Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Directed Panspermia

2007-06-30T21:25:13Z

Phoenix:

'''Directed Panspermia''' posits in regards to the question of [[origin of life]] on [[earth]] that "organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by [[Extraterrestrial life|intelligent beings on another planet]]."<ref>http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zzz.html</ref> In 1973, Francis Crick and the chemist [[Leslie Orgel]] published an article in the [[International Journal of Solar System Studies]] (Icarus) which presented their Directed Panspermia proposal to the origin of life on earth.<ref>http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zzz.html</ref> The abstract for the aforementioned Icarus article stated the following:

{{cquote|It now seems unlikely that extraterrestrial living organisms could have reached the earth either as [[spore]]s driven by the [[radiation]] pressure from another [[star]] or as living organisms imbedded in a [[meteorite]].

As an alternative to these nineteenth-century mechanisms, we have considered Directed Panspermia, the theory that organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by [[Extraterrestrial life|intelligent beings on another planet]].

We conclude that it is possible that life reached the earth in this way, but that the scientific evidence is inadequate at the present time to say anything about the probability.<ref>http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zzz.html</ref>}}

Directed panspermia is a major theme in a number of science fiction television shows. Gene Roddenberry's ''Star Trek: the Next Generation'' has one episode positing panspermia as the origin of life for a number of species, and building on this idea to suggest the need for peace amongst those species with common ancestry. ''Stargate SG-1'' also suggests all humanoid life is the result of panspermia from a predecessor, master humanoid race called only the "Ancients."
==References==
<references/>

Talk:Main Page/archive13

2007-06-30T21:23:07Z

Phoenix: archive

==Is this site a joke?==
Seriously how can you call an encyclopedia "trustworthy" and "educational" when it's views are slanted completley to one sided and it's information dictated by a sole group of unidentified poeople. This is like something out of 1984. So is this actually suposed to be serious.

Why is this site called conservapedia. It should be renamed Christapedia because it's views are christian not conservative. Any real conservative believes in freedom of religion so the information they distribute from a conservative stand point should not be biased towards any one religion like your homosexuality article clearly is.

==LA Times article: A conservative's answer to Wikipedia==
The article by Stephanie Simon is online [http://www.latimes.com/features/religion/la-na-schlafly19jun19,1,2246978,full.story?coll=la-news-religion&ctrack=2&cset=true here]. Overall, I couldn't really fault it: her treatment of our failings is at least fair and not presented as mockery, and our detractors are painted for what they are: left wing vandals aiming to stifle free-speech. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 05:31, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

:Another triumph for us, Fox! It seems that even a liberal reporter wasn't fooled by vandals clothing themselves in supposedly high-minded purpose, eh? At last a major article, from a major and left of center paper, who actually got it mostly right! Congratulations, Andy! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 06:22, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, agreed :) And well done to all contributors who have been working hard to improve the content despite the distractions of the vandals. I've been watching the LA Times site like a hawk since Friday to see how the article turned out, and I think that you can all give yourselves a well-deserved pat on the back. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 06:32, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, it is a fair article. I suspected (and hoped) that the vandals would shoot themselves in the foot by admitting to what they did. I'm glad that's what happened. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:56, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Incidentally, could a sysop dip into the [[George W. Bush]] article and alter "Exxon Mobile" to "Exxon Mobil" :D [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 08:10, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::Done. ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]][[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 08:13, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

That helped alot. Hey Tk man you were mentioned! How did they fine you or did they email you? I alsoo know the 15 year old girl who was mentioned at the end of the article. I was in her class. :) --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 10:48, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

The L.A. Times article is about as fair as one can expect from a hardcore left-wing newspaper. Although the article is about Conservapedia, the author missed the opportunity to report some of the serious problems associated with Wikipedia. I have been a long time editor over there and have gotten sick of the constant bickering in order to add or modify a new or existing article information which is truthful and verifiable. At Wiki, there are some of the most blatant attempts to maintain a left wing bias that I've ever seen. I spent so much time on the Discussion page of an article that by the time I was able to get consensus to add information, I was simply exhausted and lost all enthusiasm to continue editing. I know many people who have also gotten sick of the absurdity of dealing with the constant bickering on Wiki and have moved on from doing any editing on that site. Conservapedia is a breath of fresh air where there is little tolerance for information that is not truthful and not verifiable. And, the Administrators here are a great deal more effective than those found on other such sites. My compliments to all the editors here dedicated to making this site the best source for encyclopaedic information. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 11:27, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
::I am pleasantly surprised with this column. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 13:00, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::: I thought the article was good, but I had stressed to her how important it was to me to convey my very strong feelings about Conservapedia's right to exist without constant harassment from vandalism, and only a couple of my comments were included in the story, and none of my thoughts against vandalism, so I am a bit disappointed. I thought it was nice she liked my re-write of [[Claude Monet]] - which has since been greatly added to and vastly improved by Joaquin Martinez - the article is terrific, kudos to Joaquin for his good work. And I recommend Joaquin's other works such as [[Painting Masterpieces]] as well - fantastic! It is nice being recognized, but I would have prefered her not to mention my pages on [[lemon]] and [[mango]] in the article, since there are so many other articles of more importance and interest that could have been highlighted. (Tasha D. Jones) --[[User:Taj|Taj]] 13:52, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

:::: Taj, thanks much for all your efforts, which are greatly appreciated. Thanks also for your email. This newspaper article is very informative and highly intelligent. We all have "thick skins" around here and we respect the freedom of the press. You did a fantastic job and should give yourself more credit than you do. We love you here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:11, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::Group hug :D [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:17, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::: hehe... thanks for the group hug, Fox! :) and by the way, good job on reverting vandalisation today, you were quick! Andy, thank you for the kind words, and for the opportunity to participate in CP, I enjoy editing here. You are right, I do need to develop a thicker skin, I'm often told that I'm too sensitive, lol. I agree the newspaper article was good, and I hope the story will bring new editors here to contribute - I think I've seen an influx of new editors already! --[[User:Taj|Taj]] 14:19, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Talking about thick skin, I hope we can learn that not all the media says about us is gonna be bad. So keep up the good work of not letting the press get to us!--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 14:17, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Whilst I agree she disapproves of the "vandalism," you seem to be missing (wilfully?) the fact that the article is overwhelmingly negative about Conservapedia itself.

For your consideration:

*''...offering what Schlafly describes as fair, scholarly articles. Many have a distinctly religious-right perspective.''

:: Nothing negative about that ... unless you have a bias against the religious perspective.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:56, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::The closing sentence is clearly intended to negate Schlafly's "fair & scholarly" assertion. She reinforces this negation with a description of CP's take on the Pleistocene Epoch - the "multiple lines of evidence" quote from CP is beautifully restrained mockery.

::: You seem to be inferring what you would like to be there. It isn't there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:56, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

*''"We have certain principles that we adhere to, and we are up-front about them," Schlafly writes in his mission statement. "Beyond that we welcome the facts."''

::Schlafly is allowed to damn himself with his own words: facts are less important to him than his religious beliefs.

::: Your conclusion is a non sequitur, and does not follow from my statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:56, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

*''Femininity? The quality of being "childlike, gentle, pretty, willowy, submissive."''

::Allowing CP to damn itself with its own words. Ms. Simon knows full well that the majority of her readership would be appalled at such an definition. Childlike? Submissive? One can only imagine how much coffee was spluttered over breakfast tables across the nation.

::: Do tell us how much coffee was spilled ... in your imagination.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:56, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

*''And the state of the economy under President Bush? Much better than the "liberal media" would have you think: "For example, during his term Exxon Mobile has posted the largest profit of any company in a single year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well."''

::Possibly my favourite bit. With deepest apologies to whoever planted it, a prank statement presented as approved CP material. And no-one posting above spotted it - sometimes I wonder how you all manage to put your trousers on without killing yourselves.

::: Ah, your spelling of "favorite" gives you away. Not an American, and perhaps a Bush-hater? Why didn't you just say at the beginning that you dislike conservatives, if that's case???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:56, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::::His nationality has exactly what to do with it? He's clearly right about the quote being planted and missed. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:44, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

::::: He doesn't disclose his political bias, which underlie his illogical remarks. I infer that he's a Bush-hater, as many non-Americans are. He should disclose his viewpoint if he wants to be taken seriously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:53, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

*''[CP's critics] worry about material presented as fact in science and medicine entries that typically seek to debunk evolution, condemn homosexuality and raise fears about abortion. They're also concerned that children who stumble onto the site will assume everything in it is authoritative.''

::"material presented as fact" = non-factual. She does nothing to contradict this concern about material in the articles in question and the following five paragraphs reinforce it. Many would read this as implicit agreement with your critics.

::: Again, you speak in non sequiturs. Your equals sign is illogical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:56, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

*''Schlafly says students can always follow the footnotes to get more information, but few links connect to dissenting — or even mainstream — views.''

::The "or even mainstream" phrase is the clincher: CP as part of the radical fringe.

::: Ah, you turn to namecalling in desperation here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:56, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

*''Schlafly calls the armchair psychology "borderline in acceptability" for his site, but he defends the Clinton article on balance as "an objective, bias-free piece from a conservative perspective."''

::The "armchair psychology" phrase is mildly caustic, but the selected Schlafly quote is intended to make him look ridiculous. A "bias-free piece" would have no preferred ideological perspective.

::: Oh right, like Wikipedia? You'll find many who agree with you there, I'm sure. Too bad it's 6 times more liberal than the American public.

*''...a few [articles] showed dissenting views. An entry about kangaroo origins, for instance, stated that most scientists believe in evolution. (It was the last line in the entry, after a lengthy discussion about which marsupials Noah may have brought aboard his ark.)''

::Gentle mockery re. Noah and the attention to which CP gives dissenting views.

* ''In other cases, a glance at the entry's history — which shows editing over time — makes clear how quickly dissenting views are deleted. Dr. Peter A. Lipson, an internist in Southfield, Mich., repeatedly tried to amend an article on breast cancer to tone down Conservapedia's claim that abortion raises a woman's risk. The site's administrators, including Schlafly, questioned his credentials and shut off debate.''

::Straighforward criticism of administrative policy.

*''But the biggest lesson she's taken away as a young conservative is: "There are people who want to destroy us."''

::A dramatic and emotive closing line. Whilst its interpretation is up for grabs, I have serious doubts about whether it is intended to portray a rational response to the "vandalism" CP has experienced. Given the overall tone of the article, it could easily (and is probably intended) to be read as a somewhat hysterical overreaction, indicative of the conservative mindset in general.

In case anyone's still reading by this point, I'll repeat what I've said before: allowing editors right of fair reply to controversial subjects would solve many of your "vandalism" problems. A "See also" link at the foot of the article would probably suffice, as long as sysops refrained from egregious distortion of the reply article. You should be sufficiently confident in the truth of your beliefs to tolerate a lot more dissent than you currently do.

::: Finding your comments to be biased and illogical, I skipped to the end. We state our perspective. How liberal is yours???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:56, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Godspeed,

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 18:45, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

In fact the [[Hillary Clinton]] phrase was not only cited by a footnote, it was cited in the paragraph as a statement by Bay Buchanon. That was actually an interesting exercise, because obviously the footnote was not consulted, yet the reader gleens a real bias and sympathy from the writer toward Hillary Clinton. Interesting also, the very Clintonesque technique of having the evidence before your face, and concocting a different telling of events. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:14, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

==June 19==
*1846 - The first [[baseball]] game under modern rules is played in Hoboken, New Jersey
*1862 - U.S. Congress prohibits [[slavery]] in the United States
*1870 - The Confederate States of America ceases to exist.
[[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 06:16, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:Done, and thanks again. I've expanded/corrected them a little, but the dates all seemed okay in this case. The main issue was the slavery; it wasn't the end of all slavery in the U.S., just in U.S. territories, from what I can see. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:12, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
==Joke?==
Taking that as a no then... good luck?
:See [[User talk:Fox|here]] for a joke :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:35, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

== Daily Quote ==

Our daily quote has been the same for a while. I recommend either "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"(Mr. dictionary B. Clinton) or "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for."(Mr. reasonable H. Dean) HAHAHAHA! [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 22:35, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

: Great idea, Bohdan. Go ahead and put one of those up. You can use [[Editing main page]] and the quote is in the first link there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:43, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

==Mention in the Register==
''The Register'' is... I don't know how to describe it... a somewhat bloggish, somewhat Onion-ish, somewhat new-ish website with some readership overlap with Slashdot. It is about IT news, and carries mostly authentic IT news, but the articles are written with a snarky, highly opinionated point of view. Is is UK-based, generally liberal, frequently annoyed with the U. S. in general and the Bush administration in particular. It is, however, quite critical of Wikipedia, which may explain why it just ran an article on Conservapedia, based mostly on the L. A. Times story:

[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/20/conservapedia/print.html Need hard facts? Try Conservapedia 'The truth shall set you free', claims Wiki rival]

I mention the article for what it's worth. Unlike the L. A. Times piece, the Register's article is mocking and tongue-in-cheek. I don't think it should be mentioned on the main page. I would be very annoyed if someone put this on the main page in a way that implied that this was positive coverage; it is not. But it's still coverage in an online page that has a fair amount of computer-geek readership. The Register's Alexa rank is 1704. Two quotations:

:Brits, meanwhile, will doubtless enjoy the entry on our very own Iron Lady (http://www.conservapedia.com/Margaret_Thatcher), described as "a strong supporter of the the United States", who was "a good friend of President Ronald Reagan", and who united with him "in actions against the Communists". Whether the latter is a reference to Nicaragua's Sandinista government or the National Union of Mineworkers is not noted.

:We at El Reg are looking forward to the final, Ragnarök (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar%C3%B6k)-style confrontation between Conservapedia, R a t i o n a l Wiki (what kind of d-bag places a spam filter on a website that promotes open discussion and debate?) and Wikipedia. The outcome of this titanic battle will be decided by either natural selection or according to God's will, depending on which one of them is really telling the truth.

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:55, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

== No Limits to the Greed of Michael Moore - Um, What? ==

Before you say it, no, I'm in no way defending Michael Moore. Rational public debate has no use for his style of theatrics, imo. That said, what does the AdAge article have to do with his being greedy? Surely the editorial position of CP isn't ''pro''-piracy? Even if the site wants to indulge in some good old-fashioned schadenfreude, the headline doesn't parse with the story itself.

I don't see anything in the article from Moore at all, except his lawyer yapping about harassment for Fahrenheit 911. Go after the guy if you want, but how about for the things he HAS done and said, which should be easy enough. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 10:33, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

:That's a lot better. Granted, I suspect he "hid" a copy in Canada as a publicity stunt, not out of paranoia, but once you act like an idiot I guess you can't be upset when people infer idiocy in your actions. :P [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:33, 20 June 2007 (EDT) ''<-idiocy not implied...''

