Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Kurt Vonnegut

2007-06-07T20:44:42Z

NothingVentured: /* "See, even ATHEIST Kurt Vonnegut said there were no atheists in foxholes! Take a hint, non-believers!" */

Andrew, this is embarrassing. Just about every article that you have started has stupid errors in it, typos, grammatical problems, etc. This site isn't just mocked for the ridiculous world views that are being put on open display, but the weakness of the writers. The sad thing is that its founder is one of the weakest writers here.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 14:35, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

that was mean to say. you could of said it nicer. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 12:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::so it goes --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 21:52, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I was surprised to hear the Kurt Vonnegut said “there are no atheists in foxholes”. So I looked at the link given to support that quote, only to discover that the full quote was, “The sermon was based on what he claimed was a well-known fact, that there were no Atheists in foxholes. I asked Jack what he thought of the sermon afterwards, and he said, "There's a Chaplain who never visited the front." ” The context makes it clear that the character speaking (which we probably should not equate to Kurt Vonnegut as it comes from Hocus-Pocus which is not his most biographical novel) does not believe the truth of the claim “there are no atheists in foxholes”—the chaplain doesn’t know the truth of the front, which is where the foxholes are.
If the site wants a quote to show that Vonnegut was respectful of religion, you could replace it with the quote from his last collection of essays, "if I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph: 'The only proof he needed for the existence of God was music.'" (Quoted at NPR’s remembrance of Vonnegut here [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9554280] )--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:50, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

More recently Vonnegut wrote something much more pointed, which I tried to include as a counterpoit in this article '''However, in later writings Vonnegut referred to conservative Christians as "not-so-closeted white supremacists, aka “Christians,” " I [http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=38_0_4_0_C]'''
I was immediately deleted and the article locked. I won't speculate on the reasons for this, but I do think this distortation is a diservice to Vonnegut's legacy and obviously contra-factual. Why include one but not the other. [[User:NothingVentured|NothingVentured]] 19:27, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== "See, even ATHEIST Kurt Vonnegut said there were no atheists in foxholes! Take a hint, non-believers!" ==

Reginod, NothingVentured - You are correct. Kurt Vonnegut has been ''deliberately'' misquoted in this article to portray him as "respectful to those with faith," when in fact he's a noted critic and satirist of religion in general and Christianity in particular. This entry's obvious deceptions clearly show exactly what Conservapedia is: an intentional distortion of the truth, or more simply put, lies.

What's particularly laughable is the need of the editors to somehow dilute the fact of his avowed atheism by inserting a made-up claim of Vonnegut being "respectful of those with faith." Its almost an admission that being "with faith" is a form of disability or mental hindrance which the faithless must patronize. One has to think that somehow Kurt Vonnegut's mainstream celebrity status combined with his vocal atheism are a threat to Conservapedia and its cadre of weak-willed admins. Their solution? Lie about what Vonnegut said, and offer it as a tacit lesson to other atheists: You should follow this example and be "respectful" to people "with faith," by patronizing their irrational, unfounded, and ridiculous beliefs, because [Christian] religious beliefs are sacred, and should be accorded more respect than any other beliefs, regardless of merit.

Its no surprise that this article can't be edited. The truth about Kurt Vonnegut is too damaging to Conservapedia's purpose of Christian evangelism through disinformation. --[[User:TheDecider|TheDecider]] 19:42, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
To wit: "And those now in charge of the federal government are upper-crust C-students who know no history or geography, plus not-so-closeted white supremacists, aka “Christians,” and plus, most frighteningly, psychopathic personalities, or “PPs.”
" linked above.

Talk:Kurt Vonnegut

2007-06-07T20:43:17Z

NothingVentured:

User talk:TheManInBlue

2007-06-02T15:16:20Z

NothingVentured: /* Hello and Goodbye */

==Hello and Goodbye==

I arrived here out of some curiosity. However, I found myself shortly embroiled in [[Talk:Slavery#Arguments_for_Slavery|a discussion]] that led me to believe this is no place for me. Accordingly, I have requested this account be cancelled.

