example" did not involve any admission of deceit, any charges of deceit, or any embrace of any deceit. Moreover, appeal of this opinion and the dictum was prevented, so it was never reviewed and tested independently. Your example is nothing like the other listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:54, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::: Ho ho ho. Surely you jest! Example 2 contains no admission and no charges (I am not sure what an embrace is in this context - is it different to an admission?). Example 4 is the same (I also note that it is completely unsourced). What is more I regard it as quite astounding that you could assert that a matter which has been tested in court has not been "reviewed and tested independently". So much for the American judicial system!
::: My example was better than most of the current examples in the article. It had it all! Deceit (in the witness box no less) followed by cover up (by this very institution - what better way to demonstrate your non-bias then to report it?) and, to top it all, the matter had been subject to judicial assessment.
::: I guess that means you were right all along. My example was nothing like the other examples. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 01:10, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

*One day you will indeed go too far. You do know that, right? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I just call them as I see them Terrence. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 01:27, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

: Horace, the right to appeal is a basic due process right. The persons you accuse of deceit did not have that right. Moreover, the persons you accuse of deceit did obtain anything of value for their conduct either. Nor did anyone embrace the alleged deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::*A small amount of tact and civility go much further than doing that (calling them as you see them) 100% of the time, no? I just cannot get over the bitterness of some, I sense a real anger by some for being at a place voluntarily, that they knew was Conservative from the beginning. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::: Andrew, my point was that, '''unlike some of the examples actually in the article right now''', the persons who were said to have committed the deceit in my example were adjudged to have done so by a court of law. They at least had the advantage of (what I had always assumed was) a fair hearing by a properly constituted court. What is the relevance of what they received for their lies? I imagine that they thought they would get their reward in heaven. They probably still do.

::: Terrence, I contain no bitterness. I just do not like to see conservatism or this site being sullied by unencyclopedic articles. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 01:40, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::: P.S. Andrew, I see you have now added to example 2. That's great but it doesn't really excuse your '''censoring''' of my example, does it? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 01:45, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I merely inserted material from our entry on the subject, which you seemed to deny. As to your claim of a court of law, there were no charges ever brought against the witnesses so your allusion to "a fair hearing" is inapplicable. Also, you continue to overlook that that no appeal was allowed of the opinion. Note also that the witnesses obtained no personal benefit from their alleged deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:55, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::: It still rather leaves Mr. Freud out in the cold, doesn't it?

::: Sorry, you'll have to explain what you mean when you say that no appeal was allowed. Do you mean that the court refused a leave application? If so, so what? It happens all the time.

::: I have already dealt with your point about personal benefit to the witnesses.

::: I never suggested that there were charges against the witnesses. The court just found that they lied. It's pretty simple. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 02:18, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Freud Evidence ==

The following statement...
* [[Sigmund Freud]] lied about his research<ref> The main source for this is Coffi, F., 1996, Freud and the Question of Pseudoscience , discussed at: https://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.asp?control=167&sortorder=authorlast</ref> in order to make it falsely appear that his psychoanalysis had some benefit <ref> However, other writers take issue with this statement. There appears to be debate as to whether results were fabricated through either a feature of, or a flaw in, the psychoanalytic process see: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v22/n08/borc01_.html</ref>. Yet [[liberals]] continue to teach in school that Freud was a great scientist.

...given the references cited, now seems itself to be a candidate for the article. [[user:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]]

: I don't follow your point here. Are you suggesting the addition of citations, or are you denying that Freud lied? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:45, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I noted that a number of people had asked for citations for this, what seems to be quite contentious point. Please let me stress I know absolutely nothing about Psychoanalysis; hjowever, I have found what seems to be the reference that the original author (whoever it was, probably lost in the mists of time) did not supply, i.e. Coffi. From what I have read, Coffi contends that Freud did not so much '''deliberately''' lie as fabricate according to his mindset; in that way, it is a failing in Frued's psychoanalytic process, and the claims Freud made for it, and opens the process up to the accusations of being a pseudoscience and Freud to the accusation of being a quack. The second citation actually addresses this point of view and contends that this sort of result is inevitable from the psychoanalytic process, in that patient and analyist must necessarily come to a shared understanding, which must, by any dialogic process, be fabricated. In other words, whether or not the result of the analysis yields truths or not cannot be easily determined; it might be that an analyst is genuinely uncovering meaning, but on the other hand, he and the patient might be making it all up, and no-one, not even the participants can say for certain. My point in all this, is that given the quagmire that this seems to lay before us, to make a claim that Freud was lying, is at best oversimplistic, and at worst is simply untrue, as there is no evidence that Freud '''deliberately''' lied. This means that it does not actually belong in an article on deceit, and trying to claim that it does when there is no evidence to support it, could well itself be deceitful. --[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 10:00, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

This critics has been refered to many times in Finland: Richard Webster: Why Freud was Wrong. Sin, Science and Psychoanalysis. Harper Collins London 1996. I don't know about contents, but does it have good arguments? --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 10:31, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

What about this: Robyn M. Dawes. 1994. House of Cards: Psychology and Psychotherapy Build on Myth, New York: The Free Press. Said to have proven psychoanalysis has no proven effect. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 11:10, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Freud was fraud? ==

Is it only "liberals" who are beleaving Freud was a great scientist (and psychoanalysis good science)? In Europe and Finland there seems to be also others beleaving to him. And now also scientific sceptics are starting to critisize Freud, not only conservatives. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 11:27, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

==10 Commandments==
I don't think the reference about removing the 10 Commandments from schools really shows that you're going for. The decision was to remove any physical depiction of the 10 Commandments, which has nothing to do with whether morals are taught in schools. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 12:20, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

United States Secretary of Defense

2007-05-14T15:23:06Z

Jrssr5: created

The '''United States Secretary of Defense''' is the head of the [[Department of Defense]]. The current Secretary of Defense is [[Robert Gates]], who was nominated by [[President of the United States of America|President]] [[George W. Bush]] on November 8, 2006 and unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate Armed Services Committee on December 5, 2006.

==History==
The Secretary of Defense position was created in 1947 by President [[Harry S Truman]] along with the creation of the National Military Establishment (which became the DoD in 1949). James Forrestal was the first Secretary of Defense.

==Duties==
The Secretary of Defense is the principal defense policy advisor to the President and is responsible for the formulation of general defense policy and policy related to all matters of direct and primary concern to the DoD, and for the execution of approved policy. Under the direction of the President, the Secretary exercises authority, direction, and control over the Department of Defense.<ref>[http://www.defenselink.mil/odam/omp/pubs/GuideBook/DoD.htm DoD Organizational Structure]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Template:User Block sysop

2007-05-14T14:17:37Z

Jrssr5: new userbox

{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#DC143C |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=[[Image:Stop_hand.svg|45px]] |info=<center><big>This user has '''{{{1|XX}}}''' blocks by '''{{{2|Sysop}}}'''.</big></center>}}

Bible history

2007-05-14T14:09:11Z

Jrssr5: some wikifying

Bible history is simply history from the vantage point of the [[Bible]]. More specifically, it is history from the vantage point of [[God]]. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth..." (Genesis 1:1).

Bible history can be segmented into three periods:

==The Patriarch period==
This would span the time of [[Adam]] until [[Moses]] ([[Genesis]] 1 - [[Exodus]] 19). The Patriarch period can be subdivided even further. a) Adam through Terah (Abraham's father). Genesis 1-11. This would cover a period of time equal to about 2,500 years. During the approximate time frame notable event of history occurred. To begin (no pun), there was creation. In six days, God created heaven and earth (Genesis 1). From a strictly biblical point of view, the general theory of evolution is not compatible. The biblical record is clear that God is the originator of life and kind comes after its own kind (Genesis 1:11-12, 21-25, 28). Shortly after creation, with Adam and [[Eve]] in the [[[Garden of Eden]], sin entered the world with Adam and Eve's choice to partake of the fruit God expressly forbade them to take (Genesis 2:16-17; 3:1-7). Sin is the result of man's freedom of choice to disobey God (cf. 1 John 3:4). God cast out the couple from the Garden and from that time forth man lived off the ground (Genesis 3:14-24). After Adam, the next notable character is Noah. Noah was one who was righteous in the sight of the Lord (Genesis 6:9). God told Noah to build an ark (something similar to a barge, rectangular box) large enough to take animals upon it to preserve life. This Noah did and life was preserved (Genesis 9:1-17). It was also during this time that God brought about variety in human languages. In Shinar (generally thought to be the same as Babylon), man's arrogance resulted in the Lord bringing confusion to the people. They were unable to communicate since they were unable to speak the same language (Genesis 11:1-9). b) Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph: Genesis 12 - 50. This would cover a period of time than 5oo years. Abraham was the great patriarch of the Israelite nation - though he himself was not an Israelite. Abraham was from the Mesopatamia region (the area of present day Iraq) when called called him to leave his homeland and go to a land God would tell him (Genesis 12:1). Abraham did and the Lord blessed him with much wealth. More than the wealth, it was Abraham's faith that is of great significance (Genesis 15:6). Abraham lived to be 175 years of age, exactly 100 years older than his son of promise, Isaac (Genesis 25:7). Isaac was the son of Abraham and Sarah. Not much is recorded about him in Scripture except that God considered him a faithful man who lived to be 180 years old (Genesis 35:28). From Isaac came two boy, Esau and Jacob. Esau was the first born (by mere moments). God, probably through Abraham, told Isaac that two sones would be born to him and Rebekah (Genesis 25:23). For the first sixty years of their life together the two sons struggled with one another. One one occasion, Jacob took by deceit from Esau his firstborn right (Genesis 27). However, as deceitful as this was, the Scripture do not look with sympathy upon Esau because he profaned (lightly regarded it) his birthright (Hebrews 12:16-17). Though Jacob did wrong to his brother, nevertheless, the Lord brought through the line of Jacob the Israelite people (Genesis 28:10-17). In fact, Jacob's name was changed to "Israel" (Genesis 32:22-32). To Jacob (Israel) was born twelve sons. One son rose to prominence through unfortunate circumstances, Joseph (Genesis 37-41). Because of famine in the land of Canaan, Joseph brought his father and his family down to Egypt and for the remainder of Jacob's and Joseph's life, the Israelites prospered and grew to a mighy number (Genesis 42-50). c) Israel in Egyptian slavery through two-thirds of Moses life: Exodus 1 - 19. This would cover a period of time equal to about 80 years. After Joseph's death (uncertain how long this would have been), a new king in Egypt arose who held no regard for Joseph and the Israelite people (Exodus 1:8-14). From this time until when Moses was born and nearly two-thirds of his life was over, the Israelites were in Egyptian bondage.

==The Mosaic period==
This would span the time of Moses until the death of [[Christ]] (Exodus 20 - John 21). The Mosaic period is the period of time in which the Law of Moses (Exodus 21 - Deuteronomy), as a codified law, was in force and directed a people of Israel. The law specifically applied to the Isrealite people. Non-Israelites were not amenable to the Law's instruction. This period of time coverd about 1,450 years. The Mosaic time period is rich with both God's blessings upon the people and His judgment against them. The historical narrative books of this time period would be Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Exra, Nehemiah, and Esther. About 1000 years are covered in these books. Joshua was Moses' servant. When Moses died, the Lord identified Joshua as his replacement.

After Moses death, Joshua became Israel's leader and prosecuted war against the inhabitants of Canaan. Those who dwelt in Canaan were idolators and some of that worship consisted of human sacrifices. In this prosecution, there was corruption. The Lord told them to drive out the inhabitants of Canaan, but they did not (cf. Joshua 17:13). This turned out to be a continual thorn in Israel's side. The period of the Judges was a period of time when Israel had no single leader, but judges who were also prophets. Some notable judges would be Gideon (Judges 6-8), Samson (Judges 13-16), Eli and Samuel (1 Samuel 1-9). The High Priest under the Law of Moses would be the closest single representative of God. Apart from him, Samuel might be the most well known and respected judge.

In the period of Samuel, Kings, and the Chronicles, kings reigned. Three noteworthy kings in Israel's history would be Saul, David, and Solomon. King Saul was Israel's first God ordained king. Saul, however, was not loyal to God (1 Samuel 15). Consequently, the Lord chose a man "after his own heart" (I Samuel 13), that man was David. David was a young man when the Lord gave him the throne (30 years of age) and he reigned 40 years (1 Kings 2:11). Solomon, David's son, reigned in his place and he, too, reigned 40 years (1 Kings 11:42). It was under the reign of Solomon that the Lord said the kingdom of Israel would be split into two unequal (in size) parts (1 Kings 11:11, 31). At this point in Israel's division there was Judah (also known as the southern kingdom) and Israel (also known as the northern kingdom). Israel did not have any loyalty to the Lord. Israel's first king (also known as Jeroboam I) was motivated by fear to establish a false religion of idolatry (1 Kings 12). Each king after him perpetuated this idolatry. Ultimately, the Lord had enough of this and sent them into Assyrian captivity (2 Kings 17). Some of the notable kings in Israel's history would be Jeroboam (1 Kings 12-14), Omri (1 Kings 16), Ahab (1 Kings 16-22), and Jehu (2 Kings 9-10). Judah, on the other hand, was a confused kingdom. There was loyatly to the Lord, but not by every king. Because of their confusion in who to serve, the Lord sent them into Babylonian captivity (2 Kings 24-25). This was for a period of 70 years (2 Chronicles 36:21). Some notable kings of Judah (from the Lord's perspective) would be: Asa (1 Kings 15), Jehoshaphat (1 Kings 22), Hezekiah (2 Kings 18-20) and Josiah (2 Kings 22-23).

After the period of Babylonian captivity, the Lord's promise to Judah was realized. The books of Ezra records the Persian king's (Cyrus) decree for the people's of the land to repopulate their homelands. For the Jews, about 50,000 went back (Ezra 2).

==The Christian period==
This would span the time of the Lord's commission to the apostles (Mark 16:15) until He returns again (1 Corinthians 15:20-29).

{{stub}}

Bible history

2007-05-14T14:07:58Z

Jrssr5: quick clean up, needs more work later

Bible history is simply history from the vantage point of the Bible. More specifically, it is history from the vantage point of God. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth..." (Genesis 1:1).

Bible history can be segmented into three periods:

==The Patriarch period==
This would span the time of Adam until Moses (Genesis 1 - Exodus 19). The Patriarch period can be subdivided even further. a) Adam through Terah (Abraham's father). Genesis 1-11. This would cover a period of time equal to about 2,500 years. During the approximate time frame notable event of history occurred. To begin (no pun), there was creation. In six days, God created heaven and earth (Genesis 1). From a strictly biblical point of view, the general theory of evolution is not compatible. The biblical record is clear that God is the originator of life and kind comes after its own kind (Genesis 1:11-12, 21-25, 28). Shortly after creation, with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, sin entered the world with Adam and Eve's choice to partake of the fruit God expressly forbade them to take (Genesis 2:16-17; 3:1-7). Sin is the result of man's freedom of choice to disobey God (cf. 1 John 3:4). God cast out the couple from the Garden and from that time forth man lived off the ground (Genesis 3:14-24). After Adam, the next notable character is Noah. Noah was one who was righteous in the sight of the Lord (Genesis 6:9). God told Noah to build an ark (something similar to a barge, rectangular box) large enough to take animals upon it to preserve life. This Noah did and life was preserved (Genesis 9:1-17). It was also during this time that God brought about variety in human languages. In Shinar (generally thought to be the same as Babylon), man's arrogance resulted in the Lord bringing confusion to the people. They were unable to communicate since they were unable to speak the same language (Genesis 11:1-9). b) Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph: Genesis 12 - 50. This would cover a period of time than 5oo years. Abraham was the great patriarch of the Israelite nation - though he himself was not an Israelite. Abraham was from the Mesopatamia region (the area of present day Iraq) when called called him to leave his homeland and go to a land God would tell him (Genesis 12:1). Abraham did and the Lord blessed him with much wealth. More than the wealth, it was Abraham's faith that is of great significance (Genesis 15:6). Abraham lived to be 175 years of age, exactly 100 years older than his son of promise, Isaac (Genesis 25:7). Isaac was the son of Abraham and Sarah. Not much is recorded about him in Scripture except that God considered him a faithful man who lived to be 180 years old (Genesis 35:28). From Isaac came two boy, Esau and Jacob. Esau was the first born (by mere moments). God, probably through Abraham, told Isaac that two sones would be born to him and Rebekah (Genesis 25:23). For the first sixty years of their life together the two sons struggled with one another. One one occasion, Jacob took by deceit from Esau his firstborn right (Genesis 27). However, as deceitful as this was, the Scripture do not look with sympathy upon Esau because he profaned (lightly regarded it) his birthright (Hebrews 12:16-17). Though Jacob did wrong to his brother, nevertheless, the Lord brought through the line of Jacob the Israelite people (Genesis 28:10-17). In fact, Jacob's name was changed to "Israel" (Genesis 32:22-32). To Jacob (Israel) was born twelve sons. One son rose to prominence through unfortunate circumstances, Joseph (Genesis 37-41). Because of famine in the land of Canaan, Joseph brought his father and his family down to Egypt and for the remainder of Jacob's and Joseph's life, the Israelites prospered and grew to a mighy number (Genesis 42-50). c) Israel in Egyptian slavery through two-thirds of Moses life: Exodus 1 - 19. This would cover a period of time equal to about 80 years. After Joseph's death (uncertain how long this would have been), a new king in Egypt arose who held no regard for Joseph and the Israelite people (Exodus 1:8-14). From this time until when Moses was born and nearly two-thirds of his life was over, the Israelites were in Egyptian bondage.

==The Mosaic period==
This would span the time of Moses until the death of Christ (Exodus 20 - John 21). The Mosaic period is the period of time in which the Law of Moses (Exodus 21 - Deuteronomy), as a codified law, was in force and directed a people of Israel. The law specifically applied to the Isrealite people. Non-Israelites were not amenable to the Law's instruction. This period of time coverd about 1,450 years. The Mosaic time period is rich with both God's blessings upon the people and His judgment against them. The historical narrative books of this time period would be Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Exra, Nehemiah, and Esther. About 1000 years are covered in these books. Joshua was Moses' servant. When Moses died, the Lord identified Joshua as his replacement.

After Moses death, Joshua became Israel's leader and prosecuted war against the inhabitants of Canaan. Those who dwelt in Canaan were idolators and some of that worship consisted of human sacrifices. In this prosecution, there was corruption. The Lord told them to drive out the inhabitants of Canaan, but they did not (cf. Joshua 17:13). This turned out to be a continual thorn in Israel's side. The period of the Judges was a period of time when Israel had no single leader, but judges who were also prophets. Some notable judges would be Gideon (Judges 6-8), Samson (Judges 13-16), Eli and Samuel (1 Samuel 1-9). The High Priest under the Law of Moses would be the closest single representative of God. Apart from him, Samuel might be the most well known and respected judge.