:: Extremely well put. Perhaps I can conclude that [[Michael Moore]] is just another self-promoting liar who profits by fooling others, and he doesn't even believe what he says? Can I conclude that Moore is another example of liberal [[deceit]]? Fortunately, many are not as dumb as Moore may hope.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:40, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I promise, I'm not contrary just for contrary's sake, but my intuition (sorry, no evidence, just my gut) is that he believes something similar to what he espouses. Unfortunately, he undercuts his credibility with his desire to score points. So many people, when they get in an argument, lose sight of their original purpose and devolve into mere fighting, where the one-upping or embarrassment of their opponent becomes more important than actually trying to sort out a dispute. He's a classic example of this. I bet he really does think centralized health care is a better system; I bet he only convinces those susceptible to cheap propaganda. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:50, 20 June 2007 (EDT) ''<-only falls for the really expensive propaganda...''

*Both the Wall Street Journal and Fortune have had articles about Moore hiding money off shore in Grand Cayman, etc. He even owns stock in Halliburton. Unfortunately, no matter what his true intentions are, he is just another Limousine Liberal (see [[deceit]]) bashing others for what he himself does.--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 02:37, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

::Sure, could be. *shrug* I try not to pay to lefties like him (or righties like Coulter) much mind. I refuse to call either side stupid, or evil, or un-American. The gas bags are... well, gas bags. Living with themselves is punishment enough, what does our judgment matter? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 14:32, 21 June 2007 (EDT) ''<- made a killing on gas-proof bags, though...''

== President Bush vetoes stem cell bill ==

Some good news, something the main page is sorely lacking.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,284712,00.html

--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 20:01, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

== News from British Conservatives ==

The British [[Conservative Party]] [http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=137172 outlines] how, if they form a government, they want to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&diff=110418&oldid=104466 controll] medical care.

Surely such sensible [[Conservative]] plans deserve a mention on the front page?

[[User:BritCon|BritCon]] 06:34, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

: I looked at this plan. It's not worth the paper it's written on. The British [[Conservative Party]] would benefit immensely from adopting conservative policies like the American conservative movement, rather than simply proposing "me-too" versions of failed [[liberal]] policies.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:05, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

::Do you think the immense benefit would include an increase in the number of votes they receive? What part or parts (or the whole lot?) of their policy is a ''version of failed [[liberal]]'' ones and why have they failed? What have they failed to deliver and who has failed to benefit? How could the service be better delivered and the public better benefit?
::[[User:BritCon|BritCon]] 11:13, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

*Republicans in the United States tried that, BritCon. They won the votes, and got kicked out the next election because they talked the talk, did not walk the walk. Seeking to win votes alone, for the purpose of winning votes, is another liberal [[deceit]]. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 11:50, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

::Must everything be a "liberal deceit"? Perhaps a more substantive argument against the Conservative parties policies would be more useful. [[User:RDre|RDre]] 11:59, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

:::One of the simplest measures to introduce that would give the health service a major kickstart to recovery would be to change it back to the ''National'' Health Service from its current ''International'' Health Service status... [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 12:49, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::I personally would not mind seeing in the United States a bit of a compromise between national healthcare and private healthcare. Something along the lines of what some European countries do: Allow health care itself to remain private, resulting in superior health care and in a more timely fashion, but get rid of health insurance companies and have one insurance provider: The government. That way no one is denied health insurance and insurance rates can be determined by the government, not private industry.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:39, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

:We British Conservative are not all too familiar with American Conservatism. I'm sure we could learn a lot and the voting public would certainly appreciate us all the more for "walking the walk" so to speak. As far as the "walking" goes we aren't really past the "crawling" stage yet. Conservapedia with its more than 12,050 educational, clean, and concise entries, including more than 350 lectures and term lists, will undoubtedly prove an invaluable aid in such an endeavour. Perhaps Mr. Schlafly could find the time to write an enlightening essay on the subject. His track record so far has been impressive. Essays such [[Essay:_Liberal_Falsehoods|Liberal Falsehoods]], [[Essay:Motivations_for_the_Theory_of_Evolution|Motivations for the Theory of Evolution]] and [[Essay:Liberal_Behavior_on_Conservapedia|Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]] will no doubt long remain an inspiration to us all. I, for one, would certainly love to read Mr. Schlafly's eloquent and cognizant deliberations on how and why the British Conservative should adopt the American Conservative approach to health care policy and what such a policy would entail.
:Godspeed! [[User:BritCon|BritCon]] 07:14, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

==Interesting Story==

http://wkow.madison.com/News/index.php?ID=12581

Read the third line from the bottom.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:43, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

== Conservapedia is being studied in terms of its quality compared to Wikipedia ==

Conservapedia is being studied in terms of its quality/citations compared to [[Wikipedia]]. Here is the study which I believe is ongoing: http://www.ajs.com/ajswiki/Relative_quality_of_Conservapedia_vs._Wikipedia

There was an extremely intelligent person who was a conservative who used Wikipedia as a source to get more information. He didn't rely on the Wikipedia text but relied on the citations. I believe that is how a lot of people are. In short, an article is only as good as its number and quality of citations.

Like it or not people associate quality with citations. Whether we want to compete with Wikipedia or not, we nonetheless are competing with Wikipedia for peoples attention. Why roll over a die and not compete on quality of articles via good citations. And even if we refuse to compete with Wikipedia, isn't having well cited articles important? If not, why not?

I also believe that if it is reported in the conservative press (or liberal press which I doubt it would be) that Conservapedia articles are generally higher in quality according to a study that we could have a lot of people join Conservapedia.

I personally would never rely on a uncited article from a Wiki and think that uncited articles are a waste of bandwidth. I also believe that people who put up uncited material are just begging for it to be edited out. I have found that cited material stays on Wikis far longer.

I strongly believe we need a template that triggers an article to be on a list and enforcement of the sourcing policy. '''What is the point of Conservapedia commandments if they are rarely if ever enforced? ''' '''It is a Conservapedia commandment that you must reveal your sources.'''

Personally, I think we should be stronger and say that material needs to be sourced (unless of course, you are saying the sky is blue), because people can think that since they are not using a source by relying on memory that they do not have to source.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:47, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

::I agree with that, but I also feel that we need to focus on the creation of articles, as we are severely lacking in number. And we should focus on non-politicized articles, as they will be less attractive to vandals and more appropriate for the site.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:44, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

:::It's odd that people are always using "the sky is blue" as an example of a statement for which no citation can be found, or that doesn't need citation.
:::To begin with, it's odd that this particular statement is mentioned, because it isn't even accurate. It needs to be qualified, as well as referenced. I'm not even sure where the idea that the sky "is" blue comes from. Perhaps from kindergarten teachers ordering kids to color the sky blue. The sky is only blue at times. Even if one ignores clouds and overcast, at sunset it displays a huge variety of colors. It is said to be greenish when tornados are approaching. Sky colors other than blue are recognized in popular song lyrics: "When the sky is a bright canary yellow," Oscar Hammerstein, "A Cockeye Optimist," in ''South Pacific.'' And Matthew 2:16, "He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red."
:::And it doesn't take more that ten minutes to find a citation:
::::*"the blue sky is so commonplace that it is taken for granted," ''A Field Guide to the Atmosphere,'' Schaeffer, Vincent J. and John A. Day, (1998), Houghton Mifflin Field Guides.
::::*"It is now well established that the luminosity and blue colour on very clear days and at considerable altitudes above the sea-level can almost be accounted for by the scattering of light by the molecules of air, without postulating suspended particles of foreign matter." R. J. Strutt (Lord Rayleigh), Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, 94(662), June 01, 1918, pp. 453 - 459.
:::Now, in the short term, when creating new articles on noncontroversial topics on which one has sound knowledge, I don't think there's anything terrible wrong with roughing in the well-known facts without citations. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:52, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

==Don't mention ze war!==
(This isn't a suggestion for front page, just an interesting item I read over breakfast) At the [[EU]] Summit, Germany has been pushing for a change to the EU's voting system, so that the countries with the largest population have greater influence. The Polish prime minister pointed out that this was a bit rich coming from the Germans, as Poland actually has 28 '''million''' fewer people than it should have as a result of the Germans slaughtering their way across Europe in World war 2, losing fully '''25%''' of its population by the time peace was declared. Good point, Mr. Kaczynski. Interested readers may see more of the item [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=463207&in_page_id=1811&ct=5&in_poll_id=17266 here]. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 05:49, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

==Schoolgirl in High Court battle to express her religious beliefs==
A teenage girl who was banned by her school from wearing a "chastity ring" is taking her case to the High Court today. Story [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=463665&in_page_id=1770 here]. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 06:30, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
Miss Playfoot said the purity ring was not a fad.
:I re-read the article and picked up on this statement from Miss Playfoot: "''It says that I'm not going to have sex until I'm married and I'm going to stay sexually pure until I'm married. In the Bible it says you should remain sexually pure and I think this is a way I want to express my faith. I think in the society we live in today with lots of pregnancies and STDs, something like this is quite important and should be taken hold of.''" Common sense from a 16 year old schoolgirl... and I would bet my bottom dollar her school will be encouraging its 11-16 yr old female pupils to take the HPV vaccine... [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 06:38, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Why don't Christians just start adding doctrines to make stuff like crosses mandatory to get around rules like this. To be truly honest, I'm all for banning all religious "icons" in school if they're gonna make a fuss over it. Did you know Sihk kids can wear ceremonial daggers to school?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 07:25, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Some denominations already do. Some require that women wear head coverings, some require that females do not wear slacks. The schools in my local area certainly oblige those requirements, even when they go against dress codes, or uniforms. As a vile nasty, deceitful, atheist, I have no problems with concessions to things required by a certain faith, be that faith Christian, Moslem or Jewish. The idea off "adding doctrines" so that your personal flavor of religion gets to wear something strikes me of "keeping up with the Joneses". I seem to remember a parable warning about that, but I could be wrong.[[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 11:29, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Looks like America isn't the only country that has liberals with an agenda of Christian oppression! [[User:Tomservo|Tomservo]] 07:56, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

::Retracted by Author with apologies.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 10:43, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::So in retrospect that didn't come off as funny as I'd hoped. Sorry if I angered anyone and I offer my apologize.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:41, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Don't be too sure of that. And if you mean that she does not conform to the world's idea of physical beauty, then that only means that she will not have beauty as the double-edged sword that it is. What has beauty done, to name one example, for Paris Hilton?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:52, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Most UK schools ban jewellery except for tiny studs in pierced ears. This is for health and safety reasons, and as an ex-teacher I personally support this. Most UK schools allow amendments to school uniforms (please, Americans, remember that most UK high schools require a set uniform) to accommodate garments that are part of a religious requirement such as turbans for Sikh boys and hijab and modest dress for Muslim girls. Banned items include items that are part of a religious expression but not a requirement of religious faith - that would include star of David necklaces for Jewish girls and crucifixes or chastity rings for Christian girls. It's not religious discrimination. Bear in mind, too, that the school curriculum in the UK requires an act of corporate worship in schools 'of a broadly Christian character', from which parents who object may ask their children to be withdrawn. Religious education is also one of the few subjects outside the maths/science/English core that is compulsory for all children until the age of sixteen. This is hardly discrimination against Christians.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 13:34, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

:The government cannot permanently maintain an official "neutrality" toward religious and moral issues. Look at Wikipedia and their arbitration committee, which has become their acting government. They pretend to maintain a neutral stance toward everything, but they end up protecting some views more than others.

:It would be be better to adopt an official view, and then define various degrees of tolerance for disparate or opposing views. For example, the Judeo-Christian ethic against murder and theft could be non-negotiable, but a mild degree of tolerance could be shown toward, say, ''[[Robin Hood]]'' (steal from the rich, give to the poor) with strong disapproval given to piracy (no ads for "Pirates of the Caribbean") or socialist confiscation of property.

:An ethic of support for pre-marital chastity would be good for any school system or government. Perhaps those parents who believe in promiscuity could be allowed to opt out, but the school staff should not tell girls to take off their chastity rings. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:13, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

::Mr. Poor, the idea of parents having a belief in promiscuity facinates me. Please elucidate, what does such a belief system entail? Or are you just pulling our legs? [[User:BritCon|BritCon]] 13:21, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

== Anybody interested... ==

...in some [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Uncategorizedpages categorization]? We have 3,500 ''un''categorized pages. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:51, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
:Sure. And you fellows should shut down account creation, you're not going to be able to stop this vandal by mere blocks. --[[User:Che|Che]] 23:30, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

:: Is there a list of existing categories? One reason I haven't tried this is because I might through ignorance create duplicate categories, which would make the situation more rather than less confused. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 08:43, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

:::One good way to see the existing categories is to go to Special Pages, then select "Prefect Index". Leave the search box blank, but select "Category" from the namespace dropdown menu. Then just hit go. That should give you a list of existing categories.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 01:11, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:::: Belated thanks, Steve. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 08:55, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

*It would be nice to know who is working on this, and from what point they started. Many are already done....--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 18:49, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

==Six Flags==

Anyone hear about the girl who lost her feet at the Six Flags in Louisville?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 04:24, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, those Liberals 20:44, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

==16 year old marries coach==

...I quit life. I am now all the more retarded for having read that. YOU DON'T LET YOU 16 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER MARRY A 40 YEAR OLD MAN! "We had no choice but to sign the consent forms," oh puhleeze, who the heck to they think they're kidding. Thats the WORST cop out I have ever heard. Excercise some freakin parenting. And whats with the school hiring that guy. That guy has the word "Rapist" written all over his face! And who names their daughter Windy? Do they have a son named Apple? This has to be the most shameful thing I read all year.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:23, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

: Your heartfelt reaction is appreciated. I would not, however, blame the parents as much as you do here. The parents did everything they could, except pull their daughter out of the school. The parents complained to everyone as they saw this unfold. Once a relationship has gone on for two years, as this apparently may have, I'm not sure there was much left the parents could do, and I doubt denying consent at that point is a realistic option. If there is a moral for parents here, it is this: pull your kids out of public school before it's too late to help them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:33, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Ah, I missed the tiny line about them going to the police. I was confused by that.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:21, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

:Terrible. Nearly as bad as a 50 year old man marrying a 26 year old woman. [[User:BritCon|BritCon]] 13:23, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

:: No, BritCon, it's not "nearly as bad." A coach hooking up with a girl on his team is far, far worse. A principal rejecting the parents' complaints about this is also bad. Even [[liberals]] can appreciate why, I trust.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:00, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

That Principal should take a look at [[Deceit]], allowing his personal bias to override good sense. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:59, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