[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 11:02, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

: Sorry, the discussion was too tedious for me to read. Would you like you leave a [[Parthian shot]] here? We're collecting them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:07, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
The discussion wasn't too tedious for you to participate in though, was it? . . . . Why do you mock, Aschlafly? What do you gain out of these sly attacks?

Michael Behe

2007-05-17T01:20:59Z

NothingVentured: /* Peer review of his ideas */

[[Image:6748yuhg.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Michael Behe''' is a biochemist and professor at Lehigh University in [[Pennsylvania]] who wrote ''[[Darwin’s Black Box]]'', a book which presents a case for [[Intelligent Design]]. He argues that [[molecular machines]], such as the
bacterial [[flagellum]] are [[irreducibly complex]]. Such machines require all of their parts to function, Behe says, and so could not have come into being through an unguided process. He considers this evidence that the flagellum must have been designed.

Behe also said:

:"There is no publication in the scientific literature that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations." ''Darwin’s Black Box'' (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 186<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html#wp1033719</ref>

Professor Behe also provides a response to critics concerning peer-review. <ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_correspondencewithsciencejournals.htm</ref>

==Peer review of his ideas==

During Behe's testimony at the trial of ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'', opponents of Intelligent Design made the objection that this concept has not been published in peer-reviewed journals. Behe testified that his book was subjected to peer review as rigorous as that of journals though the method of peer review and the reviewers actual ability to effect the publication of the book seem to be in question:<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html#day12am177</ref>

:Q (Plaintiffs' attorney). You would agree that peer review for a book published in the Trade Press is not as rigorous as the peer review process for the leading scientific journals, would you?

:A (Michael Behe). No, I would not agree with that. The review process that the book went through is analogous to peer review in the literature, because the manuscript was sent out to scientists for their careful reading.

:Furthermore, the book was sent out to more scientists than typically review a manuscript. In the typical case, a manuscript that's going to -- that is submitted for a publication in a scientific journal is reviewed just by two reviewers. My book was sent out to five reviewers.

:Furthermore, they read it more carefully than most scientists read typical manuscripts that they get to review because they realized that this was a controversial topic. So I think, in fact, my book received much more scrutiny and much more review before publication than the great majority of scientific journal articles.

:Q. Now you selected some of your peer reviewers?

:A. No, I did not. I gave my editor at the Free Press suggested names, and he contacted them. Some of them agreed to review. Some did not.

==Notes==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Behe, Michael}}
[[Category:Scientists]]
[[Category:Intelligent design theorists]]

Debate:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?

2007-04-21T23:41:15Z

NothingVentured:

''Moved from [[talk:Main Page]]''

{{debate-project}}
==The Poem Criticism on the Main Page...==

Really isn't needed. We shouldn't be pushing an agenda when 32 innocent lives were just taken. Wouldn't the space be better spent with prayers, and links to sites which will help students grieve? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:10, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems to go to great lengths to read something into the poem that isn't there. It also seems a bit tasteless under the circumstances. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 03:20, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Pathetic ... I would have thought caring christians as the admins claim to be would be above this sort of trash. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 03:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. The "Poem" is an ode to secularism and minimizes their demise by equating their tragic deaths with other causes and tragedies, involving one thousand times the number of people. Such tactics are often used by Holocaust denial groups, and is certainly not worthy of a supposedly great University. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:02, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Jesus Christ, now you compare them to holocaust deniers! You and Andy sicken me. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:24, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It's a crappy poem, but using it score cheap points is not in good taste.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 07:04, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::::{{remove personal remark|You little fanatics.}} You use a poem - admittedly poor, but written from the viewpoint of those writing it - in a feeble attempt to push your own agenda. It's appalling. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 07:22, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

