Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Cambrian

2007-05-16T23:55:57Z

Prof0705:

This was removed for being uncited, but he cited sources. I'm lost. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:02, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:Below is the page I posted, (and got blocked for by [[User:Conservative]], so I'd better not post it again). It's hardly exhaustive, but it is factual, and and referenced (linking to some nice informative sites), and it is at least the beginning of an article on the Cambrian period. Maybe someone else can take it further. I place it here simply as the basis for further discussion. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 13:10, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::The article below looks good to me ... I say put it back. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:16, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:::So who wants to get banned for doing it? Knowing that it will be reverted immediately, also? I suppose the ''real'' "problem" with it is all that "millions of years ago" stuff, without a YEC refutation of some sort. Or perhaps it needs to say something like "Most geologists believe..." or some such qualification. It's a pity that it got killed, as I was going to use the article as a launch point sometime to create articles about those red-linked invertebrates. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:26, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

The current article, and all other epoch articles currently "improved" by Conservative are ridiculous. Cutting and pasting a pointless YEC critique and a list of YECaganda websites to each and everyone seems silly at best. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 19:53, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:Apparently those of us that are not YEC Christians are not welcome to contribute anything. So much for a place for Christians and conservatives.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 19:55, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

----

{{expand}}

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

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

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

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Geological time periods]]

----

Conservapedia:Sysop complaint documentation

2007-05-16T16:37:49Z

Prof0705: /* name-calling by TK */

{|style="width:100%"
|'''Quick Links'''
[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]] 
[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]] 
[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]] 
|style="text-align:center"|<big>This is where you can report abuse by Sysops. Please make notes short and concise. 
'''Do not piggyback! One ''new'' header per complaint. Unsigned posts will be removed.'''</big> 
Click '''[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&action=edit&section=new here]''' to file a complaint.
|valign="top"|'''Archives'''

|}

== ColinR ==

Deleted the archive I created last night for Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative

I just restored it. Colin, I beg of you, please don't start deleting history here, okay? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:The archive was never deleted. Anyone who looks at the page history will realize this, all I did was move the archive out of the mainspace into the correct namespace, leaving a temporarily broken link, which the brilliant editor above me equates to it being deleted. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:37, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh yeah? What is this? '''00:11, 10 April 2007 ColinR (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative Archive 1" (content was: '#REDIRECT Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Archive 1' (and the only contributor was 'ColinR'))'''--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:THAT WASN'T THE ARCHIVE!!! THAT IS A REDIRECT. LOOK AT THE FREAKIN' CONTENT LISTED!!! [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:40, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Read above. Does the system not say it was an archive, Colin? When I cliked the link for the archive I made, it said the page had been deleted. The delete log says you deleted it. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Further, if you did anything to the archive I asked for help on last night, and you were among those who refused, and you came around tonight or earlier today and moved or fixed anything, without telling me, it is just as bad. Yes, you do have to inform, elite one. Still, the links to the archives were still missing on the Conervative/abuse page and the Sysop/Admin page that Philip was into. There were other posts asking what happened to the archives. Further insults will not be tolerated, Colin. You have had your very last warning. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:52, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:TK, your comment makes no sense, and you even admitted that I didn't delete the archive links. All I did was move the archives out of the mainspace to their correct spot, something that people have done before (think Sid) and you have no clue what's going on and flip out. I have not insulted you, only asked serious questions, and you respond with false accusations and threats. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:55, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Colin, I admitted no such thing. The system said, when I entered the link to the archive I created, that you had deleted it. If you deleted a re-direct, and replaced it, in another "Lone Ranger" stunt, elite one, without posting about, or telling me, you still forgot to replace the links to it! Other people noticed, and posted about it. ''Like I said, those days are over now, doing whatever you feel like, and you have had your final warning.'' --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The archive link you created was in the mainspace, where it '''didn't''' belong. Thus I moved it out of the mainspace, only to realize I had moved it to the wrong spot, thus I moved it again to the correct spot (where it is now) and deleted the redirects, since one was in the mainspace and the other was a double redirect (and both were not needed). You accuse me of a lone ranger stunt, but your archiving seems to be just as "elitist" as my actions. Quit with the empty threats and baseless accusations. I'm getting tired of your false claims anytime you don't understand something. And I don't have to tell you every time I do something, you're not my keeper, nor is anyone on here. If you have a problem doing whatever they feel like, why not "complain" to almost every editor on this site. I'm through with this crap, if you have something valid and worthwhile to complain about, then we'll talk. Until then, GOOD DAY, SIR. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:04, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Hmmm, I could have swore you said earlier you didn't delete anything, but now it seems you say you did. I am getting confused. And yes, Colin, things are changing, for the better, and you will start to communicate, with me, and the other Sysops. I very politely posted, asking for help with the archive, last night, and you didn't see fit to offer to help, like any of the Sysop's should have, that knew how to do it. That is one of your obligations in taking the job. If you didn't know or think that, you do now. I can't do anything to save you now, Colin. Your attitude marks you as someone not really needed here anymore, more a part of the problem, rather than the solution. It makes me sad, but it is now up to Andy to decide. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== TK and Copyright (Zach Johnson) ==
''This is a copy of the post from Aschlafly's talk page. TK insisted that I post it here, too.''
{{QuoteBox|Since the material was re-worded, perhaps Andy, since he is an Attorney, would be a better judge than Colin, CgDay and you Sid, as to what is wholesale copying, and exactly how much change is needed to avoid infringement suits, eh? Nothing I sourced was from Wikipedia, and I have never seen their material on the subject. --~ TK MyTalk 18:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)}}
As per the above comment, you are strongly invited to take a look at [[Talk:Zach Johnson]]. Short summary: Copyrighted material has been copy-pasted (from a news article and quite likely from Wikipedia) with minor rewordings in some sentences. The material had been added by TK, who is now in a revert war to keep the copyrighted material until somebody creates a better version. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:48, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== TK and sarcasm ==
While this is not abuse per say, it is a question of what is the appropriate conduct for a sysop? I continue to be concerned about [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ATheory_of_evolution&diff=95497&oldid=95484 this edit] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=95473 this edit] which shows a disrespect for other editors on this site. Is this the type of example that is people are suggesting that be followed? (Yes, I know this is a slippery slope) Please picture a website were everyone behaved like TK has in this situation - not the conservative bias, but the disrespect. Is this the type of site that you (the admins) want to present? I am concerned that the admins are turning a blind eye to the sysops and allowing them free reign - they can do no wrong. This in turn makes it a very hostile and uncomfortable place for anyone who is not a sysop. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:I feel uncomfortable here all the time, pretty much the same as at Wikipedia. The only difference is that it's much worse there.

:I disagree with the policy here which permits random newbies to start editing right away. I really hate all the backbiting, backstabbing, character assassination; carping, caviling, sneaky undermining, etc.!

:If it were up to me, I'd block much more aggressively than I have been.

:Maybe I'll just start doing that . . . --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I think you ought to, Ed. I don't want you to feel uncomfortable here, as you are one of our best editors. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Yes Mtur! ''Not at all like your Sterling good behavior.'' We are appointed to keep the place on-policy, and on-track as friendly to the Conservative and Christian POV, as well as guard against Vandals. Either overt, ''or covert''. Get used to it. You, and others constantly disrespect people whose POV you disagree with. You are just sly and subtle doing it. You don't want to accept this is never going to be run like Wikipedia. Perhaps your energies could be used constructively, rather than just carping about what you don't like, and parroting the party line of those who you agree with? I am indeed sorry if you cannot accept some measure of levity, used to defuse a possibly explosive situation. It must get lonely in the Ivory Tower (that was more humor). Ed Poor, you should chat up the Webmaster, ask him about the situation in IRC with some of these people, it will be instructional, I am sure. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: TK, could you please point to any edits where I have been disrespectful to anyone? I have been 'online' for nearly two decades now (my first experiences were with a 300 baud modem and acoustic coupler to an 8 port BBS chat line) and I am well aware that when there are no body language or voice inflection cues, it is very easy for someone to misinterpret the emotion of the person on the other end of the text connection. Smilies or a j/k can help give a hint about what the person is writing. However, just with real life, if everything is said with such a wink, people begin to not take anything that person says seriously. I remain curious as to how any of these edits [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=95473] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&diff=84553&oldid=84515] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&diff=86432&oldid=86373] were designed to be a measure of levity that would reduce the heightened emotions? Or where they written with the intent to enrage emotions? I cannot tell, and it remains up to the individual to determine if they are to see the best in someone or the worst in someone. I do not believe I am capable of writing anything that would have any emotional encumbrance that you would regard as not being insulting (I am not not trying to be insulting in this passage, just trying to state my perceptions) and thus attempt to remove any emotion from what is written. I may have a point of view and an opinion, but getting red in the face and pounding away at the keyboard is something I learned not to do on Usenet a decade and a half ago.
:: I am curious as to how you see this being run, if not like Wikipedia. What are the social norms? What are the rules? There are certainly more rules than have been set down in [[rules]]. When I am comfortable in understanding these rules and I have made the judgment as to if this is a place that I ''want'' to contribute to, then I shall. Until then, I find the community that is in the process of forming these rules to be incredibly interesting. Furthermore, I feel that it is more useful to help the community codify those rules as a place where any user can understand what is going to happen if he or she does something than it would be to go forth and write documents. As it is, there is still a bit of hostility to many of the writers of new material here. If you search [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=Mtur&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=0 my contributions], you will see that I have contributed some to new material - there are a few articles that I've commented with as "rewrite." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:38, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*So, your time online mirrors my own, Mtur. I assume we are more or less contemporaries. The joke about Martha Stewart was indeed designed to defuse, however I can see someone who is defensive or indignant in their opinion thinking the comment was aimed at them, and that I certainly didn't want to happen. Maybe you don't watch much TV or know of her. However, you being online as long as you have, certainly know of this old dodge of blind-siding people as you did above, to support the views of those you agree with by making a public post, instead of privately contacting me and asking what I meant first. I have seen much of your work that is to be admired, your manipulative tactics, posted above, are not a part of that admiration. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:46, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: As I have stated [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk%3ATeamwork&diff=90300&oldid=90283 elsewhere], I prefer all communication to be public (perhaps I should put that on my user page too). As such, it remains difficult for me or anyone else to attribute something other than what I have said to me. It also constantly reminds me that I am in a public place and to be on my behavior - there will always be someone looking to trap me in words if I misspeak. I ask of you, have I shown you less respect or treated you with less dignity than you have shown me in the past? Alternatively, if I was to make the same comments you have made in the past, would I be banned? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I don't ban people except for vandalism and the like. I have blocked users, shortly, when I know they are creating havoc, or doing things to marginalize Conservapedia. I certainly have posted several times, quite publicly, in opposition to some Sysop's actions, etc. This you well know. Spirited discourse is how I was raised. I was schooled by Jesuits. So, no, you wouldn't be banned for talk, of course not. I know of only one Sysop who has banned for talking. As I said, I publicly disagreed. But your argument about keeping everything publc puzzles me, from a logic point of view. Anyone can make up anything, and say it came from me or you, if they have a mind to. So to use that as an excuse to actually lessen dialog, seems odd to me. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:06, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::The above statement by TK is quite misleading ... While it was quickly reversed when the error was pointed out, TK blocked me without even checking to see if I was the offending user. I think sysops should have the basic skills and knowledge to do a little fact/history checking before running to the block button. I'm sure I'm not the first one TK has blocked by accident, then tried to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Hojimachong&diff=137248&oldid=137232 cover it up] instead of adding an apology comment. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:51, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

*Jrssr, you have now earned another, not mistaken, block. ''Your statement above is totally false'', showing an edit of mine, where I decided to be more temperate, and not bring up the fact you could have been blocked by Hoji for name-calling, and that any Sysop still could, and implying it had something to do with your mistaken blockage of how long? You are disingenuous, and that will not be tolerated. Blocks do no "damage" whatsoever. You are building red herring non-issues to be inflammatory. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:51, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Blocking of NousEpirrhytos ==

I would like a comment on this situation, Nous was apparently banned for "attacks on the Bible" by Karajou, which apparently relates to [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Bible#Name this conversation] in which Nous expresses scholarly disagreement with the concept of Biblical literalism.

Even more disturbingly, users questioning Karajou's actions on his talk page have been informed by User:TK that regular users have no business questioning administrative actions. When asked if ''"Andy's promised freedom of speech excludes questioning or criticizing the Bible"'', user:TK responded ''"Yes indeed, that is exactly what I meant"''. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:26, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*When quoting someone, Nematocyte, could you please not edit their quotes? Some might think you did it deliberately, to stir the pot, and we wouldn't want that, eh? And if you are going to complain about more than one Sysop, please make more than one header, one for each complaint. Thank you. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:31, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Do you disagree with the content of my condenced quote? Do you not intend to imply those things? In any case, I am not making a complaint against you, as you have not performed an administrative action in this case, only commented. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:37, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Ahhh....just another snipe. I see. Very good. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:38, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Do you disagree with my summation? Do you disagree that administrative comments on the case are relevant? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::For the love of mud, TK, answer the user's questions rather than bickering. Nematocyte is being '''incredibly''' reasonable here. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Agreed, I would rather see answers than this pointless "sniping." [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Well, [[User_talk:Karajou#Blocking|this is what we got so far]]. Answers would indeed be nice. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Some of the Sysops seem fairly trigger-happy right now. Petrus and NousEpirrhytos were completely undeserving of banning. This along with the un/blocking of AmesG and PalMD give me pause for thought as to what is happening on this site at the moment. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 12:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well, if you read some of TK's latest comments, that's exactly what it's supposed to do. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::According to some of TK's recent comments, one could conclude that this page should be speedily deleted - who are we to question or even criticize sysop decisions? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:45, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't see what banning Petrus and NousEpirrhytos was meant to accomplish. It seems to me these bans were pointed at silencing their ''opinion'', rather than promoting '''good faith'''. Is this what I am supposed to take from this? And in the case of PalMD, running off someone with knowledge of the field because he disagrees with your ''opinion'', seems like a fairly poor way to run a site. What are we supposed to think of a site that does this? I know we all hate Wikipedia, but is it a liberal value to allow dissent? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:While we're quoting, here is Karajou's reaction. It can be found on [[User talk:Karajou#Blocking|his User Talk page]] and on [[Talk:Bible]]:
{{QuoteBox|In Genesis 3:1, the serpent questions what God said concerning the tree of life. "Com'on, Eve...did God really say you can't eat from that tree?" One can transliterate this verse any way they want, but the meaning remains the same: Satan did not attack God personally, but he attacked His word, questioning what He said, and trying to make Eve question it too, which she ultimately did. The above individuals who have come here to Conservapedia specifically to edit the [[Bible]] article have attempted the same thing. Rather than prove God doesn't exist, they went after His word, repeatedly questioning it, questioning the evidence supporting it, belittling any answer which came their way...and at one point I was accused of the bias. This is going to stop. Either accept the Bible as it is, or leave. I only banned one individual when it started getting sour. This is Conservapedia...it is not "Liberalpedia".}}
:Just copy-pasting it here since it's quite relevant in my eyes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:49, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Note: The other person addressed in this is [[User:Petrus]], who also participated in the [[Talk:Bible]] discussion (and who got [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Petrus perma-banned] by TK recently for a similar-sounding reason). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:51, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Is there somewhere else we can post this where it will get a response from somebody, or am I just being impatient? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:Sorry, this is pretty much the final destination of all sysop complaints. The previous station had been Andy's talk page (but the big box at the top now says to duke it out here and not there), and the only other option would be the Student Panel. And don't hold your breath. I don't honestly expect something to happen (though I still hope so) - look at the other complaints here (and on Conservative's extra-page). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:08, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Faith is important to most Americans. Any attempt to undermine faith will be frowned upon here, particularly if directed '''towards''' any particular user. I have tolerated much sarcasm, misdirection, fooling around, and so forth without really being forceful - and been told repeatedly by senior staff that my lenience is not acceptable. I would like to make it possible for liberals or dissenters to participate, because I hate to see anyone marginalized. Believe me, I know how it feels.