::I like how my old junior high did gym. Female gym teachers for girls, Male gym teachers for boys. At least that way you minimize your problems.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 05:38, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Unless they're corrupting the children with the disease of The Gay, and since most female gym teachers are lesbians that's not unlikely. [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 17:16, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

Doesn't this article strike anyone else as a bit alarmist? One teacher does something pretty messed up, but does that really reflect on the entire public school system? I would be willing to bet that statistically, the instances of similar events occuring are not significant at all.[[User:Jtime|Jtime]] 20:09, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
:You would certainly lose--and if I were a betting man (which, being a [[Christian]], I am not), I would lay you twenty-to-one on the proposition that this sort of thing is all over the place.
:On ''[http://www.worldnetdaily.com WorldNetDaily]'', the incidence of sexual exploitation of pupils by their teachers is so great that WND has a special "column" for that sort of news: "Sextra Credit."--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:14, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
::It's still all anecdotal evidence-- there are a lot of teachers out there and even if there are enough of them sexually exploiting their pupils to keep a column about them running I wouldn't say that damns the public school system any more than priests exploiting children damns all of Christianity. [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 20:22, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
:::It is a case of bad statistics. A quick and dirty Google search pulled up a few numbers. In 1998 there were 244 cases in six months of abuse ranging from unwanted touching to rape as repoted by Education Weekly. I couldn't find the population of children in public schools for that year, but I did find the number for 2003, 48.5 million, and for 1990 41.2 million. Say we use the 1990 number and 488 cases in a year. The cases of abuse make up 0.000012 percent of the population of children in school. This is really dirty computing, and isn't absolutely scientific, but it still points to the fact taht children are probably very un-likely to be sexually abused in school, and are probably more likely to get have children while still in school. Not that I am downplaying the fact that such behaviour is abhorrent.[[User:Jtime|Jtime]] 21:02, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Unlikely, but not impossible. Shall we accept even ''one'' such case?
::::How many such cases did the country see, say, in 1952? Or 1962?
::::How many such cases are seen in private schools? And--more to the point--how do the schools handle cases of that kind?
::::How many such cases occur among ''home'' schoolers?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:09, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::No, I'm not saying that this kind of thing is acceptable at all. As for home schoolers, since most child sexual abuse is perpetrated by family members, I would think proportionaly home schooled kids would be at a much higher risk.[[User:Jtime|Jtime]] 06:24, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::You're over-egging that pudding in order to make a sly dig at homeschooling; the statistical studies would actually probably say something like: "About 95% of victims know their perpetrators" (Source: CCPCA, 1992); "It is estimated that approximately 71% of child sex offenders are under 35 and knew the victim at least casually" (Source: Burgess & Groth, 1984.) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 06:40, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Why would I make a slydig at homeschoolers? I was homeschooled. I have seen figures that indicate a higher rate of child molestation by close family members than non-family members. Honestly can't tell you off the top of my head though, and I have to be getting to class.[[User:Jtime|Jtime]] 06:51, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
My initial reaction was the same as Elamdri's: Why did they sign the consent waiver? That being said, shouldn't there have been someone at the school, i.e. a principal, vice-principal, athletic director, or someone that they could have talked to to prevent this from happening? When I was in high school cross country, my coach was fired simply for trying to recruit players away from the football team, I believe under the guise of harassment. Something clearly has broken down if this was allowed to happen. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:28, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

== Incontrovertible proof of liberal bias in the media ==

Send this link to every liberal you know who has ever denied the existence of liberal bias in the media. Of a list of 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 to 2007, about 95% of them gave to democrats or liberal causes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455/

--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 02:46, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks Conservateur! The article has been posted. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 06:34, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::Seriously amazingly exhaustive list of the majority of media elites. How can the Republicans on that list work everyday?! [[User:Tomservo|Tomservo]] 06:16, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

:Just because someone makes political contributions to Democrats or Liberal causes does not necessarily imply that they will have a bias in covering the news. If someone produced a study of political contributions from Fox News and they happened to be overwhelmingly for Conservatives and Conservative causes, would that prove that Fox News is biased as well? No. This is the logical fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc, as well as a hasty generalization. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 08:29, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

::Stryker, now don't tell me that you really believe that a journalist that contributes to Moveon.org wouldn't imply they have a liberal bias. Let's put your hypothesis to the test. I will take a journalist that donates to Moveon.org, and see if they have a liberal bias.

::<blockquote>"(D) Salon.com, Gary Kamiya, writer at large and former executive editor, $250 to MoveOn.org, which opposed President Bush, in September 2004. Kamiya, who now writes a column for Salon, was executive editor when he made the donation. In his column he has urged the impeachment of President Bush, whom he calls 'a historic disaster.' " <ref> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455/#Fulginiti</ref></blockquote>

::It appears that Gary is liberal. Let's go to his [http://dir.salon.com/topics/gary_kamiya/ column] and see about five of his most recent liberal-leaning articles:

<blockquote>{{Cquote|'''"Are We Rome?"''' Hollowed out by arrogance, corruption and a bloated military, the greatest empire the world has ever known fell. Is America doomed to follow in its footsteps? By Gary Kamiya 2007-06-07 <ref> http://www.salon.com/books/review/2007/06/07/rome/</ref>}}</blockquote>

<blockquote>{{Cquote|'''Memorial Day''' The best way to honor those who have fallen in this terrible war is to bring the troops home. By Gary Kamiya 2007-05-28 <ref>http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/05/28/memorial_day/index.html</ref>}}</blockquote>

<blockquote>{{Cquote|'''Why Bush hasn't been impeached''' Congress, the media and most of the American people have yet to turn decisively against Bush because to do so would be to turn against some part of themselves. By Gary Kamiya 2007-05-22 <ref>http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/05/22/impeachment/index.html</ref>}}</blockquote>

<blockquote>{{Cquote|'''Bush's favorite historian''' British author Alistair Horne explains what Pinochet, Sharon and Bush have all taken from his work, why peace means getting rid of the priests, and why Iraq is the wrong war in the wrong place. By Gary Kamiya 2007-05-08 <ref>http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/05/08/alistair_horne/index.html </ref>}}</blockquote>

<blockquote>{{Cquote|'''Last refuge of the scoundrel''' Bush is trying to convince the American people that Iraq is the WWII of our time, and Democrats are craven defeatists. Both claims are absurd. By Gary Kamiya [2007-05-01] <ref>[http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/05/01/bush_defeatists/index.html</ref>}}</blockquote>

::Stryker, your logical fallacy argument doesn't bear out what when we look at the details of just ONE liberal journalist; I could go on and on. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 10:09, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I suspect you can do the same for others, but can we make a distinction between columnists and journalists? I don't think anybody would be surprised that Ann Coulter and George Will donate to right-leaning organizations, or that Al Franken or... meh, I don't really know who the lib columnists are; WHOEVER... donate to the left. What will be a concern is if, say, Brian Williams or Shepard Smith are shown to donate to one side or the other, and then you do similar research to the above and find them consistently leaning in the same direction as their money.

:::Although really, I care (and I think it's the real point) more about the leaning in the first place, rather than if they also send their money that way. If they don't send a single penny to a political cause, but they push an agenda, the pushing is still a problem, correct? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 14:00, 27 June 2007 (EDT) ''<-- will push agendas for food''

::::Aziraphale, Here's a few examples of liberal bias of the MSM news anchors compiled by the Media Research Center:

::::# [http://www.mrc.org/Profiles/Williams/Williams_date.asp BRIAN WILLIAMS NBC Nightly News Anchor, 2004 - Present]
::::# [http://www.mrc.org/Profiles/cronkite/welcome.asp Walter Cronkite: Liberal Media Icon]
::::# [http://www.mrc.org/Profiles/gibson/welcome.asp ABC’s Charles Gibson, Conventional Liberal]
::::# [http://www.mrc.org/Profiles/wallace/welcome.asp CBS’s Mike Wallace: Too Many Minutes of Liberal Bias]
::::# [http://www.mrc.org/Profiles/couric/welcome.asp KATIE COURIC NBC Today, 1989 - 2006; CBS Evening News, 2006 - Present]
::::# [http://www.mrc.org/profiles/rather/welcome.asp The Dan Rather File - Decades of Liberal Media Bias]
::::# [http://www.mrc.org/Profiles/jennings/welcome.asp World News Tonight With Peter Jennings - 20 Years of Liberal Bias]
::::# [http://www.mrc.org/mrcspotlight/chung/welcome.asp Connie Chung: CNN's New Prime Time Star]
::::# [http://www.mrc.org/projects/gumbel/welcome.asp Bryant Gumbel Set to Retire]

::::Wow, there's a TON of liberal bias in the MSM. If you can't see it, you must be a liberal ;-) 17:16, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::I'd really appreciate it if you avoid the old pitfall of going on the attack in the middle of what was an informative conversation. I asked that the previous poster not use a columnist to impugn journalists, since (in my opinion, at least) they do similar-looking but fundamentally different jobs. As I said at the beginning of my post, "I suspect you can do the same for others." You just proved that I was right; thank you for that. :) By the by, who's "talking" here? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 00:33, 28 June 2007 (EDT) ''<- Look Who's Talking Now...''

:::::Thank you, Aziraphale, for lending me a hand. I've tried responding twice now, but IE is annoying and whenever I accidentally hit the 'back' button my 518, I lose my post. Anyway, I can boil it down to this: My logical fallacy argument has simply been proven with the so-called 'rebuttals.' Why? Because you began actually investigating the body of literature. Subsequent attempts to prove liberal bias in this discussion thread have not been based on the initial accounting of liberal campaign contributions - they've delved to another topic where one coulda ctually make connections. Of course, your work in that area is null and void, seeing as this last entry into the foray is just a re-hashing of a violently biased rhetoric from a fringe organization, I don't even know how to treat it.
:::::We conservatives need to quit playing the 'beaten dog' card. We're not an imperiled minority; there is no conspiracy to eliminate us from the political dialogue. There is no liberal bias in the media; don't you that by now most conservatives would've been ran from office by now if there really was a concentrated liberal bias? Everyone has enough skeletons in their closet that if an organization was biased enough against you, they could very easily run you from positions of power.
:::::At the very least, let's agree to disagree - you can claim liberal bias all you want, and run to the conservative fringes for your processed, ideologically appeasing news. I'll get my news from all sources so that I can determine ''for my self'' what is actually happening in the world and what the implications are. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 10:21, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== Main Page revamp ==

I think we should revamp the main page and work all the stuff at the bottom into the template. [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 15:43, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

==Possible Main Page News story?==

"The [British] Government is clear that creationism and intelligent design ... should not be taught as science"[http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page12021.asp]

Seem like it might be a good front page article that would server both your audiences - it would rouse the ire of your supporters, and also give yourselves at least the appearance of 'Fair & Balanced' reporting to your enemies. [[User:IrishAngel|IrishAngel]] 23:24, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

: Done. Thanks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:14, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

== Genetically Enhanced Turbo-Liberals ==

Those Liberals can't sink much lower. They are now out to create genetically enhanced Turbo-Liberals.
What I can't figure is that they ask that potential sources of genetic material be "very happy" and consider "Liberal political views and athletic ability" pluses. How can anyone who has forsaken Jesus be happy? [http://freedemocracy.blogspot.com/2007/06/david-brooks-national-pastime.html] [[User:BritCon|BritCon]] 06:31, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

: Done! Thanks, it's on the front page now. Great catch.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:53, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

:I, for one, welcome our new genetically enhanced turbo-liberal overlords.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 12:41, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

::You guys have never seen GATTACA, have you?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 10:44, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 13:34, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Good movie. Intriguing plot.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 13:36, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::Agreed. And if this "turbo-liberal" story is any indication, we are frighteningly close to a world where we natural born humans are subjugated by a superior race of liberals.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:03, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

==You say potato...==
*''You say potāto, I say patăto...''
as the old song says. In an statement reminicient of Bill & Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Edwards has taken a stand opposite of her husband in support of gay marriage. [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/25/EDWARDS.TMP] You will recall, the Clinton's raised this covering all bases to a high art, Bill checking "No" on their joint tax return to donate $1 to the Presidential Election Fund while Hillary checked "Yes".

Two questions, (a) is this News?, and (b) are we ready to kick off the Elizabeth Edwards in 2016 for President campaign with this? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:54, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

: RobS, that is good. The candidate's wife takes the more extreme position to rally the base, while the candidate pretends to be more moderate. The playing of politics here is so obvious it is laughable. Let's post this news.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:04, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

::Isn't it possible they just legitimately disagree on the issue? And I doubt Mrs. Edwards is going to be in shape to run for anything in 2016.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 17:33, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

::: That's like saying, "isn't it possible that the Yankee pitcher wanted to throw a ball that a Red Sox hitter could knock out the park?" Look, politics is competitive, and everything the Edwards do is designed to enhance their (meager) chances). Their latest effort is particularly silly and transparent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:45, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Great sports analogy. You find a play that works, and then you copy or steal the playbook. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:52, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

::: See, Steve, when you have to fake positions on issues like liberals do, you end up stooping to these kinds of tactics. It's seriously disgusting the amount of politicking liberals do. [[User:Tomservo|Tomservo]] 06:17, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>

== Breaking News section should be renamed ==

It's not so much news as it is a showcase of liberal/democrat stupidity and questionable behavior. Maybe instead of "Breaking News" we should call it something like "Stupid Liberals/Democrats".--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 16:54, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

::Well we also have a lot of stories that are more just pointing out flaws. Besides, if we did that, that would be sinking sorta low.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

: I dispute that the stories are about "stupid liberals" or "stupid Democrats". The front page stories are representative of how a large percentage of liberals or Democrats feel. For example, most liberals do support creating [[chimera]]e.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:12, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

::Mr. Schlafly, I come from a very liberal city, and not once have I ever heard of a liberal friend supporting the creation of chimeras. As a matter of fact, at my old high school, we used to hold lots of debates between the political clubs, and one time when we discussed bio-ethics, we talked about chimeras and cloning and everyone in the room agreed against the use of genetics in that way. I've never seen any mainstream liberal seriously advocate any sort of eugenics or controversial genetic experimentation outside of stem-cell research.

::As for the 'Breaking News' section, why not actually convert it to a breaking news section? We could all agree on a list of five or six mainstream media sources, then have two or three volunteers monitor RSS feeds for those sources. It doesn't matter if the sources are biased or not, because we only need to present the news, not spin on the news. The news feed would be invaluable for students as it provides them with current events, and could also inspire authors to create articles related to those events. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 10:49, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::: Stryker, legislation has been introduced in [[liberal]] Britain to authorize creating [[chimera]]e. That proves that many liberals support it. Those who believe in [[The Theory of Evolution]], as many [[liberals]] do, should have no objection to [[chimera]]e.