In the period of Samuel, Kings, and the Chronicles, kings reigned. Three noteworthy kings in Israel's history would be Saul, David, and Solomon. King Saul was Israel's first God ordained king. Saul, however, was not loyal to God (1 Samuel 15). Consequently, the Lord chose a man "after his own heart" (I Samuel 13), that man was David. David was a young man when the Lord gave him the throne (30 years of age) and he reigned 40 years (1 Kings 2:11). Solomon, David's son, reigned in his place and he, too, reigned 40 years (1 Kings 11:42). It was under the reign of Solomon that the Lord said the kingdom of Israel would be split into two unequal (in size) parts (1 Kings 11:11, 31). At this point in Israel's division there was Judah (also known as the southern kingdom) and Israel (also known as the northern kingdom). Israel did not have any loyalty to the Lord. Israel's first king (also known as Jeroboam I) was motivated by fear to establish a false religion of idolatry (1 Kings 12). Each king after him perpetuated this idolatry. Ultimately, the Lord had enough of this and sent them into Assyrian captivity (2 Kings 17). Some of the notable kings in Israel's history would be Jeroboam (1 Kings 12-14), Omri (1 Kings 16), Ahab (1 Kings 16-22), and Jehu (2 Kings 9-10). Judah, on the other hand, was a confused kingdom. There was loyatly to the Lord, but not by every king. Because of their confusion in who to serve, the Lord sent them into Babylonian captivity (2 Kings 24-25). This was for a period of 70 years (2 Chronicles 36:21). Some notable kings of Judah (from the Lord's perspective) would be: Asa (1 Kings 15), Jehoshaphat (1 Kings 22), Hezekiah (2 Kings 18-20) and Josiah (2 Kings 22-23).

After the period of Babylonian captivity, the Lord's promise to Judah was realized. The books of Ezra records the Persian king's (Cyrus) decree for the people's of the land to repopulate their homelands. For the Jews, about 50,000 went back (Ezra 2).

==The Christian period==
This would span the time of the Lord's commission to the apostles (Mark 16:15) until He returns again (1 Corinthians 15:20-29).

{{stub}}

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-05-13T19:04:53Z

Jrssr5: /* Misunderstanding of Wikipedia rules */

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1]]
[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive3]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive4]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive5]]

== #1 ==

Again, this isn't bias. If it had been an ''FA'', that would have been one thing, but ''GA'' is not quite the same level of recognition. This list is getting more and more ludicrous. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 21:00, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

: Don't follow you here, Linus the Turbogeek. But can I call on you if I have technical computer questions? :-) A good Easter to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Um… you can't ''call'' me, but feel free to send me e-mail. A happy Easter to yourself as well. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 20:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal bias ==

The list contains still the statement that "Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public", which still makes every statistician frown at conservapedia as soon as he looks where we get the data for Wikipedia from. A self-selected sample, with 131 categories, from which respondents can choose as many as they like, is compared to a Harris poll.

The other innovation of this example of Wikipedia bias is the definition of liberal bias; it now even has its own article as [[Liberal_quotient|Liberal Quotient]]. This article will make every mathematician frown, and it demonstrates that LQ is highly confusing. The article defines the LQ as Liberals/Conservatives, which has its own problems, but the illustrative part is that the article does not even once uses the definition of LQ correctly. None of the LQs mentioned in the article for particular groups, such as journalists, uses LQ correctly. It was never correct since it was created by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]. And if you look at the [[Talk:Liberal_quotient|talk page]] you'll notice that most editors aren't able to apply the definition correctly either.

My suggestions would be 1) get a solid data base, since it it obviously a violation of good practice in statistics. 2) use a definition of liberal bias that people understand, now that it has been demonstrated, that the current definition is poorly understood. [[User:Order|Order]] 9 April, 18:40 (AEST)

:In addition, 3:1/1:2≠6. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 20:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Actually 3/(1/2) is 6. This is the correct part of it. You proabably mean 75%/33%? That is indeed something different and 225%. This just illustrates that the ''Liberal quotient'' is plain confusing. [[User:Order|Order]] 11 April, 11:00 (AEST)

== The Deluge criticism ==

As a Christian I can understand the criticism in which the Great Flood is treated as a piece of myth, or if you go to the Great Flood it will take you to the Deluge section: but what you have to realise is that the Great Flood can be seen in nearly all mythologies, for example, Dylan in Welsh and Atlantis in Greek. Therefore, the Noah account is part of wider scope, yet, it can be said that the Great Flood in all cultures could be the account of the same flood that Noah escaped in. {{unsigned|James M Hayes}}
:James, have you seen Conservapedia's article on the [[Great Flood]]? It covers the sorts of things you talk about, without using the word "myth" (or any derivative) at all (except in the external links). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==Hmmm...==
"Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases." OK, but this page cannot be edited. Isn't that just as bad? [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 16:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Nooooo. this is entirely different in a way, I'm unable to explain to you. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 16:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:A page that has been removed cannot be read, this one can. That's a pretty obvious difference, I would think, and one that I had no difficulty explaining. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Wasn't Conservapedia's [[Examples of Bias in Conservapedia]] removed as well? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 23:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Hmmm, yes there was such an article that was deleted. But it was removed on the grounds that it was a rant with obscenities. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::And then deleted and then protected against further re-creation? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::It was created and deleted twice (with the second version apparently being a copy of the first version), so presumably it was thought prudent to prevent the same thing being done over and over. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:49, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Myk, we allow a great deal of criticism of our site here, far more than Wikipedia allows. I was not involved in the deletion of that particular entry but over time, as this site becomes more stable and secure against vandalism, that page can be reopened just as others have been.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Wikipedia allows unlimited criticism. It contains an article about Conservapedia that includes many of Conservapedia's criticisms of wikipedia. It even has a 106-source article entitled "Criticism of Wikipedia" that Wikipedia users wrote themselves. I criticized this article on this talk page, and my comment (along with many others) was deleted. If you aren't a liar, Aschlafly, then you are breathtakingly delusional. It would have been just as easy to remove the obscenities then protect the article.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 23:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: The "Criticism of Wikipedia" entry is a self-serving joke that censors any real criticism. I put in factual statements of bias in the Wikipedia and my factual, respectful statements were distorted and then censored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: How many sources does this page cite? It would appear wikipedia is more exhaustive in criticizing themselves than Conservapedia is at criticizing Wikipedia.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 00:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Wow, is that the test you're proposing? Simply count the number of citations, no matter what they say? That does seem consistent with Wikipedia's philosophy. As shown by the content page here, Wikipedia makes a factual claim and then provides a citation that actually fails to support the claim at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Which has sometimes occurred at Conservapedia as well, of course... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Hasn't that logic been used before on CP? The Theory of Evolution article is touted as being the best because it gets so many hits and has so many citations, but if you took a second to read the talk page you'd see otherwise. I don't know what "factual" statements Andy added, but if they're anything like the bias listed here, of course they were removed since they don't meet the mainstream definition of bias. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:10, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm a specialist in analyzing and remedying bias. Please bring any examples to my attention. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

=="Wikipedia is six times as liberal"==

Isn't it time to do something about this? Whether or not the numbers are correct isn't for me to say, but if there are twice as many conservatives as liberals in the US, but three times as many liberals as conservatives on Wikipedia, then there must be about 2.27 times as many liberals on Wiki as in the US, not 6. The statement as it stands suggests that we don't know basic math, and I for one find that slightly embarrassing. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 12:00, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Quiet you fool! Don't you realize that if you argue with ASchlafly's math that it means you're wrong about everything? If he says that the Wikipedia is 108% liberal then it must be so!--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 15:26, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's approx. 2.25, and that's not how "liberal bias" is defined. Stop being an idiot, Aschlafly. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 20:29, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You can think about it this way. If your data is correct, then if you were to walk down the street and grab 6 people, statistically you should get 2 liberals and 4 conservatives. At wikipedia, you should get 1.5 conservatives (statistically speaking) and 4.5 liberals. 1.5 times 3 equals 4.5, and 1.5 plus 4.5 equals 6. Divide 4.5 by 2, and you get 2.25. And Hacker's right, "bias" refers to the articles themselves, not to who wrote them. Being mostly composed of liberals is not an example of bias.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 00:06, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Oh, I'm going to be really really really sorry I ever mentioned this, but you '''can''' also think of it this way.

::::Accept for argument Andrew Schlafly's assumptions—(which I most bodaciously do ''not'' accept)—that America is conservative, 2:1 and that Wikipedia is liberal, 3:1. Now, imagine conservatives at Wikipedia encircled by and trying to fight off liberals, and ask: for every pair of conservatives, how many liberals on average must they vanquish in order to prevail? The answer is every pair of conservatives needs to subdue '''six''' liberals. Now ask the same question for America. Here, the answer is that every pair of conservatives only needs to dispatch '''one''' liberal. Ergo, at Wikipedia the conservatives would need to work six times as hard. QED. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:38, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I can't read Andy's mind, but I doubt that is how he arrived at his magic number of 6. Creative thinking though!! [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:21, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== #47 ==

<blockquote>Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the Daily News relied on it in [a] story</blockquote>

What does this have to do with any bias on the part of Wikipedia, and more to the point, in what way is any such bias shown, in this case, liberal? --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 05:52, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: Newspapers are known to have a liberal bias also, and hence the copying from the liberal Wikipedia is noteworthy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::Um, no. Some newspapers lean left, but there are plenty of newspapers that endorse a conservative position. Quite a few (if not most) of the papers in my area are pretty conservative actually. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:59, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:::What does any liberal bias in the written press (LOL) have to do with whether Wikipedia has a liberal bias or not? Number 47 simply is not an example of bias in wikipedia. You may think it's "noteworthy" but so what? It's listed as an example of bias in Wikipedia. I think that counts as [[deceit]].--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 09:59, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== #41 ==

That shouldn't be there, surely, as it is simply someone saying Wikipedia is biased, rather than an actual example of bias. --[[User:Protocletos|Protocletos]] 14:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: It quotes an insightful remark by an authority. That's what good encyclopedias do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't dispute this, but the fact remains that it's not actually an example of bias. --[[User:Protocletos|Protocletos]] 11:29, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== What the heck…? ==

I'm sorry about this, and I'll get to work on [[MediaWiki]] and stay out of trouble for a while after I have my say, but how is criticism of articles without a worldwide viewpoint a "bias"? Wikipedia is a worldwide project, and yes, America is not the only English-speaking country around, so it can't claim ownership of even the English edition. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 13:09, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:I think the criticism means that Wikipedia places an excessive emphasize on the "worldwide viewpoint", often to the exclusion of US views such as conservatism. It's one thing to say what everyone in the world thinks, another to try to homogenize it into one "consensus" view. (See [[pluralism]] vs. [[particularism]] - or until those are written, [[multiculturalism]].) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:20, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Suggested edit ==

Could globalist be linked to [[Globalism]]. Has that anything to do with [[Globalization]]? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 13:16, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:Link added. Thanks and Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:42, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Misunderstanding of Wikipedia rules ==
It saddens me to see that people feel that it is OK to criticize a project that they have not even read most of the rules of. Yes, Wikipedia says that it is a free encyclopedia that anybody can edit, and is NPOV. Of course it is not NPOV yet, but someday could be. Most of these criticisms (well over 70%) are based on ignorance of Wikipedia rules. There are 42 policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, and I doubt most people who are writing these criticisms have bothered to read any of those, except for the introduction. And the unbelievable hypocrisy of ''deleting'' and ''protecting'' a page called [[Examples of Bias in Conservapedia]] is sickening. So yes, if anybody was to go and read the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, they will see that these criticisms are completely unfounded (well, most of 'em). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:01, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

: Hoji, the criticisms are based on the results, and the Wikipedia rules really have very little to do with this. The rules themselves encourage bias (e.g., "NPOV" towards terrorists) or the rules may be applied against conservative edits (e.g., initially against the entry on Conservapedia). And then there are the criticisms about the rules don't say, such as the Wikipedia rules do not prohibit obscenity, gossip, or pretending liberal opinion is fact.

: A study of bias doesn't really care what the rules or cause is. The study is about the results. But thanks for your comments and Lord bless you for your efforts on Wikipedia and here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:30, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::And, ignorance is bliss ... it's much easier to blindly criticize something instead of trying to study/investigate the reasons. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:04, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Proportionality test

2007-05-13T04:40:54Z

Jrssr5:

The proportionality test is a three-part test first adopted under Title IX by the Carter Administration and then expanded by the Clinton Administration, which seeks to apply gender quotas to school sports. The test consists of counting the number of male and female participants on the school sports teams, and holds that schools are in compliance with Title IX if they:

#have the same proportion of girls in sports as enrolled in the school,
#are expanding the opportunities for girls in sports, or
#are satisfying the entire interest of girls to participate in sports.

But when a school needs to cut sports teams for budgetary reasons, then prongs (2) and (3) of the test cannot be satisfied. In that case the school must meet the quota requirement of (1), thereby causing it to eliminate many more boys teams than girls teams in order to make the proportional representation. [[James Madison University]] recently did precisely that, cutting far more boys teams than girls teams.

Many seek to apply the proportionality test fully to high schools.<ref>http://psg.com/~patf/TitleIX.pdf</ref>

----

'''References:''' <references/>

Talk:Kangaroo

2007-05-13T01:11:02Z

Jrssr5: /* Genetic bottleneck */

I think all of you ID proponents (creationists) should just ignore the fossil record, get your favorite version of the bible (I'm a King James lover myself), reread Genesis, and then stick your heads in the sand.--[[User:Darwinliveson|Darwinliveson]] 09:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Commandment 1 of this site is "what you post must be truthful and verifiable". Anyone with half a brain knows ID is utter bollocks.

I think we should include both creationist and evolutionist perspectives on kangaroo origins. Conservatives aren't monolithically creationist, and even if that were the case it'd be useful to at least be familiar with the other side's position. --[[User:John|John]] 22:26, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:The evolutionist perspective on kangaroo origins is speculative at best. A Google.com search for "kangaroo evolution" only shows up 221 results, most of which are people selling kangaroo meat! If you think you can explain just what their views are, you're welcome to try. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 02:28, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Well there might be slim pickings on the 221 google hits you ran....we might have better luck looking at the roughly 4,000 peer review journal articles on kangaroo and marsupial evolution from http://scholar.google.com [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:34, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=kangaroo+evolution+-rat&btnG=Search so we are on the same page. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:35, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::If the scientific perspective on kangaroo origins is "speculative", what does that make the religious perspective? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 05:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::The Truth, perhaps? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 06:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::Well, you are welcome to read through those to tease out the evolutionist perspective on kangaroo origins. Personally, I'd rather read through the [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=20&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22intelligent+design%22 7790 peer-reviewed articles] on Intelligent Design (which surely puts the lie to the claim of liberals that ID is not science) [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 06:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

The problem with your point above, Dr. Paley, is that all of those articles cited above were not "peer reviewed" by scientists - that is why ID is not a science. You let me know when the next ID article is published in ''Science'' or ''Nature''--[[User:Darwinliveson|Darwinliveson]] 09:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Bah! There is a MUCH easier way of settling this: [http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=kangaroo+evolution&word2=intelligent+design] ........hmmmm okay I guess I do loose. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 11:37, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::::On the other hand...[http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=kangaroo+evolution&word2=kangaroo+intelligent+design][[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Most of those are books, not peer reviewed papers. The rest appear to be about engineering, or pointing out the flaws in intelligent design as a biological mechanism (perhaps you should have read the papers before posting that?). Intelligent design proponents are old earth creationists, so they would state that the origins section as currently stands is incorrect. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:58, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:While some ID proponents may have old-earth leanings, Intelligent Design Theory itself is neutral to the age of the earth and merely proposes to detect evidences of intelligent design in life, not the history of the earth and creation. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 07:16, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::So you concede that "7790 peer-reviewed articles on intelligent design" is not an accurate statement? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:26, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::Tmtoulouse's link above to kangaroo evolution was claimed to be "roughly 4,000 peer review journal articles" but that number includes books and articles not actually about kangaroo evolution. I made my point clearly with the link to search results using an even more stringent criteria of putting quotes around the term. Nematocyte, if you are going to be so knee-jerk hostile to anyone who isn't an evolutionist, perhaps you should go back to Wikipedia. Also, I'm glad you concede your incorrectness about Intelligent Design Theory's earth-age relevance. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 11:27, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::: I'll presume that you are by this response agreeing that 7790 number is inaccurate. As to the kangaroo number, if you look through the actual citations in that google scholar search on the first page one has easily 3 or four relevant hits that are not books and a slightly larger number on the second page. If that continues one has presumably easily 300 peer reviewed sources. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::In fact I do not contest that ID is age-neutral. My claim was that ''proponents'' were old-earth creationist, and by "proponents" I mean those who seriously attempt to forward the theory in at least a superficially scientific manner, such as Behe and Dembski, both of whom are old-earthers. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:39, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::::What in the world does that have to do with anything I said above or the topic of kangaroo origins? Again, I think your anti-creation hostility is getting the best of your reason. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 11:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Dear Doctor, it related to your claim of the "7790" ID papers (which I take it you have retracted), and my assertation that those who did forward intelligent design would agree with me anyway. It appears you have no scientific base to speak of for your model of kangaroo origins.

:::::::Using the exact number 7790 was obviously in jest to point out the over-zealousness of the 4000 number. Were you not reading the light-hearted exchange between Tmtoulouse and myself above or were you just looking to pick nits (or a fight)? As to whether some ID proponents share with you errant views on the age of the earth and might speak outside of their specialty vis-à-vis kangaroo origins, that has nothing to do with anything preceding your assertion. Notice I referred to articles on "Intelligent Design", not "Intelligent Design proponents talking about something that isn't Intelligent Design". [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 12:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Incidently, are you the same Dr. Richard Paley I seem to recall reading an infamous article by extolling the evils of the Mac OS and Pokemon [[http://objectiveministries.org/creation/propaganda.html]]? I thought that was satire. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:22, 8 March 2007 (EST)

For the record I wasn't totally serious with my number claim, I was being facetious to make the point that google hits is not a good measure of the potential for information in an entry, and also that the places in which to get your in depth information for the evolution of kangaroos is not personal webpages but rather more scholarly sources, which are available. I think number games are silly, as I hope my google fight post above demonstrates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 12:05, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Dr. Richard Paley is not a Doctor, and certainly not trustworthy if we're basing everything on Google searches: http://www.lies.com/wp/2002/04/22/dr-richard-paley-on-evolutionist-propaganda/ As a matter of fact he's a hoax, which sadly is very realistic on this site: http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/forum/forum_comments/1720/item.name

:I suspected he might have been a hoax when I found the article, but he still seems indistinguishable from many of the other contributors. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== "religious theories" ==

What is the point of the last paragraph on the kangaroo entry? Yes, australian aboriginal beliefs about the creation of the earth are religious in nature, but how is evolution a "religious theory"?

And more importantly, why can I not edit the page to remove this?

If this project is to be taken seriously, ridiculous comments like that need to be weeded out. [[User:dropkickmejesus|dropkickmejesus]] 22:21, 13 March 2007 (GMT)

:"Ridiculous comments like that" are preciesly what distinguish Conservapedia from pro-liberal sites like Wikipedia, and it's precisely why Conservapedia is so much better. We lack the bias that makes Wikipedia so unreliable. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 04:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Could you please explain to me why evolution should be considered a "religious theory". I note that the offending phrase has been removed. [[User:dropkickmejesus|dropkickmejesus]] 17:59, 14 March 2007 (GMT)

This is the worst website I have ever seen. Ever. Creationism is about as stupid an idea as eating your own sh**.