::But how many of you whom I have defended have ever expressed a single word of gratitude for all the hospitality you have received here? Go read the story of Jesus and the 10 lepers before you say another word about "abuse". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:45, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Two users were banned infinitely for the Bible talk (Did you read it?). THREE users were banned for questioning Karajou's behavior. I was among them, and ironically enough, I got banned right after my cry for help to you. <s>Thanks for your great support here, Ed. And thanks for letting us "liberals" and "dissenters" participate.</s> Oh wait. My bad, no sarcasm on Conservapedia. So yeah. Three people get banned for trying to defend two people who got banned (and are still perma-banned). It's a good thing that I don't really care how often I get banned - otherwise I'd really look the other way the next time I see abuse. And yes, I'm slightly bitter. Please don't ban me for it, I'll possibly get better if I can go a few hours or even days without getting banned. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:13, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Oh we are aware of just how <s>hostile</s> hospitable we have received here. Maybe its being forgotten in all of this but the editors of this site are giving something extremely valuable with our contributions. Without the editors there is NOTHING here, this place needs us far more than we need it. What do we really gain by contributing here? A place to voice our ideas? Not really, wikipedia would be the place to go for that. No, most of us originally came here as contributors. This love it or leave it attitude isn't going to fly. If all of us leave conservapedia we are not harmed in anyway, but if all of us leave conservapedia it is fatal. So who needs who? Who should be thanking who? [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 15:56, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Let us not forget in all of this that a user was banned for idealogical reasons by self-conscious sysop. NousEpirrhytos should be unbanned now, or we need to toss out the conservapedia commandments and just leave it as "All editors are equal but some are more equal than others" and bask in the warming glow of censorship, authoritarianism, capriciousness, and hypocrisy. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 16:01, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'll also add Petrus' ban for review. It appears that he was also banned for this, although by another sysop (TK). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==I will just assume bad faith==
on the above issue. since there is no effort to respond, from Andy, Ed or TK. good to know. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:11, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:'''Myk just got banned for one month for questioning Karajou (see his talk page and Bible talk).'''
:Writing quick, I might be next. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, me too, probably. I just posted on Andy's page. Apparently we can't ask questions either. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Kinda sad that you can effectively be blocked for asking "Why?" after a sysop did something... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:17, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Wow. Just...wow. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

(reading up) No effort to respond? Do you have any idea how many pages are on my watchlist? Try leaving a note on my [[user talk page]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Ed, I don't think Flippin really meant you, at least I wouldn't include you on the list, you've responded more than any other on that list<s> (by responding, I mean actually responding and not just whining like a little kid)</s>. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:24, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==This will probably earn me a ban==
but why was Sid banned by Karajou? Could someone just explain how his actions harmed conservapedia? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Dissent is against conservative values. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 13:30, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
::Dissent's not so bad; stupidity might be frowned upon. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:20, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::...please tell me that you didn't just call me stupid and that I simply misunderstood your words in the context... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:24, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I appologize if/when I (may) offended (with all pertinent disclaimers). I thought the subject had been banned, so trashing him was ok. I dissent from my previous statement. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
: re. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]]'s comment: Seconded. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 13:36, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==Ed Poor and Reginold==
'''Please keep posts in chron order!'''

Ed Poor banned [[User:Reginod|Reginold]] because he didn't apologize for <s>that offended Ed Poor</s> putting words in Ed Poor's mouth, twice (as stated on the block log), even though a well stated apology is on [[User talk:Reginod‎|his talk page]]. Perhaps I will follow; I can't tell. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 18:15, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

*Avoid insults/snipes, stick to the facts, don't become idealogically biased against Conservative and Christian principles and avoid never-ending arguments and reverts, and I don't think you will have a worry. If you don't, you will be counting the days down. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::No, what I said was ''put words in my mouth twice - did not apologize''. That is not the same as "comments that offended me". Your comment here is tantamount to an accusation. Please clarify your remarks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:35, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::He did apologize, though, didn't he? [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 18:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Sorry that I misrepresented your block log comments; I was focused more on the apology that is quite extensive on his talk page. As for TK's comment below, I see I have been placed on the [[Conservapedia:Abuse]] immediately after posting this message, which is an interesting commentary on [[justice]] on Conservapedia. (I also hope that you all blank your User pages in deference to the Virginia Tech victims as I have.) [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 18:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

*I would be a mistake to connect dots, Sterile. I have been down the hall, in meetings, since I posted, so I am not aware of you being "watched". Those kinds of comments, made by a Sysop, you would be posting about, calling them unfair, eh? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not going to comment. The environment here is too hostile, and again I fear I will be interpreted. Instead, I think this afternoon when I get a chance, I'll write an article for [[justice]] and get off the 90/10 list, and be proactive instead of defensive. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 08:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ed Poor ==
This is what Ed Poor wrote in a debate page "We should just blast you all into smithereens, you humorless bastards! BOO-WAH-HAH-HAH!!!! --Ed Poor 14:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)" Doesn't this warrant a ban? Or can I say bastard without getting into trouble? --[[User:FredK|FredK]] 14:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::That was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Should_some_of_the_Sysops_on_here_Lighten_Up%3F&diff=140624&oldid=140266 here]. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 11:59, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
: If I interpret 'BOO-WAH-HAH-HAH!!!!' correctly, as evil laughter, then it would seem to mitigate. Anyway, [[User:RSchlafly]] swore [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ASigmund_Freud&diff=133574&oldid=133325 here] to no repercussions, so it would seem that it is condoned. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

*I fail to see swearing at the link provided, Wikinterpreter. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Uh, here, TK:

'But Freud's work was crap,'

--Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

:I intend to follow this up by referring to a female wolf as a bitch. Next month, I'll refer to a male chicken as a cock. Lighten up, eh? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:55, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*I someone here thinks using the word "crap" is swearing, I submit you are far too sheltered and unworldly to venture out onto the Internet. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:31, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: So what's the point in Commandment Number 3, then? Where do we draw the line? Because if not, then it's a load of ... oh, well I won't stoop to that level. Is this a confirmation that the use of the words 'crap' and 'bastard' is sanctioned by two admins? --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

== Aschlafly ==
Aschlafly was acting like a bully. He's apparently the owner of this site, so he'll get away with it, but he [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Notice_of_likely_blocking pushed around] me & [[user_talk:1048247| 1048247]] pretty ruthlessly & without cause. When confronted about it, he told me to leave his talk page, and discuss any problems on the article talk page itself, which [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Alexander_Hamilton he has not done], instead [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Alexander_Hamilton&action=history reverting] without explanation on the talk page. I think this is inappropriate behavior for an admin. As I said, nothing will get done about it, but I think he needs to know that it creates a bad work environment. Of course, I can't tell him that on his page without getting blocked, so this will have to do. I'm new to the site, but already I can tell that. Doesn't that tell ''you'' something?-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 13:15, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:I've been here for a couple of months and have nothing but good things to say about Andy. I have created new articles, edited some, suggested news articles for the Breaking News section, etc. In other words, I've made several positive contributions to this site without engaging in the endless debates and discussions on contentious talk pages. I've also been watching Andy's talk page, and I've seen the vandalism on this site as well as the constant badgering that he has to deal with on a daily basis. BillBuck, I have seen your side of this issue, and I disagree. I believe Andy is very tolerant of other editors and I fully support his actions. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 13:50, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
That sounds like he's tolerant of people he agrees with. The test of tolerance & kindness isn't how you behave towards your friends. It's how you treat others with whom you differ in significant ways. One of the many remarkable things about Christ was that he treated all men equally; if He had only shown favor & friendship towards His disciples, it wouldn't have been that impressive. Although I'm glad it's been a positive experience for you.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 13:58, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::I got blocked for writing this, but I stick by it. I don't think complaining about admin abuse is the same as "starting a fight." The fight was started when Aschlafly insulted me.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 20:37, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

*You were not blocked by Andy Schlafly, but by Karajou. You personal page is nothing but a biased attack, not some intellectual criticism of Schlafly. Your intentions and outlook are clear. You were responsible for being blocked, no one else, and for no other reason than your picking a fight. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:55, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Look, when you start blocking people for disagreeing with you, how are you better than the Taliban?-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 20:57, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

*Obviously online wiki's are not the place for you ''if'' you cannot discern the difference between disagreements, intellectual debate, and going out of your way to provoke. I have no dog in this hunt, other than reading your comments, and Karajou's and the others. I have never shied away from criticizing Andy, or anyone, when I thought it due, but you can (and will) do so without keeping at it to provoke acrimony. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:06, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

You've not shown your ability to perform the same kind of distinction you ask of me.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 21:24, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
*Well, fortunately for me, then, you are not here to judge the actions of Sysops, and there isn't any rule, guideline or Commandment saying you should or could. Stop jerking around, and either be here to help, or I will remove you. You are ignorant of the facts in the extreme, and judgemental to the point of it being laughable. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==Separate Complaints About the Poster==
:"Kind of a bully", huh? Where did I here that before....hmmm...was it Chip Berlet, [http://www.religiousrightwatch.com/2005/07/the_things_peop.html] author of [http://www.organizenow.net/cco/right/propanalysis.txt Introduction to Propaganda Analysis] who "recommends the terms 'bullying' and its variants". Wanna see a few thousand diffs to make the point? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:40, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

What?! I don't see the relevance.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 14:45, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:We've heard it all. And the cookie cutter textbook buzzwords and phrases just don't get attention anymore. It's kinda like Pavlov's dogs or the boy who cried wolf, after hearing the same stuff over and over again, eventually you just don't hear it.

:Let me give a real simple example. This page is for sysop abuse. Your opening sentence is uncivil and a personal attack. Why should I read '''''any''''' further? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:01, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I've changed the tone so that the personal attack is gone. I'm sure you'll be interested in reading the rest, now. I think it's sad, though, that you'd ignore criticisms after a while: just like the boy that cried wolf, you might miss it when it's the real thing. Also, since this is the first I've heard of it, it's news to me.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 15:04, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*So, when "caught" you now show your revisionist stripes, change the tone, and want to continue your ad hominem attack? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:06, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Moving on...

Is anyone going to address the substantive complaint? So far only RobS and TK have, and just to suggest a nicer approach (which I took to heart) or mock me (which I won't). Won't someone address the substance?-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 18:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*By "substance" you wish to have addressed your totally subjective, personal opinion, that Andrew Schlafly is a "bully"? That is my understanding. Is it correct? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:23, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Moving on...

I mean that he doesn't care what other people have to say. And blocks them when they disagree with him. I mean, you've been here longer than me, so prove me wrong, but first impressions are really hard to shake, you know?-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 19:26, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

: I appreciate the support here. It's obvious to me that Bill is yet another liberal who may delight in pretending otherwise. Bill, I'm going to check your edits now but if you're violating the 90/10 [[rule]] and don't correct that violation soon, then you will be blocked as others have been.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

: Follow-up: after a quick look at Bill's edits, I estimate only about 10% could possibly be substantive. Next I'll check those substantive edits (a grand total of 5) and see what they were.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:36, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:*You forgot to add "Moving on..." Andy. That apparently is another Liberal device to avoid directly answering. :p --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:22, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*He's blocked for three days for picking a fight. He could have handled it a lot better than he did. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:35, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:*Aren't there still boards out there that welcome the constant fighting and never-sending debate? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:48, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:**Look at his edits to William Rehnquist and Anton Scalia. Not bad. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=William_Rehnquist&diff=prev&oldid=142314] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Antonin_Scalia&diff=prev&oldid=142318] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:51, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::I'm sure those fighting boards are at Wikipedia. When it comes to people here wanting to start a fight, it has to be put down immediately and not escalate. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:56, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*Unlike you or I, Karajou, Andy is used to teaching young students, and that is why he appears (to me at least) to be if anything, overly tolerant of "spirited" discussion of a kind that always seems to turn into personal insults against him, or worse, insults to his family. I guess some here would faint dead-away to learn some of us wouldn't tolerate more than one paragraph of personal insults, compared to the pages Andy tolerates. I do always get a chuckle when sections like this, once the perpetrator is called out, and no longer is free-posting complaint after complaint, they flee. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:06, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Okey, I'm bit lost now... This is Administrative Abuse page isn't it? And when people post here it's usually because they had an fight with an sysop. If posting here only gets the complainer to be banned for causing more fighting then what is the use to have these pages? I don't know if the former complainer for example had specially good reason to complain, but he did it quite civil and would have hoped that using these pages for what they are meant to wouldn't have just caused more trouble for him. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:08, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:TK's got a good point; many of these are young people are anxious to learn the rhetorical arts, and we can show them how to be effective. It doesn't matter what your ideology is. A look at his contribs is impressive. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:15, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*I am lost too. Is it at all possible you are so specious that you cannot tell the difference between someone complaining, and offering totally subjective, context-specific "evidence" to advance what is purely personal opinion, and something that is substantive, and possibly something that is truly questionable? This whole topic is mostly filled with personal opinions, highly subjective complaints, mainly of personal style, rather than specific, verifiable accusations of "wrong doing". It should more accurately be titled "X did something I am mad at, and I want attention!". Perhaps I need to make "rules" for this page, more narrowly defining what is and is not something that rises to the the proper definition of "abuse", since so very few seem to know what the word actually means. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:18, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I think thats an good idea TK, as i must admit that i thought i did, but seams some people have very different opinion on this subject. Mayby some clarification would be good for everyones sake. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:23, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

::Ok, I don't like fights; that point is clear. I also don't like people escalating those fights, and I have put a stop to the fights, usually by blocking. I honestly don't like doing that. But a fight must be put down before it gets out of hand; it cannot continue from the main page and escalate here, and that comes from having seen it and stopping it in police work. The individual causing such a fight needs to follow the rules for this site as well as the sysops (myself too) need to follow some good rules on stopping the fight. If TK can make those specific rules, I will follow them. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:25, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*Karajou, I certainly hope you were not thinking anything I posted was directed at you, because it most certainly was not. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:29, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::No, I didn't take it that way. My thinking was that what you said was meant to improve our own performance overall. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:20, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Karajou, I hope you realise that a fight involves at least two people and you have blocked just one. This page is for people who wish to make a complaint about something, and wish it to be looked at fairly by a third party(ies). Blocking one side of an argument doesn't immediately solve the argument (if anything it is much much worse leading to alienation and frustration). Regardless of who the complaint was directed at the argument should have been looked at objectively not just torn apart by any member of the "I love Schlafly" squad. Looking at what happened, it seems that the complaint was totally disregarded with preference to a set of ad hominem attacks on both the argument and the complainant. Surely you must see this defeats the whole point of this page? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 14:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==Swearing==

There are levels of "swear" words. I got "bastard" from a divinity student who later became academic dean of a small theological seminary. He translated the Latin ''Nihil illegitimati carborundum'' as "don't let the bastards wear you down."