::: [[Liberal]] denial is a common technique, and we've seen many examples here. Many [[liberals]] support creating [[chimera]]e.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:50, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::: I don't doubt the veracity of your point Mr. Schlafly, but I would be very interested in reading about it, as while it is disgusting and grossly unethical, as science it is an intriguing topic. I wasn't aware of any legislation anywhere attempting to legalize it. But still, I don't think that a piece of legislation would necessarily prove that there is wide support for it. As a matter of fact, save for a referendum that won by a majority, I don't think it proves there's any support for it outside of the fringes.

:::: I must disagree with your assertions about the theory of evolution, though. I am an ardent subscriber to the theory, mainly due to my application of evolution in Computer Science (evolutionary algorithms are revolutionizing the way we understand computing). However, I have strong objections to the development of chimerae. As I write this, I'm sitting in an internet cafe with a very good friend of mine who happens to be ultra-liberal and involved with the local party, and he too is disgusted by the concept of chimarae.

:::: I'm sorry, but I just think you may be mistaken in pushing this over as a tenet of liberal beliefs. Seriously, at some point, don't we have to accept what other people say they believe prima facia, and let the principle of parsimony take over? Occam would not be pleased if we were always contending that others were really hiding their true beliefs. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:26, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::: Stryker, [[deceit]] is a big part of politics and science, particularly by those who don't teach that it is wrong to lie. Check out our entry on that topic if you need examples. We don't just sit back and allow falsehoods to be accepted at face value. Not here.

::: It's great that you oppose the creation of [[chimera]]e. But your opposition doesn't help much if you don't recognize that your fellow [[liberals]] are pushing this. [[Conservatives]] aren't pushing this, that's for sure.

::: Show me 100 people who are "ardent subscribers" to [[The Theory of Evolution]] and I'll show you 50 who welcome the creation of [[chimera]]e. Show me 100 people who have strong [[faith]] and I'll show you 99 who oppose this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:38, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::: Mr. Schlafly, with all due respect - you claim that this wiki doesn't sit back and allow falsehoods to be accepted at face value, when this is exactly what you're doing here. Liberals do not advocate the creation of chimarae. Period. If you can prove me wrong on this, then I will ''gladly'' eat my words and apologize. But it is simply not the case.

:::: I would gladly compile a list of a hundred biologists who subscribe to the ToE, but I doubt it's worth my time, seeing as you've already lumped me in with liberals for disagreeing with you. I came to this wiki with the ambition to help you all expand and to fight vandalism, work I've already started with my current expansion of [[vector]] and [[urban heat island]]. If this is the way that honest editors and conservatives are treated - by basely accusing them of being liberal for correcting what is grossly untrue - then I have second thoughts about joining this organization.

:::: Sir, there is no deceit in honest science. Deceit is tracked down and stamped out like a deadly virus. This is why Universities have draconian measures in place to deal with cheats and plagiarizers. Sure, there has been fraduluent scientists, but there are fradulent practictioners of every academia - and they are ''always'' stamped out, very often by their peers. There is deceit, however, in claiming to know the convictions of others when you do not.

:::: I apologize if this rhetoric is harsh, but I joined here to add to the reputation of the Conservative movement, not sit by and watch it wallow. I'd prefer to stay here a while and help, but if you feel it fit to remove an honest conservative such as myself, then so be it. There are plenty of other wikis out there that would be glad to have an honest, hardworking editor. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 13:28, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::::: Fascinating. I spent 30 seconds looking for some more information on this parliamentary legislation, and look what I found: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JOXNJG53YKTQRQFIQMGCFGGAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/05/18/nembryo18.xml

::::: This actual news article actually discuss the legislation at hand. The source you're operating off of, LifeNews.com, cannot possibly be considered a legitimate, mainstream news source. You see, this is ''exactly'' what I was talking about when I mentioned that mainstream news sources should be utilized. That LifeNews article says nothing about the legislation, compared to the article I just referenced from the Telegraph. The Telegraph article only presents the facts, and it's very clear that this issue has nothing to do with liberals or any of the like. As a matter of fact, it's virtually the '''same issue as stem-cell research.''' This Telegraph article would be a great addition to the Front Page; it links to a page that discusses topics pertinent to the stem cell debate, with precise, non-emotional and non-biased language. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 13:46, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::Stryker, please state your point of view and stop trying to appear objective. Are you another [[liberal]] who won't admit it? We're up-front and honest here.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 13:52, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::: I don't know how much more upfront I can be. As I told Azi on my talk page, and as I've indicated here, I'm a subscriber to the ToE and a scientist, and I'm conservative. I oppose big government and intervention in foreign affairs. I'm socially moderate, as I don't believe the government has the power to intervene in social matters that do not cause damage to life or property. Quit calling me a liberal. Is this how I'm going to be treated - as some sort of liberal enemy - during my stay here simply because I intend to make sure that this wiki represents the ''facts'' as opposed to some sort of spin? [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 13:58, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Well if you would stop expressing ideas that are contrary to Christianity and conservatism, maybe you wouldn't be mistaken for a liberal so often.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:01, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::: (re-indent for sake of reading, this is in reply to Conservateur)
::: My ideas are definitely not contradictory to Conservatism. They're pretty much traditional conservative philosophy. As for being contradictory to Christianity, I doubt so. I have not expressed anything here contradictory to Christianity. I may be Jewish, but still - there is nothing here contradictory to Christianity. I'm simply defending the truth, and the truth of the matter is that liberals don't advocate the production of chimarae No one does, outside from some fringe scientists working in Stem-Cell research who think that it might be the next area of intense interest (which it won't be, because the ethics of it are even shadier than stem-cell research). [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 14:09, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::::As Aschlafly stated, anecdotal evidence suggests that pretty much all liberals support combining human and animal DNA. Many liberal scientists at this very moment are trying to create pigs that have human organs for transplant. Conservatives definitely don't want science to make such "advances", so the support must therefore be entirely within the liberal community. QED.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:30, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::::: That's absolutely absurd. There is zero anecdotal evidence that support for combining human and animal DNA is even a mainstream ideology. It's preposterous. I'm well aware of the research in attempting to artifically grow human organs, but this is DRASTICALLY different than 'combining human and animal DNA.' That research is controversial as well, and is why many labs are investigating the construction of mechanical hearts and organs as opposed to biological ones. Whether you consider saving the life of another person an advance or not is up to you and whether or not you believe in the methodology done to accomplish such ends, but it's inappropriate to make such sweeping generalizations about your movement. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 14:39, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

==Spam==
you should block the [http://tor.eff.org/ Tor network] if you want to reduce vandalism. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:55, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== News on the main page ==

I was wondering if you could add this news article on the main page. It is about the Ten Commandments being moved off of public property. http://www.thepath.fm/news/newsitem.cfm?id=25163 [[User:Staple|Staple]] 00:30, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

: That's a cite to a petition drive. Do you have a cite to a news article describing the plan to move the Ten Commandments off public property?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:43, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
::Here are other websites that have this article:
*[http://www.kxmc.com/News/135512.asp]
*[https://secure.forumcomm.com/willmar/articles/index.cfm?page=purchase&id=21362&CFID=40900512&CFTOKEN=73968196&jsessionid=883058d24df468249191]
*[http://www.in-forum.com/News/articles/169546]
*[http://www.kxmb.com/News/135811.asp]
[[User:Staple|Staple]] 00:59, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
==Teen Challenge==
Right now Teen Challenge is undergoing persecution in at least two areas because of the way they work. Newsworthy? [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 01:43, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

: Sounds newsworthy. Do you have a link we could post?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:46, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
:One is a ACLJ brief (Discrimination by government)[http://www.aclj.org/TrialNotebook/Read.aspx?id=496 1], the other is one that has a nasty opponent trying everything in her might to stop the program.[http://www.eurekareporter.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?ArticleID=25545 2] [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 15:40, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

=="Volcanic"==
"Publicity" is a double-edged sword... but did anybody notice that "Conservapedia" became the number one "hot trend" on Google in the U.S on June 27? (I had to look this up, because I wasn't sure how it worked; here's what Google say: ''Hot Trends reflects what people are searching for on Google today. Rather than showing the most popular searches overall, which would always be generic terms like "weather," Hot Trends highlights searches that have sudden surges in popularity. Our algorithm analyzes millions of web searches performed on Google and displays those searches that deviate the most from their historic traffic pattern.''
[[User:Fox|Fox]] 04:16, 28 June 2007 (EDT) PS Who is ''Sulfur Hexafluoride''? I haven't seen any of his movies. :P (And thnx to J who emailed me about this subject ;) )[[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:50, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
[[Image:Conservapedia_Google.jpg|center|thumb|400px|Click to enlarge]]

:Conservapedia was referred to on The Daily Show last night.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 10:03, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal media drags up 25 year old story about Romney ==

Good grief. Is the liberal media so desperate to take Romney down that they're resorting to dredging up an incident that happened over 25 years ago? So Romney strapped his dog to the roof of his car for a 12-hour trip. Big deal. It's not like the dog died or anything.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/06/romney-strapped.html

--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 13:22, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:I hate to disagree in my first conservaedit but, you don't find it at all disturbing that someone would strap the dog to the roof of the car and drive across the country? I think that's a little nuts!
:To your comment about the "liberal media" dredging up the story, I say this. Your link takes us to ABC News. ABC News reports that they heard about the dog from the Boston Globe. The Boston Globe article is a glowing article about the Romney family's summer vacation. The dog is not the focus of the article. One very casual sentence tells us how Mitt piled the suit cases in the car, and strapped the dog to the roof. No big deal, just going on vacation. There you go, un-liberal media brought it up, liberal media just noticed how insane it was!
:Oh, not to disagree a second time in the same post (geez I'm kind of a jerk I guess) but, Romney doesn't need any help getting "taken down"! Recent polls show that he is averaging 15 points behind Gulianni, 9 points behind Thompson and 6 points behind McCain! Sorry guy.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-192.html

:While we are on the topic; I think it is important to know if a candidate is prone to animal cruelty! The Humane Society of the United States says,
"Intentional cruelty is a particular concern because it is a sign of psychological distress and often indicates that an individual either has already experienced violence or may be predisposed to committing acts of violence."
:No matter how many years go by, you should still be responsible for your actions. I don't think someone who could be "predisposed to committing acts of violence" would make a good president. Thank you for reading.

http://www.hsus.org/hsus_field/first_strike_the_connection_between_animal_cruelty_and_human_violence/frequently_asked_questions_about_animal_cruelty.html

--[[User:SeniorGomez|SeniorGomez]] 14:52, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== Epistemology behind Conservapedia - disputed ==

I am an editor of Wikipedia, and I believe that your claim to be "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" is a lie. On what epistemological level do you purport that your views about politics, religion and similar topics are not biased?

I find this encyclopedia to be misleading, xenophobic and dangerous - and these comments are coming from someone who has nothing against either Christianity or conservatism per se. If you can refute my arguments by claiming that you are not biased, please do so.--[[User:Hilti|Hilti]] 14:45, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
:You just demonstrated your own bias towards Wikipedia, as well as your own bias against Conservapedia, so therefore you answered your own argument. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:48, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
::I didn't say I was biased towards Wikipedia. Wikipedia, as you probably know, has a neutral point of view. This encyclopedia does not have a neutral point of view, and the most dangerous thing about it is that it asserts this information as if it were fact. I am not a Christian. I do not accept the Bible as fact. I am not American. I do not support the Republican Party and would support the Democratic Party if I was American. On an epistemological level, what makes you think that you have the right to assert the things you do on this encyclopedia?-[[User:Hilti|Hilti]] 14:57, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
:::What makes you think you have a right to assert the things you have just said into this encyclopedia? And you did not use the word "bias" in your support of Wikipedia, but it shows. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:00, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
::::I haven't asserted anything as part of the encyclopedia; this is merely a talk page for discussion of the encyclopedia. Also, a perfect neutral point of view can only be tautologically and objectively not biased.-[[User:Hilti|Hilti]] 15:05, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Well, lots of people who come here and claim "we are biased" have a bias of their own against us, and the argument you have made is just a repeat of what they have made. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:10, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

It seems to me that we have a bit of a disagreement here. What Hilti wants is not to get into an argument about it. It seems to me that Hilti is simply trying to understand what you guys are trying to do with this site! Hilti of course you are biased towards wikipedia! You came here, on purpose, to try and get this site to explain why it is as good as wikipedia! Karajou, you have not given any reason as to why consevapedia is not biased yet. Making personal attacks against Hilti isn't helping anyone. In fact through your behavior, you have probably proven to Hilti that this is a biased and ridiculous site only concerned with it's own, one sided view. Is that what you wanted? Why don't we all just take a deep breath and talk without attacking each other!

--[[User:SeniorGomez|SeniorGomez]] 15:12, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
:Two things Mr. Gomez: I did not make an attack against Hilti, unless you think it's an attack to point out that she has her own bias, which everyone has to some form or degree about anything. Second, it's already obvious that this site is biased towards family values, Christian values, conservative values. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:17, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::So I'm female? That's news to me... but back to the point: yes, that's obvious, but the initial point I was making was that this wiki purports to be truth when there are many others who would disagree and it does not reflect that, and until that changes, it is digusting as far as I am concerned.-[[User:Hilti|Hilti]] 15:21, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::And I'm not trolling; I'm simply stating that I think that children who do have the reasoning powers to judge something as being false should not be made to read this biased wiki.-[[User:Hilti|Hilti]] 15:24, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Nobody asked you or coerced you to read it. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 15:26, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::::They should not have to read the bias in Wikipedia, by that logic as well. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:26, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:You call this encyclopedia "misleading, xenophobic and dangerous", yet you provide no examples, then have the gall to demand that ''we'' prove there is no bias here? Any high school debate student will tell you that if you make a claim, you must support it with evidence. Until you do, you have no right to criticize us.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 16:55, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== Supreme Court strikes down racist Affirmative Action in schools ==

A Supreme Court victory for conservatives...