In the notes in brackets
Andy seems to be critiquing the [[politics]] of the "poem".
The poem is a feeble attempt
on the part of VTech's English Department
to use the tragedy as a [[hook]]
to hang their liberal agenda on.
Andy's just calling them out on this.
--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:34, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::*{{remove personal remark|Nematocyte, take a few days to wash your mouth out with soap. On me.}} This is a site on the Web, not a life and death situation. {{remove personal remark|If you are sick, try some Pepto.}} --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:39, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: The poem is a political, self-serving rant by a University that should have taken meaningful steps to prevent this massacre. The English Department that educated this killer should be scrutinized and this poem is the best place to start. Ideas do matter, and unless the mistakes are identified here than the sacrifice of innocent lives will inevitably and needlessly occur again. We owe to the victims and to future students to look critically at the University's role in allowing this massacre to happen.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:10, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::And this site's response (plastered all over the front page) isn't also political and self-serving? This smacks of '''hypocrisy''' somewhat. The lack of compassion that you're showing here is also rather distasteful. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 12:59, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

So, there is an student at VT english department who mourns his fellow students and decides to write a poem for them. Rest of the department honors the victims by publishing it on their web page. Then there is Conservapedia, which instead of mourning or respecting the feelings of the survivors starts to bash the poem as too liberal and not christian enough. This kinda sickens me. Im not even going to say anything more about the critisism itself, exept what does it matter, even if the writer was an liberal atheist, arent they allowed to mourn and write about their feelings? Do you really think she wrote it to be an political statement? What if others would act the same? If you where one of the survivors, would you like to read some atheist bashing your poem written to the wictims to be too christian or mayby pushing concervative agenda? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 09:47, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:The "poem" expressed many political opinions and very few feelings. I do not see how it could even be considered [[poetry]], other than the fact that it was formatted as [[blank verse]].

:Moreover, not all "feelings" are worthy of unconditional respect and approval. The incident was the "expression" of feelings of rage by a very disturbed individual. Must we "approve" of his expression as an [[art]]istic act? <s>Get real, mister.</s> --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Please tell me you just didnt try to say that we should criticise the people who don't mourn the way we want, as we would criticise the killers homicidal rampage? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 10:03, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:I didn't say that. I said that not all "feelings" are worthy of unconditional respect and approval. Suppose someone hates you. Would you feel obliged to "validate" their feelings? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:36, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::This is an poem, written by an student who might have been there at the time of the shootings, very least she knew some of the people killed. You take her poem, try to find hidden liberal agenda from it, for example the mentioning of elephants and ivory... Give me a break, you really think she wrote the poem to help the wildlife?, and then without even knowing her religios views you bash her for not mentioning God or including a prayer. And then you justify it by saying that her attempt to show her grief isn't an opinnion worth respecting? That is just outrageous. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 10:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, re an earlier post on this, you're not entitled to degrade the quality of this site either... but anyways. This is not about how "good" the poem is. This is not about whether or not its "political." What this '''''is''''' about is how it's tacky & tasteless to start bashing VT for what they clearly see as an attempt to express their mourning! I don't care if it's political, or good poetry, but they deserve respect & compassion, not politicization. Criticizing them is another of Andy's attempts to score points off of a tragedy. I'll close by saying that making fun of grieving children is a new low, even for the Schlafly family.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Shame on Conservapedia for adding a critique to that poem. Can this ''Trustworthy Encylopedia'' sink much lower? Can Christian decency and compassion be denied in a more tasteless manner?
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 12:02, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Shame on Liberals for politicizing the VTech incident. Can they sink much lower than to exploit a senseless tragedy to score [[partisan]] points? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:08, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, the "liberals" aren't politicizing this! We're explicitly ''protesting'' the politicization! Now, Andy, either you pull this poem criticism from the main page, or I'll e-mail Virginia Tech's English department to tell them about your gross insensitivity, ignorance, and baseless hatred.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:18, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Kind of strange that the very ones who whine and complain about demanding free speech here would attempt to stifle it by protesting a self-serving poem. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