Clearly, much of the "abuse" complaints here are actually protests against policy itself - not reports of policy violations by staff. It's part of the general adolescent angst endemic amoung Liberals. All authority is evil and suspect and deserves to be torn down.

The hypocrisy of this is the utter disregard of the evils of slavery in the Sudan, the double standard of enjoying electricity and fresh food in the West (while Africans should go without), and the neglect (amounting to censorship) of the totalitarian abuses of socialists.

What the heck is that all about? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:48, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:They hate the word "conservative" in Conservapedia; they think that this is a free and open wiki; they think that no one is in charge; they think that this should be a free-for-all in which whatever it is they believe in should be shoved down our throats, and if we prevent that, why they cite free speech violations. These people have to be told otherwise, one way or the other. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::Hi Ed, might be better on a debate page, but I'd love to address some of these topics. First of all, I do not feel a special existential angst similar to that in my youth, but I have seen many abuses of authority over the years. This has led me to believe that not all conservatives are bad people, but that people in power can, if unchecked, use it poorly (no pun intended ;-) ). If you look at the case of Fargo, ND, they raised their speeding fines by about 100% a few years back. That's all well and good in theory, except it violates the state law, and now they are going to have to pay the overage (based on five years of tickets) back. The authority issue comes in because they did so knowingly---they would not let defendants see a judge, they increased the overall number of tickets by almost half again and they have now spent (no kidding) thousands of state taxpayer dollars trying to keep my sister-in-law from getting back $86 in wrongful fines. Have you ever heard of a traffic ticket that has yielded over 300 man-hours of legal work by a state?

::Abuses like these are why I became a liberal. I have seen many such instances and realized that too much authority in one person's hands makes for a dangerous situation. I regard the evils of slavery as a real threat to our security--more so than Iraq.

::Not all authority need to be torn down, but it ''deserves'' questioning and a watchful eye. I don't hate George Bush anymore than I hate Mother Teresa (I didn't hate her either), but asking tough questions is my duty as a citizen.

::Finally, I think you have a point when you say many of the questions here are about policy. I won't spend all day on bias, but it is very difficult to measure bias. Writing it into an article--possible, but how do please the more conservative among you as well as the more moderate? Once that dis-equity is designed, can it really be self-sustaining? I am here to see if any of you can actually do what you intend, or if eventually, you will create something nearly identical to wikipedia without blocking, protecting and guarding everything. Good comment Ed, but I hope you appreciate my position. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:31, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

*I hate to be the one to break it to you, Flippin, but the actions you cite in Fargo, are certainly not those of Conservatives. And if they self-designated themselves as such, they are wrong. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:01, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:Ed, I don’t think this is a particularly liberal way of thinking (look at how conservatives treat liberal authority figures on this site)—I think it is human to want to see those you disagree with have less power (how many Conservatives do you think would support warrantless wiretapping in 2009 if a Democrat is in the White House (especially if Hilary is there), and how many Liberals who opposed it when Bush did it will change their minds?). So, yes I have no doubt that there are some liberals on this site who would like to see the current people in charge have less power. I freely admit I’d like the religious conservatives to have less power here and those with more libertarian leanings to have more (I want people who agree with me to have more power).
:But I also think that part of the problem is that the rules are unclear. I might have thought that the words in question above amounted to foul language and some sysops may have enforced the rule that way (say I used those words to describe my opinions of YEC how long do you honestly think t would take before that earned me a ban?). There are clear double standards on what is acceptable here, at least in terms of how some of the rules are enforced, and that bothers people especially those who get the bad side of that deal.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 10:05, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:*I agree, Reginod. Religion and political issues bring out the worst in people. Those of us who have had a "professional" involvement positively cringe at the thought of getting involved with "the public" about political things, as most are at best disingenuous and at worst totally unscrupulous, in discussing all things political. Not to mention most citizens, either here or the UK, are woefully ignorant of the whole process. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:18, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::Reginod, the example you cite is an extrememly poor one; warrantless wiretaps have been '''legel''' since 1938. Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt authorized by Executive Order wiretaps on American citizens, and he approved '''foreign''' Intelligence doing it. Why isn't this commonly known? Why liberal media bias, of course. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:47, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I disagree. FISA requires a warrant for wiretaps and outlines exactly under what circumstances a warentless wiretap is allowed. FISA post-dates 1938 and so any conflict between it and a 1938 executive order would come out in favor of FISA, more importantly FISA is a law, not an executive order, and laws have more legal weight than executive orders. But, I think that strays from the main point I was trying to make.
:::I gather that you support President Bush’s use of warrantless wiretaps in the War on Terror? If Hillary Clinton (or Obama, or Edwards, or any other Democrat) were elected President in 2008, would you support her use of the same program? Would you want a President Hillary Clinton to have the power to wiretap any phone that she or her administration deemed potentially relevant in the War on Terror? My suspicion is that the answer there is no (if it isn’t I think you will find yourself in the minority among Conservatives). My point was that Conservatives tend to support Bush’s use of the program because his views and theirs line up—they like a person with their views in power, and trust him to use it well—whereas Liberals tend not to support Bush’s use of the program because they have different views from him—they don’t like a person with views that different from their own, using that much power. Likewise most Conservatives would not support a Liberal President using the exact same program, whereas most Liberals would find themselves supporting a Liberal President using that same program. Humans, Liberal or Conservative don’t like people who have views different from their own welding power (that was my point).
:::I personally don’t want anyone using such a program, since I tend to be distrustful of the police power of the state in general (but that’s not especially relevant, I just figured it was only fair to be frank about where I was coming from).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:08, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::FISA only applies to US counterintelligence operations, it does not cover cooperative sharing agreements between NATO allies. When NSA suspects an American, through a cooperative sharing agreement, NSA can request British MI-5 to perform the wiretap, hence it is not a US federal government agency performing the tap. Once MI-5 retrtieves the material, through an international intelligence sharing agreement they share the intelligence product with NSA. A similiar program exists in Great Britain with a reciprocal arangement. You will recall, it was very recently reported CIA tapped Prince Di's; stop and think momentarily, what use would CIA have in tapping Princess Di? None, whatsoever, except British intelligence couldnt do it themselves, and it certainly would be a scandal if revealed. It was a reciprocal cooperative sharing agreement. Forget FISA. It does not apply in the issue of so-called "domestic spying". FDR made legal prior to WWII, and has been legel ever since. All the other stories about FISA are simply disinformation to hide the true basis of the how the program operates, and how its done legally.

::::As an aside, an item of Impeachment against Richard Nixon claimed he authorized domestic wiretaps on US citizens; if this is an impeachable offense for failing to protect American citizens rights, imagine what FDR did, in peacetime, authorize domestic wiretaps '''''against US citizens by a foreign government'''''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:44, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::I don’t know the full details of the program getting all the media coverage—I was under the impression that it didn’t involve the kind of information sharing that you describe (I am under the impression that you are quite right, if it was the sort of behavior you describe it would be legal). But, as I said, I think that is a side point.
:::::For the record, let me be clear I don’t want any President (or any President’s administration) having the power to tap phonelines without some form of oversight from the judicial branch (I’d prefer something stronger than FISA, personally) -- Bush, Nixon, FRD, Clinton, you name them I don’t want any of them having that kind of power (the police power of the executive is incredibly prone to abuse and I want it at all times to be checked by at least one, and preferably two, of the other branches of our government).
:::::Let me get back to my point—would you want, should she become President, Hilary Clinton’s administration to have the power to wiretap phones of Americans without any judicial oversight? I assume the answer is no, because I assume most people don’t want those ideologically different from themselves to have that much power.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:59, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::The point is, it has been legal for nearly 70 years now, and it would probably take revamping the NATO Charter to make it illegal. FISA had weaknesses, (1) it assumed all countertintelligence was directed at foreign governments; (2) while it made provisions for Americans acting as agents of foreign governements, it made no provision for counterintelligence agaisnt non-national entities like drug cartels or terrorist organizations; (3) its provisions for industrial espionage committed by non-governmental multinational corporations were ambiguous. In short, the whole Patriot Act & FISA Acts have nothing to do with the established procedures for domestic spying, and have been distorted by members of Congress and media allies for partisan politcal purposes. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:30, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I will happily continue this discussion elsewhere, but not here (see below). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:38, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Go to the discusssin page here; perhaps we can begin [[FISA]] out of this discussion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:44, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::First of all it isn't president bush deciding who to wiretap, and who not to wiretap. Secondly, I would support the same program with a democrat as president. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 13:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Let me clarify I was using “President Bush” as a “controller-for-controlled” metonymy[http://www.sil.org/lingualinks/lexicon/MetonymiesInEnglish/WhatIsAControllerForControlled.htm] —if that was a source of confusion I apologize.
:::::I think you are in the minority (conservative or liberal) in supporting such a program under both Republican and Democratic presidencies, but I applaud your logical consistency. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:28, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::"the actions you cite in Fargo, are certainly not those of Conservatives" How you could no thank boggles the mind. Maybe self-deceit is not just a "liberal trait." Sometimes I think you just make broad pronouncements to sound important. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:09, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

*That is just the point, Flippin. We Conservatives find that all people are important, unlike Liberals. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 12:27, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Wouldn't it be nice if we started from the assumption that all people are good-natured and mean well, rather than starting from our preconceived notions of what we expect people to act like. After all, there is a political spectrum, there are people who don't consider themselves as "strongly liberal" or "strongly conservative," and who remove themselves from the political system because of the bickering between the extremes on both sides. Furthermore there are anti-abortion anti-gun law folks out there. Not every person neatly fits into one category or another. That we start out with an assumption that person will act or believe because of a label is truly sad (shame on all of us), and worse, if we start with a label on ourselves and create our belief system with no internal introspection, that is far more sad. God or nature wouldn't haven't given us brains if we weren't to use them. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 15:28, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:I agree with all of this; when someone crosses the line into activism coordinated and aligned with the extremes we may be able to make a judgement then. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:34, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

*Agreed. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:01, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

----
'''Getting off topic'''
We're going to have to end this debate here, and choose another page (a talk page at that) for this discussion. This page is supposed to be for abuse of admin/sysop authority, and should remain as such...so, if everyone pleases...(it was a good debate, by the way!) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:06, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:This was a good debate, and one of the reasons that we '''have''' discussion pages. Debate helps sharpen our awareness of the distinction between positions, and even sometimes what the similarities are. That will help us write better articles on the topics touched on, in the debates. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:23, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== False accusation by TK ==

At 9:04 am sysop TK left a rather bizarre maasage on my talk page

:''Tea....

:''Do you enjoy it? I like Oolong best of all! Now explain yourself. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 09:04, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Rather puzzled by this, I responded in kind.

::''Yes, tea is nice. I drink it because I find it quite relaxing. I recommend Mate, although it requires the proper equipment to enjoy fully. Thanks for your interest. Nematocyte 04:38, 9 May 2007 (EDT)''

However, shortly afterward I was blocked for "sock puppets", with the following message.

:''Well confession is good for the soul, don't you know? Sorry, but it was the wrong answer, and you and your sock are going on vacation. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 09:09, 9 May 2007 (EDT)''

Around the same time a user with zero contributes appears to have been blocked for infinity for "being a sock of nematocyte". I've never heard of this user, and I certainly am not using it as a sock. I work from a series of publically accessable machines, which could potentially explain TK's mistake. However, that doesn't excuse that no attempt was made to check the truth of the matter, or the general lack of civility used by TK. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 09:39, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

*Are you complaining about a lack of civility to you, Nematocyte? Or to some potentially unknown user who you are "protecting" and fighting for? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:19, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::Like I said, I've never heard of the user and have had no contact with them. It makes no personal difference to me what happens to them. But it would seem the correct thing for you to do would be to apologise to the both of us for your mistake. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 04:38, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

*Well it wasn't a mistake, that is the problem. Suffice to say you are still here, and your statement, based upon nothing factual whatsoever, that no attempt was made to check it out, is false. It is our perogative and charge to protect this site. If mistakes are made, so be it. But it is wrong for anyone to assume we don't check, and aren't doing the best job we can. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:47, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::My statement is based on my first hand knowledge of what is going on at my side. Namely, that contrary to your claims, I do not have a sock puppet and never have. As far as I'm aware that's 100% factual. May I ask what "evidence" there was to the contrary, and what measures ''were'' made to check it wasn't a mistake, and the reasoning being your rather cryptic questioning on my talk page? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 04:54, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

*My post was to let you know, if you did indeed make the puppet, that we knew about it. That's all. When a user fails to repond in a timely manner, and doesnt even bother to email, that doesn't tend to make us think they are on the up and up. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:05, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::I had gone home for the day, nothing more sinister than that. If it was a matter of timing, what was the "wrong answer" comment about? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 05:09, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

*No denial and a talking about tea. Nothing more sinister than that. ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:12, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::It was hard for me to deny something that I knew nothing about. Remember, all you left on my talk page was a bizarre question about tea, not an accussation. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 05:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Also, my question about what "evidence" there was, and what measures were taken to ensure the veracity of the accussation remain unanswered. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:08, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

TK, you owe Conservapedia users a full explanation of what happened. Nematocyte's accusations are heavy. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 06:32, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Ed Poor sysop needs a refresher in net ettiquette ==

I have been on this site for nearly 3 days. I have submitted one article and was in the process of submitting a second article when it was deleted by Ed Poor with no notification. This site's email notification is broken so I can't get an email confirmation sent to me no matter what email address I use so I could not contact him directly. Now I find that my IP is blocked because Ed Poor is upset that I asked for an explanation under his talk comments.

What kind of site is this? Well, as a new user I'm not impressed. I am VERY conservative and a loyal person to the consevative ideology I thought this site was actually a place where openess and conservatism would be respected but I guess I was wrong... [[User: PatrioticAmericanCitizen|PatrioticAmericanCitizen]]

Okay - let me try a different approch - how do you inquire about a sysop that shall remain nameless to ask about an IP block when you can't mention a sysop by name because they think it is a "personal remark"?

Your rule says - "You must be civil. No bullying.
Your user page/discussion pages, are indeed your castle, from which you can agree, disagree and discuss issues as you will. However you cannot use them to bully, ridicule (make fun of) or attack (denigrate) Conservapedia or other users, and their opinions. There is a difference between intellectual discourse, and attacking someone for what they believe. Wikipedia condones bullying and mob rule, we don’t."

You say no bullying but isn't using an IP block bullying in it's own right? It's an honest question that deserves an honest answer....