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Politics/story?id=3195825&page=1

--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:01, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

: Will post. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

==Chris Benoit==
::Wikipedia was involved in the killing of Chris Benoit family?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 20:51, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
:::No, Wikipedia editors made a couple of edits which hinted at Mrs. Benoit's death some eight hours before the police found out, and these editors are now targets of the investigation. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:42, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Thats a dumb thing to do. Haha, they deserve to be caught.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:15, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Read the article. Benoit killed his wife and son, and then hung himself. The person who editted the wikipedia article was probably just adding vandalism, and was unlucky to have struck so close to the truth. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 09:45, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::I think the implication of the story is that Benoit himself made the posting. He alledgedly didn't kill himself until a day or two after he murdered his family.--[[User:PeteVan|PeteVan]] 11:00, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Mr. Sureal, you need to read the history of the article and bounce the time of the posting against the time the cops arrived at the house. The fact of the matter is that he added info about Mrs. Benoit '''having died hours before the cops found out and discovered three dead bodies in the house'''. The police want to know exactly who this editor is, where he's at, why he did it, and how did he know about the deaths before the cops knew. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:28, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::The user that added the comment later stated on a discussion at Wikinews (a sister project of Wikipedia) that he added the clause about Benoit's wife dying as personal speculation, which coincidentally turned out to be right. [[User:TigersRoar|TigersRoar]] 13:16, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

==Huh?==
Why do we need a Wikipedia dedicated to false facts and biased views. I can understand if you wanted a family friendly information database, but this is not one of them. You trash people who disagree with your opinions and Wikipedia is not about that. It's about contributing your information in a neutral fashion.

I'm not trying to attack you guys, I'm just curious as to why you needed to start your own wikipedia. Why not a message board?

: Wikipedia is 6 times more [[liberal]] than the American public. We've documented 50 instances of bias, falsehoods, smears, errors, etc. in [[Bias in Wikipedia]]. Students and adults want a resource that is neutral to the facts, without liberal bias. Hence Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
::50 articles out of 1,800,000+ ? Wow, that's almost 0.000027%! [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 01:47, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Well, try searching the remaining 1,800,000 articles...it's a headache in itself! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:51, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

::: We didn't waste our time on the countless Wikipedia pages that I would describe as junk, such as albums by rap artists, people who appeared in movies, obscure political figures, silly rock bands, video games, etc. Maestro, you can spend your time studying those Wikipedia entries if you like. Or simply use the "Random page" feature on Wikipedia and marvel at how much junk is retrieved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:58, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
::::On Wikipedia, the users decide the content. It may not be scholarly, but it's what the contributers want. If you're not interested in the article, you don't actually have to read it. And I'm going to follow your advice. Ten random articles from Wikipedia:
*Science Fiction Poetry Association
*Galactic Radiation and Background (intelligence satellites)
*Riemann tensor (general relativity)
*1954 in Canadia football
*Nissan Skyline GT-R (automobile)
*Académie Goncourt (French literary organization)
*Footsteps in the Dark (Cat Stevens Album)
*Kgalema Motlhanthe (South African politician)
*Some garbage about Buffy fan fiction (okay, point for you)
*Lake Afton (Kansas)

Are all these articles scholarly and academic? No. But I'd say most of them are things people are interested in. Things people might want to know about (except number 9). You want to keep CP aligned along certain guidelines. Not a thing wrong wtih that. But I don't see why WP is the devil just because it appeals to a wider range of interests. Ta ta. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 02:20, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:Hmm. I tried the same game, and got: 1)a video game, 2)a weekly Norwegian newspaper, 3)an obscure female college basketball player, 4)a small aircraft engine company, 5)a glowing entry on a pro-abortion doctor, 6)a list of municipalities in the Algerian province of Tizi Ouzou, 7)an obscure Danish philosopher, 8)the happenin' metropolis of Bayshore, FL, 9)a London DJ, and 10)a German writer of whom "not much is known" but who is "best known for his early-humanist poetry." I think Andy's got WP pegged...--[[User:PeteVan|PeteVan]] 08:47, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
::I got (1) Vietnamese musical instruments (2) compulsory sterilization (3) an amateur improv theatre troupe from Wisconsin (4) a list of films by a silent movie actress who died in 1917 (5) list of winners of a poetry prize (1986-2006) (6) a 2 liner about a 1929 Austrian novel (7) a 3 liner about a basketball player (1 season in NBA) (8) all about google book search (9) one liner about a town in peru (10) couple of lines about an indoor sports arena somewhere in Latvia. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:51, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

I completely agree with maestro. on your main page there is a "breaking news" article about Wikipedia, trying to make them "look bad". umm. sounds to me that someone is jealous? wikipedia is a great source for information. ISN'T THAT WHAT AN ENCYCLOPEDIA IS? Albeit, it may not be all scholarly, but it is information. And on to the breaking news story on your front page. to quote allsux.com "First, there is nothing to suggest subsequent edits weren’t made by people who read the first edit. What sounds like a conspiracy theory is actually a lone gunman scenario. Moreover, the term ‘editor’ to a non-Wikipedia user probably implies someone in a position of authority and oversite. However, the person in question was an anonymous user. In fact, anyone in the world could have made that edit! That is the equivalent of implying that an anonymous caller to a news tip line is a reporter." I expected you made this site and advertise it so to get positive attention, but all you are getting is negative.I think its time to get off your high horse and rethink your negative feelings toward wikipedia. or just keep your head in the sand and thumb up your....--qw3r7yju4n 11:18am EST June 29.
:You claim we're being unscholarly? It was you who came here using "allsux.com" as a source to back up your claims. That's a real authoritative source for someone of your education and intellegence to use, isn't it? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:32, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

I feel that I should point out that the very use of the name "Conservapedia" indicates a Conservative bias, therefore completely rendering the claim of neutrality moot, furthermore I find it extremely interesting that you are boycotting one site due to supposed bias, by creating a site which seems to covet, endorse, sanction, and otherwise partake in ''Indisputable bias'', not to mention disinformation and other such acts. Oh, and Mr. Aschlafly, 89.569765% of all statistics are made up. --[[User:Pinto|Locke]] 14:02, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

==Immigration Bill==

This was actually President Bush's bill, one of his top priorities, but since it was voted down in congress it suddenly becomes Ted Kennedy's bill? I know he was the sponsor, but I don't think Bush is exactly cheering this news.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 01:48, 29 June 2007 (EDT) [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070629/ap_on_go_co/congress_immigration Yahoo News]

: It's common knowledge that [[Ted Kennedy]] and his staff wrote the bill. The bill is named after Kennedy. Bush went along, but not even newly elected [[Democrats]] fell for this [[liberal]] stunt.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:09, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

It's not just Ted Kennedy's bill, John McCain, Jon Kyl and Lindsey Graham are also largely responsible for the bill in its current incarnation as well. The actual sponsor in this legislative cycle for the Senate is Harry Reid though. I don't neccesarily agree that bill is too liberal and that's why it failed. In fact, most hardcore liberals complained that it wasn't liberal enough and real conservatives complained that it wasn't conservative enough. I think that it was so strongly despised on the right and the left is more telling than anything. It was just a mish mash piece of bad legislation. [[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]]

: Tordenvaer, we're not fooled here: Kennedy's staff wrote the bill. It contained [[liberal]] tricks that most [[Republicans]] are not even aware of yet. Sure, there are a few Republicans who tried to get on the bandwagon, but they are likely clueless about what was really in the bill. Newly elected [[Democrats]] stood up to Kennedy and voted against it, with devastating effect to this [[liberal]] effort. R.I.P. to another [[liberal]] fast one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:50, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

I have to say that I think you are letting complicit conservatives off the hook way too easily there. I would agree that a lot of the general public, both conservative or liberal, didn't know the particulars of the bill. I strongly disagree that the supporters in the Senate didn't know what was in the bill. This was not some quiet little bill that you could sign on to and make people happy. Given the extreme controversy surrounding this legislation, the supporters, both on the right and left, were fervent believers in this bill. Conservatives actually put in some interesting amendments, such as designating English as the offical language of the US. Most of the current bill was drawn from the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act of 2005, known as the 'McCain-Kennedy Bill'. It was not just Ted Kennedy's staff who wrote it, John McCain's staff were equal partners in drafting the legislation. The President himself was an avid supporter of this bill. To lay the blame solely on the liberals is to ignore that quite a few conservatives dropped the ball on this one and did so willingly and with open eyes. I just hope that everyone involved in advancing the bill learns their lesson. [[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]]

:Sorry, but you're wrong, because no one who supports this immigration bill can rightly be called a conservative. John McCain, Jon Kyl, Lindsey Graham and any other GOP members who voted for/supported it are therefore liberal and are in the same category as Ted Kennedy.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:26, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

:: I thought that Bush was a strong supporter of it?[http://www.sptimes.com/2007/06/29/Worldandnation/Despite_Bush_s_suppor.shtml] [http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/mason/4930387.html] [http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3326113&page=1] -- didn't he even pledge "I'll see you at the bill signing" when offering support for the bill? Does this mean that Bush isn't a conservative either? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:33, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

::: Touche. You scored there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:41, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

John Edwards

2007-06-29T05:10:08Z

Phoenix: PF Fox, I tried to strike a compromise, please try to do the same if you don't like it. Use the talk page.

[[Image:SenatorJohnEdwards.jpg|right|thumb|200px]]
''For the 18th century preacher, see [[Jonathan Edwards]]''.

'''John Edwards''', is a prominet [[leftist]] and [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] candidate for Vice President and running mate of [[John Kerry]] for the 2004 presidential elections. He is known for his advocacy of [[Socialism|socialist]] policies.

===Early Life and Education===

John Edwards was born in Seneca, [[South Carolina]] on June 10, 1953. He grew up in Robbins, [[North Carolina]], and graduated from North Carolina State University in 1974, and received a law degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1977.

In 1977, he married Elizabeth Anania. Their son Wade was born in 1979 and daughter Cate in 1982. Following Wade's death in a car accident in 1996, the couple chose to have more children. Emma Claire was born 1998, and Jack was born in 2000.

===Private Sector===
Edwards served as a personal injury trial lawyer in [[Tennessee]] and in North Carolina for 20 years, specializing in negligence and medical malpractice suits. Critics ascribe Edwards personal fortune as having been amasssed preying on malpractice victims and using [[junk science]] to win large settlements. <ref>Peter W. Huber, ''Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom'', 1993. ISBN 0-465-02624-9. </ref> [[Michael Medved]] said "Ambulance chasers like Edwards don’t create wealth; they seize wealth from its creators...There are also serious questions about his misuse of his own S-type corporation to dodge taxes, and the shady sale of his previous mansion in Georgetown in a sweetheart deal with a supporter who’s currently under government investigation....lawsuits on which Edwards built his career damaged the economy ...building nothing at all and benefiting only the lawyer and his clients. On what basis can Democrats argue that government should cap or actively discourage big salaries for successful corporate heads, but never consider such a limitation for a court-room conniver like Edwards?" <ref>[http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/Blog/issue9 For Presidents Day: Our Most Under-rated Chief Executive], Michael Medved, February 20, 2007.</ref> The deal Edwards pocketed the most from was a $25 million suit for a girl who was disemboweled by a swimming pool drain.

===Political Career===
In 1998, Edwards ran as the Democratic candidate for a seat in the [[United States Senate|U.S. Senate]]. He beat incumbent Senator Lauch Faircloth to win the seat.

Edwards served in the Senate for one year, declining to stand for re-election so that he could run for the 2004 Democratic party nomination for president. He withdrew from the presidential race on March 2, 2004 after failing to win any state of the 10 contested states in the Super Tuesday elections. Democratic nominee John Kerry named Edwards as his vice-presidential candidate for the Democratic ticket.

The Kerry-Edwards ticket lost to incumbent president George W. Bush and Dick Cheney with 48% of the vote to the Republicans' 51%.

===2008 Presidential Candidacy===

On December 28, 2005, John Edwards officially announced that he would again seek the Democratic nomination for president for the 2008 election.

Edwards is reported to be miffed over having been branded "the Breck Girl" <ref>[http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-edwardsbreckgirl.htm John Edwards the Breck Girl] ''"Sometimes another pretty face is just another pretty face."''</ref> in the 2004 Vice Presidential contest. Columnist Joan Vennochi characterized Edwards problem, "Usually, women are forced to ward off stereotypical thinking that equates beauty with brainlessness. But Edwards is not the first male politician to feel the double-edged sword that comes with being too pretty to be taken seriously." <ref>[http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/vote/5289.php Edwards' obstacle: 'Breck girl' good looks], Joan Vennochi, ''The Boston Globe'', 01.10.2004. </ref>
In the spring of 2007, Edwards reimbursed his campaign $800 for two $400 haircuts.<ref>CBS News, [http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/04/24/publiceye/entry2722181.shtml ''John Edwards And The Case Of The "Breck Girl" Comment''], April 24, 2007.</ref>

On [[Memorial Day]] 2007 Edwards was accused of using the National Holiday to "trash the sacrifice, honor and glory of American soldiers."
<ref>[http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/05/john_edwards_criticized_for_en.php John Edwards criticized for 'trashing' troops on Memorial Day], Jim Brown, ''OneNewsNow.com'', May 30, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May26/0,4670,EdwardsInterview,00.html Edwards Defends Stepped-Up War Opposition], By Mike Glover, Associated Press, May 26, 2007. </ref>

===Political views===
During his Senate career and the 2004 presidential campaign, one of Edwards' main themes was "Two Americas," contrasting the poorer working-class Americans with wealthier Americans. Critics cite the hypocricy of Edwards call for "affordable health care," when it is [[malpractice]] attorneys that use junk science to win big awards such as himself that have made the cost of health care beyond the reach of the poor.

===Criticism===
Edwards came under fire for not firing two of his campaign workers who made bigoted and hateful statements on their blogs. Statements included calling Christian supporters of President Bush his "wingnut Christofascist base", asking what would have happened if the Virgin Mary had taken an emergency contraceptive<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/02/13/politics/p171426S05.DTL&type=politics</ref>, and asking religious conservatives "What don't you lousy motherf——ers understand about keeping your noses out of our britches, our beds and our families?".<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251620,00.html</ref><ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251009,00.html</ref> These incidents were largely ignored by the mainstream media.<ref>http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2007/fax20070222.asp</ref> Edwards was criticized for not firing the employees, but they later resigned themselves.

Critics also cite Edwards lack of government experience. The most often heard criticism is that, other than the fact he has a full head of hair, there is little else to qualify him as a candidate.

===Post Political Career===
After losing the bid for vice president in the 2004 election, he became the director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at UNC-Chapel Hill.

==Miscellania==
===Books===
''The Four Trials'' (with John Auchard), about his career as a lawyer

===Trivia===
The $25 million settlement was the largest in NC history.