It's obviously legal to be a hateful bigot. I'm not saying it's illegal for Andy to put things like that on the front page. I'm saying that he should exercise his discretion as a compassionate (we hope) human being and limit his legal rights according to general rules of decency. There's a difference that many people misunderstand and apparently, Karajou, you're one of them. Andy, please pull the poem critique, or I will alert VT, and I bet they won't be happy.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:Wrong answer, AmesG, and I've never been a bigot. From the continued posts I've seen from you over the past few months I cannot tell whether you're a highly educated man or a whining child who refuses to act like one...and now this "pull the poem or I'm going to tell" garbage. Go ahead and notify them. They're already in hot water for giving a lunatic a pass to kill. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:36, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ed, you say that they express political points in their poem? I didn't know it was now overly liberal to mention that millions have died from AIDS, which is easily preventable. Or that those without fresh water could perhaps be given some. -{{unsigned|Hojimachong}}-12:34, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, when you put it like that, perhaps I've made a mistake. One of the things I really like about working with you on this project is that you have such a mellow way about you. Your remark just now was like a refreshing drink of cool water, just when I was feeling parched. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:05, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, Karajou, I think? It's the educated one. I'll give Andy a chance to reply first. I never called you a bigot, I called Andy a bigot.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:37, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: Ames, we don't allow baseless namecalling here. Calling anyone a "bigot" here, particularly when it is baseless, results in blocking of the account. In your case, I've warned you repeatedly about wasting the time of productive editors.

: Ideas do matter, and Conservapedia will continue to criticize liberal notions here. The poem on the main page is an example of that. The liberals here protest too much the valid criticism of that political, self-serving poem that is officially posted on the front page of the Virginia Tech website. Virginia Tech officials should hear criticism, and it is not just Conservapedia's main page that is criticism them.

: People who threaten to stifle Conservapedia's free speech by threatening it will obviously also find their accounts blocked. Wikipedia will welcome your political correctness with open arms.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:04, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, AmesG, I'm going to call you a four-letter word, and that word is '''GONE''', as in I want you to pack up and leave this site. I'm fed up with your self-serving rants, your attitude, your high-and-mighty self righteousness, your repeated attempts to force an alien ideology down our throats, and the babyish name-calling when you don't get your way. '''LEAVE'''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:44, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

This is disgusting. [[User:RDre|RDre]] 12:51, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:::This is the most disgusting thing I've seen printed on this site, and that is saying something. The fact that Andy could print something like that is understandable... he has his agenda to push and doesn't care who gets pushed with it. But the fact that "Christians" like Ed Poor, TK, and Karajou would so quickly jump to his defense is nauseating. Have fun with your little hate spewing toy. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