{{unsigned|PatrioticAmericanCitizen}}

I have no idea who you are asking that question of, Patriot, but IMO, no, it isn't. It is standard practice at most all websites. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:47, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I was asking it of Ed Poor without mentioning his name because on two occasions when I tried to obtain an explanation from him about his behaivior, I got an IP block as a result. I understand the "standard practice" reason for IP blocks in general - but deleting or modifying articles (real articles not liberal vandalism type articles) without any discussion whatsoever with the person who created them on any website is wrong. As a new user to the site, I was extremely upset at being treated in this manner. Especially after working very hard to write an article that is keeping within what I felt was the spirit of the type of articles that conservapedia.com would want on their site....I really really really really want to help this site develop if I can - I can't stand the leftward slant on wikipedia. If that particular sysop would have just said something to me before he went and did what he did - this could have been avoided. That's all I'm saying. There, I feel better now :) Now back to our regularly scheduled program....

[[User: PatrioticAmericanCitizen|PatrioticAmericanCitizen]]

==I Second This==
For the past couple of days I have spent many hours researching and writing articles about British Comedy of the 50s 60s and 70s. I wrote articles on Carry On Films, and Tony Hancock, one of the all time British Comedy Greats. In doing that, I created articles about Sid James and Kenneth Williams who were in the original Hancock's half hour series along with Hattie Jacques. I spent a long time writing synopses of Hancock episodes, and finding clips. Some of these entries were about 2000 words in length.

I went on to write bios of some of the other Carry on stars including Barbara Windsor and Charles Hawtrey. Ed Poor saw my entry on Hawtrey, which touched on the fact that he was very camp and a noted homosexual, a fact well known and totally uncontraversial. He saw this and not only deleted that article without any discussion whasoever, but then went on to delte the whole body of work, on the grounds that "we dont want a whole load of articles glorifying the homosexual lifestyle". If he had read any of the articles he would have realised that (a) Only Williams and Hawtrey were homosexuals (Williams always claimed he was celibate AND tortured himself for being gay - hardly glorifying it), and (b) Neither Tony Hancock nor Sid James were homosexual, and the other two were women, and (c) The Tony Hancock article was unchanged from when it had been copyedited by Philip Rayment

Interestingly, Ed Poor also removed an article on Hattie Jacques which I had not written, but merely linked to one of my articles from it.

All of this I believe is Abuse. Abuse of Power, and abuse of contributors who contribute their work in good faith. There is a system for Articles for Deletion OR even articles for speedy deletion which Ed Poor seems to be totally disregarding and thus behaving in a completely high-handed and unreasonable and totally arbitrary manner.

The work that I contributed has now disappeared and I do not have any copy of it. I feel totally aggrieved and if one of my work colleagues had behaved in this manner I would be taking out a grievance procedure against him. I would vote that he be suspended from SySop-ship until he learns some modicum of self-control and reasonableness

--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 06:28, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

*All contributions to Conservapedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here. Next time, keep a backup copy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:45, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

: The more important question, I think, is this: do sysops have any sort of responsibility to use an AFD process? I don't mean that we need to have Wikipedia-style bureaucracy here, but I can imagine feeling miffed if you removed a bunch of things I wrote in good faith without at least giving me a chance to defend them. [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 20:14, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

*"Feelings" are good. Healthy even. Just so long as they don't take over for logic and intellect. If something isn't appropriate, Administrators have no other obligation than to remove it. Yes, sometimes that is unfair, unfortunately. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:07, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
I think the whole point that SeanTheSheep was trying to touch on was that the material was completely uncontroversial, was written in good faith, and deleted unilaterally. That's not unfairness, that's Wikipedia-style bureaucracy. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:53, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

*I think the whole point of this, like WP, we have people who don't even know all the facts, and certainly didn't want to learn them, posting their opinions. Especially Sysops, talking about another, ignorant, totally, of the background. Oh well, people think it is their "right" to talk, even if they don't bother to know the facts, so who am I to point out that is wrong? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 03:14, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::And the point about this is that the evidence on which a sensible decision could have been made has been removed. I still want to know on what basis Sysops are granted license to summarily remove articles without discussion. Clearly if someone creates a ''Llama Sex'' article as a spoof or vandal entry then that can be summarily removed, but to remove a bona fide article ''forever'' with no discussion just on the say-so of one person seems to me an illegitimate use of Sysop powers.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 05:09, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

*And that is all well and good, Sean, however Andy has granted us that authority, as the Owner of this site. So, your opinion, which is real to you, and your truth, isn't for the site owner. ''Therefore, in matters here, that decision has already been made, months before you came here.''. For the future, I might suggest, instead of posting here, you first try to resolve the matter personally with the Sysop involved, better through a private email or IM, that is how we prefer it done here, no matter what your experiences might be with other wiki's. If that fails to gain results, and you still wish to pursue the matter, contact another Sysop and discuss. Finally, failing those methods, post here. Hope this helps. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 06:36, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::So Sysops have the powers to unilaterally remove articles without discussion, and that by your own words "you first try to resolve the matter personally with the Sysop involved", in other words, do some behind-the-scenes negotiation. The whole process here seems remarkably anti-democratic and un-American in essence. The whole Conservapedia enterprise is beginning to look to me as if it had been imported form some dark recesses of [[George Orwell]]'s imagination.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 06:49, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

*Well you are either incredibly naive, or misinformed. All of the American Congress and politics in this country works like that. Bills are introduced, negotiated behind closed doors, then brought to a public vote, and up until that vote, accomodations and changes are continually made, all in those "dark recesses" you talk about. It seems to work, as we are indeed the oldest enduring Democratic Republic in the entire world. We pride ourselves here at CP at not being like Wikipedia, where possibly good and valuable editors such as yourself, are not called out and subjected to public ridicule by other users, who may or may not have more expertise on the article in question. Is that your idea of American? Disagreements between users are better played out without that public stage, unless and until a resolution cannot be reached. Those prefering it otherwise, I suspect of liking public drama and "pot stirring" which on any site is counter-productive. In any event, I have explained to you how we prefer it to work, so unless and until you contact Ed Poor, and ask for his thinking, no action will be taken on this complaint. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 06:59, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Three points: (1) At least any bill which is introduced gets to be seen and can be discussed by someone, can be discussed in an open forum, and not deleted without trace unilaterally by a group of arbitrarily chosen Sysops. (2) In addiiton, who are you to decide whether or not I would or would not want to be subjected to public ridicule? By submitting my owrk, I open myself to what you call ridicule, however, I call it peer review, and it is the principle on which all Wikis are based, whether you like it or not. That argument is non-sensical and disingenuous (3) When I asked Ed poor for an explanation I was blocked for "arguing".--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 07:28, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::I'd wish Andy to take a position here. You, TK, have received much criticism for your harsh actions, comments and threats (usually by self-admitted liberals, I agree). In my humble opinion, you are too quick in some of your actions (blocks, comments). In addition I don't like your threats "you have been warned, next time..." or your "Andy has granted this and that authority". I really don't know what powers you have, but I see only you using them. For example, I don't see Ed Poor behaving like you. More to the point, I don't see Andy behaving like you. It is entirely possible that before every move you make you consult with Andy. But as I said, I'd wish Andy to take a position here. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 07:01, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

*What you are actually saying, Leopeo, is that you have seen his expressions before, you don't accept them, and wish it to be stated once again, for drama's sake. Have you looked at the CP guidelines, at all? [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Guidelines]] As for Ed, read the complaints above, he seems to stand accused by others, like I am by you. There is a certain element of user here, who does not like the way the place is run, and wishes it to be more like Wikipedia. I can assure you Conservapedia never will. As for Andy, he reads and sees more here than I ever will, and it is my experience he posts when he wants to. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, I have read the Commandments and the Guidelines (while I don't agree with the early-blocking guideline, but that is my problem). I know that Ed too has been accused (and I don't agree with all his actions). But, in my probably biased eyes, your actions and words stand out. I accept and understand how Conservapedia is run. But I certainly would prefer more humility, self control and acceptance of others from you, TK, personally. I apologize of accusing you personally, because you have never done to me anything of those things I accuse you of.
::Funny your comparison to Wikipedia. I thought threats and arbitrary blocking of users were not one of the ways to be different from WP. I am just asking Andy to take a position, he is not obliged to! :-) And for what I know, you may have an agreement with Andy that you are his 'sword', that is his 'hawk' side. But it would be better if it were clearly stated. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 07:43, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

*LOL. Andy has wielded his sword often, and as you are around longer, will see that. What some take as "threats" are warnings. Some would prefer that we just block them, I prefer to make known to a user when I see them headed in the wrong direction for CP. What you see as "arbitrary" might just not be, unless you had full access to facts. Most everyone who is a Sysop has heard from Andy when someone is blocked for reasons he doesn't like. Likewise, he is a good leader, and spreads around kudos as well. We have disagreed about actions, privately, and respect each other enough to admit our mistakes (on those rare occasions we make them). Conversely, Ed and I agree about 90% of the time as well. I readily admit he uses a more erudite manner, most of the time, than I do. I am blunt and direct, a rather rare commodity in today's world, IMO, and certainly not every one's cup of tea. However, I am fair. Not so much when people are evasive. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:10, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::If you are fair, then why do you not answer the questions posed against your integrity in some of the sections above? [[User:RDre|RDre]] 10:04, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::RDre, you have not edited in three weeks or taken part in this discussion, yet appear here to impugn TK's integrity. This may be regarded as incivility and trolling. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:43, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::::It was a valid question, regardless of his edit history; that was an ad hominem comment. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:48, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Banned from IRC channel ==

TK banned me from the #conservapedia [[IRC]] channel for no apparent reason, and he has declined to offer any explanation:
:Any particular reason you kicked and banned me from #conservapedia? --Jtl 02:44, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 02:47, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:And what is that reason? --Jtl 02:49, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:Be patient. All will be explained, and soon. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 02:54, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:Like all those other mysterious big changes you keep talking about that are coming soon? Why won't you just answer the question and explain your actions? --Jtl 02:58, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
He had two perfectly good opportunities already to give a clue why, and has edited the site since that last question was posed, but he hasn't answered. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 03:52, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

*LOL. And now what? You posted here? Give me a break. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:49, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:: Yes. "This is where you can report abuse by Sysops." I have no illusions anything will be done, mind you, but you are abusive and I'm reporting it. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 12:22, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== name-calling by TK ==

Now, TK has called me a [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:TK&diff=163885&oldid=163757 "terrorist"]]. ''much'' lesser insults have resulted in bans for other users. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 12:31, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:That's true - I remember when a user was banned for life for calling someone a 'baby'. Last time I checked, babies weren't plotting to destroy the social fabric of American society. What's with the double-standards? --[[User:WWillis|WWillis]] 12:33, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::What is this ice thing?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:37, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Ann Coulter

2007-05-16T16:10:02Z

Prof0705: /* Strong following? */

==General comments==

I didn't realize that slinging mud at other people was a valid method to defend what a person says. No matter what, someone can mention that Hitler killed millions during the Holocaust, so it shouldn't matter that Ann Coulter is a bigoted transvestite.

Coulter is crazy. Her crazyness has many aspects, one of which is a desperate seeking of attention. Another is a tendency to think of absolutly everything as a religion. Liberalism? Religion. Evolution? Religion. Another is consistantly demonising those she dislikes: Homosexuals become violent pedophile abusers, liberals become christian-hating communists, and so on. - Suricou, rambling.

[http://www.hoolinet.com/straponvets/tabid/278/default.aspx] The truth about Ann Coulter.

Attempting to defend Coulter's statements just exposes the incredible bias and partisanship of this site. She made a ragingly stupid, offensive and derogatory statement. There is not doubt about what she said or what it means.

I don't believe that footnote is all that necessary. Do you seriously think that anyone who's ever spoken English _doesn't_ know what a f****t is? --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 15:16, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, it is important, for precisely the reason articulated below by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]. Coulter says the word "has nothing to do with gays." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Faggot means a bundle of sticks. I do not understand the liberal media's obsession with casting her as a bigot. She was merely pointing out an etymological anomaly. At worst, it was misinterpreted by people who were looking for something to complain about. --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:44, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

: I'm going to look for a real definition that captures its widespread use in the 1970s as a wimp or wuss. In slang in the 1970s it did not typically mean homosexual. The etymology of the word has nothing to do with homosexuality, as it comes from British prep schools a century ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I agree that it comes from British prep schools a century ago, the three-letter version anyway. More than a century ago, actually, as it appears throughout ''Tom Brown's Schooldays,'' published in 1857 and probably is derived from Hughes' experiences decades before. But I can only suppose that you have been deceived by the euphemistic way in which British prep schools have been described in literature. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:06, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The three-letter version is defined by Wentworth and Flexner (1967) Dictionary of American Slang, Supplemented Edition, Crowell:

::::n. 1. A cigarette c1915 .... 2 A homosexual; an effeminate man.... Although [it use for cigarettes] may have reinforced the use of the word, [three-letter version], a boy servant or lackey has been common Eng. schoolboy use since before 1830, and may be the origin....

::::There is probably no way to be certain of the range of services traditionally provided by "boy servants or lackeys" in British prep schools. <s>Even Orwell's "Such, Such Were the Joys" is very elliptical on this point.</s> In "Such, Such Were the Joys" Orwell says "At some preparatory schools homosexuality is not a problem," but is frank about its existence at St. Cyprians. He gives few details, saying that at that time he was in "an almost sexless state" and he does not use the word we're discussing. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], If your source for "This explanation is consistent with the use of the term in American and British schools in the 20th century" is your own experience, all I can say is, not at the American school '''I''' attended in the 20th century. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:24, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: I don't know. But the term was never meant to apply exclusively, or even primarily, as a slur against gays. Mayor Sharpe's use demonstrates that. It's more plausible that homosexuals adopted the term "faggot" just as they adopted the term "gay". A famous Alfred Hitchcock movie (1940s?) has a line where the actor describes San Francisco as "gay". That was not a slur, and the adoption of the term by the homosexual movement does not mean that everyone else must immediately abandon its traditional meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::: Even the etymology cited in the article does not support Ann Coulter's stated definition of 'wuss'. The term has never meant anything like 'wuss'. The definition connected with schools cited in the article says: ''It also may have roots in Brit. public school slang fag "a junior who does certain duties for a senior" (1785), with suggestions of "catamite," from fag (v.). This was also used as a verb.'' [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 10.50 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::Now is not the 1970s, and its meaning is pretty well set at this point. --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 15:42, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=faggot Etymology] of the term, for anyone who's interested. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:44, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for the citation, which I've concluded. Does Sandbagger think the meaning of the word "niggardly" has now changed also? I've added that incident to this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't think the parallel is good. The meaning of "niggardly" is well-defined. The dictionary does not suggest that it is racial slur, or hint that it should be avoided because of its similarly in sound to a racial slur. The person who used it was almost certainly using it in good faith with its dictionary meaning (there's a possibility he was ''deliberately'' using it ''because'' it was similar in sound to a racial slur but I discount it). Those who objected to it were fools.