Actually, eating feces may be sensible in some situations. C. difficle infections due to shifts in colonic flora are a growning problem. In the past, fecal enemas from healthy donors were used. Currently, antibiotics are used. It has been proposed to feed people fecal emulsions to prevent or treat the infection. No, I am not making this up.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 23:38, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Kangaroo evolution - By 110 million years ago, mammals had diverged into two distinct groups, the placental mammals (a group that includes humans and most modern mammals) and the marsupial mammals (a group that includes koalas, kangaroos, wombats, and pouched mice). These groups evolved for millions of years in two increasingly different directions. As we follow the evolution of marsupials, we find their history to be further shaped by the drifting of the continents. The ancient landmasses of Laurasia and Gondwana broke apart to form the continents, isolating one group of marsupials on the continental island of Australia while isolating another group in South America. These separate populations of marsupials were left to evolve in parallel for some time.
Comparison reveals that, although placental and marsupial mammals formed seperate lineages, they still evolved similar adaptations. In some cases, placental and marsupial mammals physically resemble each other: the pouched marsupial mouse and the harvest mouse, the marsupial mole and the common mole, the marsupial wombat and the marmot, the tasmanian wolf and the wolf.--[[User:Joobs|Joobs]] 17:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

On the article, which seems to condemn the possibility of evolution, it states "Kangaroos have adapted to the varied conditions across Australia in many ways." Now, correct me if im mistaken but is adaption not just evolution, but on a smaller scale. Many many adaptions over millenia '''IS''' evolution, is it not?
Therefore if these kangaroos really did sail across on mats of vegetation and didnt evolve, how did they adapt to the conditions of australia?? Does anybody know?? {{unsigned|Loveandpeace}}

:No, adaptation is a built-in mechanism in the ''design'' of living creatures. Adaptation involves (mostly at least) an elimination of some genetic information (for example, the elimination of genes for short hair on creatures living in cold climates), allowing them to become more specialised. Goo-to-you evolution requires the ''addition'' of ''brand-new'' genetic information, which is a different thing entirely. Yes, evolutionists will equivocate and call adaptation evolution, but specialisation will not provide now organs, etc. for living things, so cannot result in the evolution of new kinds of creatures. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:05, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps arguments would be clearer if you stuck to the mainstream definition. By the standard definition, adaptation ''is'' evolution. Larger changes over longer times are ''also'' evolution. If this adversion to the word "evolution" could be overcome then dialoge would be much easier. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:25, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::The problem is that the [[definition of evolution]] is so woolly it can cover almost anything. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:35, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== Space Ship Theory ==

I think the origin of the kangaroo should also include discussion of a belief held by many of Riley Martin's followers, the O-Qua Tangin Wann. They believe that Kangaroos originated from the "mothership" from the planet Tan. The alien visitors from Tan visited Earth a few hundred years ago and brought with them a male and female kangaroo. The "mothership" decided after visiting serveral continents that Australia was the best fit for their kangaroo species.

Lay off of the mushrooms. They're not good for you. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 04:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:If some conservatives believe it, we should give it equal time! --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 04:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:(And it's at least as believable as the idea that they migrated from the Middle East to Australia without ANY getting off along the way.)

::So your "suggestion" was just another jab at conservatives. Why are you even here, [[Scrap]]? Do you think that Conservapedia is just a dumping ground for your mean-spirited anti-Christian jokes? --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 05:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Of course it's not '''just''' for me to make bad jokes. It's '''also''' a source of ''unintentional'' hilarity, and a terrifying cautionary example of the perils of [[Groupthink]]. And I hardly think that was "mean-spirited", just really silly--I'd have to work mighty hard to out-crazy some of the "serious" posters here. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 05:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::It is really funny. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 20:49, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== why is this page locked? ==

Why isn't anyone allowed to edit this page?
Can't an Australian even make some constributions about an animal in his own country?

Apparently the origins of the kangaroo are a hot button issue. How informational will an encyclopedia be where any animal entry says "As with all animals, Noah brought them all on an ark impossibly small to hold them all... blah blah blah...." --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 20:48, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Land Bridge from Europe to Australia was not in any sources. ==

Land Bridge from Europe to Australia was not in any sources. Please keep that out in the future. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:The reference to "land-bridges" was added by someone, who is apparently confused, to replace the reference to the [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2808 catastrophic continental drift theory]. Please keep that in in the future. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 15:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

It should be noted that this page is all speculation.

== Native?? ==
How can something be "now native"? Native refers to where something came from. If you're going with the normal evolution thought, then they are native to Australia. If you're going with the tale that they came from the Mid-East, then they are native to the Mid-East (or ideally where they came before the flood, which could be australia). [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:07, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Evolutionists hold that ''all'' animals are non-native to the place they are currently living since they have been scurrying about for billions of years transmogrifying themselves into different things. "Now native" allows for both the Darwinian and Biblical views, as it expresses the idea that kangaroos have been habituated to Australia for thousands of years. This is a reasonable compromise, except apparently to the Darwinists who want to turn Conservapedia into Wikipedia through a slow death of a thousand cuts. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 15:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Genetic bottleneck ==

I know what a genetic bottleneck is, but I don't know what evidence it would leave. Could someone enlighten me before I remove that new bit about there being no evidence that kangaroos have been through a genetic bottleneck? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:11, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

==Rarely fossilize==
Darwindude ... please cite your sources before adding information. It may be true, but you need to show that. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 21:11, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Kangaroo

2007-05-13T01:10:08Z

Jrssr5: Undo revision 157973 by Special:Contributions/Darwindude (User talk:Darwindude) see talk

[[Image:Kangaroo-bree.png|right|Eastern Grey Kangaroo (''Macropus giganteus'')]]

'''Kangaroos''' are the largest [[Marsupials]] alive today. They are now native to the continent of [[Australia]]. There are at least sixty-nine [[species]] of kangaroo <ref name="kangbio">[http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/wild-harvest/kangaroo/biology.html "Kangaroo Biology"], Australian Government</ref>, which include wallabies and tree-kangaroos.

==Description==

Kangaroos have large ears on top of their small heads, a long snout, and short arms with clawed fingers. Their legs are strong, powerful, and are made for leaping. Their feet have four toes at the end of elongated metatarsi that they rest on when standing. They also have a powerful, thick tail that is used as support when standing, a third-leg when walking slowly, and for counterbalance while leaping. Like all Marsupials, female kangaroos have a pouch on their stomachs in which they carry their young.

===Diet===

Kangaroos are [[herbivore]]s, eating grass, roots, and shrubs. They have a chambered stomach similar to [[sheep]] and [[cattle]]. They are able to regurgitate their food, chew it again as [[cud]], and then swallow it for digestion.

===Social Order===

Kangaroos travel in [[mob | mobs]] of about ten or more males and females. The leader of the mob, called a "boomer", is a male determined by age and size. The boomer has access to females in his mob for mating and will wander around the mob intimidating any other males who try to mate with his harem.

===Reproduction===

Female kangaroos usually only have one baby kangaroo (called a "joey") at a time. The newborn joey weighs as little as .03 ounces when first born, after which it crawls into its mothers pouch where it will nurse, grow, and develop. Red Kangaroo joeys will stay in their mothers pouch for about eight months and Grey Kangaroo joeys stay in there for about one year.

===Development of the Young in the Pouch===

Kangaroos have adapted to the varied conditions across Australia in many ways. One of the most unusual, is the way females of some species can delay the progress of pregnancy. In this way the female is ready to give birth to a replacement for the young in her pouch if it dies early, or within a week of when it permanently leaves the pouch. This ability to delay births means that there can be up to 12 months between a mating and the birth of the young one resulting from that mating (when the normal gestation period is less than 35 days). It also means that the species can best respond to periods of drought and plenty.

Species which have this unusual ability normally mate again soon after the female gives birth. The tiny newly born kangaroo (less than 25 mm long) moves unaided into its mother's pouch and attaches itself to one of four teats. During the early stages of pouch life the young is permanently attached to the teat, but as it matures and begins to grow hair it also develops the ability to release and reattach itself to the teat.

In the late stages of pouch life, once it has a thin covering of fur, the young one begins to explore the outside world for increasing lengths of time until eventually it is old enough to be excluded permanently from the pouch. Complete weaning may take a number of months more after the young has permanently left the pouch. If the mother gives birth during this time, the newborn young will attach itself to a different teat to that being used by the older young. It is remarkable that when this happens the mother produces two different kinds of milk for the two different-aged young<ref name="kangbio"/>.

==Origins==

Consistent with their view that the fossil record as a whole does not support the evolutionary position<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp "Fossils Questions and Answers"], Answers In Genesis</ref><ref>[http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrcrd.html Creation/Evolution Quotes: Fossil Record]</ref>, creationists state that there is a lack of transitional fossils showing an evolutionary origin of kangaroos:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
The Macropod family is alleged to have evolved from either the Phalangeridae (possums) or Burramyidae (pygmy-possums)...</blockquote>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
However, there are no fossils of animals which appear to be intermediate between possums and kangaroos. Wabularoo naughtoni, supposed ancestor of all the macropods, was clearly a kangaroo (it greatly resembles the potoroos which dwell in Victoria’s forests). If modern kangaroos really did come from it, all this shows is the same as we see happening today, namely that kangaroos come from kangaroos, "after their kind." <ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/755/ Kangaroos: God's amazing craftsmanship], by Rebecca Driver, ''Creation'' vol. 20 No.3.</ref> </blockquote>

According to the [[origins theory]] model used by [[creation science | creation scientists]], modern kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard [[Noah's Ark]] prior to the [[Great Flood]]. It has not yet been determined by [[baraminology | baraminologists]] whether kangaroos form a [[holobaramin]] with the [[wallaby]], [[tree-kangaroo]], [[wallaroo]], [[pademelon]] and [[quokka]], or if all these species are in fact [[Baraminology|apobaramin]]ic or [[Baraminology|polybaramin]]ic. There is, however, no evidence of a genetic bottleneck in the kangaroo species which would be expected if all kangaroos were descended from two individuals.

After the Flood, these kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land<ref name="cab17">[http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter17.pdf "How did animals get from the Ark to places such as Australia"], Chapter 17 of ''The Creation Answers Book'', by Don Batten (Ed.)</ref> with lower sea levels during the post-flood [[ice age]], or before the supercontinent of [[Pangea]] broke apart<ref>[http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2808 "Pangea and the Flood"], Apologetics Press</ref>, or if they [[rafting (ecology) | rafted]] on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters.<ref name="cab17"/>
The idea that God simply generated kangaroos into existence there is considered by most creation researchers to be contra-Biblical.

Other views on kangaroo origins include the belief of some Australian [[aborigines]] that kangaroos were sung into existence by their ancestors during the "[[Dreamtime]]" <ref>[http://www.painsley.org.uk/RE/signposts/y8/1-1creationandenvironment/c-abor.htm "An Aborigine Creation Story"]</ref> and the evolutionary view that kangaroos and the other marsupials evolved from a common marsupial ancestor which lived hundreds of millions of years ago.<ref>[http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEPC/WWC/1995/australia.html "Australian Mammals: Evolutionary Development as a Result of Geographic Isolation"]</ref>

== External Links ==
*[http://www.exzooberance.com/virtual%20zoo/they%20walk/kangaroo/kangaroo.htm Kangaroo facts]
*[http://www.christiananswers.net/kids/kangaroos.html Answers About Kangaroos]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/migration.asp How did animals get from the Ark to places such as Australia?]

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Marsupials]]
[[Category:Australia]]

Scotland

2007-05-12T23:39:04Z

Jrssr5: Undo revision 157863 by Special:Contributions/Conservative (User talk:Conservative) before adding this back in talk to the sysop (Ed Poor) who removed it

[[Image:Lion rampant.png|thumb|right|The Scottish Royal Coat of Arms- Better known as the Lion Rampant]]

'''Scotland''' is the second largest country of the [[United Kingdom]].
It is about three-eighths the size of its larger neighbor England, but is much less populous; most of the population lives in the ''central belt'', a band across central Scotland between the capital [[Edinburgh]] and the city of [[Glasgow]]. Other cities are [[Aberdeen]], [[Dundee]] and [[Inverness]].

== Introduction ==

Scotland is historically Christian; the national church is the [[Church of Scotland]]

Scotland includes the island groups of [[Orkney]], [[Shetland]], the [[Inner Hebrides|Inner]] and [[Outer Hebrides]], the islands of the [[Firth of Clyde]] including [[Arran]], [[Bute]], [[Cumbrae]] & [[Wee Cumbrae]] and various other smaller islands.

[[Ben Nevis]], the highest mountain in the [[United Kingdom]], is in the Scottish [[Highlands of Scotland|Highlands]], as are most of the nations highest mountains. Those with heights above 914m (300 feet) are eponymously named [[Munro| Munros]] after Sir Hector Munro, the first person to compile such a list.<ref> for a complete list of Munros see http://www.sol.co.uk/d/dickwall/munroes.htm</ref>

==Cities==
[[Image:Scotland.gif|thumb|right|250px|A map of Scotland.]]

Scotland has six major cities. They are [[Aberdeen]], [[Dundee]], [[Edinburgh]], [[Glasgow]], [[Inverness]] and [[Stirling]].

== History ==
Scotland has been inhabited since at least 8500BC, when the first [[Mesolithic]] hunter-gatherers are thought to have migrated to Scotland. These inhabitants showed advanced knowledge of astronomy, creating several [[Stonehenge]]-like sculptures.

==Union with England==

After the death of Queen [[Elizabeth I]] of England in 1603, James VI of Scotland ascended to the Throne of England, becoming [[James I]] of England. He was the first monarch to call himself King of Great Britain. This is referred to as the Union of the Crowns. James was also at this time King of [[Ireland]].

The Parliaments of Scotland and [[England]] were not united until 1707 and it is this date that is recognized as the formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. This is referred to as the Union of the Parliaments. The formation of the [[Irish Republic]] in 1922 resulted in the current name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Scotland has its own Parliament of 129 members as well as sending 59 Members of Parliament(MPs) to represent its interests in the [[United Kingdom]] parliament which sits in [[London]]. Scottish MPs have historically been recognized for their political skills and appointed to the Cabinet in larger numbers than is proportionate. The current [[Chancellor of the Exchequer]], and expected future prime minister [[Gordon Brown]], is Scottish.

Relationships between Scottish and English MPs before [[devolution]] were sometimes tense because of what the former [[Conservative|Conservative Party]] MP, by then an [[Ulster Unionist]], [[Enoch Powell]] dubbed ''The West Lothian question''. The name arose in 1977 after [[Tam Dalyell]], Labour MP for West Lothian in Scotland, asked during a debate in the [[Houses of Parliament]] over Scottish and Welsh [[devolution]]:

<blockquote>''For how long will English constituencies and English Honourable members tolerate... at least 119 Honourable Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on British politics while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?''</blockquote>

He pointed out that he as MP for West Lothian could vote on matters affecting English constituencies but not his own constituency.

== Sports and culture==

The national preoccupation is [[football (soccer)|football]]. Other diversions include [[rugby union]], lawn bowls, [[chanty wrassling]] (a native form of [[wrestling]]), [[pocket billiards]], shinty (similar to hockey), [[cricket]], [[curling]], sports of the [[Highland Games]] - such as tossing the caber and, of course, [[golf]] - Scotland is the home of golf. The Royal and Ancient Golf Club at [[St Andrews]] is the governing body of world golf.

[[Scotland]]'s 'other' national drink, Irn Bru (formerly "Iron Brew"), is a bubblegum-flavored carbonated drink manufactured by A.G.Barr of [[Glasgow]], and claims to be "made in Scotland from girders". An advert for it uses the music and animation style of "[[The Snowman]]".

Scotland is famous for its disproportionate amount of inventions and discoveries (as immortalized in [[Wha's Like Us]]), its world class universities, the Scottish Enlightenment, being the one of the first industrial nations while still preserving some of the last great wildernesses of Europe, and being the home of [[golf]].

The symbol of Scotland is the thistle. The Scottish flag is the Cross of St. Andrew, a white diagonal cross on a dark blue background. The design originated in the 9th century and it is the oldest national flag still in use anywhere in the world. Other things associated with the country are [[kilts]] ([[tartan]] skirts worn by Scotsmen), and the haunting music of the [[bagpipes]]. Famous Scottish products include [[pie]]s, [[haggis]], toleys and Scotch [[whisky]].

Scotland's motto is ''Nemo Me Impune Lacessit'' ("No-one provokes me with impunity")<ref>http://www.scotland-guide.co.uk/ALL_AREAS_IN_SCOTLAND/Glasgow/Areas/Centre/Mercat_Cross.htm </ref> which translates as ''Wha daur meddle wi me?'' in [[Scots]] and in [[English]] as ''Who would dare mess with me?''.

==External Links==
*[http://www.n-cyclopedia.com/scottish-history/index.htm A Brief History of Scotland]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Scotland]]
[[Category:United Kingdom]]

Tyrannosaurus

2007-05-12T21:45:04Z

Jrssr5: /* Diet */ don't think carnivory is a word

[[Image:Tyrannosaurus rex.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Joe Tucciarone's illustration of a Tyrannosaurus rex. (Rights reserved, reproduced here with consent.)]]
The '''Tyrannosaurus rex''', or T-rex, was a large carnivorous [[dinosaur]] with very small forelimbs, large hind legs and a long tail. It is one of the largest land carnivores to have ever walked the earth, measuring about 13 meters long and 5 meters high.<ref>Brochu, C.R. 2003. Osteology of Tyrannosaurus rex: insights from a nearly complete skeleton and high-resolution computed tomographic analysis of the skull. Memoirs of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 7: 1-138.</ref>

[[Theory of evolution|Evolutionary]] scientists believe that the T-rex lived at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period, approximately 65 million years ago, and that modern birds are the descendants of dinosaurs such as T-rex. <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/04/12/dinosaur.reut/index.html Bird Family Ties]</ref><ref>[http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/ap_trex_tissues.html T Rex Tissue]</ref>

[[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] believe that they became extinct sometime since the [[Great Flood]], which was approximately 4,500 years ago.

== Fossils ==
The earliest find of a Tyrannosaurus rex occurred in 1892. In 1905, after additional discoveries of fossils, the president of the American Museum for Natural History named the dinosaur. Since then, more than 30 specimens have been found.

