Changes

User talk:Order

14,702 bytes added, 16:15, January 9, 2008

/* AIM */

*Why yes. Yes I am. I am amazed at just how perceptive you suddenly seem to be! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 04:06, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

==Re: Hillary front page article==

As someone who has actually had a statistics class, I applaud you for trying to set the record straight on the front page. Good luck though; that same fallacy is made over and over on here and bringing up the point will only get you called a liberal. I guess only liberals can correctly phrase the findings of a statistic? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:34, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

: Don't you start calling me a liberal as well. Just because I can read tables. But, frankly I am always amazed at (1) whenever you point to an error made by one of the sysops, you are called liberal, and that is often the only argument. (2) That so much effort is done to defend such sloppy errors. It would be much easier to just fix it. [[User:Order]]

::Ha ha, I wasn't calling you a liberal, that was making fun of other people who incorrectly label you that way. Those two points you made will be the downfall of this site if they keep on that way...

::I was sincerely complimenting you; since everyone on the main page seems to be against you I figured you could use some support. :) I was just saying that I've taken a statistics class (two, actually) and a large part of the "dirty work" is how to correctly use the statistics. There is a huge difference between what the Pew poll says and what the headline says. Whoever posted the headline would have gotten that question wrong on a stats exam! (They then, of course, would blame it on the liberal intelligencia or something *rolls eyes*). Anyway, fight the good fight. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 00:01, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:::If you want to have fun with statistic follow the links to the data used in [Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia], point 24. [[User:Order]]

::::Heh, yeah, that was probably one of the first things I ever saw on this site. And if it weren't for that I would probably take a lot more things here at face value. Talk about irony! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 00:18, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

== FBI discussion ==

Word of advice - just drop it. You didn't break any rules, but you're questioning a touchy subject. Unless you're not in violation of 90/10, you need to let it go or else they're gonna give you the stick. '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 12:25, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Cool. [[User:Order]]

== SVU ==

Huh? I didn't edit that section at all. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:37, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

My mistake. Sorry. [[User:order]]

:No problem. That was the strangest post I have ever seen. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 00:41, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

::That was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&diff=259371&oldid=259356 this]? That edit was made by [[Special:Contributions/Special:Contributions/Dollanganger|Dollanganger]].[[User_talk:U2| U2]] 00:48, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Sure, but he didn't sign it. See also [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=259514&oldid=259508] [[User:Order]]

== Confusion.... ==

*I really think your services and help are not that necessary, Order. Would you care to make another remark? Please? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 04:04, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

I am happy to make another remark. On what page? [[User:Order]]

*Goodspeed, Order! Happy to oblige your wish. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 04:13, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

I changed the remark on [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ's]] talk page. I made it a bit less confrontational. Hope that fine with you. [[User:Order]]

:Apparently it's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:JoshuaZ&action=history not] since it's been reverted.

:Although it '''is''' "allowed" by some sysops...at least their stated opinions: RE:

----

:* If other editors have a right to put their own questions and comments on someone's talk page, then surely they also have a right to ''remove'' them from that talk page.

:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:46, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::I agree with Philip. "Destruction of evidence" is a trolling term, inasmuch as it is patently false, as Philip points out. '''More to the point, intemperate remarks, made either by mistake or in the heat of the moment, should be able to be removed, if the situation resolves itself. Just a matter of manners with me.''' --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 06:04, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Watch how long (short) this post lasts. [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 12:42, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

==Check it out==

Hey Order, check it out, look what WP says here:

:"Wang Jingwei was a Kuomintang (KMT) '''leftist who''' had broken away from Chiang Kai-Shek's government in March 1940 and '''defected to the Japanese''' invaders.

:Claiming to be the rightful government of the Republic of China, it flew the same flag and displayed the same emblem as Chiang Kai-shek's National Government. However, it was widely regarded as a puppet state and enjoyed no diplomatic recognition, except from the states of the '''Anti-Comintern Pact'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Nationalist_Government]

Hmmm, leftists invited into the anti-Comintern pact. How are we ever going to explain this one? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:03, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

In what respect do we have to explain it? Without knowing the background I'd say that it seem like the typical chaos in a civil war situation. But it also show that "leftists" can be opposed to communist, for whatever, and to me unknown, reason. [[User:Order]]

:Either opposed, or cowardly subversive collaborationists. Point being, we can no longer make the blanket statement that the anit-Comintern pact was made up of "right-wing fascists", especially given the point that such an authoritative source as Wikipedia admits that non-Comintern leftist Chinese were joined to the Axis powers.