:: In the case of Ann Coulter's use of the word she used, the situation is not parallel. It is much hazier. Unlike "niggardly," the standard dictionary definition of the word '''is''' a reference to homosexuality. (I don't think anyone would argue that she was talking about a bundle of twigs). Coulter may have been going by the meaning of the word as she learned it at school. She very likely never looked it up in a dictionary. Her recollection of what the word meant in her school may be accurate—or may have reflected innocence on her part at the time. And in the intervening years she may never have heard the word used to mean "homosexual."

:: Yes, you could say she has "plausible deniability," but it seems a stretch to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::: But Edwards isn't gay. So what do you think Coulter meant by the term, if not the ordinary schoolhouse usage? Do you think it is racist for one African American to use the "N" word to refer to another African American? I really don't see how there can be a gay slur against someone who isn't gay.
::::Although Edwards is not gay, he is known for taking a lot of care with his personal appearance, particularly his hair. This trait is thought by some people to imply effeminacy. I think Coulter was using the word faggot to make that implication and associate Edwards with that trait in the minds of some people. Essentially, she was making a joke, but her claim of schoolhouse usage is thoroughly disingenuous. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 11.17 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: By the way, dictionaries are biased just like anything else. "Common Era" is in the dictionary now also, but we expressly reject the dictionary about that. Conservatives resist liberal attempts to change meanings of words to suit the liberal agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I don't think the "niggardly" incident really has any place in this article, especially if the goal is to limit gossip. In my opinion, all that really needs to be said on the "faggot" comment is that Coulter said it, some people got upset, she apologized for it. End of story. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:I removed the claim that no leading conservative group distanced themselves from their statements, because I remember reading a press release from the website of the Christian Defense Alliance doing just that. I consider this group notable because their pro-life activism has been noted on a national stage (particularly their attempts to get Rick Warren to distance themselves from Barack Obama.) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought that Conservapedia was going to stay away from this sort of trivia and gossip. Who cares about the Edwards remark? Why is it of any significance? Possibly some people were offended, but those same people are probably more offended by 100 other things that Coulter has said. I say that the whole section should be removed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:No, these statements-- and the despicable, violent left-wing overreaction-- make her who she is. It's definitive, so it should stay (but be streamlined). {{unsigned|MikeM}}

It's not just gossip, in my opinion, because this is a major news story that has been covered by the news. I know it's not as significant, but it's like saying that the whole Monica Lewinsky thing was just gossip. I don't want this to dominate the article, but I don't want people thinking we approve of it, because I agree with the Christian Defense Alliance and many other conservatives that Ms. Coulter makes us look bad as conservatives.

This is just my personal opinion, though. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:46, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: There is no need to either approve or disapprove. Maybe you could say that she occasionally makes inflammatory remarks. Beyond that, I see no value to showing some opinions on this particular remark. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Wow, I just realized how redundant I was. "News story that was covered by the news"? I'm tired. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:22, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

"This explanation is consistent with the use of the term in American and British schools in the 20th century, and is supported by its etymology as a term applying to someone who does duties for others more senior.[6] Edwards, whose public service consists of merely one term in the U.S. Senate, fits that meaning."

This last unsourced sentence, effectively makes conservapedia AGREE with Edwards being a "faggot". Why not add "in Ann Coulter's opinion" to that? I came to this site with high expectations and here we have the site agreeing with childish name-calling as if it is a known, verifiable fact! [[User:deronde|deronde]] 16:05, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

Why is this page blocked? Doesn't it deserve the contributions of internet users like other articles, or have we decided that an article on Coulter falls below the standard for democratic exertion?--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 21:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: It's pretty sad when a hate monger like Coulter is lionized on a site that is reputedly organized around Christian values and her blatent hate speech is ( apparently seriously ) treated to a convulated etymology that priveledges definitions far removed in place and time over the one that she so obivously meant. Isn't there some sin in this? It just goes to show the hypocracy and fascism that this project embodies. Isn't lying a sin? Isn't corrupt use of power a sin? Oh, I forgot the intelligent design debate. Obviously some 'christians' think lying is ok when it serves a grander purpose like, say confirming their bias or damaging those they perceive as enemies for instance. Have you no shame? The lord's work indeed. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 15:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Godman, Why do you feel the necessity to engage in name calling? Isn't using vicious invective hate speech? What about impugning motives without cause? Doesn't throwing around the term "fascism" recklessly denigrate the meaning and suffering of fascism's real victims? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I think Coulter's actions speak for themselves. As a practicing Christian and a true conservative I feel some compulsion to point out when radical elements co-opt the label conservative and Christian for their own seemingly cynical ends. That saddens me, as it should any Christian and any patriot, and it weakens the impact of God's message and closes hearts of those whom Coulter attacks. I didn't throw out the label fascism lightly. Coulter's position and belief seem founded on its tenents. By your tacit defense of Coulter, I gather the 'god' you worship delights in hate speech and name calling as does the brand of 'conservatism' you embrace. As it is, conservapedia is an embarassment and an abomionation. The name should be changed to radicalapedia or fascipedia. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I really hope you're joking. To suggest that we should disregard MONTHS of precedent on this site and completely warp its original focus to somehow give the impression that one must be a "radical" or "fascist" in order to share their viewpoints is probably one of the most absurd, and, coincidentally, radical and fascistic concepts I have heard in a LONG time. --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:48, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

==Ann's next book==
Since the page is blocked, please add the following reference:
Ann's book publisher, The Crown Publishing Group, has no problems with Ann and is planning an October release for her next book, "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans."<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258370,00.html Coulter's Book Publisher Undeterred by Flap Over Remark About Gays] FoxNews.com</ref> [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 18:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Done. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:Ann Coulter is to politcal discourse what [[Richard Speck]] was to the nursing profession. Thanks to hatemongers like her, Savage, and Limbaugh, we've got a country split between Conservatives who think all Liberals are communist homosexuals who murder children for thrills, and Liberals who think all conservatives are jackbooted [[Neanderthals]] who can't wait to start another [[civil war]]. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 21:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::The liberals are for free speech unless it is a conservative voicing their views not using politically correct speech. The left resorts to name calling labeling conservatives "hatemongers", "homophobes", etc. I've heard the Hollywood left saying hateful speech about President Bush and the left has no problem because it's liberal politically correct. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 16:59, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
<references/>
::I concur. Why do we put up with all these namby pamby goofs that want to keep us from the truth. Bill Clinto is gay, look at Hillary. I would be gay too if I was married to that. We should be able to say whatever we want on this site--it is for us--not them. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::And one more thing, why don't we call things like they are? I read somewhere that the word "cowboy" was being replaced by "person of the west" in kids' textbooks. Can't we just call them cowboys and indians? And what about Manhole covers? Do we really need to say "person-hole-covers?" I have many black friends and I don't refer to them as "african-american" or whatever--I call them black. They call me white and we get along. Sometimes, jokingly, we call each other 'negro' but so waht? we're friends. If we want to call each other something unpopular, who cares? I applaud that senator from Virginia for calling the kid macaca, or whatever. it was meant to be funny. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Category ==
If this article is unlocked at some point, it should probably be added to [[:Category:Political people]] or [[:Category:Biographies]]. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 21:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well that's all a matter on how one views Coulter, isn't it? I think she's in there with Mort Sahl, Rush Limbaugh, (and dare I say it:) Al Franken: People who're commentators on the world as THEY see it NOW. Sure, the underlying messages are serious but she's using the tongue-in-cheek method to be able to explore issues that one cannot approach in a serious fashion because it would look like attacks straight off. I think her a master of the use of hyperbole that gets her opponents ''so'' riled up as to leave their common sense, (and at times common courtesy), in the trunk of the car. And she knows this and ''plays'' it like it's all been scripted out beforehand.
:While I do not know the woman personally, I like her. In some ways she reminds me a bit of the [[User:Aschlafly| Boss']] mother. Strong, articulate, fast on her feet, personable with being overly deferential.
:MOO --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 14:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Perhaps some more information about her credentials ==

I'd like to see some more information about Ann Coulter's credentials as a journalist/commentator. Many people are unaware of her years of service as a lawyer in Washington. I'd be happy to make the addition if it was unlocked.

== Biographical data ==

Shouldn't an entry on an individual include at least a little biographical information? Born, educated, work history, family, etc.
This entry is not really about ''Ann Coulter'', it's about what ''she writes'' about. This looks like a section in a lrger entry on Coulter, not a complete entry. Why is it blocked? How can this essential encyclopedia style information be added?

:It is my understanding that Ms. Coulter is unmarried, and carries on sexual relationships outside of marriage. This is very concerning to me, because this behavior is in direct violation of God's Laws. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

shouldn't this information be in the article? I mean we know for a fact where she was educated, where she has worked, and what her residence is. Although on that last point there has been some dispute as her voter fraud run in with the law has shown. Would that be gossip or pertinent biographical data? The article as it stands is just pertaining to the Edwards flap and has little to do with Coulter. Why has this article been locked??

:I'm not sure how this is relevant. I find Ms. Coulter's unmarried status to be troubling, because she is of marriagable age. I would like this Conservative icon to find Love and reconcile her personal life with the Precepts of the Divine. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Total Fag" ==

For context on how Ann was using the word to refer to Edwards, I just think its relevant to point out Ann's appearance on Hardball last July, after saying a day before that Bill Clinton was a latent homosexual.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about your private life. How do you know that Bill Clinton's gay?
COULTER: He may not be gay, but Al Gore, total fag.

So she's clearly aware of at least some connection between toe word Fag and homosexuality. So when she says that the word "has nothing to do with Gays," she's kind of... you know, lying.
--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 15:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

OTHER WORD GAMES: If the censors who locked the article see this, in point of fact David Howard resigned after the "N-word" incident; he was not fired. Also, the reaction was not so much from "liberals" as from Marshall Brown, an African-American colleague of his who either misheard it or misunderstood it.

== Coulter -- hardly a role model for Conservatives ==

Coulter is a puzzle -- how did someone who, on innumerable occasions, quite enjoys insulting, attacking, and saying nasty and unkind things about people with whom she disagrees ever become a beacon for people who loudly proclaim they are Christians? Judge not, that ye be not judged -- it seems plain enough that Christ himself decries such behavior, so I am eternally puzzled as to how self-avowed Christians find her actions admirable. On purely logical grounds, her ''ad hominem'' attacks against Edwards and others are laughable (but not in the way she imagines). In any case, what we have here is not an encylopedia entry, it's a puff piece, and one locked away so that none of us who may differ with it can do anything about it. That doesn't sound to me as though it will lead to "a conservative encyclopedia you can trust"! [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 22:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I think Coulter's entire persona is a parody of the typical conservatives idea of 'jerk fodder.' At least I hope it is. If she's a real person... ... wow. Doesn't bear thinking about, really. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 22:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: So? The article doesn't say that Coulter is a role model. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::She's trying to get attention. She wants people to read her books and columns and listen to her.

::Her contention is that liberals shut down debate and monopolize the airwaves and print media with their biased POV. After she gets the audience's attention, she points out this liberal bias and gives a consevative retort.

::She uses irony, mockery and sarcasm to '''keep the reader's attention''' as she makes her points.

::IMHO she does this as a deliberate tactic, not because it's her nature. But my tactic vs. nature speculation is, well, just personal speculation. I wish she conducted herself with as much dignity as [[Diane Ravitch]] or [[Lynne Cheney]]. On the other hand, who but me has ever read the latter two's works? Ravitch is virtually unknown outside the academic world, and Cheney is regarded merely as the VP's wife. At least Coulter gets her points across in books that keep making the ''New York Times'' bestseller list. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:14, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Coulter tells it like it is!--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 12:45, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Yeah, and all those times where she's been roven to be wrong just shows you how biased objective reality can be trying to smear her, right?--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 08:46, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Schoolyard taunt?==
The thing that nobody seems to be commenting on is that she believes she's ''defending'' herself by calling the word "a schoolyard taunt."

Are "schoolyard taunts" the proper stuff of discourse between adults on matters of consequence? Does she think it is appropriate for a woman in her forties to be behaving like a schoolchild? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::why don't you call her up and ask her? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 20:07, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Do you know where I could get appropriate contact information? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:31, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: Get over it. Most politicians have occasionally made a childish wisecrack about someone on the other side of a political battle. Find me someone who never uses a taunt, and that would be news. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:44, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I didn't say "it doesn't happen." Are ''you'' saying you consider it to be ''appropriate?'' For liberals? For conservatives? For responsible adults? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'd call ''Bush lied, people died'' a taunt. No one seems to care about how many Kurds Saddam gassed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:40, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Erm, you ''could'' say that Bush cared for the Kurds, considering he deposed Saddam. Highly unlikely, though. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:42, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

==Offensive manner==

We could mention reports of people '''taking offense''' but it's not objective to label her manner as offensive. Here's an example. Suppose I say that atheism is sinful, and John Smith feels offended. Have I given offense? Hard to say.

But if he voices an objection, we can certainly quote him:
*Ed says atheism is a sin. John called Ed's remark "offensive".

That's how I would do it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:46, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::It would not be offensive to atheists, because sin is the transgression of God's Law, and atheists do not believe in God, so it would be like someone accusing you of transgressing the law of Zeus, or Baal. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 14:43, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Comedic" ==

The opening sentence describes that Ann Coulter is "comedic" yet the article only demonstrates that the despises "liberals" and is indifferent to cultures of other nations. Previously there was the commentary on the not-gay-related-at-all John Edwards "Faggot" remark, and since a room full of conservatives found that laugh-out-loud hilarious for whatever reason, that claim could be made, but since that is no longer present on the article there is no explanation or demonstration of her being funny. Please either remove the word or demonstrate how she's "Comedic", and if you could, explain how calling people Stupid Traitorous Lying Religiously-Godless Fanatical Faggots (who must not be spoken to) is funny? Here I am, brain the size of a planet, and it only seems to me to be insulting.
--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 12:51, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:If it will give you any comfort, Ann Coulter is relegated to the lunatic fringe by the rest of the right-wing commentariat, along with Michael Savage. You would never find her as a guest on the Hugh Hewitt show, for example. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 14:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::I dont think being invited as a major speaker at the Conservatice Political Action Conference jives with being "relegated to the fringe," and neither does Mitt Romney endorsing her before she speaks, but maybe thats just me.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 15:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building," ==

I agree that this is sufficiently troubling that a good source is needed. I think it is relevant precisely because it seems to me to go beyond the bounds of anything that can possibly be brushed off as humor. I think an Associated Press story printed in USA Today is a good enough source.