In 1990, amateur paleontologist Susan Hendrickson discovered the most complete Tyrannosaurus fossil yet. The fossil, named Sue, is also one of the largest Tyrannosaurus specimen discovered.<ref>Guinness World Records Ltd. (2003). 2003 Guinness World Records. pg 90.</ref>

Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer has discovered unfossilised soft tissue in T-rex skeletons. This was unexpected as tissue was not expected to last anything like 65 million years. Evolutionists saw this as evidence that tissue can last that long, whilst creationists saw it as evidence that the fossils were not that old.<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042 Still soft and stretchy], by Carl Wieland.</ref><ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html National Geographic - T. Rex Soft Tissue Found Preserved]</ref>

==Diet==

T-rex had forward-facing eyes, which gave it binocular vision. [[Vision|Binocular vision]] is usually present in carnivores, as it gives them better depth perception and helps them catch their prey<ref>[http://www.nhm.org/mammals/page010.html Natural History Museum - Mammals - Eat or be Eaten]</ref>, therefore it is very likely that Tyrannosaurus was a carnivore. Young earth creationists believe that the Tyrannosaurus, along with all other carnivores, was herbivorous in the [[Garden of Eden]] before the Fall, but afterwards they adapted to be [[carnivore|carnivorous]].

Some have suggested that T-rex was exclusively a scavenger. This may be partially true, since most carnivores today will happily scavenge available meat. However, it probably was not an ''exclusive'' scavenger, as most meat-eaters must also hunt in order to survive. T-rex's jaws were also quite adaptive to grabbing live prey, and probably used them in the same way most carnivores do: bit the throat to either crush the larynx and thus kill by suffocation or through blood loss. Also, the T-rex's large body probably required a great amount of food and therefore scavenging probably wouldn't be sufficient to support its high metabolism.<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3790/is_200103/ai_n8932547|</ref>

==Characteristics==

Evolutionists speculate that tyrannosaurs may have had feather precursors.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosaurus#Feathers Tyrannosaurus] (Wikipedia).</ref> However, fossils do not show feathers but merely pebbly skin impressions, which are typical of other dinosaurs. Feathers would certainly not have benefited the huge tyrannosaurus, any more than it would an elephant or a hippopotamus.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/04/13/t-rex-big-chicken] (Answers in Genesis)</ref>. However the young may have had a downy coat, like some modern birds.{{fact}}

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

Kangaroo

2007-05-12T21:38:08Z

Jrssr5: Undo revision 157618 by Special:Contributions/Darwindude (User talk:Darwindude) uncited, unnecessary

Tyrannosaurus

2007-05-12T21:37:31Z

Jrssr5: if you're going to make a claim like that you need a source

[[Image:Tyrannosaurus rex.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Joe Tucciarone's illustration of a Tyrannosaurus rex. (Rights reserved, reproduced here with consent.)]]
The '''Tyrannosaurus rex''', or T-rex, was a large carnivorous [[dinosaur]] with very small forelimbs, large hind legs and a long tail. It is one of the largest land carnivores to have ever walked the earth, measuring about 13 meters long and 5 meters high.<ref>Brochu, C.R. 2003. Osteology of Tyrannosaurus rex: insights from a nearly complete skeleton and high-resolution computed tomographic analysis of the skull. Memoirs of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 7: 1-138.</ref>

[[Theory of evolution|Evolutionary]] scientists believe that the T-rex lived at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period, approximately 65 million years ago, and that modern birds are the descendants of dinosaurs such as T-rex. <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/04/12/dinosaur.reut/index.html Bird Family Ties]</ref><ref>[http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/ap_trex_tissues.html T Rex Tissue]</ref>

[[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] believe that they became extinct sometime since the [[Great Flood]], which was approximately 4,500 years ago.

== Fossils ==
The earliest find of a Tyrannosaurus rex occurred in 1892. In 1905, after additional discoveries of fossils, the president of the American Museum for Natural History named the dinosaur. Since then, more than 30 specimens have been found.

In 1990, amateur paleontologist Susan Hendrickson discovered the most complete Tyrannosaurus fossil yet. The fossil, named Sue, is also one of the largest Tyrannosaurus specimen discovered.<ref>Guinness World Records Ltd. (2003). 2003 Guinness World Records. pg 90.</ref>

Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer has discovered unfossilised soft tissue in T-rex skeletons. This was unexpected as tissue was not expected to last anything like 65 million years. Evolutionists saw this as evidence that tissue can last that long, whilst creationists saw it as evidence that the fossils were not that old.<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042 Still soft and stretchy], by Carl Wieland.</ref><ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html National Geographic - T. Rex Soft Tissue Found Preserved]</ref>

==Diet==

T-rex had forward-facing eyes, which gave it binocular vision. [[Vision|Binocular vision]] is usually present in carnivores, as it gives them better depth perception and helps them catch their prey<ref>[http://www.nhm.org/mammals/page010.html Natural History Museum - Mammals - Eat or be Eaten]</ref>, therefore it is very likely that Tyrannosaurus was a carnivore. Young earth creationists believe that the Tyrannosaurus, along with all other carnivores, was herbivorous in the [[Garden of Eden]] before the Fall, but afterwards they likely adopted [[carnivore|carnivory]].

Some have suggested that T-rex was exclusively a scavenger. This may be partially true, since most carnivores today will happily scavenge available meat. However, it probably was not an ''exclusive'' scavenger, as most meat-eaters must also hunt in order to survive. T-rex's jaws were also quite adaptive to grabbing live prey, and probably used them in the same way most carnivores do: bit the throat to either crush the larynx and thus kill by suffocation or through blood loss. Also, the T-rex's large body probably required a great amount of food and therefore scavenging probably wouldn't be sufficient to support its high metabolism.<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3790/is_200103/ai_n8932547|</ref>

==Characteristics==

Evolutionists speculate that tyrannosaurs may have had feather precursors.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosaurus#Feathers Tyrannosaurus] (Wikipedia).</ref> However, fossils do not show feathers but merely pebbly skin impressions, which are typical of other dinosaurs. Feathers would certainly not have benefited the huge tyrannosaurus, any more than it would an elephant or a hippopotamus.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/04/13/t-rex-big-chicken] (Answers in Genesis)</ref>. Tyrannosaurs probably had a thick subcutaneous layer, which would insulate them during cold times. Also, since the tyrannosaurus probably lived in a tropical climate, it wouldn't need insulation. However, the young may have had a downy coat, like some modern birds.{{fact}}

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

Conservapedia:Abuse

2007-05-11T20:25:54Z

Jrssr5: /* Current Alerts */

'''This is where you can report abuse of editing privileges. Please make notes short and concise. Unsigned posts will be removed.'''
__TOC__
Sysops, please move notes down to 'old alerts' once the incident is closed.

Archives:
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive1|1]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive2|2]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive3|3]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive4|4]]

Other links:
*[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]]
*[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]]
*[[Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion|Articles for Deletion]]
*[[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates|Articles for Speedy Deletion]]
*[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]]

==Current Alerts==

*[[User:Flippin|Flippin]] Posted he was leaving for a while, left attack on CP and other users on page. Blocked two weeks. Pray for his returning rested and positive! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:15, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
**It appears that our "castles" are built out of very thin paper... gives me article/essay ideas, though. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 16:23, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
::Actually I think Sysops pages are castles, where as normal editors only live in the fields in mud huts. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:25, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|Cookieman}} - replacing pages with llamas. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 09:44, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
*Blocked by PhillipRayment. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 15:50, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|SeanTheSheep}} 2nd warning. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:09, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

*{{alert|Favor}} sock of icewedge --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 20:52, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Proof? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:56, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
:He has a user box that says AmesG is the leader of conservapedia. And I have been seeing a lot of vandalism on this site that has been saying icewedge thinks AmesG should be unbanned. --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 20:57, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
That's not proof. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:58, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
:It is easier to block and unblock later than to fix the pages that a person has vandalized. --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 21:00, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
::AmesG does a better job of getting himself blocked than any Admin here. He likes the attention, but I agree with DanH, that box isn't much "proof" and check it, several others do, or did, have that same box. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:36, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

*{{alert|Sacrificialzeus}} vandalized my user page and other pages. --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 15:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|Jesuslover143}} vandal. --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 15:08, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
*04:37, 8 May 2007, TK blocked Muschifresser (infinite, account creation blocked) (Parodist/Subtle Vandal: "Owing to their diet of eucalyptus leaves, which contain a volatile oil, Koalas are highly flammable. For this reason, it is recommended to consume them raw in the form of a carpaccio or Koala tartare."Also has sock,LordWhimsey‎ )
*04:38, 8 May 2007, TK blocked LordWhimsey (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (Sock of Muschifresser )

*{{alert|YouGuysSuck}}, replaced Theory of Relativity with insults.
:Blocked infinitely Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|Commodore Morgan}}, replacing user talk pages with "Icewedge has pwned Bronzefinger", in my case. [[User:Bronzefinger|Bronzefinger]] 13:04, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Blocked infinitely Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|Muschifresser}}, user name needs explanation. No apparent justification for blocking, but "Fresser" means "to eat like an animal," and "Muschi" is, uh, blocked by Google's Safe Search filtering. I'm about to leave a note on his Talk page. watch for his reply. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:50, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|Swordofdestiny}} using specious reasoning to defend a troublemaker. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:11, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Blocked by ed poor Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Boris Johnson, MP}} obscenity [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 15:45, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|The Black Angel of Death}} [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 15:40, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Czolgolz}} - Karajou says he lied about sources. [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Ed_Poor#Zugstein] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:21, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:User made a mistake Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Tennis Sweatshirt}} I think he might be icewedge and he also posted "This place is pretty worthless so I would leave Tennis Sweatshirt 12:29, 29 April 2007 (EDT)." So I am not sure if you can trust any of his edits as being of any worth. --'''[[User:AdrianP|Adrian]][[User talk:AdrianP|P]] 20:03, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Pokeisthemon}} mostly hunch, but I'm sure it's a sock of Icewedge. Should be watched closely, if not pre-emptively blocked. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Inconclusive on checkuser Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 16:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::Cool. My apologies to Poke. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:33, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|JoshuaZ}} Misleading edit summary + removed valid information from [[Noah]] article. Last 3 edits are questionable. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:11, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** I reviewed his unproductive edits and a short block is appropriate. Please proceed as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Fred]] -- questionable edits intended to embarass CP. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Censorship&diff=prev&oldid=46203][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Separation_of_church_and_state&diff=prev&oldid=41507] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|GeorgeJ.W.}} keeps to add seemingly parodic, biased nonsense to articles, often attacking free software for being "communist". --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 19:50, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
: Silly edits by GeorgeJ.W., I agree. Not quite enough to block him, but he's getting there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
::They're parodic, Andy, not silly, unless he's an utterly ignorant moron. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 07:47, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|Scorpion}}, vote fraud via sockpuppets. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 21:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|Hacker}} Review of Hacker's edits: slightly less than 500 edits, of which only about 6 are new entries and only about 10 are substantive edits of existing entries. One of the new entries was "Geek". Unless this improves quickly, I propose blocking this account because this violates the 90/10 rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::That seems disingenuous. Yes, he has only a few new pages, but he has made a number of templates. And, maybe I read the "total" incorrectly, but it said 307 edits? At the risk of sounding tautological, this user is quite useful, IMHO. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Flippin|Flippin]] defaced my user page [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Auld_Nick&oldid=151416 here] (my castle? [[User_talk:Aschlafly#User_page_a_person.27s_castle.3F|see here]]) also
:[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] added to [[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]]'s user page [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Ian_St_John&diff=151723&oldid=151721 here] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Ian_St_John&diff=151726&oldid=151723 here]. (his castle? [[User_talk:Aschlafly#User_page_a_person.27s_castle.3F|see here]]) [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 15:17, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

===Dealt with===
*All socks. Blocked infinite. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:23, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
#Hope (Latest: 02:38, 9 May 2007) (Earliest: 02:36, 9 May 2007) [3]
#Solstace (Latest: 01:46, 9 May 2007) (Earliest: 01:37, 9 May 2007) [2]
#Talk for me (Latest: 01:20, 8 May 2007) (Earliest: 01:20, 8 May 2007) [1]
*[[User:Auld Nick]]. In [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Kilt&diff=152957&oldid=152944 this edit], he added [[:Image:Soldiers wearing Kilts.jpg]], with the edit comment "Image of soldiers in kilts" and the picture caption "Kilted Scottish Soldiers paying respect to their fallen comrades." He does not say in the talk page or in an edit comment why he chose an image in which one soldier's kilt has been lifted by wind to expose part of his bare buttocks. The use of such an image ought to have been discussed in Talk. If the point was to illustrate that kilts are worn without underwear, and if he sincerely thought such an image was appropriate, then the edit comment should have said something like "Image showing that kilts are worn without underwear." Therefore, I consider the edit comment misleading, and that trips my threshold for labeling it as "abuse." Put plainly, it's my opinion that Auld Nick is figuratively mooning Conservapedia. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:57, 10 May 2007 (EDT) P. S. Undoubtedly a copyright violation, too, although widely reproduced all over the Net. It appears to be an Associated Press photograph of one Lee Wotherspoon in Hong Kong on April 24, 1997. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:05, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked for two hours. That'll larn 'im. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:40, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|CaptainCAVEMAN}} ought to be blocked. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked.
*{{user|Pussyfooter}} check out edits to [[Pudding]] [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:31, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|JeffersonDarcy}} He put "this user doesn't have a problem with calling a person a faggot" on my user page. He also deleted my post putting his name on the current alerts. --[[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 14:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked for 1 week. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Auld Nick}} User name means Satan ("Old Nick"). Uploaded picture of a man in a skirt and frilly blouse, mislabeled as "traditional attire". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*:- Ed, a kilt (pleated male skirt) and (on formal occasions) dress shirt with ruffles ''is'' traditional Scottish dress. [[User:Unthank|Unthank]] 07:26, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#You are both on probation. Let's see your writing plans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*Terreista and LambChop -blocked, socks of each other --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Alfa Papa}} causing havoc. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 17:18, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:It's a sock of Icewedge. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 19:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::'''Blocked''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:39, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Aydindrill}} Causing havoc. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 22:09, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
**'''Blocked''' by Aschlafly as a sock of icewedge. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 12:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:Staple]] -- vandalism and other questionable content. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:24, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
** Feel free to make my one-month block permanent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** Staple has many counterproductive edits, and potentially offensive ones by labeling users with categories. I lengthened his block to 1 month. I don't know anything about a "swastika" but feel free to make his block permanent if that is what it sounds like.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
***He had a swastika on his userpage[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
****The [[:Category:Liberal Users]] he created as a subcat of [[:Category:Communists]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Liberal_Users]; he & I were the only [[:Category:Conservative Users]] in that cat after he put a swastika on his User page.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Staple&diff=prev&oldid=132099] At a minimum this is incivility and trolling, and has little to do with his own use of his User page. A permanent block is warranted. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 02:04, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** Swastika alone justifies it. Good block.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:33, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[user:MontyZuma]], for instances of minor vandalism, and the creation of a profane page which involved moving an article into and changing the content. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm going to unblock him; this particular article he wrote is actually a dish, as I just found out. My apologies. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

* Please investigate [[User:RSchlafly]]'s edits to [[Geocentric theory]]. They are simply cutting out well-justified and relevant material, and there is no rationale given for the decision. This is tantamount to vandalism. [[User:OfficerDibble]]
:* I second that. [[User:RSchlafly]] hs been deleting and reverting a lot of my stuff and instead of debating the changes on the talk page he made statments like "Your beliefs are ridiculous". He has now protected the page so I can't make any changes.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:22, 6 May 2007 (EDT) This user is a sock of Icewedge and has been blocked.
:::I oppose this alert, at the risk of POV-pushing, geocentrism is risible IMO. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:39, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::::This is not the place for insults. Please see my detailed account on [[Talk:Geocentric theory]] before you make such judgements. --[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 04:19, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
*Insults? Where? Please don't make random accusatory posts, OfficerDibble, okay? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:01, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::"I oppose this alert, at the risk of POV-pushing, geocentrism is '''risible'''" I take "Risible" to be insulting, since I have worked long and hard to make the points I have on the article. --[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 05:27, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
*Well, if you object to furious editing of your work, and debate about it, a wiki is the wrong place for you. Your tone borders on the dramatic. If you are into drama, might I suggest working on one of the acting/dramatic arts pages? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:33, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
*:OfficerDibble and myself have been following the comandments of conservapedia, RSchlafly has been deleting our work with out discussing our valid points. Be even objects to relevent bible verses being included. And the page block prevents us from making any changes. Clearly we are in the right here, as can plainly be seen in the history and talk page of the article. Also I have not been blocked and I am not a "sock of icewedge".[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:11, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:'''No Action''' Rschlafly is a Sysop Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 12:12, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::So are we to take this to mean that Sysops have carte blanche and can do whatever they want whenever? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:44, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:*You are to take it per the CP Guidelines. [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Guidelines]] Failure to follow the directions of an Administrator, as to what is, and is not, appropriate behavior/content/actions, is a blockable offense. So is never-ending argument. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::TK, is a simple precise answer such as '''''No''', Sysops do not have carte blanche and cannot do whatever they want whenever they want'' to much to ask? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 05:02, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

*When you leave your glass house, Auld Nick, perhaps you would make a better spokesperson for transparency and short comments. Either you are completely obtuse, or just ignoring what the Guidelines say, for a better (read dramatic) retort. Obviously at any website in the world, Administrators have more leeway than users. Just as that aging hippy Jimbo has at WP. Anything else on your mind? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:48, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::Thank you for the [[Conservapedia:Civility|civil]] answer. That has clarified things for me. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 06:49, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I greatly resent users putting me on the spot about what another Sysop does or does not do. First, it isn't fair or polite. Secondly, if the intentions of the user were honorable, in my opinion, they wouldn't seek to make a public scene about it, and might, if they were using good manners, email about it. Is that really so unreasonable? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:03, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::::For the record we (or maybe just myself) didn't put you on the spot, the question was asked of Geo and you chose to respond. And I disagree about the honorable thing, if it is honorable, why not talk about it in public to let others decide. Doing things by email, behind everyone's backs make it seem like someone has something to hide. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 09:18, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Well of course you do. But I was addressing Auld Nick. Sorry, we all don't agree with your wiki ways of doing things. It is a software, not a way of life. Your post smacks of Wikipedia bullying, it won't work here. You are now warned. Don't continue this. Take it up with the Sysop in question. Geo, BTW, answered you; "No Action". --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:32, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::When you say your wiki ways, are you refering to me or Auld Nick again? And am I warned or Auld Nick? What wikipedia bullying tactics am I or Auld Nick using that are so different from you warning to block me or Auld Nick from this wiki? It is very hard to fill in the blanks and figure out what you mean when replies are very cryptic and sarcastic. And I did take it up with the sysop in question (as seen above), I asked Geo for an answer ''after'' he stated "No Action", he never replied. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 09:42, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

*Well, sorry to have confused you. By the way, the Sysop in question is RSchlafly, not Geo, not me. We merely attempted to provide answers, for which we have been whipped for. Now, take me seriously, no more on this. You have been given instruction by a Administrator to take it up with the Sysop you were/are complaining about, and told no action will be taken. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:54, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
*In response to the question by Jssr5, the reason for no action is that this is not the appropriate forum to debate tohe actions of a current Sysop. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 22:17, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Scotland

2007-05-11T20:22:52Z

Jrssr5: /* Cities */

{{Protected|TK}}

One thing; it's slightly disputed that Golf is a Scottish invention, just wondered if it should be in there... btw no offence to Scots genuine concern --[[User:Daerean|Daerean]] 15:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

in scottland, the kilt(that spelled right?) isnt that like your family's colors? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 11:54, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes Will N, the kilt is a tradtional dress still worn at weddings and social functions that is made in the clan (think family) tartan. Each tartan is comprised of colours specific to that family.