Recently, Elizabeth Edwards called Ann Coulter by phone on Chris Matthews HARDBALL to express her concern about some comments made by Coulter, which Edwards felt were offensive. Edwards campaign requested money from donors alleging that Coulter made personal attacks. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/13791 ABC Links Edwards/Coulter Call to '08 Fundraising Deadline, NBC Distorts Coulter], Brad Wilmouth, Newsbusters, June 28, 2007.</ref>

This occured after Coulter had been attacked on Good Morning America (6/25/07) for saying “Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished [[Dick Cheney]] had been killed in a terrorist attack." <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/13750 Ann Coulter Discusses John Edwards, Bill Maher, and the ‘F-word’ on ‘GMA’], Noel Sheppard, Newsbusters, June 26, 2007.</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

==Sources==
http://johnedwards.com/
{{DEFAULTSORT: Edwards, John}}

[[Category:Political people]]

Talk:John Edwards

2007-06-29T05:07:22Z

Phoenix: /* Have to agree with PF Fox */

I don't know how notable opposing the surge is, since every Democratic candidate I'm aware of opposes it. It would be more notable if he *weren't* opposed to the troop surge. :) [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 13:38, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't think most were at the beginning though, and considering it is still a very hot and immediate topic, I think it's relevent. TheisonMarsh

Actually, now that I think about it, the fighting global warming is probably in the same nature. The most significant thing about his campaign is the "Two Americas" theme, and fighting poverty. At least, from what I get of him. Still, I wouldn't oppose including it again, since I think he's the one who has pressured Hillary the most to apologize for her vote. And I think he has apologized for his vote, too. [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 21:30, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Well thank you for reconsidering, and I appreciate finding a sane person to debate something with on here. That is actually why I think it should be included (what you said about him apologizing for his vote), that, and what I said earlier about it still being a hotly debated topic. Furthermore, I wish there was more info here on his topics besides same-sex marriage. Those sentences are longer than the ones about any other topic and I feel that is disproportionate to its importance as a topic.
TheisonMarsh

I only meant to remove the image and not the "Further reading," but a search inside on amazon.com did not reveal any mention of John Edwards in the book. Rather than just throw a link up, maybe explain what its significance is?

== Recommend ==

[[Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians]] - [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:26, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Changed to match the style. Feel free to add/edit. Need to source some of the statements, too. Oh, and link other to articles, like John Kerry. [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 00:54, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Have to agree with PF Fox ==

RobS, sorry to disagree with you, and I am normally a Coulter fan, but I believe that she has crossed the line in calling Edwards gay and making remarks about his dead son. His son died in service to our country; in an extremely unpopular war, he stood up and made the sacrifice. That should be honored by giving his father some peace. Also, his wife's dying... I cannot imagine how much that hurts. Like I said, I'm a Coulter fan, but enough is enough here. What she did is truly un-Christian.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 00:52, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:Cites have been added with transcript of the exchange. and no, Coulter did not say she like to see Edwards killed. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:57, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
Citation is used to stand for facts; not opinions. The value-word "attacked" is not supported in the cites. I honestly don't think we should cover this issue at all if it's that divisive. I don't want to break with you, but seriously, what she did was wrong. We should either handle it neutrally - "E. Edwards called in to express concern," with value-neutral adjectives & adverbs - or not cover it at all.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 00:58, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:Well, I'm not an Edwards fan, and in this episode what Coulter had said just was not said first. If Edwards had said something that despicable about Cheney, if he had looked the other way or agreed with what Bill Maher said about Cheney, then this article is not going to look as though Coulter and only Coulter was the bad girl here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:59, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
Karajou, I see that concern. Therefore, I address it by making a neutral fact-statement. Is my solution acceptable? Notice it passes judgment on no-one.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 01:00, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:To me, the exact quotation by Coulter would have been fine; it is what she said, and obviously Mrs. Edwards did not like it. But the fact remains that Coulter repeated what Bill Maher said on GMA, and the attack on her subsequent to that is what caused it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:02, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
So is the edited version by me - my attempt at mediation - better? Feel free to edit it by inserting the exact quote. However, I like my language because it ignores emotions.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 01:04, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:it's OK. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:06, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
Great. I try, sometimes, haha. Goodnight all.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 01:07, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:John Edwards

2007-06-29T05:04:16Z

Phoenix: /* Have to agree with PF Fox */

Talk:John Edwards

2007-06-29T05:00:24Z

Phoenix: /* Have to agree with PF Fox */

John Edwards

2007-06-29T04:59:29Z

Phoenix: /* Trivia */ made a comrpomise version: please look before reverting?

Talk:John Edwards

2007-06-29T04:58:11Z

Phoenix: /* Have to agree with PF Fox */

Talk:John Edwards

2007-06-29T04:52:20Z

Phoenix: Have to agree with PF Fox

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome

2007-06-28T03:32:02Z

Phoenix: Undo revision 211036 by Special:Contributions/Sujames (User talk:Sujames)

'''Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome''' (usually referred to as '''AIDS''') is a collection of diseases and symptoms caused by long-term infection with the[[HIV| Human Immunodeficiency Virus]].

== Definition ==

According to the CDC's 1993 guidelines, <ref>http://www.cdc.gov</ref><ref>http://www.merckmedicus.com/ppdocs/us/hcp/content/merck/hiv/hivaids/aidsdefi.htmAIDS is defined </ref>as follows:
HIV infection ''plus'' any of the following:
*CD4 count less than 200 or
*CD4 percentage less than 14% of total lymphocytes or
*Any of the following illnesses: pulmonary TB, recurrent pneumonia, invasive cervical cancer.
*Expanded definition including 23 clinical conditions published elsewhere<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/00018871.htm</ref>

The World Health Organization uses a different staging method for HIV disease. <ref>http://www.aids-ed.org/aetc/aetc?page=cm-105_disease</ref>

== History ==

The illness was first recognized in the early 1980s<ref>New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 344:1764-1772 June 7, 2001 Number 23</ref> as homosexual men presented to their doctors with a rare lung disease called ''Pneumocystis carinii'' pneumonia (PCP)<ref>Pneumocystis pneumonia -- Los Angeles. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1981;30:250-252)</ref>. Early on, the "[[gay disease]]" took on a variety of names, including "gay cancer" and "Gay-related immune deficiency" (GRID). The [[Centers for Disease Control]] noticed an increase in requests for drugs needed to treat this illness and launched an epidemiological investigation.

Although the first cases of the disease probably go back to the 1950s, the epidemic was not recognized until the early 1980s [http://www.avert.org/his81_86.htm]. The early epidemic occurred in two main branches; in the US and other developed countries, and in sub-Saharan Africa. In the US, the early epidemic was primarily spread by homosexual sex, intravenous drug use, and blood transfusions. In Africa, transmission was almost exclusively by heterosexual sex. Currently, most new infections worldwide are spread by heterosexual sex.

== Natural History ==

After infection with [[HIV]], the virus quickly replicates in lymphatic tissue and travels through the blood to infect most areas of the body. The largest consequence of this is the "hijacking" of certain immune cells, especially so-called T-Helper, or CD-4, cells. Early in the infection, the immune system holds the infection at bay, often causing "Acute Retroviral Syndrome", a flu-like illness. Patients often have swollen lymph nodes. After approximately 8-10 years of infection, the immune system begins to lose its battle. This is primarily seen in the loss of numbers of CD4 cells, however the changes are somewhat more complex. When the CD4 cell level drops low enough, AIDS becomes apparent.
The first symptoms of the illness are generally night sweats, weight loss, and oral thrush.

== Opportunistic Infections (OIs) ==

The hallmark of AIDS is the appearance of ''opportunistic infections'', meaning infections with organisms that do not usually cause human disease, unless given the right "opportunity". This opportunity is the reduction in cell-mediated immunity, first seen in patients with certain cancers or on anti-rejection drugs for organ transplantation.
These infections include:

*Pneumocystis jiroveci, previously Pneumocystis carinii
*[[Candida albicans]] (the cause of thrush and vaginal yeast infections)
*Staphylococcus aureus (primarily causes skin infections)
*Toxoplasma gondii
*Cytomegalovirus
*Streptococcus pneumoniae (the primary cause of pneumonia in AIDS patients)
*Mycobacterium tuberculosis (TB)
*Mycobacterium avium complex (atypical mycobacterium)
*Cryptococcus neoformans (a cause of meningitis)
*Epstein Barr virus (leads to a type of lymphoma)
*Human herpesvirus-8 (causes Kaposi's sarcoma)

== Dissent ==
Among the world's medical professionals and biologists, there is complete agreement that HIV causes AIDS. In this, Koch's postulates have been clearly fulfilled, and basic science research has shown the same. Specific drugs have been developed that treat HIV infection and AIDS, helping show the causal relationship. That being said, there is a vocal minority of people, including some scientists, who do not believe that HIV causes AIDS. Foremost among these is Dr. Peter Duesberg. Details about these "re-thinkers" and their arguments can be found at several websites, but not in any reliable peer-reviewed journals:

http://www.reviewingaids.org/awiki/index.php/Main_Page

==Notes==
<references/>

[[Category:Diseases]]
[[Category:Medicine]]

Heavy metal music

2007-06-28T03:30:15Z

Phoenix: Undo revision 211031 by Special:Contributions/Rizman720 (User talk:Rizman720)

'''Heavy Metal''' was developed around 1969 and 1974 from Psychedelic and Blues Rock and Classical music. The aural aspects of metal generally revolve around highly-amplified guitar distortion, fast guitar solos and harsh vocals.

== Heavy Metal music and Spirituality ==

While Anti-Christian sentiments are quite common amongst the extreme metal sub genres, especially black and death metal, there is a large amount of heavy metal with an overtly Christian message (i.e, As I Lay Dying, Believer, Stryper) and several musicians of the genre are openly Christian, though very few outside Christian metal could be called fundamentalists. Such musicians include: Tom Araya, Dave Mustaine, Dave Ellefson, Chris Jericho, Max Calvera, and Dan Spitz. Some popular ensembles to this effect are [[Underoath]], [[P.O.D.]], [[He Is Legend]], and [[Norma Jean]]. One of the most popular Christian Metal labels is [[Tooth and Nail Records]].

== Sub Genres ==

Sub genres include Black Metal, Death Metal, Thrash Metal, Speed Metal, New Wave Of British Heavy Metal, Doom Metal, Folk Metal, Viking Metal, Power Metal, Progressive (or Avant-Garde) Metal, and Gothic Metal.

[[Category:Music]]

Conservapedia:Privacy policy

2007-06-28T03:29:03Z

Phoenix: Undo revision 211017 by Special:Contributions/Humandecency (User talk:Humandecency)

Conservapedia does not sell or share any information about users, except as necessary to report obscenity or vandalism to authorities. Your provision of information is purely for your own convenience in allowing other editors here to contact you.

Democratic Party

2007-06-28T03:28:23Z

Phoenix: Undo revision 211018 by Special:Contributions/Jtgreazy (User talk:Jtgreazy)

[[Image:democraticpartyusalogo.png|right|thumb|200px|Official logo of the Democratic Party.]]

The '''Democratic Party''' is one of the two major political [[parties]] in the [[United States of America]]. It is generally seen as being politically between center and [[leftist | left]] of center, while the rival [[Republican Party]] is positioned to the [[rightist | right]] of center (see [[political spectrum theory]]). Members and supporters of the Democratic Party are known as Democrats.

The Democrats currently control the [[110th United States Congress]] together with the majority of State governorships and legislatures. <ref>[http://www.multistate.com/Site.nsf/Elections2006PostMaps?OpenPage Multistate.com] Post-Election 2006 Maps</ref> According to a Pew Research Center poll, 50 percent of Americans identify themselves with the Democratic Party as opposed to 35 percent for the Republican Party.<ref>[http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=312 Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007] Pew Research Center, 22 March 2007</ref> However, Democrats have served out only three of the last ten presidential terms. Democrats in the US Congress currently have a 64.2% disapproval and only a 25.2% approval rating -- the lowest in ten years since the [[Impeachment#Bill_Clinton|Impeachment]] trial of [[President Clinton]] -- according to the RealClearPolitics Average of several dozens of Congressional Job Approval polls conducted 06/05 - 06/14 . <ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/archive/?poll_id=18 RealClearPolitics Congressional Job Approval Poll], 05/18 - 06/10. </ref> ''Investor's Business Daily'' remarked, "For all the promises of its new Democratic leaders, Congress seems truly interested in doing only one thing: surrendering in [[Iraq]]. No wonder its public approval ratings have sunk below the president's." <ref>[http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=264123134498383&kw=For,all,the,promises The Do-One-Thing Congress], ''Investor's Business Daily, May 15, 2007.</ref>

Like the Republicans, the Democrats are currently selecting their candidate for the 2008 presidential election; the front-runners in the contest are Senator [[Hillary Clinton]] of [[New York]] and Senator [[Barack Obama]] of [[Illinois]]. The most recent president who was a Democrat was [[Bill Clinton]], who served from 1993 to 2001.

==History==
The Democratic Party was founded in 1792 by [[Thomas Jefferson]] as a congressional caucus to fight for the [[Bill of Rights]] and to oppose the elitist [[Federalist Party]] led by [[Alexander Hamilton]], which fought for the [[Constitution]].

In 1798 , the party was officially named the "Democratic-Republican Party", and in 1800 Jefferson was elected as the first Democrat [[President of the United States]]. Jefferson, a member of the landed gentry and a slave owner, served two terms as president with distinction, and was succeeded by another Democrat, [[James Madison]], in 1808 . During Madison's tenure, the United States fought the [[United Kingdom]] to a draw in the [[War of 1812]]. James Monroe, another Democratic-Republican, was elected president in 1816 and led the nation through a time commonly known as "The Era of Good Feelings". In this period, the party dominated American politics with little opposition. Monroe was followed by John Quincy Adams who won the hotly contested election of 1824, becoming the first son of a former president to be elected president.

[[Andrew Jackson]], defeated Adams in the 1828 election and signed into law the [[Indian Removal Act of 1830]] <ref>[http://edweb.tusd.k12.az.us/UHS/APUSH/1st%20Sem/Articles%20Semester%201/Artiles%20Semester%201/Remini.htm Andrew Jackson and Indian Removal], by Robert Remini.</ref> according to the Democratic National Committee's website is "considered — along with Jefferson — one of the founding fathers of the Democratic Party." <ref>[http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/06/our_history.php Democratic National Committee, ''Our History''], retrieved 25 March 2007.</ref> Annual Jefferson-Jackson Day celebrations nationwide by local chapters of the Democratic Party commemorate the two founders of the Democratic Party. <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/20/AR2007022001949.html String of Successes Enlivens Democratic Party], Michael D. Shear, ''The Washington Post'', 22 February 2007.</ref> The Indian Removal Act, enforced through a series of dishonest dealings with native people such as the Treaty of Dancing Rabitt Creek and the Treaty of New Echota, resulted in the wholesale deportation of Native Americans from the Southeastern states to Indian Territory (present day Oklahoma). <http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/>

The Jacksonian period also saw the expansion of the voting franchise as most states did away with, or decreased property requirements for voting. The beneficiaries of the expansion of the franchise however, were nearly all white males. Annual Jefferson-Jackson Day celebrations nationwide by local chapters of the Democratic Party commemorate the two founders of the Democratic Party. <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/20/AR2007022001949.html String of Successes Enlivens Democratic Party], Michael D. Shear, ''The Washington Post'', 22 February 2007.</ref>

Democrat [[Franklin Roosevelt]], who served as President from 1933 to 1945, led the United States during the [[Great Depression]] and throughout most of the [[Second World War]]. Under his successor, [[Harry Truman]] the United States emerged a victor from World War II and articulated the Doctrine of [[Containment]] which committed the U.S. to stop the spread of global [[Communism]]. Truman ordered the Berlin airlift in 1948 and sent U.S. troops to Korea in 1950.