If the issue is whether the New York Observer actually printed this, I'm willing to pay the $2.95 to confirm it, but I don't think this is at issue. If this issue is whether she really said it, presumably if she issued a "clarification" (which IMHO makes it worse) to rightwingnews.com that means she acknowledges saying it. I haven't actually found this in rightwingnews.com, but believe that the AP would be reliable on this. As nearly as I can tell, rightwingnews.com is actually a conservative website (not one on which liberals track right wing excesses or anything like that). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:05, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Found the Right Wing News interview. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Help me write [[Out of context]]. It also might need a title change. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:59, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== interesting artlcle ==

As you can imagine (if you read my user page) I somewhat disagree with Ms. Coulter on one or two issues. What I found amusing about this article was that, after the blushingly adoring intro paragraphs, there are a bunch of quotes. Ironically, they are the ones I am familiar with, from hard core left wing sources. Nice job on the balance! First she is praised, then her nut-job ideas are actually quoted so people can "decide" <s>who</s> what she is. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:32, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:The misquote was obviously intended to make Coulter appear to be joking about genocide when in actual context it is nothing of the sort. She ''in fact'' is paraphrasing liberals. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Which quote are you referring to? I am talking about ''all of them''. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:11, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Are you saying these quotes are made up? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:52, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::No, not at all. I just find it odd that the same quotes that travel in liberal circles to show, um, what we think of Ms. Coulter are the ones being presented here. Meaning, they mostly horrify me, rather than make her seem like a leader or intelligent pundit. Ah, and the previous comments get confusing - I was asking "which quote" is the "misquote". My first comment was about "all of them". [[User:Human|Human]] 13:16, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Why do you find it surprising that liberals would comment on the outrageous things that Ms. Coulter has said? Do you think that her horrifying comments about executing liberals and her disgusting smear against women who lost their husbands to 9/11 are not revealing and should not been repeated when assessing her as a pundit? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:19, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:Do conservatives really consider her a "thinker" or am I reading too much in this? She sounds like a total fruitcake. I mean, if she didn't go to law school, I imagine her pushing a shopping cart and arguing with mailboxes. That's about the level of thought I expect form her. Who cares what she says? She's a total idiot. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:23, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::She's a "total idiot" who is regularly invited to give her opinions at major Conservative gatherings and on nationally broadcast talk shows, and the misinformation she's disseminated about, for instance, Joseph McCarthy, is routinely repeated as fact by naive and ignorant souls who mistake her books for nonfiction. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:27, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:I know, I know. I'm just saying she's basically a troll that gets fed by ultra-conservatives and I wish they'd stop. Kind of like watching an ugly guy ask out a cute girl and the process takes a long time and is ''really'' uncomfortable.... That is what I think every time I see her on TV. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:21, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Why should they "stop feeding her?" She's not only a valuable source of misinformation, she helps to push out the boundaries of debate in this country closer and closer to direct advocacy of violence and political repression against Moslems, liberals, and other people she dislikes. They like that. That's why they "feed" her. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:25, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::makes my heart "bleed" a little more every time I read the first two lines of her column on Thursdays. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:56, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== Strong following? ==

While there has been much talk about her as a role model above, I'd like to know if the following is true:

"Coulter has earned a strong following among conservatives".

Every right-wing american I know either considers her a joke, or at least "you have Michael Moore, we have Ann Coulter, they are equally bad" (not that I would ever compare Moore to Coulter). [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 04:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

By taking on a human form it is able to gather minions.

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

"We need to execute people like John Walker [Lindh] in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors," Conservative Political Action Conference, January 2002. Coulter later clarified what she meant; "when I said we should "execute" John Walker Lindh, I mis-spoke. What I meant to say was 'We should burn John Walker Lindh alive and televise it on prime-time network TV'. My apologies for any misunderstanding that might have occurred. " [9]

A very Christian idea. I'm sure Jesus approves whole-heartedly. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:05, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:There is capital punishment in the Bible. Do you think the dictum "Judge not, lest ye be judged" was meant to give ''carte blanche'' to evil? Jesus spent most of his time telling people to stop doing bad things. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:08, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::I agree. Jesus regularly advocated burning sinners to death. I'm agreeing with you.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:10, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

2007-05-14T22:09:14Z

Prof0705: /* Gay Rights and Abortion */

== Recommend ==

[[Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians]] - [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:25, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps users might want to know ''when'' she was first elected, and how many terms she has served, and exactly where her district is.....there are several overlapping the city and county of San Francisco, I seem to remember. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I would agree with this. Also, we need to look closely at campaign contributions she's given to other members of Congress; it appears with her $50-90 million net worth, she basically purchased the House leadership position by surrounding herself with people she contributed money to get them elected to the House in the first place. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:54, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::Which see, all previous Speakers. It is germain, but hardly unusual. And nothing illegal about it. Newt and Tip O'Neil gave away millions. I did like your contributed picture better, Rob. I think it captured her true "inner beauty". --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Newt and them guys didn't have the personal wealth Pelosi has. While yes, some of these figures control donors and bring influence that way, I don't beleive there's been a Party leader in recent memory who purchased her way to the top with her own personal fortune as Pelosi has. And there is no other explanation, how a clearly radical figure who openly confesses to holding radical minority views has been able to assume leadership of not just a major party, but now the the majority party.

:::Let's put Pelosi's wealth in perspective; her net worth is approximately twice that of GW Bush & John Edwards who are worth roughly the same, and about half of John Kerry's sole-and separate fortune apart from Theresa.

:::Actually I had a better photo yesterday but lost it, still trying to find it. Amazing what a little bondo and $249 Earl Schieb paint job can do, huh? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Liam.... ==

I don't think a hit piece, without citation, even on one so deserving as Madame Speaker, is appropriate. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:55, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

There are citations. I'll add a few more.

*Liam, sign your posts, please. Nothing on her being the first woman Speaker? I think "Criticism" should fall below the other items on the page, eh? I complain about the same things on Reagan, etc. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:59, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I'm writing more for the Pelosi page right now. And sorry I only just now learned how to sign my posts. --[[User:Go liam|Go liam]] 01:03, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks, Liam...you might want to check check wastingtonpost.com for Thursday's lead editorial..... --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
==Quotation==
The current "quotation":''"The gavel of the speaker of the House is in the hands of special interests, and now it will be in the hands of America's children."''

The actual quote:"When I accept the Speaker's gavel, I will be taking it out of the hands of the special interests and put it into the hands of America's working families and children for a better future. There will be civility, integrity and bipartisanship. We'll conduct ourselves in the manner the American people expect."[http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/12/middle_class_ma.php]

*I am happy to see that Madame Speaker, aside from her foreign policy aspirations, also agrees, through word and deed (using non-union migrant workers at her winery), with the majority of Americans who are against labor unions. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== NY Post quote...fictitious and misleading... ==

The actual, full quote from the article follows....

<blockquote>
Pelosi actually chided the White House for not objecting to the visit to Damascus on Sunday by three GOP House members. "I didn't hear the White House speaking out about that," she whined.

'''Actually, the White House did just that: "We ask that people not go on these trips," said spokeswoman Perrino. "We discourage it. Full stop."'''

'''Besides, even Pelosi must understand that there's a huge difference between three regular legislators calling on Assad and the Speaker of the House - arguably the highest-ranking Democrat in Congress - doing so.'''
As such, she is seen as the representative of the president's political opposition - one that desperately seeks to undercut and reverse his foreign policy.

More than two centuries ago, Congress passed the Logan Act, which forbids private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. As an elected official, Pelosi isn't restrained by the law - but its meaning is clear.

Negotiating with world leaders - particularly those at odds with the United States - should be left to the president, or those authorized by him to do so.
</blockquote>

I have removed the quote.--~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:32, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Hype==
*''Pelosi indicated at a press conference that she had carried a message from the government of Israel. She then said she carried a message from the President. <ref>http://www.kxmb.com/getARticle.asp?ArticleId=111801</ref> Both of her claims about message carrying were lies. Pelosi told reporters the meeting "enabled us to communicate a message from Prime Minister Olmert". She may face criminal charges.''

This is a little hyperbolic, now. Whose gonna do it, one of the fired US Attorneys? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:58, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

*Well, there are many who were not fired. And, last I checked, the Attorney General can perform all of their tasks, lol. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:55, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
**Yah but you know the chance of this happening is 1000 to one; you probably got better odd on somebody trying to introduce impeachment proceedings against Bush. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:08, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Rob, do I detect some note of disapproval at political appointees being removed from "at the pleasure of" appointments? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:51, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:Iglesia, the guy removed in New Mexico is a real scream. A week after he's removed, the new appointee indicts a former Democratic mayor and the former 30 year Democratic State Senate Majority Leader for embezzeling $4 million during constuction of a new Courthouse (see the irony there--even building a Courthouse is a corrupt enterprise in New Mexico). And of course $40,000 of the stolen cash ended up in Bill Richardson's campaign chest. Now considering the Courthouse has been in use now for nearly 5 years, how did this all manage to evade news headlines unitl the day after the US Attorney was removed? This one will be interesting to follow in Washington. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:57, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I actually brokered a interaction between a United States Senator and the Attorney for the San Diego area, where the Senator was demanding action on filing against Illegal Immigrants, which was not being done. The Senator actually contacted the White House wondering why this particular appointee was refusing to prosecute crimes, unless it was the 6th or so offense. Fast-forward several months, and this same Senator is one of the chief complainant's against the President, claiming the firings were unjustified and purely political! I wonder how one takes the "politics" out of political appointments? ROFL! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:12, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:Yep. It's like Krauthammer said, Gonzales gets the boot after this screw up. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:26, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

== That stuff about Wolf, Pitts, and Aderholt ==

It appears that the inclusion of the info about those three congress members is disputed. I'm figuring its a matter of it detracting too much from Pelosi's account of the trip? I suppose that could be the case. It might fit better on the Syria page. Or is there another reason, maybe regarding the way I worded it? Because I could change that too.--[[User:Nomine Cervus|Nomine Cervus]] 07:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:*IMO, including the information about the three Republican Representatives is germain, so long as one explains the reason for the mild criticism they received was due to their relative minor stature, compared to the Speaker of the House, who is third in line to the Presidency. Also, they did not hold press conferences asserting they were the bearer of diplomatic messages. As stated, it erroneously gave the impression that 1) the White House didn't criticize their going, and 2) maybe because they were of the same political party, they received less heat. You might also google, and add a line their going wasn't something new, dozens of Members of Congress have visited there, much to the displeasure of the White House, including Senator Specter, another Republican. I might add they all got the same baloney words from the dictator. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:54, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:**True; there is a big difference between a routine Congressional fact finding mission and (1) a stated aim ''prior'' to undermine US foreign policy (2) all the doggie doo Pelosi stepped in when carrying through her threats. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:26, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== WashPost Editorial ==

Um, you know, posting the WP editorial in its entirety probably goes beyond the bounds of "fair use" and into the land of copyright violation. Maybe it should be excerpted instead? (especially since it has a link to the full editorial for anyone who wants to read it...) --[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 13:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:*LOL. Sorry, it is fair game. But nice try. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:20, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't claim to be an expert, nor do I want to belabor the point, but reproducing a copyrighted work ''in full'' is almost certainly a violation.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 14:48, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

*Well, thanks for your concern. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:::As someone who has worked in the journalism industry, WJ Thomas is right. Fair use allows for reproducing a couple of paragraphs. You CANNOT reprint a editorial in full unless you have the express permission of the originiator of the material. Proper procedure online is to have a graph or two and then link to where the original material is located.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 09:26, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Indeed. For that matter, it's also a violation of CP's Commandments. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 09:28, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

*We have actually been over this elsewhere. Most publications exempt their Editorials from the ususal. In this case I actually asked the Editor, before using it. Please try to be less imperious, it isn't friendly. As an Administrator here, I really don't need to be reminded of the Commandments, but I thank you for your dedication. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 06:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

==Photo==
You sure that photo was for the meeting with Assad? I thought it came from the Saudi leg of the trip, where she probably did run into more a traditional, conservative, fundemental Islamic society, in which case she is to be commended for taking her revolutionary ideological hat off. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:11, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:The photo was taken while she visited a mosque in Syria.http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2007-04/04/content_843088.htm --[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 16:38, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::So it's incorrect to say she was dressed to visit Assad? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:43, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::Also, I thought women couldn't go into mosques? How does a non-beleiver get an exemptions? I guess it shows what a woman worth $90 million can purchase for herself, huh? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:44, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Apparently they can, as the article mentions other (Syrian) women inside the mosque. It also says that Pelosi visited a tomb said to contain the head of John the Baptist, which is interesting in that I didn't know such a place existed...--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 18:47, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

*As I said it, so it was. She met with Assad before or after the mosque deal. Please contact me Rob. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 06:23, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Article/photo of the Pelosi-Assad meeting (note lack of head covering): http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=34c601f1-6c22-4b09-af24-9786caa71bf9&k=25613--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 09:30, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:*I suggest you spend your time doing constructive edits and creating pages, rather than arguing items like this. Notice the same suit? Have you seen the photos of her arrival for the meeting? Leaving it? Have you gotten someone at the Speakers office to run it down for you? No. I didn't think so. I get suspcicious of people who stop to argue things like this. I hope I am wrong. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:35, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Not trying to be a pain, just trying to help make Conservapedia an accurate and trustworthy research tool. Meanwhile, I'm working on edits online and creating larger pages offline. And if you'd rather I just keep my mouth shut when I see errors, I can do that, too.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 18:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::*Well, I think you know the answer. Or should. Of course no one wants you to "just keep your mouth shut". Certain things I check out before I do them. Because of my access and background, I just pick up the phone and ask. Is it important to the integrity of this project as to if the Speaker was snapped entering or leaving the Mosque? No. Is it important to the integrity of this project as to exactly when the Speaker removed, wore again, and removed again, her scarf? No. Did the speaker, within a 24 hour period wear a scarf in difference to their religion, or hers? Yes. Does it bother me? No. I think it common courtesy if she did so. Is the press making itself look even more inane and marginalizing itself once again, in making this an issue? Yes. Is it silly for editors to pick at such things, merely because they self-identify as members of the press? Yes. As it wasn't that important, I did revert the copy attached to the picture. But when seeing several dozen such discussions in a day, is my patience and tact impacted to the negative side? Yes. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:43, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Legislation? Life before Congress? ==

Nothing. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 18:19, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

==Harry Hay==

Wait--so Pelosi is some sorta child-molester symp because she was in a parade that also happened to have some other old pervert? That's really really really weak, even for this place. (Double Wait--Grandpa Walton was gay???)--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 10:21, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
:This isn't any old pervert, this is the widely recognized Granddaddy of the organized [[gay rights]] movement in the United States. And his longtime membership the [[CPUSA]] & NAMBLA is of historic interest to students of Progressive activism. The commonality of views with other Progressive leaders and activists such as Nancy Pelosi is not just incidental or coincidence. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:41, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
::I understand who H.H. is. What I'm saying is, his mere presence in the parade doesn't say anything (factual or otherwise) about Pelosi. If being in the same parade makes her a suspected commie and pedophile, it would also make commies and pedos out of Borders Books & Music, ROTC-San Francisco, the San Francisco SPCA, KKSF 103.7 FM, the Anti Defamation League, the San Francisco Fire Department, Golden Gate Bridge Director Joseph Blue, Most Holy Redeemer Parish, the Triangle Tae Kwon Do Club, and American Legion Post 448, all of whom were also in the parade along with Hay, Pelosi, and 175 or so other groups/individuals.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 12:33, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Borders Books & Music, ROTC-San Francisco, the San Francisco SPCA, KKSF 103.7 FM, the Anti Defamation League, the San Francisco Fire Department, Golden Gate Bridge Director Joseph Blue, Most Holy Redeemer Parish, the Triangle Tae Kwon Do Club, and American Legion Post 448 are not Speaker of the US House of Representatives, a Constiutional Office third in line of succession to the Presidency. And after Bush & Cheney get [[impeachment|impeached]], it will be too late to discover the politcal base of support that created Nancy Pelosi. Call it [[full disclosure]]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:48, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