And Ed Poor, please can you stop removing the kilt picture. It is incredibly disrespectful to the Scots to remove not only a picture depicting their National dress but also their First Minister. The kilt has nothing to do with homosexuality, which frankly, is a topic that is discussed far too often on this site. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 12:16, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== Kilts ==

Kilts are an item of dress, it is the tartan that has an association with families, or more accurately, Clan. In addition many public bodies have their own particular tartan. In the picture, Jack McConnell is seen wearing a pin-stripe kilt as part of an effort to promote Tartan Day.

Kilts are often made from Family/Clan Tartans, though not exclusively - there are many designs that have no particular family affiliation (such as Regimental designs) - Kilts are aso worn with somewhat plainer designs as well, and have even been made from leather..
I think the map is more appropriate than the pic of Jack McConnell - he is an elected representative, and does not necessarily epitomise Scottishness (indeed - pending the outcome of the general election on Thursday 03-May-2007, he may or may not continue as First Minister.) --[[User:SpinnakerMagic|SpinnakerMagic]] 17:45, 01 May 2007 (BST)

I've replaced the picture with one more <s>dull</s> appropriate.[[User:LordWhimsey|LordWhimsey]] 08:49, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== homosexuality and the kilt - the link ==
[[Image:JackMcConnell.png|right|thumb|A scotsman wearing his skirt (known as a [[kilt]] in Scotland)]]'
em there is none - and I suggest any americans who visit scotland don't make suggest that linkage to members of, for example, her Maj's 51 (Scottish) Brigade. A frank and full exchange of viewpoints might then occur! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 15:05, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:This being Conservapedia, surely one would expect the description of Scotland by the leading [[conservative]] [[Christian]] [[Pat Robertson]], to be included in the article. He described Scotland as a "''dark country full of [[homosexual]]s''"<ref>http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9906/02/scotland.robertson/</ref>. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 05:57, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::Not in the lead. And not [[out of context]]. Also, a photo of a man in a skirt rather than in a traditional plaid [[kilt]] makes more of a statement about [[homosexuality]], [[gender identity disorder]] or [[cross-dressing]] than it does about Scotland. Try to keep your mind on the purpose of this project. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:33, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::What? since when is a skirt and a kilt the same thing? Ed, you're way in the wrong on this one. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:42, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Ed, you are wrong - check out this website to see how the kilt is evolving - traditional kilts are only part of it [http://www.21stcenturykilts.com/home.htm].

::::Wrong about what? Please restate the assertion you think I have made. (The fashion photo you showed me of contemporary young people doesn't tell me what you mean.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:58, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: You asserted that "a photo of a man in a skirt rather than in a traditional plaid kilt makes more of a statement about homosexuality, gender identity disorder or cross-dressing than it does about Scotland." Whereas the link I provided shows that all kinds of non-traditional materials (denim, leather, camouflage patterns, tweed, pinstripe suit cloth, etc.) are being used to make kilts. The photo is of a man in a modern kilt. You assert that it is a skirt. Homosexuality and transvestisism are in no way associated with modern kilts. You assert that they are. To Scots, such words are particularly offensive.[[User:LordWhimsey|LordWhimsey]] 09:06, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:Ed Poor|Ed]], even if the quote was [[out of context]] what is wrong with showing the conservative view of Scotland? Pro-Gaiety and homosexualism is rife in Scotland:
::*The repeal of laws banning the promotion of homosexuality in schools <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/800673.stm</ref>
::*The legalisation of so called gay marriage <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4494882.stm </ref>
::*Allowing homosexuals to adopt children <ref>http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1356432006 </ref>
::*Allowing homosexual teachers to teach homosexual sex to children <ref>http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=754672006</ref>
::*Open encouragement of homosexual soldiers and policemen <ref>http://www.gpascotland.com/050827.htm</ref>
::*The banning of pro-Christian opinions at sports events <ref>http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=387732007</ref>
::Those are just a few from the multitude of examples of how the [[homosexual agenda]] is permeating Scotland. Surely Scotland is a "''dark country full of [[homosexual]]s''" and this should be reflected here?
::[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 09:07, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Kilts are *not* skirts - the difference isn't subtle... it's interesting the connection some draw between 'cross-dressing' and kilt wearing; whenever I wear my kilt (especially in England and elsewhere) it usually attracts lots of attention from women...
'a dark country full of homosexuals' - I'm not even going to be drawn on that one, but featuring it prominently hardly does anything for the credibility of the article as a whole. --[[User:SpinnakerMagic|SpinnakerMagic]] 15:03, 02 May 2007 (BST)

:Spin, your statement that a [[kilt]] is not a skirt disagrees with the caption Nick put on the image to our upper right. The words ''Scotsman wearing his skirt (known as a [[kilt]] in Scotland)'' imply (1) that the man was wearing a skirt and (2) that a skirt is known as a kilt in Scotland.

:Would the two of you please sort this out. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:09, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I see your point. The article that Jack McConnell is wearing is a kilt. Skirts are not known as kilts - the two words are not synonymous. Although kilts are mostly associated with male attire, this isn't universally true by any means. --[[User:SpinnakerMagic|SpinnakerMagic]] 15:21, 02 May 2007 (BST)

Might be worth clarifying the whole kilt issue, either by adding to this article (Traditional Attire section?) or by creating a separate linked page for the kilt. Perhaps one of our resident Scots would be able to? --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 13:06, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd be happy that the image be replaced with a piper but I'm having difficulty finding a fair use one. Probably worth noting that most images of pipers will be in full ceremonial garb (kilt, sporran, etc). Perhaps someone will have more luck than I finding a suitable image. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 13:24, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

At the risk of going round in circles, again the Pat Robertson comment - with respect, who is this guy? (I don't mean literally - I know who he is) There is no indication of how his opinion is relevant - whether or not you consider it to be true, it just sounds like abuse, which just undermines the credibility of (at least) the whole article. --[[User:SpinnakerMagic|SpinnakerMagic]] 11:04, 04 May 2007 (BST)

:Mr. Robertson's opinion is important as an example of Conservative thinking. Here at Conservapedia [[homosexuality]] is taken very seriously as can be seen at that article and others such as [[homosexual agenda]], [[gay rights]], [[homophobia]] and their accompanying talk pages. It is important that such matters are given a prominent position in Conservapedia, for example the [[Main Page]] news items such as [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Tfa&oldid=139637 this], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Tfa&oldid=131062 this], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Tfa&oldid=130326 this] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Tfa&oldid=85632 this]. Such conservative facts ([[Conservapedia:Differences with Wikipedia|Differences with Wikipedia No. 9]]) are always displayed prominently and not censored like at the [[Liberal bias|liberally biased]] [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|Wikipedia]]. In fact I think the information in question should appear right at the top of the article.
:[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 15:12, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::Ok. Pat Robertson's opinions are clearly in line with many(most? ..I don't know) conservative thinkers, at least in the US. ('Conservative' has a related but slightly different meaning in the UK)

::(from [[Racism]]) 'Racism is making broad generalizations about a group of people based on percieved notions' - articles in the press are designed to be provocative and inflammatory - that doesn't necessarily cast doubt on the truth of the information they refer to, but they are far from a foolproof source, not very indicative of the nature of a culture.
::I'm not accusing Pat Robertson of racism, but he's a bit close to the wire. (I suspect he would argue about 'perceived notions' - and whether he was making a 'broad generalisation')

::I'm not sure what you mean by 'Conservative Facts' - it's definitely a fact that Pat Robertson said that, but the truth of it is a different thing altogether..

::I understand that it is important that the guiding principles of Conservapedia are enforced, but the article seems to have more to say about the authors' abhorrence of homosexuality than it does about it's subject matter - irrespective of your views, that doesn't do any good at all. [[User:SpinnakerMagic|SpinnakerMagic]] 11:03, 07 May 2007 (BST)

==References==
<references/>

== Cities ==

Six? [[Inverness]] is very small for a city. Inhabitants of [[Perth]] (which is much larger) and elsewhere will be annoyed by not being mentioned.

You might usefully put a link somewhere here to [[Category:Scottish Towns and Cities]]. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 13:36, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:That's partly why I added in the word "major" to the section. That way other cities wouldn't feel as slighted since it'd be near impossible to add every single one to the list. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:46, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::I meant to say, ''You might usefully put a link somewhere here to'' <nowiki>[[Category:Scottish Towns and Cities]]</nowiki>. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 14:55, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Gotcha ... unfortunately you'll have to go to a sysop now as the article is re-locked. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:22, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Abuse

2007-05-11T20:20:30Z

Jrssr5:

'''This is where you can report abuse of editing privileges. Please make notes short and concise. Unsigned posts will be removed.'''
__TOC__
Sysops, please move notes down to 'old alerts' once the incident is closed.

Archives:
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive1|1]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive2|2]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive3|3]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive4|4]]

Other links:
*[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]]
*[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]]
*[[Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion|Articles for Deletion]]
*[[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates|Articles for Speedy Deletion]]
*[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]]

==Current Alerts==

*[[User:Flippin|Flippin]] Posted he was leaving for a while, left attack on CP and other users on page. Blocked two weeks. Pray for his returning rested and positive! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:15, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|Cookieman}} - replacing pages with llamas. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 09:44, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
*Blocked by PhillipRayment. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 15:50, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|SeanTheSheep}} 2nd warning. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:09, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

*{{alert|Favor}} sock of icewedge --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 20:52, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Proof? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:56, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
:He has a user box that says AmesG is the leader of conservapedia. And I have been seeing a lot of vandalism on this site that has been saying icewedge thinks AmesG should be unbanned. --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 20:57, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
That's not proof. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:58, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
:It is easier to block and unblock later than to fix the pages that a person has vandalized. --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 21:00, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
::AmesG does a better job of getting himself blocked than any Admin here. He likes the attention, but I agree with DanH, that box isn't much "proof" and check it, several others do, or did, have that same box. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:36, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

*{{alert|Sacrificialzeus}} vandalized my user page and other pages. --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 15:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|Jesuslover143}} vandal. --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 15:08, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
*04:37, 8 May 2007, TK blocked Muschifresser (infinite, account creation blocked) (Parodist/Subtle Vandal: "Owing to their diet of eucalyptus leaves, which contain a volatile oil, Koalas are highly flammable. For this reason, it is recommended to consume them raw in the form of a carpaccio or Koala tartare."Also has sock,LordWhimsey‎ )
*04:38, 8 May 2007, TK blocked LordWhimsey (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (Sock of Muschifresser )

*{{alert|YouGuysSuck}}, replaced Theory of Relativity with insults.
:Blocked infinitely Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|Commodore Morgan}}, replacing user talk pages with "Icewedge has pwned Bronzefinger", in my case. [[User:Bronzefinger|Bronzefinger]] 13:04, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Blocked infinitely Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|Muschifresser}}, user name needs explanation. No apparent justification for blocking, but "Fresser" means "to eat like an animal," and "Muschi" is, uh, blocked by Google's Safe Search filtering. I'm about to leave a note on his Talk page. watch for his reply. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:50, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|Swordofdestiny}} using specious reasoning to defend a troublemaker. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:11, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Blocked by ed poor Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Boris Johnson, MP}} obscenity [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 15:45, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|The Black Angel of Death}} [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 15:40, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Czolgolz}} - Karajou says he lied about sources. [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Ed_Poor#Zugstein] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:21, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:User made a mistake Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Tennis Sweatshirt}} I think he might be icewedge and he also posted "This place is pretty worthless so I would leave Tennis Sweatshirt 12:29, 29 April 2007 (EDT)." So I am not sure if you can trust any of his edits as being of any worth. --'''[[User:AdrianP|Adrian]][[User talk:AdrianP|P]] 20:03, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Pokeisthemon}} mostly hunch, but I'm sure it's a sock of Icewedge. Should be watched closely, if not pre-emptively blocked. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Inconclusive on checkuser Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 16:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::Cool. My apologies to Poke. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:33, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|JoshuaZ}} Misleading edit summary + removed valid information from [[Noah]] article. Last 3 edits are questionable. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:11, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** I reviewed his unproductive edits and a short block is appropriate. Please proceed as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Fred]] -- questionable edits intended to embarass CP. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Censorship&diff=prev&oldid=46203][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Separation_of_church_and_state&diff=prev&oldid=41507] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|GeorgeJ.W.}} keeps to add seemingly parodic, biased nonsense to articles, often attacking free software for being "communist". --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 19:50, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
: Silly edits by GeorgeJ.W., I agree. Not quite enough to block him, but he's getting there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
::They're parodic, Andy, not silly, unless he's an utterly ignorant moron. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 07:47, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|Scorpion}}, vote fraud via sockpuppets. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 21:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|Hacker}} Review of Hacker's edits: slightly less than 500 edits, of which only about 6 are new entries and only about 10 are substantive edits of existing entries. One of the new entries was "Geek". Unless this improves quickly, I propose blocking this account because this violates the 90/10 rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::That seems disingenuous. Yes, he has only a few new pages, but he has made a number of templates. And, maybe I read the "total" incorrectly, but it said 307 edits? At the risk of sounding tautological, this user is quite useful, IMHO. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Flippin|Flippin]] defaced my user page [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Auld_Nick&oldid=151416 here] (my castle? [[User_talk:Aschlafly#User_page_a_person.27s_castle.3F|see here]]) also
:[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] added to [[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]]'s user page [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Ian_St_John&diff=151723&oldid=151721 here] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Ian_St_John&diff=151726&oldid=151723 here]. (his castle? [[User_talk:Aschlafly#User_page_a_person.27s_castle.3F|see here]]) [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 15:17, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

===Dealt with===
*All socks. Blocked infinite. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:23, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
#Hope (Latest: 02:38, 9 May 2007) (Earliest: 02:36, 9 May 2007) [3]
#Solstace (Latest: 01:46, 9 May 2007) (Earliest: 01:37, 9 May 2007) [2]
#Talk for me (Latest: 01:20, 8 May 2007) (Earliest: 01:20, 8 May 2007) [1]
*[[User:Auld Nick]]. In [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Kilt&diff=152957&oldid=152944 this edit], he added [[:Image:Soldiers wearing Kilts.jpg]], with the edit comment "Image of soldiers in kilts" and the picture caption "Kilted Scottish Soldiers paying respect to their fallen comrades." He does not say in the talk page or in an edit comment why he chose an image in which one soldier's kilt has been lifted by wind to expose part of his bare buttocks. The use of such an image ought to have been discussed in Talk. If the point was to illustrate that kilts are worn without underwear, and if he sincerely thought such an image was appropriate, then the edit comment should have said something like "Image showing that kilts are worn without underwear." Therefore, I consider the edit comment misleading, and that trips my threshold for labeling it as "abuse." Put plainly, it's my opinion that Auld Nick is figuratively mooning Conservapedia. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:57, 10 May 2007 (EDT) P. S. Undoubtedly a copyright violation, too, although widely reproduced all over the Net. It appears to be an Associated Press photograph of one Lee Wotherspoon in Hong Kong on April 24, 1997. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:05, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked for two hours. That'll larn 'im. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:40, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|CaptainCAVEMAN}} ought to be blocked. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked.
*{{user|Pussyfooter}} check out edits to [[Pudding]] [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:31, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|JeffersonDarcy}} He put "this user doesn't have a problem with calling a person a faggot" on my user page. He also deleted my post putting his name on the current alerts. --[[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 14:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked for 1 week. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Auld Nick}} User name means Satan ("Old Nick"). Uploaded picture of a man in a skirt and frilly blouse, mislabeled as "traditional attire". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*:- Ed, a kilt (pleated male skirt) and (on formal occasions) dress shirt with ruffles ''is'' traditional Scottish dress. [[User:Unthank|Unthank]] 07:26, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#You are both on probation. Let's see your writing plans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*Terreista and LambChop -blocked, socks of each other --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Alfa Papa}} causing havoc. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 17:18, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:It's a sock of Icewedge. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 19:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::'''Blocked''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:39, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Aydindrill}} Causing havoc. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 22:09, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
**'''Blocked''' by Aschlafly as a sock of icewedge. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 12:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:Staple]] -- vandalism and other questionable content. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:24, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
** Feel free to make my one-month block permanent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** Staple has many counterproductive edits, and potentially offensive ones by labeling users with categories. I lengthened his block to 1 month. I don't know anything about a "swastika" but feel free to make his block permanent if that is what it sounds like.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
***He had a swastika on his userpage[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
****The [[:Category:Liberal Users]] he created as a subcat of [[:Category:Communists]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Liberal_Users]; he & I were the only [[:Category:Conservative Users]] in that cat after he put a swastika on his User page.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Staple&diff=prev&oldid=132099] At a minimum this is incivility and trolling, and has little to do with his own use of his User page. A permanent block is warranted. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 02:04, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** Swastika alone justifies it. Good block.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:33, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[user:MontyZuma]], for instances of minor vandalism, and the creation of a profane page which involved moving an article into and changing the content. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm going to unblock him; this particular article he wrote is actually a dish, as I just found out. My apologies. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

* Please investigate [[User:RSchlafly]]'s edits to [[Geocentric theory]]. They are simply cutting out well-justified and relevant material, and there is no rationale given for the decision. This is tantamount to vandalism. [[User:OfficerDibble]]
:* I second that. [[User:RSchlafly]] hs been deleting and reverting a lot of my stuff and instead of debating the changes on the talk page he made statments like "Your beliefs are ridiculous". He has now protected the page so I can't make any changes.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:22, 6 May 2007 (EDT) This user is a sock of Icewedge and has been blocked.
:::I oppose this alert, at the risk of POV-pushing, geocentrism is risible IMO. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:39, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::::This is not the place for insults. Please see my detailed account on [[Talk:Geocentric theory]] before you make such judgements. --[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 04:19, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
*Insults? Where? Please don't make random accusatory posts, OfficerDibble, okay? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:01, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::"I oppose this alert, at the risk of POV-pushing, geocentrism is '''risible'''" I take "Risible" to be insulting, since I have worked long and hard to make the points I have on the article. --[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 05:27, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
*Well, if you object to furious editing of your work, and debate about it, a wiki is the wrong place for you. Your tone borders on the dramatic. If you are into drama, might I suggest working on one of the acting/dramatic arts pages? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:33, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
*:OfficerDibble and myself have been following the comandments of conservapedia, RSchlafly has been deleting our work with out discussing our valid points. Be even objects to relevent bible verses being included. And the page block prevents us from making any changes. Clearly we are in the right here, as can plainly be seen in the history and talk page of the article. Also I have not been blocked and I am not a "sock of icewedge".[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:11, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:'''No Action''' Rschlafly is a Sysop Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 12:12, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::So are we to take this to mean that Sysops have carte blanche and can do whatever they want whenever? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:44, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:*You are to take it per the CP Guidelines. [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Guidelines]] Failure to follow the directions of an Administrator, as to what is, and is not, appropriate behavior/content/actions, is a blockable offense. So is never-ending argument. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::TK, is a simple precise answer such as '''''No''', Sysops do not have carte blanche and cannot do whatever they want whenever they want'' to much to ask? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 05:02, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