This may be news to you, but AmesG, Myk, WhatsGoingOn, and many others have spewed their own brand of hatred, and THAT is wrong. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:07, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:And how are your responses here (and your threats of blocking, and erasure of their edits) not hatred? They post something that you disagree with, so you reply with personal attacks and slanders. Or don't you realise that it's '''wrong''' for you too? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 13:14, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::First and foremost, I have neither slandered nor attacked anyone. Second, I blocked users who deliberately and willfully harmed or threatened to harn Conservapedia, and I have blocked users who refused to let a debate be a debate and instead allowed it to become hostile. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:22, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Namecalling against editors and/or Conservapedia is not allowed here, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Please cite the examples of my ''own brand of hatred'', explain what was hateful about it and, if justified, I will try to mend my ways.
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:11, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:::fair enough...the above line, mocking the "trustworthy encyclopedia". Your own mockery of this site is on about every posting you have made since you got here, and you could very well be taking steps to help make this a better encyclopedia, but you're not, are you? I would call that hatred. If you do not like this site, you are free to edit elsewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:25, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Others would call my contributions [[constructive criticism]] and welcome them as part of a drive to improve overall encyclopedic quality. [[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:50, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Simply phrasing something as a question does not mean it is respectful of free speech here. I'm not inclined to block your account like the others, yet, but it's a close call. Name-calling against editors or Conservapedia in an attempt to stifle something will result in blocking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Wow. I thought you were for free speech, against censorship, and against 'stifling something.'
:::#13:12, 21 April 2007 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) blocked "AmesG (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (namecalling ("bigot"), also an attempt to stifle free speech by making a threat)
:::#13:07, 21 April 2007 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) blocked "Myk (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (for comment "hate spewing toy"; also may violate 90% talk/10% edit rule)
:::There is no commandment prohibiting 'namecalling' or 'hate spewing toy comments'. I dont know how your rules are more concise than wikipedia's when you have like five unwritten rules. [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 13:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Free speech contains responsibility. Just as you don't claim a right to free speech when you walk into that theater and scream "FIRE" when there is no fire, you don't claim it by name-calling here (or worse) anytime you please. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:47, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Dear [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], have I somehow not been ''respectful of free speech''?
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:37, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::I'm not going to say you've been disrespectful of free speech, but you have been disrespectful of this site. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:51, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:: In addition to Karajou's observation, the following statement (copied from above) by WhatIsGOingOn was an apparent attempt to censor Conservapedia's criticism of the official Virginia Tech poem: "Shame on Conservapedia for adding a critique to that poem. Can this Trustworthy Encylopedia sink much lower? Can Christian decency and compassion be denied in a more tasteless manner?" WhatIsGOingOn, if you want to censor conservative criticism, then please go to Wikipedia for that. Don't try to censor such speech here. And don't distract productive editors further here. Build some good entries before more talk, talk, talk. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I wasn't trying to ''censor'' anything'' - I was exercising ''free speech''. [[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:00, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Free speech comes with responsibility. If we here on this site are indeed doing something wrong, then be constructive about it, show us where, and offer suggestions as to improving it...don't be destructive! We most certainly do not come into your house and rant and rave about how your house looks and expect to get away with it under the guise of free speech. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:14, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Can I suggest that someone offer a definition of free speech? I think, from reading this debate that both sides are operating under a very different definition of the term, and I suspect that if it were clear what both sides mean by the term there might be less disagreement. Those criticizing the posting of the poem see the post as an abuse of the free speech of those who posted it and see themselves as using their free speech to correct this wrong, those defending the posting of the poem see the posting of the poem as a use of free speech and the criticism of it as an attempt at censorship and/or an abuse of free speech. (I intend that to be descriptive of the broad positions I am seeing advanced here, not as an attempt at a definition) I hope/believe that if everyone understood what the other side meant by free speech this argument could become a discussion.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:44, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Darn good request. Our article on [[Free speech]] is minty fresh, having only been started yesterday morning. Perhaps it was sparked by this feisty debate, eh? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:23, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::If I may say so, Reginod's post was a needed breath of fresh air. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:30, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Let's please not get off-topic.
#First of all, on the main page, it is listed as the "official reponse" of the English department. This is plainly not true. This is a poem that Nikki Giovani, an extremely famous poet, said. The English Department just printed it on their webpage, that's all. Take that down.
#"Denies accountability" Are you suggesting that the English department might be accountable for the events that transpired? Are you seriously suggesting that?
#"Environmentalism" Of course, not wanting Elephants killed for their ivory is indeed environmentalism, but come on, she's not trying to push that killing elephants is bad. I'm not completely sure what she's doing, but it's definitely not pushing liberalism.
#"anti-Bush" No. It's not anti-Bush. It's just anti-war. That's all it is, and if it's indirectly criticising Bush because he invaded Iraq, then that's fine, put "anti-war", but don't put "anti-Bush."
#"environmentalism" Okay, this is really stretching. Destabalized land is bad, that's fairly standard. I don't think that anyone here is for destabalizing land.
I honestly don't see anything that's agenda-pushing for anything majorly liberal, and they definitely aren't hijacking the shootings like they might have Coretta King's funeral.
Not only that, but you have to remember: '''this is one person'''. Just one poet. She doesn't represent every liberal in the world, and therefore, if she does something bad (which she hasn't), you can't look at it and say "oh, look what the liberals are doing now." K, i'm done. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 14:04, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: GofG, I'm not ignoring you, but I'm here to build an encyclopedia and I hope that's why you're here also. I've reviewed your edits and you seem to violate the 90%/10% [[rule]]. Please correct first and then let's talk, talk, talk.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::"This is a debate page, not an article. Opinions are welcome." Apparently not those who are disgusted by the way conservapedia is displaying this poem. Like I said before, it's sad to see people who call themselves good christians acting in such a way. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Have people been blocked because of this discussion? [[User:DoonTheWater|DoonTheWater]] 23:09, 21 April 2007 (BST)