All righty, then. Of course, if that's the standard, perhaps you should add a NAMBLA disclosure to the Rudy Giuliani entry, 'cuz he's done the same thing (marched in "gay pride" parades with NAMBLA).--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 21:35, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
:Giuliani marched with the "founder of the gay movement in America" [http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02511115.htm] in this cite compared with Thomas Jefferson, [[Emma Goldman]], and Rosa Parks? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:16, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
::Worse than that--he marched directly behind the NAMBLA float in NYC's gay pride parade, right past St. Pat's. And he's proud to be a supporter and honorary member of the Stonewall Vets Association (Stonewall being the riots that kicked the modern gay rights movement into high gear).--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 23:07, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You're still mixing apples and oranges. Harry Hay is the Rosa Parks of gay liberation, and you are discussing something entirely different. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:19, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::::How is it entirely different? Pelosi appears in the same parade as a guy who's a gay liberation forefather and NAMBLA supporter (though not a member). Giuliani appears in a parade with a whole bunch of ''actual'' NAMBLA members, and joins up and hangs out repeatedly and proudly with a whole ''crowd'' of gay lib founders/activists (the Malcolm X's of the movement, if you will), and even rides on their float to lead the parade, and becomes an official member of their group to boot. If anything, Rudy's transgression (if we can call it that) is worse than Pelosi's...--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 13:34, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::We don't know if Hay is a member or not. If NAMBLA has a whole series of his material on their website, who is in what position to who here? The history shows there would be no NAMBLA, i.e., an above ground organized movement, or as CPUSA members call it, the "open party" engaged in organizational and politcal activity. And it is absoltulely clear that NAMBLA does much more than advocate issues of "sexual freedom". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:57, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::I'm not disputing that they're a bunch of lowlife sleazemeisters. I'm just saying that if it's wrong for Pelosi to associate with them, it's equally wrong for Giuliani (and that the same sort of informational disclosure should be in his entry here).--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 15:57, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Let's see a cite. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:58, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Sure: "This year’s ("gay pride") parade, however, in one respect, was different. In the caravan marched the Republican candidate for mayor, Rudy Giuliani....Rudy marched just behind the float of the North-American Man-Boy Love Association." Patrick Buchanan, NYPost, 7/17/1993
:::::::::Buchanan plays the NAMBLA card again. I'll do a lexis-nexis. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:29, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*I see, too, that the entry sez Pelosi marched "along with" Harry Hay. The cites show the parade lineup: Hay, then The SF LGBT Community Center Project, Team San Francisco (whatever that is), the San Francisco Fog Rugby Football Club (I'm bettin' that's some wild scrum!), "Healing Waters", and ''then'' Pelosi. Intentional or not, the sentence above makes it sounds like she was at Hay's side, hand in hand, when in reality it would seem that they wouldn't even have been able to see each other. --[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 20:14, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

==All Quarters==

A)"All quarters" implies conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats--Pelosi was criticized by one side (the right), not both/all. B)Yah, Murdoch's NYPost is conservative, the Washington Post editorial page has become increasingly conservative, and the Philadelphia Inquirer (note spelling) piece is not an editorial, but a commentary by a conservative columnist.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 22:38, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:No one as best I can determine defended Pelosi (no one other than her '''extreme''' liberal base). Even Pelosi backtracked. The cite says, "Our message was President Bush’s message". [http://www.kxmb.com/getARticle.asp?ArticleId=111801] What, pray tell, does this mean? Pelosi ''agrees'' with Bush's foreign policy? Pelosi was out promoting Bush's foreign policy? Of course she had to say it in Portugal, and not here, cause she'd be skewered by her own base for furthing Bush's efforts to destroy the planet and civilization as we know it. But she knew by the time she got to Portugal what a colossal farce this trip had been, and had to go on record somewhere disclaiming her actions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:46, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::1) Dems of all stripes defended Pelosi (not just the the "extreme liberal" ones), '''and''' some ''Republicans''(!) did, too. 2)"Our message was Bush's message" clearly means that Pelosi didn't say anything contrary to administration policy or to embarrass the president. Or, to phrase it another way, she and the president are on the same page. She continued, "It became clear to President Assad that even though we have our differences in the United States, there is no division between the president and the Congress and the Democrats on the message we wanted him to receive." 3) She said this in Portugal not because she was trying to hide, but because that's where she was when the reporter reached her by telephone. --[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 23:16, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Gimme a cite ''after the Washington Post editorial was published'' of a Democrat (outside her base) that defended her. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:05, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::April 09, investment banker, respected diplomat, Council on Foreign Relations board member (including chairman of its Terrorism Task Force), semi-hawkish Dem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMTNKwqXpoc --[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 08:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==See Also?==

Maybe I'm missing something--what do Lorena Ochoa and Ségolène Royal have to do with Pelosi?--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 23:16, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:I second the motion to remove. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:05, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:*They could possibly be Democrats, who support Pelosi, however since there isn't any mention of them in the article, I think the editor, WJThomas, should possibly explain......--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:22, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==Gay Rights and Abortion==

Should these maybe be separate headings, or is the plan to tie them together somehow? It's a little confusing as it stands.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 20:14, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

*She's a well known sodomite. All will reveal in good time. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:18, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Wow. that seems a little harsh. Care to provide some information backing up that claim or are you just relying on character attacks? Gotta love the fairness of the sysops.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 18:09, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

==My Most Humble Edits==

A new Pelosi paragraph shows up, and it has some issues—typos, grammar mistakes, unsupported factual assertions, incomplete information. I spend a few minutes cleaning it up, and doing so in a way that (I thought) was completely “fair and balanced”, as they say. But [[User:TK|TK]] reverts the whole enchilada with nary a how-do-you-do, and then locks the article as if I’m vandalizing or somesuch. So let’s go over said edits in the interest of full disclosure:

[[User:RobS|RobS]] wrote: “In may 2007 Pelosi stuck in a $25 million pork project that would benefit her rich husband, Paul Pelosi, in the Water Resources Development Act. The project involves renovating ports near four separate commercial real estate properties near owned by Paul Pelosi and will significantly boost the property values.”
*I changed “may” to “May”, as proper nouns should be capitalized. No clue why that should be reverted.
*I added a comma after “2007”. Ditto.
*I added in the source of the earmark request, the Port and mayor of SanFran, which happens to be fact (according to the cited National Review article). The original sentence made it sound as if the earmark was completely Pelosi’s idea, which is not the case. Even assuming that Pelosi agreed to the request solely to increase her riches, it’s still a fact that it was not (apparently) her idea. To suggest otherwise is [[deceit]].
*I changed “pork project” to “earmark”. “Pork project” is a loaded term, a value judgement—one person’s pork project is another’s vital economic development—so I went with the more neutral “earmark”. In addition, the previous paragraph had already noted that “earmarks” are often a source of corruption, so the reader understands that “Pelosi’s earmark” may equal “corruption”.
*I added “Republicans charge” before “would benefit her rich husband”. “…''(W)ould'' benefit is a factual assertion, one that is impossible to support. “Republicans charge…” is more accurate (as that’s what’s going on here). I’d also accept “conservatives charge…”, or “some charge…”, or drop the “Republicans charge…” and change “would’ to “could”.
*I removed “rich” modifying “husband”, because A) it’s extraneous (we already know the Pelosis are rich), B) it’s irrelevant to the issue, C) it comes across as pejorative (is it wrong to be rich?).
*I added “$15billion” in front of the name of the bill, because that’s the size of the bill, and to give some sense of scale to the earmark.
*In the portion, “…project involves renovating ports near four separate commercial real estate properties…”, I changed “near” to “only a mile”. “Near” is nebulous, unclear—how near is “near”? In this case, “near” is a mile or so. I first considered just “a mile”, but then added “only” to try to keep within the spirit of the original.
*Later in the same sentence, I also removed a second “near” that was clearly placed there in error (“…''near'' four separate commercial real estate properties ''near'' owned by Paul Pelosi.”—makes no sense). Again, no need to revert that.
*Changed “will” to “may” in, “will significantly boost the property values.” As above (see “would”), an unsupportable factual assertion.
*At the end of the paragraph, I changed “Pelosi’s” to “Pelosis” (plural, not possessive). Once again, no reason to revert spelling/grammar errors.

In addition, the article could/should note (if you want to make Pelosi sound more craven) that, A) the Pelosis increased their SF real estate holdings in December, perhaps in anticipation of her Speakership (and therefore the ability to get the previously-rejected earmark passed), and B) new House ethics rules (pushed by Pelosi) require sponsors of earmarks to sign a statement saying they will not personally benefit from said earmark (which Pelosi did), and that the nature of the controversy is “whether she acted properly when she certified that she had no financial interest in the waterfront redevelopment project, given the possibility, however speculative, that it could cause the value of her husband’s property to rise.” Both points are in the cited article, and would bring clarity to that section of the entry.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 12:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

*''the source of the earmark request, the Port and mayor of SanFran''
:Going into the relationship between the mayor of San Fransisco & the San Fransisco's highest ranking member of its Congressional delegation may be somewhat extraneous, but it could be done if necessary.
*Pork is what is is.
*''Republicans charge''
:This is AP reporting; we are not AP.
*Given it is the rich responsible for all the worlds problems, from oppressing minimum wage workers to Halliburton starting the war in Iraq, this is an extremely important point. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:15, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::*The Mayor/Pelosi relationship may be extraneous, but the fact that the Port and Mayor made the original request is not.
::*AP is '''reporting''' ''Republican charges''.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 17:45, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::That's right. We are not AP. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:47, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Re: “not one author” ==

Look at the article—how many authors does it have?
Now if you like your characterization better—that’s fine, but don’t try to justify your edits by mischaracterizing the facts. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:28, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:One man's earmark is another mans pork. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::I see three problems with this--
:::This is a total non sequitur and it fails to respond to my point. It even manages to be about a totally different edit.
:::The article says earmark—not pork—find an article that says pork and I won’t touch it, but since the author being used as an authority here chose to call it an earmark that’s what the article here should say.
:::Pork is spending for the sake of spending alone—like a bridge to no where—the article suggests that this spending is something that actually provide some real benefit, suggesting it is not actually pork (but see point two above, find a source that calls it pork, properly attribute it and I won’t complain)
::--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:44, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Pork benefits the home state of district, depending if your Senator or House member. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:05, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::::You are still not responding to the substance of my post—and are not responding at all to the initial post.
::::Not all earmarks are pork. Pork is spending that is a benefit '''only''' to a representative’s district. If a representative comes from a district where they make Kevlar vests and he/she earmarks millions to buy vests from that factory for the military, it is an earmark and is not pork (assuming the military needs those vests). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:49, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::This goes beyond benefiting the district. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:11, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Then it isn’t pork.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::So a conflict of interest that benefits the district can be aptly described as pork. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:43, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Any funding from the Federal level that benefits only the constituents of the Senator(s)/Representative(s) responsible for that funding can be fairly described as pork.
::::::I would say that whether or not there is a conflict of interest is irrelevant to determining if funding is pork or not (For example, a Representative could earmark $1 million to fund a museum to corn in his district, and that would be pork whether or not the Representative, or his family or friends, had any direct financial stake in the funding).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:06, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Cross-dressing

2007-05-14T21:29:58Z

Prof0705: /* Trying to be positive here */

You could spin off a [[Temptation]] article from this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:32, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:Indeed. I was surprised that the link was red. I was sure we'd have something on temptation by now. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]][[User_talk:Vossy|speak]] 16:34, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

== Trying to be positive here ==

But this is terrible. This article has zero-depth. And, frankly, do we need the paragraph at the bottom? I mean, honestly, why not just describe the act and the attraction to said act and move on? Why all this religious stuff about the wearing of clothes? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:35, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:Well, it is in the [[Bible]]. I'm honestly appalled at the practice, but it seems to be gaining more prevalence as time goes on. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]][[User_talk:Vossy|speak]] 16:38, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I suppose, but there are a lot of things in the bible, must we include them all every time? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:43, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

This site might just have moved beyond satire. Vossy, my man, I ask you this question in all sincerity: ''why'' would God care? I reckon coveting your neighbour's new patio furniture is probably naughtier than this. Anyone up for a game of the Seven Most Trivial Sins? --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 16:51, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:I can't tell you Robledo. I also am at a loss to understand why [[J. Edgar Hoover]] would engage in such a practice. Patio furniture, I imagine, is somehow less interesting. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]][[User_talk:Vossy|speak]] 03:28, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

So if I wear a skirt will I go to hell? What exactly constitutes female and male clothing? Some Pacific islanders wear sarongs, which look like skirts to me. Scots wear kilts, those are definitely skirts. Does God hate islanders and Scots? Should I stone to death the Scotish guy that lives next door to me? What about a woman that wears pants? Is she doomed to eternal hellfire?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 14:05, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:Maybe the Deut quotation really means "thou shalt not ''borrow'' the garb of the other gender"? Since, by simple definition, any clothing I might own is a man's clothing, so I can wear it. But if a woman friend owns something, it is a woman's clothing, and I may not wear it. Even if it fits, and looks good on me. By the way, this (so far) is one of only three articles in the category "sin". [[User:Human|Human]] 15:19, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::I guess it would depend on what is considered male and female clothing. Is the definition dependent on any particular culture? Are skirts of all kind feminine clothing? At one time pants were not worn by women, but they are now. So are women that wear pants sinful? If in 20 years sundresses are acceptable clothing for men can I wear one and not go to hell?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 17:29, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Not trying to be positive ==

This is an encyclopedia article, not a Jack Chick tract. You don't have to include a Plan of Salvation with every article that describes an alleged sin. Insofar as a sin is purely a religious transgression, condemnation of cross-dressing as a sin belongs in a section titled "Religious Views on Cross-Dressing" or something like that. If you do quote the Bible, you really must specify which translation you're quoting. If it's your own translation, it might be helpful to indicate where you've strayed from the text -- the text you used renders the Tetragrammaton as "Lord," but doesn't use the usual typographic conventions to set it apart from any other adonai or kurios. Finally, don't address the reader in an article. You're describing something, not declaiming it.