*When you leave your glass house, Auld Nick, perhaps you would make a better spokesperson for transparency and short comments. Either you are completely obtuse, or just ignoring what the Guidelines say, for a better (read dramatic) retort. Obviously at any website in the world, Administrators have more leeway than users. Just as that aging hippy Jimbo has at WP. Anything else on your mind? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:48, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::Thank you for the [[Conservapedia:Civility|civil]] answer. That has clarified things for me. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 06:49, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I greatly resent users putting me on the spot about what another Sysop does or does not do. First, it isn't fair or polite. Secondly, if the intentions of the user were honorable, in my opinion, they wouldn't seek to make a public scene about it, and might, if they were using good manners, email about it. Is that really so unreasonable? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:03, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::::For the record we (or maybe just myself) didn't put you on the spot, the question was asked of Geo and you chose to respond. And I disagree about the honorable thing, if it is honorable, why not talk about it in public to let others decide. Doing things by email, behind everyone's backs make it seem like someone has something to hide. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 09:18, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Well of course you do. But I was addressing Auld Nick. Sorry, we all don't agree with your wiki ways of doing things. It is a software, not a way of life. Your post smacks of Wikipedia bullying, it won't work here. You are now warned. Don't continue this. Take it up with the Sysop in question. Geo, BTW, answered you; "No Action". --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:32, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::When you say your wiki ways, are you refering to me or Auld Nick again? And am I warned or Auld Nick? What wikipedia bullying tactics am I or Auld Nick using that are so different from you warning to block me or Auld Nick from this wiki? It is very hard to fill in the blanks and figure out what you mean when replies are very cryptic and sarcastic. And I did take it up with the sysop in question (as seen above), I asked Geo for an answer ''after'' he stated "No Action", he never replied. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 09:42, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

*Well, sorry to have confused you. By the way, the Sysop in question is RSchlafly, not Geo, not me. We merely attempted to provide answers, for which we have been whipped for. Now, take me seriously, no more on this. You have been given instruction by a Administrator to take it up with the Sysop you were/are complaining about, and told no action will be taken. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:54, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
*In response to the question by Jssr5, the reason for no action is that this is not the appropriate forum to debate tohe actions of a current Sysop. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 22:17, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Scotland

2007-05-11T17:46:15Z

Jrssr5: /* Cities */

Walmart

2007-05-11T16:48:57Z

Jrssr5: fixed reference

[[Image:Walmart.jpg|thumb|The Wal-Mart logo and slogan]]

'''Wal-Mart''' is America's largest employer, running a chain of no-frills department stores. It mainly sell [[import]]s of products manufactured in [[China]].<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/secrets/wmchina.html Is Wal-Mart good for America?]</ref>

Wal-Mart is often the subject of criticism for paying low [[wage]]s without [[fringe benefit|health benefits]] and allegedly forcing "Mom and Pop" stores out of business. The company's defenders reply that Wal-Mart is a well-known provider of decent employment and cheap merchandise across America and the rest of the world. Wal-Mart's wages average significantly higher than minimum wage.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Companies]]

The South

2007-05-11T16:47:36Z

Jrssr5: citations needed

'''The South''' is a collection of eleven states in the southeastern [[United States]]: [[South Carolina]], [[Mississippi]], [[Florida]], [[Alabama]], [[Georgia]], [[Louisiana]], [[Texas]], [[Virginia]], [[Arkansas]], [[Tennessee]], [[North Carolina]], [[Missouri]], and [[Kentucky]].{{fact}}

Although these states once fought against the [[United States]] in the [[Civil War]], today they are known for their patriotism and commitment to morality in government. The South consists of [[red state]]s and is one of the strongholds of the [[Republican]] party and the [[Ku Klux Klan]].

Virtually all modern music, including [[jazz]], [[rap]], [[rock and roll]], and [[country and western]] styles, originated in the South.{{fact}}

Virtually all property acquired by the United States was at the urging of the South.{{fact}}

The South has always volunteered and served in the Armed Forces in disproportionately high numbers.{{fact}}

Scotland

2007-05-11T16:41:41Z

Jrssr5: reordered to make more sense

'''Scotland''' is the second largest country of the [[United Kingdom]].
It is about three-eighths the size of its larger neighbor England, but is much less populous; most of the population lives in the ''central belt'', a band across central Scotland between the capital [[Edinburgh]] and the city of [[Glasgow]]. Other cities are [[Aberdeen]], [[Dundee]] and [[Inverness]].

== Introduction ==
[[Image:JackMcConnell.png|right|thumb|[[Jack McConnell]]. 3rd.[[First Minister of Scotland]] 2001-2007. A leading figure in the implementation of the alleged homosexual agenda.]]
Scotland is historically Christian, the national church is the [[Church of Scotland]] and it is sympathetic to the the [[homosexual agenda]]<ref>[http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/generalassembly/downloads/gareports07manddchallengetounity.rtf A challenge to unity: same-sex relationships as an issue in theology and human sexuality]</ref>. This has led the leading [[conservative]] [[Christian]] [[Pat Robertson]] to describe Scotland as "dark country full of [[homosexuals]]"<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9906/02/scotland.robertson/ 'Dark land' with 'strong homosexuals,' televangelist says]</ref>. This homosexual agenda is exemplified by the repeal of laws banning the promotion of homosexuality in schools<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/800673.stm MSPs abolish Section 28]</ref>, the legalization of [[same-sex marriage]]<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4494882.stm Same-sex couples embrace equality ]</ref>, the [[adoption]] of children by homosexuals<ref>[http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1356432006 MSPs approve gay adoption]</ref>, teaching homosexuality in schools<ref>[http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=754672006 Schools told to give pupils gay sex advice]</ref>, [[affirmative action]] for homosexual soldiers and policemen<ref>[http://www.gpascotland.com/050827.htm Army marches in Gay Pride parade]</ref>, forcing religious schools to employ [[Atheism|atheist]] teachers<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4787496.stm Atheist teacher wins job tribunal]</ref>, an increase in [[abortion]]<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5012064.stm Abortion level at all-time high]</ref>, protection for [[Child molesting|pedophiles]] <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4031625.stm 'Make friends with a pedophile']</ref> and the banning of the expression of pro-Christian sentiment at sports events<ref>[http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=387732007 Anti-gay chants to be banned from terraces]</ref>.

Scotland includes the island groups of [[Orkney]], [[Shetland]], the [[Inner Hebrides|Inner]] and [[Outer Hebrides]], the islands of the [[Firth of Clyde]] including [[Arran]], [[Bute]], [[Cumbrae]] & [[Wee Cumbrae]] and various other smaller islands.

[[Ben Nevis]], the highest mountain in the [[United Kingdom]], is in the Scottish [[Highlands of Scotland|Highlands]], as are most of the nations highest mountains. Those with heights above 914m (300 feet) are eponymously named [[Munro| Munros]] after Sir Hector Munro, the first person to compile such a list.<ref> for a complete list of Munros see http://www.sol.co.uk/d/dickwall/munroes.htm</ref>

== History ==
Scotland has been inhabited since at least 8500BC, when the first [[Mesolithic]] hunter-gatherers are thought to have migrated to Scotland. These inhabitants showed advanced knowledge of astronomy, creating several [[Stonehenge]]-like sculptures.

==Union with England==

[[Image:Lion rampant.png|thumb|right|The Scottish Royal Coat of Arms- Better known as the Lion Rampant]]

After the death of Queen [[Elizabeth I]] of England in 1603, James VI of Scotland ascended to the Throne of England, becoming [[James I]] of England. He was the first monarch to call himself King of Great Britain. This is referred to as the Union of the Crowns. James was also at this time King of [[Ireland]].

The Parliaments of Scotland and [[England]] were not united until 1707 and it is this date that is recognized as the formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. This is referred to as the Union of the Parliaments. The formation of the [[Irish Republic]] in 1922 resulted in the current name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Scotland has its own Parliament of 129 members as well as sending 59 Members of Parliament(MPs) to represent its interests in the [[United Kingdom]] parliament which sits in [[London]]. Scottish MPs have historically been recognized for their political skills and appointed to the Cabinet in larger numbers than is proportionate. The current [[Chancellor of the Exchequer]], and expected future prime minister [[Gordon Brown]], is Scottish.

Relationships between Scottish and English MPs before [[devolution]] were sometimes tense because of what the former [[Conservative|Conservative Party]] MP, by then an [[Ulster Unionist]], [[Enoch Powell]] dubbed ''The West Lothian question''. The name arose in 1977 after [[Tam Dalyell]], Labour MP for West Lothian in Scotland, asked during a debate in the [[Houses of Parliament]] over Scottish and Welsh [[devolution]]:

<blockquote>''For how long will English constituencies and English Honourable members tolerate... at least 119 Honourable Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on British politics while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?''</blockquote>

He pointed out that he as MP for West Lothian could vote on matters affecting English constituencies but not his own constituency.

==Cities==
[[Image:Scotland.gif|thumb|right|250px|A map of Scotland.]]

Scotland has six major cities. They are [[Aberdeen]], [[Dundee]], [[Edinburgh]], [[Glasgow]], [[Inverness]] and [[Stirling]].

== Sports and culture==

The national preoccupation is football ([[soccer]]). Other diversions include [[rugby union]], lawn bowls, [[chanty wrassling]] (a native form of [[wrestling]]), [[pocket billiards]], shinty (similar to hockey), [[cricket]], [[curling]], sports of the [[Highland Games]] - such as tossing the caber and, of course, [[golf]] - Scotland is the home of golf. The Royal and Ancient Golf Club at [[St Andrews]] is the governing body of world golf.

[[Scotland]]'s 'other' national drink, Irn Bru (formerly "Iron Brew"), is a bubblegum-flavored carbonated drink manufactured by A.G.Barr of [[Glasgow]], and claims to be "made in Scotland from girders". An advert for it uses the music and animation style of "[[The Snowman]]".

Scotland is famous for its disproportionate amount of inventions and discoveries (as immortalized in [[Wha's Like Us]]), its world class universities, the Scottish Enlightenment, being the one of the first industrial nations while still preserving some of the last great wildernesses of Europe, and being the home of [[golf]].

The symbol of Scotland is the thistle. The Scottish flag is the Cross of St. Andrew, a white diagonal cross on a dark blue background. The design originated in the 9th century and it is the oldest national flag still in use anywhere in the world. Other things associated with the country are [[kilts]] ([[tartan]] skirts worn by Scotsmen), and the haunting music of the [[bagpipes]]. Famous Scottish products include [[pie]]s, [[haggis]], toleys and Scotch [[whisky]].

Scotland's motto is ''Nemo Me Impune Lacessit'' ("No-one provokes me with impunity")<ref>http://www.scotland-guide.co.uk/ALL_AREAS_IN_SCOTLAND/Glasgow/Areas/Centre/Mercat_Cross.htm </ref> which translates as ''Wha daur meddle wi me?'' in [[Scots]] and in [[English]] as ''Who would dare mess with me?''.

==External Links==
*[http://www.n-cyclopedia.com/scottish-history/index.htm A Brief History of Scotland]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Scotland]]
[[Category:United Kingdom]]

Scotland

2007-05-11T16:40:50Z

Jrssr5:

== Introduction ==
'''Scotland''' is the second largest country of the [[United Kingdom]].
It is about three-eighths the size of its larger neighbor England, but is much less populous; most of the population lives in the ''central belt'', a band across central Scotland between the capital [[Edinburgh]] and the city of [[Glasgow]]. Other cities are [[Aberdeen]], [[Dundee]] and [[Inverness]].
[[Image:JackMcConnell.png|right|thumb|[[Jack McConnell]]. 3rd.[[First Minister of Scotland]] 2001-2007. A leading figure in the implementation of the alleged homosexual agenda.]]
Scotland is historically Christian, the national church is the [[Church of Scotland]] and it is sympathetic to the the [[homosexual agenda]]<ref>[http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/generalassembly/downloads/gareports07manddchallengetounity.rtf A challenge to unity: same-sex relationships as an issue in theology and human sexuality]</ref>. This has led the leading [[conservative]] [[Christian]] [[Pat Robertson]] to describe Scotland as "dark country full of [[homosexuals]]"<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9906/02/scotland.robertson/ 'Dark land' with 'strong homosexuals,' televangelist says]</ref>. This homosexual agenda is exemplified by the repeal of laws banning the promotion of homosexuality in schools<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/800673.stm MSPs abolish Section 28]</ref>, the legalization of [[same-sex marriage]]<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4494882.stm Same-sex couples embrace equality ]</ref>, the [[adoption]] of children by homosexuals<ref>[http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1356432006 MSPs approve gay adoption]</ref>, teaching homosexuality in schools<ref>[http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=754672006 Schools told to give pupils gay sex advice]</ref>, [[affirmative action]] for homosexual soldiers and policemen<ref>[http://www.gpascotland.com/050827.htm Army marches in Gay Pride parade]</ref>, forcing religious schools to employ [[Atheism|atheist]] teachers<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4787496.stm Atheist teacher wins job tribunal]</ref>, an increase in [[abortion]]<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5012064.stm Abortion level at all-time high]</ref>, protection for [[Child molesting|pedophiles]] <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4031625.stm 'Make friends with a pedophile']</ref> and the banning of the expression of pro-Christian sentiment at sports events<ref>[http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=387732007 Anti-gay chants to be banned from terraces]</ref>.

Scotland includes the island groups of [[Orkney]], [[Shetland]], the [[Inner Hebrides|Inner]] and [[Outer Hebrides]], the islands of the [[Firth of Clyde]] including [[Arran]], [[Bute]], [[Cumbrae]] & [[Wee Cumbrae]] and various other smaller islands.

[[Ben Nevis]], the highest mountain in the [[United Kingdom]], is in the Scottish [[Highlands of Scotland|Highlands]], as are most of the nations highest mountains. Those with heights above 914m (300 feet) are eponymously named [[Munro| Munros]] after Sir Hector Munro, the first person to compile such a list.<ref> for a complete list of Munros see http://www.sol.co.uk/d/dickwall/munroes.htm</ref>

== History ==
Scotland has been inhabited since at least 8500BC, when the first [[Mesolithic]] hunter-gatherers are thought to have migrated to Scotland. These inhabitants showed advanced knowledge of astronomy, creating several [[Stonehenge]]-like sculptures.

==Union with England==

[[Image:Lion rampant.png|thumb|right|The Scottish Royal Coat of Arms- Better known as the Lion Rampant]]

After the death of Queen [[Elizabeth I]] of England in 1603, James VI of Scotland ascended to the Throne of England, becoming [[James I]] of England. He was the first monarch to call himself King of Great Britain. This is referred to as the Union of the Crowns. James was also at this time King of [[Ireland]].

The Parliaments of Scotland and [[England]] were not united until 1707 and it is this date that is recognized as the formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. This is referred to as the Union of the Parliaments. The formation of the [[Irish Republic]] in 1922 resulted in the current name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Scotland has its own Parliament of 129 members as well as sending 59 Members of Parliament(MPs) to represent its interests in the [[United Kingdom]] parliament which sits in [[London]]. Scottish MPs have historically been recognized for their political skills and appointed to the Cabinet in larger numbers than is proportionate. The current [[Chancellor of the Exchequer]], and expected future prime minister [[Gordon Brown]], is Scottish.

Relationships between Scottish and English MPs before [[devolution]] were sometimes tense because of what the former [[Conservative|Conservative Party]] MP, by then an [[Ulster Unionist]], [[Enoch Powell]] dubbed ''The West Lothian question''. The name arose in 1977 after [[Tam Dalyell]], Labour MP for West Lothian in Scotland, asked during a debate in the [[Houses of Parliament]] over Scottish and Welsh [[devolution]]:

<blockquote>''For how long will English constituencies and English Honourable members tolerate... at least 119 Honourable Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on British politics while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?''</blockquote>

He pointed out that he as MP for West Lothian could vote on matters affecting English constituencies but not his own constituency.

==Cities==
[[Image:Scotland.gif|thumb|right|250px|A map of Scotland.]]

Scotland has six major cities. They are [[Aberdeen]], [[Dundee]], [[Edinburgh]], [[Glasgow]], [[Inverness]] and [[Stirling]].

== Sports and culture==

The national preoccupation is football ([[soccer]]). Other diversions include [[rugby union]], lawn bowls, [[chanty wrassling]] (a native form of [[wrestling]]), [[pocket billiards]], shinty (similar to hockey), [[cricket]], [[curling]], sports of the [[Highland Games]] - such as tossing the caber and, of course, [[golf]] - Scotland is the home of golf. The Royal and Ancient Golf Club at [[St Andrews]] is the governing body of world golf.

[[Scotland]]'s 'other' national drink, Irn Bru (formerly "Iron Brew"), is a bubblegum-flavored carbonated drink manufactured by A.G.Barr of [[Glasgow]], and claims to be "made in Scotland from girders". An advert for it uses the music and animation style of "[[The Snowman]]".

Scotland is famous for its disproportionate amount of inventions and discoveries (as immortalized in [[Wha's Like Us]]), its world class universities, the Scottish Enlightenment, being the one of the first industrial nations while still preserving some of the last great wildernesses of Europe, and being the home of [[golf]].

The symbol of Scotland is the thistle. The Scottish flag is the Cross of St. Andrew, a white diagonal cross on a dark blue background. The design originated in the 9th century and it is the oldest national flag still in use anywhere in the world. Other things associated with the country are [[kilts]] ([[tartan]] skirts worn by Scotsmen), and the haunting music of the [[bagpipes]]. Famous Scottish products include [[pie]]s, [[haggis]], toleys and Scotch [[whisky]].

Scotland's motto is ''Nemo Me Impune Lacessit'' ("No-one provokes me with impunity")<ref>http://www.scotland-guide.co.uk/ALL_AREAS_IN_SCOTLAND/Glasgow/Areas/Centre/Mercat_Cross.htm </ref> which translates as ''Wha daur meddle wi me?'' in [[Scots]] and in [[English]] as ''Who would dare mess with me?''.