==Policies and criticism==

In June 2005, while Democrats held a mock impeachment inquiry in President's Bush's foreign policy, [[anti-Semitic]] materials were distributed at the Democratic Party National headquarters. The literature claimed that an Israeli company had warning of the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]], and an "insider trading scam" on Wall Street had occurred simultaneously. <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601570.html Democrats Play House To Rally Against the War], Dana Milbank, ''Washington Post'', June 17, 2005.</ref>

The views of individual Democrats sometimes diverge from the party's official stance as expressed in its national platform, however unlike the Republican party, the Democratic National Committee has not allowed dissenting opinions to share the podium on matters such as abortion at National Conventions.

R. Emmetrt Tyrell has been highly critical of the currect Democratic leadership, stating, "Can anything embarrass [[Speaker Pelosi]] and the rest of the Democratic leadership? Frankly I doubt it. They are all neatly shut off from the world in their fantasy of moral and intellectual superiority." <ref>[http://www.nysun.com/article/54321 Vietnam All Over Again] By R. Emmett Tyrell Jr., ''The New York Sun'', May 11, 2007.</ref>

===Economic policy===
In the field of economic policy, Democrats favor high progressive taxes, higher government spending and increasing the minimum wage.'{{fact}}

The Democratic Party has historically had ties to [[union|organized labor]]. The [[National Education Association]],<ref>[http://www.nea.org/index.html National Education Association homepage]</ref> the largest union of public school teachers, is a backbone of the party, supplying the largest number of delegates to its national conventions.{{fact}}

===Foreign and military policy===
According to its platform, the Democratic Party has the objective of strengthening America. Democratic national leadership has been accused of being ambivalent about terrorism<ref>[http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=22045 "Democrats, ACLU Outraged Over Traveler Terrorism Screening Program"] C. Johnson, Associated Press</ref> and insufficiently patriotic. <ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/01/smn.19.html CNN Saturday Morning News]Transcript: December 1, 2001 </ref>

===Education===
An organization affiliated with the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] called the [[Progressive Policy Institute]] which claims a long standing opposition to school vouchers <ref>21st Century Schools Project Bulletin: Special Edition [http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=900001&contentID=250630 ''Putting Vouchers in Perspective''], PPI E-newsletter 2 July 2002</ref> reported Jonathan Alter of ''Newsweek'' saying,
:"Can wealthy white liberals - many of whom send their kids to private school - really say to poor parents: 'We can have choices, but you must not?'...This is a glaring hypocrisy sitting at the heart of the liberal opposition to targeted vouchers… Right now, Democrats are in a highly compromised position on education." <ref>[http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=newsLetter&sectionID=29&NLissueID=4&articleID=11&altCol=2 Center For Education Reform, Monthly Letter to Friends No. 75], Back to School 2002.</ref>

===Environment vs Labor===
Two other important coalition groups also find themselves in direct conflict with each other within the Democratic party coalition--[[Environmentalist]]s and Labor Unions.{{fact}} While environmentalists support efforts like clean air and alternative fuels, for example, this creates tension with the workers of American automobile manufactures whose jobs are threatened by environmental policies such as increasing regulations and high costs. Such policies can lead to cutbacks and layoffs. Balancing these issues is difficult because some sacrifices of interests must be made by both sides.

===Healthcare===
The Democrat fondness for heavy government intervention into the marketplace{{fact}} and social engineering{{fact}} means that a significant proportion of their base and of their candidates for the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election ideologically favor introducing a system of [[socialized healthcare]]{{fact}}; regardless of the crippling tax burden this would require to sustain itself{{fact}} and the low standard of care achieved by socialized health programs in other countries compared to the United States.{{fact}} Despite these disadvantages, Democrats generally regard universal healthcare to be a priority because of the appeal to nearly 50 million voters without any kind of health insurance. Among the leading proponents for this idea include [[Barack Obama|Sen. Barack Obama]] and [[John Edwards|Sen. John Edwards]]; the latter formerly being the running mate to [[John Kerry|Sen. John Kerry]] in the [[2004 Presidential Election]].

===Homosexual Agenda===
Democrat lawmakers and opinion-formers consistently favor measures such as the establishment of same-sex civil unions, gay marriage and gay adoption of heterosexual children over defense of the traditional family. Likewise they are vigorous in attempting to amend [[hate crime|"hate crime"]] laws to make criticism of the homosexual lifestyle illegal;<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54535 Christian belief a 'hate crime' under plan], WorldNetDaily, March 3, 2007. </ref> while at the same time supporting efforts to [[propaganda|disseminate favorable opinions]] regarding [[homosexuality]] through channels such as the mainstream media and even the educational system in the face of opposition from churches and religious authorities, a broad coalition of [[Republican Party|Republican]] and Independent politicians and a clear majority of the American public{{fact}}. Democrats reject the idea of a [[Homosexual agenda]] preferring to speak in terms of [[Gay rights|"gay rights"]] when this issue is raised; the Democratic Party is the recipient and beneficiary of funding from homosexual lobbying groups and can be seen by their positions as the United States' largest and most powerful ''de facto'' supporter of the Homosexual Agenda. <ref>[http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp?ID=D000000158 Human Rights Campaign], opensecrets.org </ref>

===Other Policies===
Democrats frequently support the minimum wage, workplace protections, the right of women to choose to have an [[abortion]], [[gun control]], gay marriage, and the separation of church and state.

==Religion==
In the United States, there is some correlation between religious and political affiliation, though people of all faiths and denominations can be found among the supporters of each of the main parties.

Both historically and today, [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] voters have had a tendency to identify with the Democratic Party {{fact}}, and a number of Democratic office-holders, such as Senator [[Jim Webb]] of [[Virginia]], are Catholics. However, several general ideals of the Democratic Party's platform - most notably, the party's overall support for the legality of [[abortion]] - are contrary to the position of the [[Catholic Church]].{{fact}}

With regard to [[Protestant]] Christians, members of [[Evangelical]] churches in particular are associated with the [[Republican Party]]. One unusual feature of the Democratic Party, however, is that it draws substantial support both from committed African-American Protestant Christians and from secular and atheist white voters.{{fact}} The strong opposition to [[homosexuality]] found among many Black Protestant Christians (and, indeed, among orthodox Catholics) contrasts strikingly with the support frequently shown by other Democrats for the [[homosexual agenda]].{{fact}}

Democrats also generally believe that religion should be separate from public life, and as such are typically supported by the ACLU. For example, in 1999 the Congress took up a bill to protect the display of the [[Ten Commandments]]. In the House of Representatives, over 3/4ths of the Democratic party members voted to remove the display. <ref>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/18/gun.rollcall/ten.commandments.html</ref>. The measure did not pass the Legislature, and as a result when Justice [[Roy Moore]] posted a [[Ten Commandments]] display in his courthouse, the ACLU was able to have the display removed.

==See also==
*[[Phonemarks]]

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.therealdemocratstory.com/ The Real Democrat Story], Open the File on the Freshmen Democrats.

[[Category:American Political Parties]]

Heterosexuality

2007-06-28T03:27:59Z

Phoenix: Undo revision 211022 by Special:Contributions/Obamarules (User talk:Obamarules)

'''Heterosexuality''' is the natural sexual attraction, solely to the opposite sex; that is, men for women, and vice versa.

== Biblical Views on Heterosexuality ==

The Bible gives some guidelines for heterosexuals.

=== Old Testament ===

:"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that ''is'' thy neighbour's." (Exodus 20:17)

:"And if a man '''sell his daughter''' to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another ''wife''; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish." (Exodus 21:7-10)

:"And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins." (Exodus 22:16-17)

:"And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that ''is'' a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free." (Leviticus 19:20)

:"If a man find a damsel ''that is'' a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty ''shekels'' of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

=== New Testament ===
:"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Matthew 5:28)

:"''It is'' good for a man not to touch a woman." (1 Corinthians 7:1)

:"I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety." (1 Timothy 2:8-15)

== See Also ==

*[[Bisexuality]]
*[[Homosexuality]]

== References ==
<references />
[[category:biology]]

Talk:Chimera

2007-06-28T03:15:02Z

Phoenix:

JoshuaZ's edits had a liberal bias and were reverted accordingly. For example, his edits replaced "animal" with the awkward "non-human". See the dictionary definition of animal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:51, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:1: any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation
::-[http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/animal Merriam-Webster dictionary]
:I don't see how [[User:JoshuaZ]]'s edits had any "liberal bias." [[User:TigersRoar|TigersRoar]] 16:20, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
: Andrew, I also don't see even if you disagreed with that edit (which was the second edit) what the issue was with the first edit. (I'll incidentally note that the Bible considers man to be an animal. See comments in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:30, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

:: The complex M-W dictionary definition exists, but is not its most common definition. We strive to be concise here as a useful resource. That means avoiding useless and overly complex definitions.

:: [[Liberals]] seek to portray humans as just another type of animal. The animal rights advocates and evolutionists are big in doing this. Not here, guys. We accept, as the vast majority of Americans do, that humans are different from animals, as that term is commonly used.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:42, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Andy's right. Humans as just another animal is a key element of evolutionary theory, contrary to the '''exact word of God!''' Don't get more liberal than that.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 22:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

: Phoenix, your sarcasm is misplaced. I didn't say anything about the "exact word of God." Ask your neighbors, your friends, your family members and see what percentage think of humans as animals, and you'll see how few support JoshuaZ's edit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:10, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Andy, I wasn't being sarcastic! I'm sorry if you distrust me. The idea of mankind as animals is contrary to the exact word of God! You didn't say it; I DID. God said He created us in His image - we're the closest to God that you can be, and specifically distinct from animals. Please, trust me.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 23:15, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Chimera

2007-06-28T03:14:45Z

Phoenix:

Talk:Chimera

2007-06-28T02:46:16Z

Phoenix:

Talk:Constitutional avoidance

2007-06-28T02:36:14Z

Phoenix: New page: omg I love statutory interpretation. Can I help?-~~~~

omg I love statutory interpretation. Can I help?-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 22:36, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Michael Savage

2007-06-28T02:31:38Z

Phoenix: Deleting Savage-bashing

== Anti-religion?!!? ==

Is anyone else a Savage fan? Was anyone else shocked by his comments today?-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 22:28, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

I've never listened to him. What did he say? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:30, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

See what I wrote on the article.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 22:31, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Michael Savage

2007-06-28T02:31:23Z

Phoenix: /* Anti-religion?!!? */

Savage is a bad man.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:15, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ph.D. in economics? ==

Since when?

== Anti-religion?!!? ==

Is anyone else a Savage fan? Was anyone else shocked by his comments today?-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 22:28, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

I've never listened to him. What did he say? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:30, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

See what I wrote on the article.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 22:31, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:The Stone Table

2007-06-28T02:31:04Z

Phoenix:

I'm confused about this reversion. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:14, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

As am I. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:15, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

:The reversion was simple. It was making a comparison of a magical table in a fictional book to be similar to Jesus' death and resurrection. It trivializes the Gospel account, or it slaps Christians across the face. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:17, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Well, that was the metaphor Lewis was going for in the book... [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:21, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Right. It's an allegory, to introduce children to hte principle of divine sacrifice & love. I loved that book as a kid, and studied Lewis & Tolkein extensively. They're great books that teach Christian morals. Not trivializations. Lewis was a deeply Christian man (as was Tolkein) and Lewis tried to show it in his writing. Karajou, what he did was good.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 22:22, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:Then should such an edit have been properly explained in the first place? I'm for the explanation, but not the trivialization of it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:24, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
I'd do it but I'm currently playing Nintendo DS :-). Get back to you in a bit.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 22:31, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Michael Savage

2007-06-28T02:28:38Z

Phoenix: Anti-religion?!!?

Michael Savage

2007-06-28T02:28:15Z

Phoenix:

[[Image:Michaelsavage.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Michael Alan Weiner''', Ph.D. (born March 31, 1942) (aka '''Michael Savage''') is a [[conservative]] talk show host. <ref>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michael_Savage SourceWatch</ref>

His nationally-syndicated radio show is called "Savage Nation". He holds a Ph.D. in [[economics]] and [[medicinal botany]].

He is famous for making what some characterize as "inflammatory" statements. In 2003, Savage was fired from MSNBC, after telling a [[homosexual]] caller "I hope you get [[AIDS]] and die, you pig."<ref>USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-07-07-talk-host-fired_x.htm</ref>

He has recently won the Freedom of Speech award and is contemplating running for president in '08.

== Michael Savage & Politics ==
Savage takes credit for many sweeping changes in American politics. In the early weeks of June, Savage spent almost every minute of his show lambasting George W. Bush's proposed immigration reform bill. He takes credit<ref>Monday, June 25 2007, "The Savage Nation," 750 KPRC (Houston).</ref> for the defeat of the bill.

Savage also takes credit for defeating the Dubai port deal.<ref>Ibid.</ref>

== Michael Savage & Religion ==
Savage is a deeply religions man. However, he is not a fan of organized religion. In a 2007 broadcast<ref>Wednesday, June 27 2007, "The Savage Nation," 750 KPRC (Houston).</ref>, Savage denounced organized religion, and any faith that professes to be the one way to God. He unfavorably compared fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalism Islam. He also expressed his belief that all religions that teach morality from God are good. As a result, while Savage is a great spokesman for the conservative political viewpoint, he is seemingly not very favorable for Christians listeners.

== References ==
<references />

{{DEFAULTSORT: Weiner, Michael Alan}}
[[Category:Broadcasters]]

Talk:The Stone Table

2007-06-28T02:22:11Z

Phoenix:

Talk:NOPEC

2007-06-20T02:55:05Z

Phoenix: New page: This sounds like a good idea in theory... but isn't the problem with OPEC that they can just totally ignore us? Like, will this solve anything? I hope it will. OPEC is kind of... evil.-...