Last, but not least, this article needs pictures. I'd supply one of myself, but my gown is at the dry cleaner's.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 17:35, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:And so it is done. I even used a good Evangelical Bible for the Deuteronomy quote. Unfortunately, the CSS for small caps doesn't seem to work here.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 17:45, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::Ha! That lasted all of five minutes. This article is once again a joke in poor taste. And of course the reverting editor didn't bother explaining his rationale in the summary line ''or'' on the Talk Page. Maybe I should just keep fixing this thing until someone can give me a good, solid reason why we need a Jack Chick-style Plan of Salvation here?--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 17:57, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

==Transvestite==
Isn't there a difference between cross-dressing and being a transvestite? I think this article speaks more about Transvestitism (sexual gratification from wearing the clothes of the members of the opposite sex) than about the wacky antics of Monty Python or early Western theatre when women weren't allowed to act. Anybody else? [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 17:40, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

==Homosexuality==

This article seems to be a LOT more tolerant of 'alternative' behaviour than, say, the [[Homosexuality]] article. Should the Corinthians quote not also be added to that entry? [[User:50something|50something]] 03:23, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Neanderthal

2007-05-14T21:25:42Z

Prof0705: /* Remind me not to spend hours on an article ever again! P.S. please don't <s>stone</s> ban me for expressing my opinion (see First amendment) */

Talk:Neanderthal

2007-05-14T18:29:52Z

Prof0705:

Talk:Neanderthal

2007-05-14T18:27:05Z

Prof0705: /* Remind me not to spend hours on an article ever again! P.S. please don't <s>stone</s> ban me for expressing my opinion (see First amendment) */

Carbon dating

2007-05-14T18:17:23Z

Prof0705:

Carbon dating, or carbon-14 dating, is a method for comparing the ages of organic materials such as bones or things made from anything that once lived.

The technique is based on comparing the levels of 14C and 12C isotopes in the sample. When the sample was living, the ratio of 14C to 12C in the material is the same as in the atmosphere. But after death the 14C isotope decays into N-14, while 12C does not. The loss in 14C is then used to estimate how long ago the sample died, which is typically the same as how long the sample existed.

The rate of decay of 14C is such that 50% of the 14C in the sample will decay in 5730 years: 50% of the 14C in the sample is left, after 11460 years 25% will be left, after 17190 years 12.5% will be left, after 50,000 years only about 1/500th of the 14C remains - and since even initially it is only present as a minute proportion of the whole (0.0000000001% of all Carbon atoms)<ref>http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1006.html</ref>, measuring the exact quantity present accurately enough to be of use for dating purposes is extremely difficult. For this reason, scientists do not generally attempt to carbon date material that is believed to be older than about 50,000-60,000 years old.

[[Image:C-14decay.JPG|framed|The first-order decay curve of carbon-14 based on the half-life of 5730 years. Because of the small amount of 14C remaining after 50,000 years, the rate of decay becomes small.]]

== Limits of Carbon Dating ==

First, it had not been proven scientifically whether the rate of decay of 14C has remained constant over hundreds or thousands of years: nor has it been proven that it has ''not'' remained constant. (Notably, the decay of other isotopes that have half-lives over the course of days to microseconds all follow the characteristic first-order kinetics; hundereds of isotopes follow this pattern, and their properties extenstively have been studied.) Some scientists have suggested, based on experimental observations, that the laws of physics do change over time.<ref>"The idea that nature's laws change over time was proposed in the 1930s by one of the titans in the history of physics, Paul Dirac of England. According to Dirac's large numbers hypothesis, the force of gravity changed over time." See Keay Davidson, "Recent study forces scientists to rethink basic law of physics," San Francisco ''Chronicle''[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/05/09/MNG5LCLEU41.DTL]</ref> The "change" discussed here - in a study that is still very controversial - occurred over billions of years, though, and not in the near enough future to have had an effect on the utility of carbon dating (since carbon dating is only useful to date life within the past 50,000 years, only a change within 50,000 years would affect the dating method).

Second, "various plants have differing abilities to exclude significant proportions of the C-14 in their intake. This varies with environmental conditions as well. The varying rates at which 14C is excluded in plants also means that the apparent age of a living animal may be affected by an animal's diet. An animal that ingested plants with relatively low 14C proportions would be dated older than their true age."<ref>Nondestructive Testing (NDT) Resource Center, "Uncertainty in Carbon Dating"[http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Radiography/Physics/carbondating.htm]</ref>

== Known Limits in Carbon Dating ==
Carbon dating cannot give accurate numbers if the sample is younger than 150 years or older than 50,000 years. The inaccuracy for material younger than 150 years is ascribed to changes in the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere.<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html</ref>

Since the half-life of 14C is only 5715 years, after 50,000 years only about 1/500th of the 14C remains - and since even initially it is only present as a minute proportion of the whole (0.0000000001% of all Carbon atoms), measuring the exact quantity present with precision enough to be of use for dating purposes is extremely difficult. For this reason, scientists do not generally attempt to carbon date material that is believed to be older than about 50,000-60,000 years old. However, isotopes with longer half-lives may be used.

Additional anomalous results from carbon dating, which reinforce its limitations, include the inability to date carbonate rocks, which by confound the science behind the dating technique. Citation?

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Earth science]]

Talk:Cross-dressing

2007-05-14T18:05:26Z

Prof0705:

You could spin off a [[Temptation]] article from this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:32, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:Indeed. I was surprised that the link was red. I was sure we'd have something on temptation by now. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]][[User_talk:Vossy|speak]] 16:34, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

== Trying to be positive here ==

But this is terrible. This article has zero-depth. And, frankly, do we need the paragraph at the bottom? I mean, honestly, why not just describe the act and the attraction to said act and move on? Why all this religious stuff about the wearing of clothes? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:35, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:Well, it is in the [[Bible]]. I'm honestly appalled at the practice, but it seems to be gaining more prevalence as time goes on. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]][[User_talk:Vossy|speak]] 16:38, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I suppose, but there are a lot of things in the bible, must we include them all every time? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:43, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

This site might just have moved beyond satire. Vossy, my man, I ask you this question in all sincerity: ''why'' would God care? I reckon coveting your neighbour's new patio furniture is probably naughtier than this. Anyone up for a game of the Seven Most Trivial Sins? --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 16:51, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:I can't tell you Robledo. I also am at a loss to understand why [[J. Edgar Hoover]] would engage in such a practice. Patio furniture, I imagine, is somehow less interesting. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]][[User_talk:Vossy|speak]] 03:28, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

So if I wear a skirt will I go to hell? What exactly constitutes female and male clothing? Some Pacific islanders wear sarongs, which look like skirts to me. Scots wear kilts, those are definitely skirts. Does God hate islanders and Scots? Should I stone to death the Scotish guy that lives next door to me? What about a woman that wears pants? Is she doomed to eternal hellfire?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 14:05, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
== Not trying to be positive ==

This is an encyclopedia article, not a Jack Chick tract. You don't have to include a Plan of Salvation with every article that describes an alleged sin. Insofar as a sin is purely a religious transgression, condemnation of cross-dressing as a sin belongs in a section titled "Religious Views on Cross-Dressing" or something like that. If you do quote the Bible, you really must specify which translation you're quoting. If it's your own translation, it might be helpful to indicate where you've strayed from the text -- the text you used renders the Tetragrammaton as "Lord," but doesn't use the usual typographic conventions to set it apart from any other adonai or kurios. Finally, don't address the reader in an article. You're describing something, not declaiming it.

Last, but not least, this article needs pictures. I'd supply one of myself, but my gown is at the dry cleaner's.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 17:35, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:And so it is done. I even used a good Evangelical Bible for the Deuteronomy quote. Unfortunately, the CSS for small caps doesn't seem to work here.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 17:45, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::Ha! That lasted all of five minutes. This article is once again a joke in poor taste. And of course the reverting editor didn't bother explaining his rationale in the summary line ''or'' on the Talk Page. Maybe I should just keep fixing this thing until someone can give me a good, solid reason why we need a Jack Chick-style Plan of Salvation here?--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 17:57, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

==Transvestite==
Isn't there a difference between cross-dressing and being a transvestite? I think this article speaks more about Transvestitism (sexual gratification from wearing the clothes of the members of the opposite sex) than about the wacky antics of Monty Python or early Western theatre when women weren't allowed to act. Anybody else? [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 17:40, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

==Homosexuality==

This article seems to be a LOT more tolerant of 'alternative' behaviour than, say, the [[Homosexuality]] article. Should the Corinthians quote not also be added to that entry? [[User:50something|50something]] 03:23, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Neanderthal

2007-05-14T17:48:00Z

Prof0705: /* Remind me not to spend hours on an article ever again! P.S. please don't <s>stone</s> ban me for expressing my opinion (see First amendment) */

Talk:Neanderthal

2007-05-14T17:45:51Z

Prof0705: /* Remind me not to spend hours on an article ever again! P.S. please don't <s>stone</s> ban me for expressing my opinion (see First amendment) */

Slavery

2007-05-14T17:20:05Z

Prof0705:

'''Slavery''' was a peculiar institution found in all [[civilization]]s which diminished a person's value to the point where they would be regarded as a "thing" to be owned.
The value of a slave was typically about the same as that of a [[race horse]]. The master controls and commands the slave, either through ownership of the slave like property, or by right to command him.

The slavery system reduces a person to the status of an animal who can be owned by another person. Some say it is a contradiction of our God-given human rights. Yet the Bible states that thieves should be sold into slavery.<ref>Exodus 22:3 "He should make a full restitution; and if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.</ref> In general, slaves can be kept for six years. <ref>Exodus 21:1-4 "If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve; and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing."</ref>
== Ancient History ==
[[Image:Ruslavery.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Painting of a slave market in early medieval Eastern Europe.]]
Slavery has existed at least since ancient [[Greece]] and ancient [[Egypt]], where, according to the Bible, Hebrews were slaves (although no other historical accounts mention Hebrew slaves in Egypt). The primary slave market in ancient Greece was on an island in the Aegean sea known as "Delos". From there slaves were traded and used throughout the Greek city-states.

Often prisoners-of-wars in ancient history were used as slaves, particularly during the [[Roman Empire]]. [[Christianity]] helped lessen the harshness by which Romans treated slaves; however, later Christian nations like Spain, England, and the Netherlands would continue in the use of slaves. Slavery was also pervasive among [[Arabs]] into the twentieth century.

==Recent History==

In 1455, a "papal bull" (formal letter by the [[pope]]) justified a "right" of Christian nations to enslave any non-Christian in the name of exploration. The [[Spain|Spanish]] had already been enslaving [[South America|South American]] natives on a limited basis, but with the rise of sugar plantations the need for a larger slave force arose. Millions of [[Africa|African]] slaves were brought by the Spanish and [[Portugal|Portuguese]] to [[Mexico]], [[Peru]], the [[Caribbean]] and [[Brazil]]. The growth of [[sugar]]—which had first been introduced to [[Europe]] when the [[Muslims]] ruled Spain—was exploding in popularity throughout the entire western world. Soon [[France]], the Netherlands and Great Britain were also establishing profitable sugar plantations in the new world. The plantation system began in Brazil, where rich white plantation owners were the highest rung in the social hierarchy and black slaves were at the bottom. Obviously life on a sugar plantation was very hard work for a slave.

Slavery was widespread within Africa itself, and the richest in Africa were not those owning the most land, but those who owned the most slaves. In the Sahara Desert, slaves worked in caravans and were used in gold and salt mining. Slaves were usually prisoners of war from other areas of Africa, or debtors, or enemies or the king, but many women outside of those three categories were also enslaved in African societies. Polygamy—the practice of having more than one wife—was common in Africa, as was the existence of harems, from which African women were often sold to join Arabian or Middle Eastern harems.

The trading of slaves with other countries was encouraged in Africa, and was considered an important component of the African economy. Slave trade across the Atlantic (the Trans-Atlantic slave trade) became a booming business for Europeans and Africans alike, by which African rulers sold their people to Europeans for goods such as iron, alcohol, tobacco and most importantly, guns. Trans-Atlantic trade led to the degrading use of "chattel" slaves, whereby the slaves were treated purely as property of the owner. The slaves served as sailors, skilled craftsmen or farmers. The journey across the Atlantic, known as the Middle Passage, led to the death of 10-20% of the African slaves. But an even higher percentage lost their lives in the journey from their homes in Africa to the African coast, where they were to board the slave ships.

The Trans-Atlantic slave trade was one component in a system of routes known as the "Triangular Trade" between South America, New England, and the West Coast of Africa. The three main items that were exchanged were sugar, rum and slaves. European goods, mainly guns, were used to buy slaves from Africa. The slaves were then shipped to the Americas. Then, from America, sugar, rum and tobacco were brought back to Europe, completing the "triangle" of trade. Slavery is one of the less noble aspects of American history.

Between 1530 and 1780, Europeans including Britons and even some Americans were frequently taken captive and enslaved by privateers from the [[Barbary States]]. Estimates of so-called "white slavery" vary from as little as 50,000 to in the millions <ref>http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm</ref>. Generally Europeans enslaved by the [[corsairs]] were usually poorer sea merchants and city dwellers whose families were unable to pay the ransom necessary to free them. Often the [[Pasha]] would purchase the female captives into his harem. Many were forced to "go turk" or convert to "mohammadism" in order to stay with their children who were raised as Muslims. Occasionally slaves would convert in order to escape harsher labors such as tending the oars in the corsairs <ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/white_slaves_print.html</ref>.

==End of European and American Slavery==

The end of slavery in Europe was not to come until the beginning of the 1800s, when abolitionists such as William Wilberforce and John Wesley began speaking out against the evils of the system. The slave trade was abolished in the [[British Empire]] in 1807, however slavery was not abolished in the Empire until 1832.

The British ban on the slave trade enforced by the British navy did undermine the slave trade globally. This led to the the United States banning the slave trade in the early 1800s. However, slavery itself was not abolished until decades later in 1865 when the U.S. government passed the [[13th Amendment]], and in South America when it was ended in Brazil in 1888.

==Slavery in the Bible ==
[[Image:Boulanger Gustave Clarence Rudolphe The Slave Market.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Boulanger Gustave Clarence Rudolphe's painting ''The Slave Market'']]
Slavery is also referenced, controlled and regulated in the Bible. Some English translations use the term 'slave' while others use 'servant,' but the meanings are equivalent. For example:

* "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant." -- Genesis 17:12-13, showing that slaves were considered subject to the Old Covenant.

* "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever." -- Exodus 21:2-6. Hebrews may be slaves for a maximum of seven years, then must be freed. Any children produced during the period of slavery shall however remain the property of his owner.

* "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour." -- Leviticus 25:44-46 (Leviticus 25 contains more detailed rules regarding who may or may not be enslaved)

* "And all the people that were left of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, which were not of the children of Israel, Their children that were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel also were not able utterly to destroy, upon those did Solomon levy a tribute of bondservice (slavery) unto this day. But of the children of Israel did Solomon make no bondmen: but they were men of war, and his servants, and his princes, and his captains, and rulers of his chariots, and his horsemen." -- I Kings 9:20-22

* "Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant (slave)? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather." -- I Corintians 7:20-21

* "Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward." -- 1 Peter 2:18

* "Let as many servants (slaves) as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort." -- I Timothy 6:1-2

* The book of Philemon is a record of Paul sending a slave back to his master "no longer as a slave but more than a slave-- a beloved brother." (Philemon 1: 16)

The Old Testament alone, prior to New Testament considerations, broadly prohibits the permanent enslavement of the native inhabitants of Israel but permits the enslavement of immigrants and the occupants of other countries. Depending on the precise circumstances, ethnicity, nationality and any enslaved relatives of a slave, some must be freed after a specified time, while others remain slaves for life. Though physical violence to slaves is permitted, murder is not.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:History]]
[[Category:Economics]]
[[Category:Sociology]]

Talk:Slavery

2007-05-14T17:16:47Z