==External Links==
*[http://www.n-cyclopedia.com/scottish-history/index.htm A Brief History of Scotland]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Scotland]]
[[Category:United Kingdom]]

Scotland

2007-05-11T15:36:25Z

Jrssr5: /* Cities */ i'm sure there are more "cities" than just these 6

== Introduction ==
'''Scotland''' is the second largest country of the [[United Kingdom]].
It is about three-eighths the size of its larger neighbor England, but is much less populous; most of the population lives in the ''central belt'', a band across central Scotland between the capital [[Edinburgh]] and the city of [[Glasgow]]. Other cities are [[Aberdeen]], [[Dundee]] and [[Inverness]].
[[Image:JackMcConnell.png|right|thumb|[[Jack McConnell]]. 3rd.[[First Minister of Scotland]] 2001-2007. A leading figure in the implementation of the homosexual agenda.]]
Scotland is historically Christian, the national church is the [[Church of Scotland]] and it is sympathetic to the the [[homosexual agenda]]<ref>[http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/generalassembly/downloads/gareports07manddchallengetounity.rtf A challenge to unity: same-sex relationships as an issue in theology and human sexuality]</ref>. This has led the leading [[conservative]] [[Christian]] [[Pat Robertson]] to describe Scotland as "dark country full of [[homosexuals]]"<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9906/02/scotland.robertson/ 'Dark land' with 'strong homosexuals,' televangelist says]</ref>. This homosexual agenda is exemplified by the repeal of laws banning the promotion of homosexuality in schools<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/800673.stm MSPs abolish Section 28]</ref>, the legalization of [[same-sex marriage]]<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4494882.stm Same-sex couples embrace equality ]</ref>, the [[adoption]] of children by homosexuals<ref>[http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1356432006 MSPs approve gay adoption]</ref>, teaching homosexuality in schools<ref>[http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=754672006 Schools told to give pupils gay sex advice]</ref>, [[affirmative action]] for homosexual soldiers and policemen<ref>[http://www.gpascotland.com/050827.htm Army marches in Gay Pride parade]</ref>, forcing religious schools to employ [[Atheism|atheist]] teachers<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4787496.stm Atheist teacher wins job tribunal]</ref>, an increase in [[abortion]]<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5012064.stm Abortion level at all-time high]</ref>, protection for [[Child molesting|pedophiles]] <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4031625.stm 'Make friends with a pedophile']</ref> and the banning of the expression of pro-Christian sentiment at sports events<ref>[http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=387732007 Anti-gay chants to be banned from terraces]</ref>.

Scotland includes the island groups of [[Orkney]], [[Shetland]], the [[Inner Hebrides|Inner]] and [[Outer Hebrides]], the islands of the [[Firth of Clyde]] including [[Arran]], [[Bute]], [[Cumbrae]] & [[Wee Cumbrae]] and various other smaller islands.

[[Ben Nevis]], the highest mountain in the [[United Kingdom]], is in the Scottish [[Highlands of Scotland|Highlands]], as are most of the nations highest mountains. Those with heights above 914m (300 feet) are eponymously named [[Munro| Munros]] after Sir Hector Munro, the first person to compile such a list.<ref> for a complete list of Munros see http://www.sol.co.uk/d/dickwall/munroes.htm</ref>

== History ==
Scotland has been inhabited since at least 8500BC, when the first [[Mesolithic]] hunter-gatherers are thought to have migrated to Scotland. These inhabitants showed advanced knowledge of astronomy, creating several [[Stonehenge]]-like sculptures.

==Union with England==

[[Image:Lion rampant.png|thumb|right|The Scottish Royal Coat of Arms- Better known as the Lion Rampant]]

After the death of Queen [[Elizabeth I]] of England in 1603, James VI of Scotland ascended to the Throne of England, becoming [[James I]] of England. He was the first monarch to call himself King of Great Britain. This is referred to as the Union of the Crowns. James was also at this time King of [[Ireland]].

The Parliaments of Scotland and [[England]] were not united until 1707 and it is this date that is recognized as the formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. This is referred to as the Union of the Parliaments. The formation of the [[Irish Republic]] in 1922 resulted in the current name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Scotland has its own Parliament of 129 members as well as sending 59 Members of Parliament(MPs) to represent its interests in the [[United Kingdom]] parliament which sits in [[London]]. Scottish MPs have historically been recognized for their political skills and appointed to the Cabinet in larger numbers than is proportionate. The current [[Chancellor of the Exchequer]], and expected future prime minister [[Gordon Brown]], is Scottish.

Relationships between Scottish and English MPs before [[devolution]] were sometimes tense because of what the former [[Conservative|Conservative Party]] MP, by then an [[Ulster Unionist]], [[Enoch Powell]] dubbed ''The West Lothian question''. The name arose in 1977 after [[Tam Dalyell]], Labour MP for West Lothian in Scotland, asked during a debate in the [[Houses of Parliament]] over Scottish and Welsh [[devolution]]:

<blockquote>''For how long will English constituencies and English Honourable members tolerate... at least 119 Honourable Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on British politics while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?''</blockquote>

He pointed out that he as MP for West Lothian could vote on matters affecting English constituencies but not his own constituency.

==Cities==
[[Image:Scotland.gif|thumb|right|250px|A map of Scotland.]]

Scotland has six major cities. They are [[Aberdeen]], [[Dundee]], [[Edinburgh]], [[Glasgow]], [[Inverness]] and [[Stirling]].

== Sports and culture==

The national preoccupation is football ([[soccer]]). Other diversions include [[rugby union]], lawn bowls, [[chanty wrassling]] (a native form of [[wrestling]]), [[pocket billiards]], shinty (similar to hockey), [[cricket]], [[curling]], sports of the [[Highland Games]] - such as tossing the caber and, of course, [[golf]] - Scotland is the home of golf. The Royal and Ancient Golf Club at [[St Andrews]] is the governing body of world golf.

[[Scotland]]'s 'other' national drink, Irn Bru (formerly "Iron Brew"), is a bubblegum-flavored carbonated drink manufactured by A.G.Barr of [[Glasgow]], and claims to be "made in Scotland from girders". An advert for it uses the music and animation style of "[[The Snowman]]".

Scotland is famous for its disproportionate amount of inventions and discoveries (as immortalized in [[Wha's Like Us]]), its world class universities, the Scottish Enlightenment, being the one of the first industrial nations while still preserving some of the last great wildernesses of Europe, and being the home of [[golf]].

The symbol of Scotland is the thistle. The Scottish flag is the Cross of St. Andrew, a white diagonal cross on a dark blue background. The design originated in the 9th century and it is the oldest national flag still in use anywhere in the world. Other things associated with the country are [[kilts]] ([[tartan]] skirts worn by Scotsmen), and the haunting music of the [[bagpipes]]. Famous Scottish products include [[pie]]s, [[haggis]], toleys and Scotch [[whisky]].

Scotland's motto is ''Nemo Me Impune Lacessit'' ("No-one provokes me with impunity")<ref>http://www.scotland-guide.co.uk/ALL_AREAS_IN_SCOTLAND/Glasgow/Areas/Centre/Mercat_Cross.htm </ref> which translates as ''Wha daur meddle wi me?'' in [[Scots]] and in [[English]] as ''Who would dare mess with me?''.

==External Links==
*[http://www.n-cyclopedia.com/scottish-history/index.htm A Brief History of Scotland]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Scotland]]
[[Category:United Kingdom]]

Stoicism

2007-05-11T13:45:18Z

Jrssr5: Undo revision 155364 by Special:Contributions/Cookieman (User talk:Cookieman)

Stoicism was founded by Zeno (333-264 B.C.) in the early third century B.C.. It sought to find a sense of divine justice and de-emphasized emotion and feelings, teaching that both plain and pleasure should be disregarded. Instead, cool-headed reason and logic should be used at all times and self-indulgence denied.

Conservapedia:Abuse

2007-05-11T13:44:54Z

Jrssr5: /* Current Alerts */

'''This is where you can report abuse of editing privileges. Please make notes short and concise. Unsigned posts will be removed.'''
__TOC__
Sysops, please move notes down to 'old alerts' once the incident is closed.

Archives:
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive1|1]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive2|2]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive3|3]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive4|4]]

Other links:
*[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]]
*[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]]
*[[Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion|Articles for Deletion]]
*[[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates|Articles for Speedy Deletion]]
*[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]]

==Current Alerts==
*{{alert|Cookieman}} - replacing pages with llamas. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 09:44, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|SeanTheSheep}} 2nd warning. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:09, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

*{{alert|Favor}} sock of icewedge --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 20:52, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Proof? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:56, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
:He has a user box that says AmesG is the leader of conservapedia. And I have been seeing a lot of vandalism on this site that has been saying icewedge thinks AmesG should be unbanned. --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 20:57, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
That's not proof. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:58, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
:It is easier to block and unblock later than to fix the pages that a person has vandalized. --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 21:00, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
::AmesG does a better job of getting himself blocked than any Admin here. He likes the attention, but I agree with DanH, that box isn't much "proof" and check it, several others do, or did, have that same box. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:36, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

*{{alert|Sacrificialzeus}} vandalized my user page and other pages. --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 15:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|Jesuslover143}} vandal. --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 15:08, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
*04:37, 8 May 2007, TK blocked Muschifresser (infinite, account creation blocked) (Parodist/Subtle Vandal: "Owing to their diet of eucalyptus leaves, which contain a volatile oil, Koalas are highly flammable. For this reason, it is recommended to consume them raw in the form of a carpaccio or Koala tartare."Also has sock,LordWhimsey‎ )
*04:38, 8 May 2007, TK blocked LordWhimsey (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (Sock of Muschifresser )

*{{alert|YouGuysSuck}}, replaced Theory of Relativity with insults.
:Blocked infinitely Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|Commodore Morgan}}, replacing user talk pages with "Icewedge has pwned Bronzefinger", in my case. [[User:Bronzefinger|Bronzefinger]] 13:04, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Blocked infinitely Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|Muschifresser}}, user name needs explanation. No apparent justification for blocking, but "Fresser" means "to eat like an animal," and "Muschi" is, uh, blocked by Google's Safe Search filtering. I'm about to leave a note on his Talk page. watch for his reply. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:50, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|Swordofdestiny}} using specious reasoning to defend a troublemaker. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:11, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Blocked by ed poor Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Boris Johnson, MP}} obscenity [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 15:45, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|The Black Angel of Death}} [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 15:40, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Czolgolz}} - Karajou says he lied about sources. [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Ed_Poor#Zugstein] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:21, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:User made a mistake Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Tennis Sweatshirt}} I think he might be icewedge and he also posted "This place is pretty worthless so I would leave Tennis Sweatshirt 12:29, 29 April 2007 (EDT)." So I am not sure if you can trust any of his edits as being of any worth. --'''[[User:AdrianP|Adrian]][[User talk:AdrianP|P]] 20:03, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Pokeisthemon}} mostly hunch, but I'm sure it's a sock of Icewedge. Should be watched closely, if not pre-emptively blocked. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Inconclusive on checkuser Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 16:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::Cool. My apologies to Poke. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:33, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|JoshuaZ}} Misleading edit summary + removed valid information from [[Noah]] article. Last 3 edits are questionable. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:11, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** I reviewed his unproductive edits and a short block is appropriate. Please proceed as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Fred]] -- questionable edits intended to embarass CP. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Censorship&diff=prev&oldid=46203][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Separation_of_church_and_state&diff=prev&oldid=41507] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|GeorgeJ.W.}} keeps to add seemingly parodic, biased nonsense to articles, often attacking free software for being "communist". --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 19:50, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
: Silly edits by GeorgeJ.W., I agree. Not quite enough to block him, but he's getting there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
::They're parodic, Andy, not silly, unless he's an utterly ignorant moron. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 07:47, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|Scorpion}}, vote fraud via sockpuppets. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 21:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|Hacker}} Review of Hacker's edits: slightly less than 500 edits, of which only about 6 are new entries and only about 10 are substantive edits of existing entries. One of the new entries was "Geek". Unless this improves quickly, I propose blocking this account because this violates the 90/10 rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::That seems disingenuous. Yes, he has only a few new pages, but he has made a number of templates. And, maybe I read the "total" incorrectly, but it said 307 edits? At the risk of sounding tautological, this user is quite useful, IMHO. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Flippin|Flippin]] defaced my user page [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Auld_Nick&oldid=151416 here] (my castle? [[User_talk:Aschlafly#User_page_a_person.27s_castle.3F|see here]]) also
:[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] added to [[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]]'s user page [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Ian_St_John&diff=151723&oldid=151721 here] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Ian_St_John&diff=151726&oldid=151723 here]. (his castle? [[User_talk:Aschlafly#User_page_a_person.27s_castle.3F|see here]]) [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 15:17, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

===Dealt with===
*All socks. Blocked infinite. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:23, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
#Hope (Latest: 02:38, 9 May 2007) (Earliest: 02:36, 9 May 2007) [3]
#Solstace (Latest: 01:46, 9 May 2007) (Earliest: 01:37, 9 May 2007) [2]
#Talk for me (Latest: 01:20, 8 May 2007) (Earliest: 01:20, 8 May 2007) [1]
*[[User:Auld Nick]]. In [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Kilt&diff=152957&oldid=152944 this edit], he added [[:Image:Soldiers wearing Kilts.jpg]], with the edit comment "Image of soldiers in kilts" and the picture caption "Kilted Scottish Soldiers paying respect to their fallen comrades." He does not say in the talk page or in an edit comment why he chose an image in which one soldier's kilt has been lifted by wind to expose part of his bare buttocks. The use of such an image ought to have been discussed in Talk. If the point was to illustrate that kilts are worn without underwear, and if he sincerely thought such an image was appropriate, then the edit comment should have said something like "Image showing that kilts are worn without underwear." Therefore, I consider the edit comment misleading, and that trips my threshold for labeling it as "abuse." Put plainly, it's my opinion that Auld Nick is figuratively mooning Conservapedia. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:57, 10 May 2007 (EDT) P. S. Undoubtedly a copyright violation, too, although widely reproduced all over the Net. It appears to be an Associated Press photograph of one Lee Wotherspoon in Hong Kong on April 24, 1997. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:05, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked for two hours. That'll larn 'im. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:40, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|CaptainCAVEMAN}} ought to be blocked. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked.
*{{user|Pussyfooter}} check out edits to [[Pudding]] [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:31, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|JeffersonDarcy}} He put "this user doesn't have a problem with calling a person a faggot" on my user page. He also deleted my post putting his name on the current alerts. --[[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 14:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked for 1 week. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Auld Nick}} User name means Satan ("Old Nick"). Uploaded picture of a man in a skirt and frilly blouse, mislabeled as "traditional attire". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*:- Ed, a kilt (pleated male skirt) and (on formal occasions) dress shirt with ruffles ''is'' traditional Scottish dress. [[User:Unthank|Unthank]] 07:26, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#You are both on probation. Let's see your writing plans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*Terreista and LambChop -blocked, socks of each other --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Alfa Papa}} causing havoc. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 17:18, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:It's a sock of Icewedge. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 19:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::'''Blocked''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:39, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Aydindrill}} Causing havoc. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 22:09, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
**'''Blocked''' by Aschlafly as a sock of icewedge. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 12:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:Staple]] -- vandalism and other questionable content. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:24, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
** Feel free to make my one-month block permanent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** Staple has many counterproductive edits, and potentially offensive ones by labeling users with categories. I lengthened his block to 1 month. I don't know anything about a "swastika" but feel free to make his block permanent if that is what it sounds like.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
***He had a swastika on his userpage[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
****The [[:Category:Liberal Users]] he created as a subcat of [[:Category:Communists]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Liberal_Users]; he & I were the only [[:Category:Conservative Users]] in that cat after he put a swastika on his User page.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Staple&diff=prev&oldid=132099] At a minimum this is incivility and trolling, and has little to do with his own use of his User page. A permanent block is warranted. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 02:04, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** Swastika alone justifies it. Good block.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:33, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[user:MontyZuma]], for instances of minor vandalism, and the creation of a profane page which involved moving an article into and changing the content. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm going to unblock him; this particular article he wrote is actually a dish, as I just found out. My apologies. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

* Please investigate [[User:RSchlafly]]'s edits to [[Geocentric theory]]. They are simply cutting out well-justified and relevant material, and there is no rationale given for the decision. This is tantamount to vandalism. [[User:OfficerDibble]]
:* I second that. [[User:RSchlafly]] hs been deleting and reverting a lot of my stuff and instead of debating the changes on the talk page he made statments like "Your beliefs are ridiculous". He has now protected the page so I can't make any changes.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:22, 6 May 2007 (EDT) This user is a sock of Icewedge and has been blocked.
:::I oppose this alert, at the risk of POV-pushing, geocentrism is risible IMO. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:39, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::::This is not the place for insults. Please see my detailed account on [[Talk:Geocentric theory]] before you make such judgements. --[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 04:19, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
*Insults? Where? Please don't make random accusatory posts, OfficerDibble, okay? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:01, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::"I oppose this alert, at the risk of POV-pushing, geocentrism is '''risible'''" I take "Risible" to be insulting, since I have worked long and hard to make the points I have on the article. --[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 05:27, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
*Well, if you object to furious editing of your work, and debate about it, a wiki is the wrong place for you. Your tone borders on the dramatic. If you are into drama, might I suggest working on one of the acting/dramatic arts pages? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:33, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
*:OfficerDibble and myself have been following the comandments of conservapedia, RSchlafly has been deleting our work with out discussing our valid points. Be even objects to relevent bible verses being included. And the page block prevents us from making any changes. Clearly we are in the right here, as can plainly be seen in the history and talk page of the article. Also I have not been blocked and I am not a "sock of icewedge".[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:11, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:'''No Action''' Rschlafly is a Sysop Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 12:12, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::So are we to take this to mean that Sysops have carte blanche and can do whatever they want whenever? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:44, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:*You are to take it per the CP Guidelines. [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Guidelines]] Failure to follow the directions of an Administrator, as to what is, and is not, appropriate behavior/content/actions, is a blockable offense. So is never-ending argument. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::TK, is a simple precise answer such as '''''No''', Sysops do not have carte blanche and cannot do whatever they want whenever they want'' to much to ask? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 05:02, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

*When you leave your glass house, Auld Nick, perhaps you would make a better spokesperson for transparency and short comments. Either you are completely obtuse, or just ignoring what the Guidelines say, for a better (read dramatic) retort. Obviously at any website in the world, Administrators have more leeway than users. Just as that aging hippy Jimbo has at WP. Anything else on your mind? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:48, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::Thank you for the [[Conservapedia:Civility|civil]] answer. That has clarified things for me. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 06:49, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I greatly resent users putting me on the spot about what another Sysop does or does not do. First, it isn't fair or polite. Secondly, if the intentions of the user were honorable, in my opinion, they wouldn't seek to make a public scene about it, and might, if they were using good manners, email about it. Is that really so unreasonable? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:03, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::::For the record we (or maybe just myself) didn't put you on the spot, the question was asked of Geo and you chose to respond. And I disagree about the honorable thing, if it is honorable, why not talk about it in public to let others decide. Doing things by email, behind everyone's backs make it seem like someone has something to hide. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 09:18, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Well of course you do. But I was addressing Auld Nick. Sorry, we all don't agree with your wiki ways of doing things. It is a software, not a way of life. Your post smacks of Wikipedia bullying, it won't work here. You are now warned. Don't continue this. Take it up with the Sysop in question. Geo, BTW, answered you; "No Action". --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:32, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::When you say your wiki ways, are you refering to me or Auld Nick again? And am I warned or Auld Nick? What wikipedia bullying tactics am I or Auld Nick using that are so different from you warning to block me or Auld Nick from this wiki? It is very hard to fill in the blanks and figure out what you mean when replies are very cryptic and sarcastic. And I did take it up with the sysop in question (as seen above), I asked Geo for an answer ''after'' he stated "No Action", he never replied. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 09:42, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

*Well, sorry to have confused you. By the way, the Sysop in question is RSchlafly, not Geo, not me. We merely attempted to provide answers, for which we have been whipped for. Now, take me seriously, no more on this. You have been given instruction by a Administrator to take it up with the Sysop you were/are complaining about, and told no action will be taken. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:54, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
*In response to the question by Jssr5, the reason for no action is that this is not the appropriate forum to debate tohe actions of a current Sysop. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 22:17, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Columbine High School Massacre

2007-05-11T13:43:31Z

Jrssr5: Undo revision 155380 by Special:Contributions/Cookieman (User talk:Cookieman)

[[Image:Columbine.jpg|right|thumb|Grieving Columbine students]]
'''Columbine massacre ''' refers to a massacre by two students, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris,<ref>The official report omits how one of the students had been taken off powerful mind-altering medication, which can lead to dangerous conduct.[http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/SUSPECTS_TEXT.htm]</ref> of 12 students and a coach at Columbine High School in Littleton, [[Colorado]] on April 20, 1999.