:yes, [[User:AmesG]] and [[User:Myk]] ... if you scroll up a bit someone posted the block logs. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 19:12, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:: + This is simply another move by Mr. Schlafly to capitalize on this tragedy for his own political ends, nothing more, nothing less. It is in poor taste at best and morally bankrupt at worst. We should be ashamed. [[User:NothingVentured|NothingVentured]] 19:41, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== The Poem, as it is placed on the front page ==

Read for yourself the official response by Virginia Tech's English Department. '''No mention of God or prayer, but many invocations of unrelated liberal causes:'''

...
 We are Virginia Tech
 We do not understand this tragedy
 We know we did nothing to deserve it [denies accountability]

But neither does a child in Africa
 Dying of AIDS
 Neither do the Invisible Children
 Walking the night away to avoid being captured by a rogue army [globalism]

Neither does the baby elephant watching his community
 Be devastated for ivory [environmentalism]
 Neither does the Mexican child looking
 For fresh water

Neither does the Iraqi teenager dodging bombs [anti-Bush]
 Neither does the Appalachian infant killed
 By a boulder
 Dislodged
 Because the land was destabilized [environmentalism]
 ...
 Full poem [http://www.english.vt.edu/ here].

'''Our prayers continue to go out to the victims' families of the Virginia Tech massacre.'''

Talk:Kurt Vonnegut

2007-04-21T23:27:32Z

NothingVentured:

Kurt Vonnegut

2007-04-21T13:23:04Z

NothingVentured:

'''Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.''' (1913 – 2007) was a prolific writer whose most prominent work, ''Slaughterhouse-Five'' (1969), is based on his personal experiences as a prisoner of war trapped in the Allied bombing of Dresden in [[World War II]]. He then wrote many more novels, of which ''Breakfast of Champions'' (1973) was the most commercially successful though not as acclaimed by critics.

Vonnegut described himself as an [[atheist]],<ref>Some question whether Kurt Vonnegut was an atheist. He has described himself as a "secular humanist," and the majority of secular humanists are atheist or agnostic.</ref> and in 1992 won the "Humanist of the Year" award.<ref>http://www.celebatheists.com/index.php?title=Kurt_Vonnegut_Jr.</ref> He attributed his atheism to having studied anthropology, yet he has often been respectful of those with faith, such as observing that "there were no Atheists in foxholes."<ref>http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/quote-v.htm</ref> However, in later writings Vonnegut referred to conservative Christians as "not-so-closeted white supremacists, aka “Christians,” " <ref>http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=38_0_4_0_C</ref>

Of German descent, Vonnegut was captured by the Germans during the [[Battle of the Bulge]] in World War II in 1944. Taken to Germany as a prisoner of war, Vonnegut was then stuck in an underground meat locker with his fellow prisoners during the firebombing of Dresden on February 13, 1945. 135,000 Germans died in that attack, the same number who perished when the [[atomic bomb]]s were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ''combined''. Afterwards, Vonnegut and his fellow prisoners were left to dig corpses out of the ruins.

Robert Scholes gave this review of the ''Slaughterhouse-Five'' in the New York Times Book Review:<ref>http://www.vonnegutweb.com/sh5/index.html</ref>

:Be kind. Don't hurt. Death is coming for all of us anyway, and it is better to be Lot's wife looking back through salty eyes than the Deity that destroyed those cities of the plain in order to save them. ... Slaughterhouse Five is an extraordinary success. It is a book we need to read, and to reread.

Vonnegut's timing was perfect, as America in 1969 was struggling with the [[Vietnam War]] and other issues relevant to the book, such as [[ecology]], [[consumerism]] and claims of [[overpopulation]].

Vonnegut's last book, ''Man Without a Country'' is a scathing criticism of the Bush administration and current U.S. foreign policy.

Vonnegut died on April 11, 2007 from brain injuries he received in a fall almost five weeks earlier.

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Authors|Vonnegut, Kurt]]