This sounds like a good idea in theory... but isn't the problem with OPEC that they can just totally ignore us? Like, will this solve anything? I hope it will. OPEC is kind of... evil.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 22:55, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Toomean

2007-06-20T01:53:21Z

Phoenix: New page: Too mean for... what?-~~~~

Too mean for... what?-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 21:53, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Good faith

2007-06-20T01:39:07Z

Phoenix:

Good faith is a legal concept that means:

*in commercial transactions, observance of reasonable standards of fair dealing
*in issues concerning duty, an honest intention to fulfill one's obligations
*in personal dealings, a lack of intent to seek unfair advantage or to defraud

Good faith is hard to define. But it is a precise legal term of art, and typically a [[question of fact]] for juries.
[[category:law]]

Gonorrhea

2007-06-20T01:07:25Z

Phoenix: Not family friendly

Ahab

2007-06-19T05:21:33Z

Phoenix: Creating a needed article, then going to bed

== Biblical References ==
In the Bible, Ahab was a Hebrew king. His rule was marked by great prosperity and works of great architecture and art (1 Kings 22:39 and Amos 3:15). However, Ahab allowed his zeal for worldly good to overshadow his religious purity. For example, he married [[Jezebel]], a woman outside his religion.

== Literary References ==
Ahab was the captain, and a main character, in the famous symbolist novel [[Moby Dick]]. In this book, Ahab pursued to his death a white whale, "Moby Dick," seeking vengeance for the whale's destruction of his leg.

Texas A and M

2007-06-19T04:42:29Z

Phoenix: New page: '''Texas A&M''' is a university in the University System of Texas. Located in College Station, TX, Texas A&M began life as an agricultural, vocational school, but has become a respect...

'''Texas A&M''' is a university in the University System of Texas. Located in [[College Station, TX]], Texas A&M began life as an agricultural, vocational school, but has become a respected university. A&M has many rich traditions, and also is one of very few moderate, or possibly even conservative, institutions of higher learning, owing to a large-scale educational bias against conservatives.

Template:User savage

2007-06-19T04:30:20Z

Phoenix: New page: {{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#9966FF|info-s=8 |info-fc=#000 |id=45px |info=<center>This user belongs to the Sava...

{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#9966FF|info-s=8 |info-fc=#000 |id=[[Image:Michaelsavage.jpg|45px]] |info=<center>This user belongs to the Savage Nation. '''''Go Michael Savage!'''''.</center>}}

Kent Hovind

2007-06-19T03:25:48Z

Phoenix:

'''Kent Hovind''' (born 1953), or "Dr. Dino," is a controversial, prominent [[Young Earth Creationist|young Earth creationist]] and ultra conservative. He founded [[Creation Science Evangelism Ministry]] in 1989. <ref>http://www.drdino.com/</ref> He is well known for his standing $250,000 offer to anyone who can "prove evolution". <ref>http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67</ref> The offer has gone unclaimed. Contributors at [[Talk.origins|TalkOrigins]], a pro-evolution web-site, have pointed out that Hovind's challenge includes not just biological evolution but also [[abiogenesis]], [[cosmology]] and other things and that the challenge is worded in a way that makes it impossible to fulfill since it requires proving the negative statement that "evolution" is the only possible explanation for the existence of life.<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA341.html</ref> Hovind has also been criticized by fellow Young Earth Creationists for repeatedly using arguments that are unsound from both Biblical and scientific perspectives<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2571/</ref>.

In 2001, Hovind opened a theme park in Penscacola, Florida called [[Dinosaur Adventure Land]], filled with exhibits putting forth a case for Young Earth Creationism.

Some fellow young Earth creationists have distanced themselves from Hovind because he is currently serving a ten-year term in U.S. federal prison for 58 tax offenses, obstructing federal agents and related charges. <ref>http://www.kent-hovind.com/articles/semite.htm</ref><ref> ''"10 years for 'Dr. Dino'"'', Michael Stewart. Pensacola News Journal, 19 January 19, 2007</ref> Hovind has maintained that there should have been no taxes.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Creationist|Hovind, Kent]]

Platonism

2007-06-19T03:18:29Z

Phoenix:

'''Platonism''' is an ancient [[philosophy]] which has had great impact on [[Christianity]]. It suggests that Matter and Idea are two extremes of "being," with Idea being the more pure and closer to the Form of the Good, or the Platonic equivalent of God. In fact, to Platonists, God is pure "Idea," while the task of the philosopher is to rise above human nature, as pure "Matter," and transcend to a higher level of "Idea."

== The Metaphor of the Cave ==

Platonism

2007-06-19T02:47:41Z

Phoenix: A start, more to come

Platonism is an ancient philosophy which has had great impact on [[Christianity]]. It suggests that Matter and Idea are two extremes of "being."

Tertullian

2007-06-19T02:45:42Z

Phoenix: New page: Tertullian was a Greek patriarch of the early Christian church. He famously proclaimed that "Jerusalem" - i.e., Christianity and Judaism - should be separate from "Athens," or classical G...

Tertullian was a Greek patriarch of the early Christian church. He famously proclaimed that "Jerusalem" - i.e., Christianity and Judaism - should be separate from "Athens," or classical Greek philosophy.

Talk:Autism

2007-06-19T01:33:51Z

Phoenix: New page: I once visited, on a business trip, a school for autistic children in England, with the local MP. You would not believe the love that MP, the teachers, and everyone we were with, had for ...

I once visited, on a business trip, a school for autistic children in England, with the local MP. You would not believe the love that MP, the teachers, and everyone we were with, had for these children. That is Christ's love truly functioning in our world.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 21:33, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

Conversion therapy

2007-06-19T01:30:40Z

Phoenix: New page: Reparative Therapy is the idea that homosexuality can be cured by prayer and reflection. It is premised on the idea that homosexuality is a choice.

Reparative Therapy is the idea that homosexuality can be cured by prayer and reflection. It is premised on the idea that homosexuality is a choice.

Talk:Westminster

2007-06-19T00:00:09Z

Phoenix: New page: I have some pictures of Westminster Station. May I upload them?-~~~~

I have some pictures of Westminster Station. May I upload them?-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 20:00, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

Westminster

2007-06-18T23:59:50Z

Phoenix: New page: '''Westminster''' is the area of London containing *Westminster Abbey, *Westminster Palace (the Houses of Parliament), *The main offices of Parliament (at [[Portcullis House]...

'''Westminster''' is the area of London containing
*[[Westminster Abbey]],
*[[Westminster Palace]] (the [[Houses of Parliament]]),
*The main offices of Parliament (at [[Portcullis House]]),
*[[Whitehall]] (the British administrative system),
*and [[Trafalgar Square]].

It is also the proper name for the city containing most of the metropolitan area known as "[[London]]." In fact, "London" itself is actually a very small area in Westminster station.

Ancient Greece

2007-06-18T13:00:56Z

Phoenix: New page: Ancient Greece was the area of the world now controlled by modern Greece, Turkey, and Macedonia. Greece was responsible for much of modern philosophy and other notions of the world, as we...

Ancient Greece was the area of the world now controlled by modern Greece, Turkey, and Macedonia.

Greece was responsible for much of modern philosophy and other notions of the world, as well as a great deal of art. Ancient Greek works had a great influence on the [[Roman|Romans]]. Despite the insistence of some early church scholars that the two were necessarily separate<ref>As Tertullian said, "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?"</ref>, the Greek tradition had a great influence on the early Christians.

The ancient Greek consciousness made great reference to the [[Trojan War]] as the point of cultural origin, and self-awareness as a society.

The Greek world never unified into a central polity. Rather, individual city-states fought for dominion over many centuries, weakening themselves, and allowing themselves to be conquered by [[Alexander the Great]] of [[Macedon]]. Despite their conquest, Greek values, adopted by Alexander, informed the worldviews of many of the [[Hellenistic]] kingdoms, until their conquest by [[Rome]].

== References ==
<references/>

Army

2007-06-18T12:56:02Z

Phoenix: New page: An '''army''' is a group of ground soldiers under the command of a general. Armies were the main method of combat between kingdoms in the pre-modern era. Much of military str...

An '''army''' is a group of ground soldiers under the command of a general. Armies were the main method of combat between [[kingdom|kingdoms]] in the pre-modern era.

Much of military strategy in the immediately pre-modern era centered around the question of whether or not it is preferable to maintain a "standing army" - that is, a group of soldiers ready to be "mobilized" at a moment's notice to fight for the country, functioning additionally as deterrence. Standing armies are exorbitantly expensive to maintain. Now, most countries maintain a small standing army, but nuclear powers rely on nuclear warheads to maintain deterrence in large part.

Kingdom

2007-06-18T12:53:08Z

Phoenix: New page: A '''kingdom''' is an area ruled by a monarch of some kind. Alternatively, a kingdom is an allegorical understanding of Heaven and the world of God - the Kingdom of Heaven. Early Christi...

A '''kingdom''' is an area ruled by a monarch of some kind.

Alternatively, a kingdom is an allegorical understanding of Heaven and the world of God - the Kingdom of Heaven. Early Christian writers made many comparisons between the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of Earth. St. Augustine of Hippo, in his [[City of God]], noted that, despite the ephemeral nature of the kingdoms of men, the Kingdom of Heaven would endure forever in the minds of the believers, and in Heaven, and after the return of Jesus Christ to earth.

Texas Medical Center

2007-06-15T05:01:54Z

Phoenix: New page: The '''Texas Medical Center''' is one of the premiere medical institutions of the world. It includes many research hospitals, treatment facilities, and clinics, and is southeast of downto...

The '''Texas Medical Center''' is one of the premiere medical institutions of the world. It includes many research hospitals, treatment facilities, and clinics, and is southeast of downtown Houston, Texas, on Main Street. Cutting-edge cancer research is conducted in many of the facilities in the Texas Medical Center, giving hope to cancer patients across the nation. The "Med Center" is also home to Baylor Medical School.

Talk:Creation and evolution compared

2007-06-15T00:07:11Z

Phoenix: Why the revert? The new design bad?

Looks good. This needs, of course, close monitoring. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:15, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

== Table width ==
Can the table width be set to something static? Like 10% topic, 45% creation, 45% evolution? If it changes topic by topic it might look ugly. I'll look up wiki coding when I get home.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 09:03, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
:The column widths can be fixed, but as long as it is one table with multiple rows and not multiple tables, it won't change topic by topic. I'd suggest leaving it as it is for now at least, and see how it goes. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:08, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

== Be encyclopedic ==

I realise that it's early <s>days</s> ''minutes'' so far, so I won't change anything just yet, but keep in mind that this should be encyclopedic, not argumentative. You are describing different views, not preaching one view over another. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:12, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
:Sorry Phil! Will you help me try to keep it objective? I'm just... not a big evolution fan, I guess? Anyways, I do need your help, but I'll try to keep it objective.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 19:45, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
Why the revert? I liked the new design...-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 20:07, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

== Science can be wrong ==

That's the whole point of science. They're willing to rework their theories when presented with hard evidence. If you've been to the Museum of National History in Washington, D.C., there are many notices on the dinosaur/caveman displays, saying some of the information is now outdated, thanks to new discoveries. If science can be wrong, can creation science? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:47, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Creation science '''''is''''' science. You seem to be making a distiction. Yes it can be wrong, but only where it tries to speculate beyond what the bible specificly says.--[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 09:53, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Creation and evolution compared

2007-06-14T23:45:55Z

Phoenix: /* Be encyclopedic */ Phil help me keep it objective?

Looks good. This needs, of course, close monitoring. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:15, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

== Table width ==
Can the table width be set to something static? Like 10% topic, 45% creation, 45% evolution? If it changes topic by topic it might look ugly. I'll look up wiki coding when I get home.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 09:03, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
:The column widths can be fixed, but as long as it is one table with multiple rows and not multiple tables, it won't change topic by topic. I'd suggest leaving it as it is for now at least, and see how it goes. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:08, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

== Be encyclopedic ==

I realise that it's early <s>days</s> ''minutes'' so far, so I won't change anything just yet, but keep in mind that this should be encyclopedic, not argumentative. You are describing different views, not preaching one view over another. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:12, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
:Sorry Phil! Will you help me try to keep it objective? I'm just... not a big evolution fan, I guess? Anyways, I do need your help, but I'll try to keep it objective.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 19:45, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

== Science can be wrong ==

That's the whole point of science. They're willing to rework their theories when presented with hard evidence. If you've been to the Museum of National History in Washington, D.C., there are many notices on the dinosaur/caveman displays, saying some of the information is now outdated, thanks to new discoveries. If science can be wrong, can creation science? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:47, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Creation science '''''is''''' science. You seem to be making a distiction. Yes it can be wrong, but only where it tries to speculate beyond what the bible specificly says.--[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 09:53, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Creation and evolution compared

2007-06-14T13:03:37Z

Phoenix:

Talk:Beard

2007-06-13T04:58:06Z

Phoenix: New page: Thanks for the tags!-~~~~

Thanks for the tags!-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 00:58, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Hippie

2007-06-13T04:54:08Z

Phoenix:

[[Hippy]]

The second part of this article is clearly someone's personal view of the description of 'hippie', especially the ridiculous last remark about politicians not wanting to grow beards. Clearly the person who wrote this trying to be comical. [[User:Priestspez|Priestspez]]

: Nope. Guess again. This time offer your alternative reason why politicians almost never grow beards today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:46, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Humility, so as not to look like Jesus? Or... anti-Christian sentiment, so as not to evoke Christian patriarchs? I want to know your opinion. Mr. Schlafly, did you know that [[beard|beards]] were a major symbol in ancient times? I wrote a short article on it.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 00:47, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Hippie

2007-06-13T04:49:00Z

Phoenix: made my guess, Mr Schlafly, your opinion please?

[[Hippy]]

The second part of this article is clearly someone's personal view of the description of 'hippie', especially the ridiculous last remark about politicians not wanting to grow beards. Clearly the person who wrote this trying to be comical. [[User:Priestspez|Priestspez]]

: Nope. Guess again. This time offer your alternative reason why politicians almost never grow beards today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:46, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Humility, so as not to look like Jesus? Or... anti-Christian sentiment, so as not to evoke Christian patriarchs? I want to know your opinion. Mr. Schlafly, did you know that [[beard|beards]] were a major symbol in ancient times? Would you like me to write an article on it?-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 00:47, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Hippie

2007-06-13T04:47:58Z

Phoenix:

[[Hippy]]

The second part of this article is clearly someone's personal view of the description of 'hippie', especially the ridiculous last remark about politicians not wanting to grow beards. Clearly the person who wrote this trying to be comical. [[User:Priestspez|Priestspez]]

: Nope. Guess again. This time offer your alternative reason why politicians almost never grow beards today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:46, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Humility, so as not to look like Jesus? Or... anti-Christian sentiment, so as not to evoke Christian patriarchs? I want to know your opinion. Mr. Schlafly, did you know that beards were a major symbol in ancient times? Would you like me to write an article on it?-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 00:47, 13 June 2007 (EDT)