The killers were anti-religion, anti-establishment, antisocial, anti-gun control, and anti-sports; they sought out as victims [[Christianity|Christians]], [[Americans]], and popular athletes. The killers planned their attack beforehand and investigators later found descriptions in their notes about their intentions to kill.

Politicians cited the massacre in their demands for greater [[gun control]], and congressional [[Democratic Party|Democrats]] held highly publicized hearings to pass gun control legislation. But gun control became an issue that hurt Democratic presidential candidate [[Al Gore]] in 2000, causing him to lose the election by losing the traditionally Democratic state of West Virginia, where the right to bear arms is valued. Since the 2000 election there have not been any significant political demands for gun control. [[Liberal]] [[Socialism|socialist]] filmmaker [[Michael Moore]] used the incident as the backdrop for an anti-gun rights documentary, ''Bowling For Columbine''.
[[Image:Eric harris dylan klebold.jpg|right|thumb|Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, perpetrators of the massacre, caught on Columbine High School's security cameras in the cafeteria shortly before committing suicide.]]
A moving photo gallery of the young students is available online.<ref>http://www.acolumbinesite.com/victim/memoriam.html</ref> Also online is the much-criticized official report of the massacre.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/TOC.htm</ref>

In 2005, Daniel Ledonne of Alamosa, Colorado, created a much-criticized video game called ''Super Columbine Massacre RPG!''' which simulates the school shootings took place at Columbine.<ref>http://live.canoe.ca/TheShow/Archives/2006/09/14/1839452.html</ref>
== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:School violence]]

Columbine High School Massacre

2007-05-11T13:41:10Z

Jrssr5: removed heroin stuff ... spam?

World Championship Kinetic Sculpture Race

2007-05-10T14:22:25Z

Jrssr5: removed wikilink as it went to the wrong type of race

The World Championship Kinetic Sculpture Race is the original event of its kind.
==History==
In 1969, Hobart Brown converted a tricycle into a [[human]] powered work of art. Thus was born the Race.

Gastrulation

2007-05-10T14:07:47Z

Jrssr5: wikify

Gastrulation is an early stage during [[metazoan]] development where the embryo which was previously a hollow ball of cells begins to infold.

Gastrulations marks a vital stage in development and is much studied by [[biology|biologists]].

Atheism

2007-05-10T14:02:16Z

Jrssr5: removed opinion

'''Atheism''' defined by the ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' and the ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' is the denial of the existence of any [[God]]. <ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1998</ref>

Well-known atheists include [[Bertrand Russell]], [[Ayn Rand]], [[Stephen Jay Gould]], [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Douglas Adams]], [[William Borden]] and [[Sam Harris]].

== Definitions of "atheism" used in debate ==

There are ''active'' and ''passive'' senses in which the term "atheism" can be used - because of the nature of the term the active sense is the original and by far the most common. However, in debate the sense in which atheism is defined may shift from "the active denial of the existence of God", to merely "the passive lack of belief in the existence of God". This can be seen as an attempt to shift the burden of proof from the atheist to disprove the existence of God, on to the theist to prove the existence of God.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1998</ref> Recently a number of atheists have attempted to redefine the meaning of atheism as a lack of belief in the existence of God because they wish to shift the burden of proof in regards to the question of the existence of God. <ref>http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm</ref>

These ''active'' and ''passive'' senses are ''logically'' equivalent because they both equate to '''"God exists = False"''', but they are ''pragmatically'' distinct, because denying the existence of ''X'', and ''X'' being amongst the things one has never considered the existence of, are different psychological states. The argument for them being different psychological states is that if "''X'' being amongst the things one has never considered the existence of" were psychologically equivalent to the denial of the existence of ''X'', then one would have to hold an infinite number of beliefs in the non-existence of all logically possible ''X''s, but since the human mind is finite, this cannot be the case.

Nevertheless, this distinction is a rhetorical device only, and does not succeed in shifting any burden of proof. This is because not only is the issue of burden of proof still, strictly-speaking, independent of the issue of the sense in which the term "atheism" is used, but it is impossible even to identify oneself as an atheist in the ''passive'' sense described above. Once one has considered the question of the existence of God (which one must do in order to describe ''oneself'' as an atheist), to be an atheist one must actively deny the existence of God. This is because, presuming agreement on the definition of God, a so-called passive atheist would be unable to describe the following sentence as either true or false: "God exists." To answer "True" is theism, to answer "False" is active atheism, and to answer "Neither" is not atheism at all, but agnosticism, and the option of ignoring the question is lost by entering the debate at all.

== Atheist morality ==

Atheists typically hold that no religious text can be our only source of morality, although they may contain useful ideas or principles. As atheists do not believe in any form of deity, books purported to be based upon the revealed words of such deities are not considered to have any more inherent moral authority than books written by people. For instance, it may be claimed that events in the Bible itself even encourage immoral behavior, such as the Israelite expulsion of heathen nations from Canaan, the stoning to death of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm homosexuals], poor treatment of women, and the institution of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/slavery.html slavery]. [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetists]] claim, however, that these objections to the goodness of God are invalid. <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/lp/outrage.html</ref><ref>http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con030.asp</ref><ref>http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2007/0202.asp</ref>

Despite their disbelief in God, many atheists live their lives to a high ethical standard as evidenced by a divorce rate among atheists that is much lower than that of Christians or Jews.
<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm</ref>

The study of morality outside of a theistic framework falls under the [[Philosophy| Philosophical]] topic of [[Ethics]].

=== Christian View of Origins ===

It is difficult to trace the origins of atheism as a result of the incomplete historic record. It is known that ancient Greece produced a theory of materialism as early as the 5th century BC. Materialism is a philosophical position that the material is all that exists. Therefore, it automatically excludes immaterial beings. In addition to materialism the Greeks also considered Spiritualism, in which the material world is an illusion and only spirit exists, as well as dualism, in which both the material and the spiritual exist (e.g. Christianity). It is important to note that while many atheists are strict materialists, some are not. As an example, some philosophical systems generally regarded as religions (i.e. Buddhism) lack deities and thus could be regarded as "atheistic faiths."

The writer of the Book of Psalms knew of atheists and atheism and registered disapproval in Psalm 14: "The Fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." The book of Psalms precedes the 5th century BC by hundreds of years {{fact}}.

== Atheist Population ==

In the [[Great Britain]] 2001 census, 15.5% of the population identify themselves as having no religious beliefs [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293 2001 Census]. This category included [[agnostics]], atheists, [[heathens]] and those who wrote [[Jedi Knight]]. However other articles [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 suggest] a much higher rate of around 52% in the UK once agnostics have been considered.

More specific research on atheists conducted in 2006 [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 suggests] that the true proportion of Atheists is 4% in the United States, 17% in Great Britain and 32% in France. The Christian research organization, the Barna Group, [http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=160 reports] that 12% of Americans are atheist or agnostic. Given that the methodology of the Barna Group study does not distinguish between atheists and agnostics, it is impossible to say if their results support, or contradict, the 4% figure. Estimates of the prevalence in atheism in the United States are, however, almost always much lower than comparable estimates from Europe.

It is important to keep in mind that surveys containing an option for "no religion" are not necessarily identifying solely atheists. Indeed, many individuals may believe strongly in some form of god but not subscribe to any one particular religion, and as a result will enter a response of "no religion" on surveys. As an example, 14.39% of the respondents to the 2004 General Social Survey in the United States claim to have "no religion." Of a subsample (197 respondents) of those persons with no religion who answered a second question on the origins of man, 19.80% believe that God created man while an additional 43.15% believe that God created man by guiding evolution over time. Thus, cumulatively 62.95% of those with "no religion" still believe that God was directly responsible for the creation of man in some fashion. Clearly, then, many of those claiming to have "no religion" are not atheists. These data are available and can be analyzed online [http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/hsda?harcsda+gss04 GSS Data Online]. Additionally, some atheists consider atheism to be a religion and will not respond that they have "no religion" on surveys, often preferring an "other" option.
It is also important to take account that identification with a theistic religion does not necessarily imply a belief in God; For example a poll conducted in the [[United Kingdom]] in April 2006 indicated that 63% of Christians believed in a "God or higher spiritual force" and 14% did not<ref>http://www.communicateresearch.com/poll.php?id=77 Communicate Research poll for Premier Radio and the Evangelical Alliance (April 2006)</ref>.

== Public Disapproval of Atheists in America ==

Research by Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerteis and Douglas Hartmann in the American Sociological Review [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asoca/asr/2006/00000071/00000002/art00003 indicates] that most Americans would be more willing to vote for a homosexual or Muslim presidential candidate than an atheist. The same study indicates that 47.6% of Americans would disapprove of their child marrying an atheist. More recent [http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=26611&pg=1 Gallup polls] confirm this finding and indicate that atheists are among the most disliked minorities in the United States. In addition, former President George H.W. Bush has previously [http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm stated] that he does not believe atheists should be considered citizens of the United States.

Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann 2006- Table 1 (Percentage of respondents answering affirmatively):
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! This Group Does Not At All Agree with My Vision of American Society:
! I Would Disapprove if My Child Wanted to Marry a Member of This Group:
|-
| Atheist
| 39.6%
| 47.6%
|-
| Muslim
| 26.3%
| 33.5%
|-
| Homosexual
| 22.6%
| NA
|-
|Conservative Christian
| 13.5%
| 6.9%
|-
| Recent Immigrant
| 12.5%
| Not Asked
|-
| Hispanic
| 7.6%
| 18.5%
|-
| Jew
| 7.4%
| 11.8%
|-
| Asian American
| 7.0%
| 18.5%
|-
|African American
| 4.6%
| 27.2%
|-
| White American
| 2.2%
| 2.3%
|}

The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) are one contemporary group known to discriminate against atheists. The BSA has been sued several times by Scouts who had been denied the rank of Eagle solely because they were atheists.

== The Problem of Evil==

One argument against belief in all-powerful entities ('gods') is the existence of evil. Philosopher and materialist Epicurus (341-270 BC), wrote:

:Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
:Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
:Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
:Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

[[Theodicy]] is the branch of study in theology and philosophy that defends the goodness of God despite the existence of evil. <ref>http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861719540/theodicy.html</ref> In traditional Christianity and Judaism the book of Job is used to explain the existence of evil. <ref>http://apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/doctrinal_apologetics/bowman-job.html</ref> In recent times [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetists]] often cite [[Alvin Plantinga]]'s free will defense in regards to the existence of evil. <ref>http://www.xenos.org/essays/evilpo.htm</ref><ref>http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/handouts/free_will_defense.html</ref> The work of [[St. Augustine]] is also cited in regards to theodicy. <ref>http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5124</ref>

== The Problem of Origins==

Arguments against atheism sometimes invoke the Problem of Origins. This problem can be simply stated as:

:All things that exist have causes.
:The universe exists.
:The universe must have a cause.

However, cause does not necessarily mean any form of intelligence or God like being. God, according to atheists is a superfluous addition and completely unnecessary for the explanation of the universe.

Theists often claim that God is the origin of the universe and, thus, that this Problem of Origins is evidence for the existence of God. Atheists use a variety of possible counters to this claim but the simplest is likely that invoking God as "first cause" simply removes the problem one step. So, if the problem of the origin of the universe is solved by attributing it to god, it simply raises the problem of the origin of God. If God can be uncaused then, atheists claim, so can the universe. However, [[Creationism|creationists]] claim that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics|second law of thermodyamics]] argues against an eternal universe. <ref>http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref>

Many leading scientists reject God. <ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html</ref>[[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists assert the [[theory of evolution]] is an inadequate explanation for the variety of life forms on earth. <ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref>

Creationists also state that the [[origin of life]] is not possible though natural processes and the origin of life is the result of God. <ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html</ref><ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp</ref><ref>http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html</ref>

==External Links==

*[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-harris24dec24,0,3994298.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail 10 Myths and 10 Truths about Atheism]
*[http://creationwiki.org/Decline_of_atheism Decline of Atheism -CreationWiki]
*[http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf European Commission report on Social values, Science and Technology, includes info on Religious beliefs]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

User talk:Conservative/socialeffectevolution

2007-05-10T13:34:19Z

Jrssr5:

Links you might want to investigate, traceable back to evolutionary thought:

* Strong Link: Evolution -> Margaret Sanger -> Eugenics -> National Birth Control League -> planned parenthood->abortion (Planned Parenthood founder)
* Weaker link: Drug, sex, rock counter culture (Aldous Huxley, Thomas Huxley's grandson. Supposed Agnostic Thomas Huxley (actually, a secular fundementalist who bragged that he would have workers convinvced they were monkeys in no time) was instrumental in getting to a "tipping point" in the promotion of evolution. Aldous Huxley promoted drugs.

This could be an *OUTSTANDING* article not covered in an encylopediac way. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 23:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:This is for an essay, right? Becuase this seems fairly heavily PoV, and I know Conservapedia has a PoV, but this seems above & beyond.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 00:01, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::Small formatting error ... you have "And just as in a pack it, is necessary", should be "And just as in a pack, it is necessary" (comma difference, if you didn't catch it) [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 09:34, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Geo.plrd

2007-05-10T12:21:38Z

Jrssr5: /* :Image:Christian flag.svg */

{|class="table"
<center><big>Geo.plrd</big> 
Archives
 
[[User_talk:Geo.plrd/Archive1|1]] [[User_talk:Geo.plrd/Archive2|2]] [[User_talk:Geo.plrd/Archive3|3]] [[User:Geo.plrd/Archive4|4]] [[User_talk:Geo.plrd/Archive5|Geo.plrd/Archive5]]
</center>

|<center>Current messages</center>

== Not me ==

I didn't lock my talk page. How could I. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] [[Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop]] 20:55, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'd appreciate it if you would unlock it. I hadn't noticed. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] [[Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop]] 20:56, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Get well..... ==

Thanks, Geoffrey! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:50, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Parole ==

Thanks. Could you do me a favor and unblock [[User:Hacker]]? Consider it a name change in the grand tradition of Conservapedia :). --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

*Hacker will not be unblocked. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:00, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::Please inform me why not, TK? --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 16:25, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Sweet, thanks for the note Geo. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I've already explained about the term "[[hacker]]". You're thinking of [[security cracker|cracker]]. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 21:11, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

<blockquote>
The "joke"
Well, I have one. *ahem* "What is wrong with six loud-mouthed ultraconservatives going over a cliff in a gas-guzzling SUV?…" Oh, wait, I'm on parole. Never mind. --Liπus the Turbohacker(contact me) 22:00, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Not funny --CPAdmin1 22:10, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
</blockquote>

The above is from Flippin's talk page. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:09, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== [[:Image:Christian flag.svg]] ==

Can you do me a favor and delete this until I get a chance to redraw it? Thanks. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:36, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks. I think the SVG wasn't being parsed correctly, I'll attempt to rectify it. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 23:16, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

==Thanks==
Thanks for the reply ... that's all I was wondering. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:21, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Jurassic

2007-05-10T12:18:06Z

Jrssr5: don't agree w/ the quote, but might as well make it look nice

The '''Jurassic''' [[period (geology)|period]] is part of the [[geologic system]] of classifying geologic formations.

The Jurassic period is part of the [[Mesozoic]] era, and is divided into Lower, Middle, and Upper epochs. The Jurassic is preceded by the [[Triassic]] era and followed by the [[Cretaceous]] era.

The Jurassic was named from the [[France|French]] word (Jurassique) for the Jura mountains of [[Switzerland]].<ref>[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=jurassic&searchmode=none Online Etymology Dictionary]</ref><ref>[http://www.geol.ucsb.edu/Outreach/TimeScale/jurassic.html Jurassic Period] (Department of Earth Science, University of California, Santa Barbara).</ref>

Under the uniformitarian dates assigned by secular geologists, it represents approximately the period of Earth's history from 200 million years ago to 145 million years ago.<ref>Gradstein, F.M., and Ogg, J.G.,[http://www.stratigraphy.org/scale04.pdf Geologic Time Scale 2004 – Why, How, and Where Next!]</ref> [[Flood Geology|Flood geologists]] use a geological system that more heavily relies on [[catastrophism]] and reject the [[Uniformitarianism|uniformitarian]] assumptions behind the dates derived by secular geologists, and thus reject these dates (see [[geologic system]]). Instead, most would consider most if not all Jurassic strata to be laid during [[Great Flood|Noah's Flood]].<ref>Snelling, Andrew, Where should we place the Flood/post-Flood Boundary in the Geological Record?, ''Journal of Creation'' 10(1) 29-31, April 1996.</ref> Flood geologists also point out that catastrophism is increasingly being accepted in the field of geology. <ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/12061.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref> In addition, creationists also assert that old earth uniformitarian geology has numerous [[Anomaly|anomalies]]. For example, creationists cite the work of [[William R. Corliss]] who catalogued numerous anomalies in the old earth uniformatarian geology [[paradigm]]. <ref>http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.net/articles/184</ref> Corliss wrote regarding [[Paraconformity|paraconformities]]/unconformaties the following:

{{cquote|
"Potentially more important to geological thinking are those unconformities that signal large chunks of geological history are missing, even though the strata on either side of the unconformity are perfectly parallel and show no evidence of erosion. Did millions of years fly by with no discernible effect? A possible though controversial inference is that our geological clocks and stratigraphic concepts need working on." William R. Corliss, Unknown Earth (Glen Arm, Maryland: The Sourcebook Project, 1980), p. 219. <ref>http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/flood.html</ref>}}

The secular science journal [[New Scientist]] wrote regarding Corliss's work the following: "All I can say to Corliss is carry on cataloging." <ref>http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm</ref> Young earth creationist scientists assert that paraconformaties pose a serious challenge to the old earth uniformitarian geology paradigm. <ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/36.pdf</ref><ref>
http://www.grisda.org/2003-FSC-open/Roth-RecentCreation.htm</ref><ref>http://www.seeking-god.co.uk/id188.htm</ref> All young earth creationist scientists assert that there is an abundance of scientific arguments in addition to geology showing the earth and universe are both approximately 6,000 years in age.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/1842/</ref> In addition, these scientists have a number of arguments against the position of an extremely old age for the earth and the universe.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22</ref>

Many sediments containing dinosaur fossils are assigned to the Jurassic, which evolutionists believe to be the peak time of the dinosaurs.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Geologic system]]
[[Category:Geological time periods]]