To what are you referring to? Who said that anti-Comintern were right wing fascists? i am puzzled. [[User:Order]] 3 August, 11:07

:Oh, here's something else we need to fit in somewhere, Stalin's Order of the Day on February 23, 1943---one month after Roosevelt hit upon the Casablanca notion of unconditional surrender -- Stalin stated for public consumption that "it would be ridiculous to identify Hitler's clique with the German people and the German state." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:02, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

That would be Stalin's take on "collective guilt". But I figure there are more scholarly contributions to this debate. [[User:Order]] 3 August, 11:07

==Playing gotcha==

Since you already forgave him [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal_hypocrisy&diff=prev&oldid=261226], you have no business accusing him.

Do not engage in the typical liberal tactic of ignoring everything a conservative says and then pouncing on one "weak aspect" of their remarks. Talk show hosts do that to get ratings; encyclopedia contributors should not do this at all. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:45, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

Where did I ignore things Karajou said? I did accept his apology and said it that the issue was settled [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse&diff=261284&oldid=261274]. --[[user:Order]] 8 August, 10:10

*96 out of your last 100 edits were on talk pages. And you don't seem to be able to click on the "E-mail this user" link. What '''*is*''' your problem? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:52, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

==Off-topic discussions seen as unproductive==

Order, please stop engaging productive writers in talk page debates like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Atheism&diff=272888&oldid=272872 this one]. If you want to have a debate, you know full well that you are entitled to create a page like [[Debate:Does the Bible justify racism?]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:17, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

:The discussion isn't whether the Bible justifies racism. I hope we can all agree that it doesn't. It is about whether there are people who use the bible to justify racism. And closing your eyes that these exist doesn't help if your concerned about racism. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:05, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

::I'm primarily concerned with good articles. Plenty of people are out there "fighting racism". But 49 out of your last 50 edits were talk, so I'm giving you a 3-day block. Take a walk, read a book, etc. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:13, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

:::This user continues to work unproductively (majority of last 100 edits have been on talk pages. I'm issuing another block. When/if you return, please contribute positively to mainspace. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] [[User talk:Jallen|talk]] 09:38, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

== a warning ==

Please do not put lame atheism apologetics in the atheism article. Lame atheism apologetics are not appropriate for a conservative encyclopedia. I don't want to block you and please heed this warning. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:27, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:Where would atheist apologetics go if '''not''' in the article titled "Atheism"? [[User Talk:Samwell|Samwell]] 21:42, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, here's another warning - but first let me quote you:

*equating Stalinism with atheism is as much a fallacy as equating Christianity with the Spanish inquisition

I'm not sure where you're going with this, but it seems to be a denial of any link between Stalinism and atheism. This would seem to be an error, as Stalin promoted the atheism inherent in [[Dialectical Materialism]], which is the philosophical core of [[Communism]].

:There is a link. Marxism and later Stalinism were both materialist atheist theories. But Atheism and Stalinism aren't the same. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:23, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

I warn you not to make false or confusing statements in talk pages. You wanna make an argument that persuades other users, try [[Debate:Was Stalin an atheist?]] or something like that. Don't use talk pages as a soapbox. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:54, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Stalin was an atheist. Sure, did I say otherwise? I discussed Lysenkoism, a materialist theory of evolution, and it did cost a lot of peoples lives, especially its inhumane and fruitless application in agriculture, so it is worth mentioning it. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:08, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

== [[Atheism]] ==

See this:[[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Ed_Poor#.5B.5BAtheism.5D.5D]] Thanks! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:04, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

==Fig leaf gibe==

Don't speculate on what other contributors can or cannot feel. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Right_and_wrong_in_Myanmar&diff=next&oldid=300784] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:08, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

== please see my last post on the dawkins talk page ==

please see my last post on the dawkins talk page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:38, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

:Its an interesting discussion to say the least, but as long as the revert war is going on, I'll keep watching rather than participating. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:16, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

:::There is no longer a revert war. I also believe that you commenting on my historiography post might be helpful if you do it in the right spirit. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:27, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, it is important that you comment in the "right spirit", Order. :P --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 22:30, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

:OK, I'll go have a few drink for lunch, and give it a try:) [[User:Order|Order]] 22:32, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

:*I have beat you to it, of course, it being almost Eight here! A nice Bombay, up and very cold, with two twists! :P --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 22:45, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

::TK, hope I didn't have too many. Conservative, I am also a bit concerned, now that also McIntyre weighed in, that you got more than you bargained for. Peace be upon you. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:52, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

*Well, I stop usually at one, darn it! Too many buzz killers here. You gave a reasoned response. It is too bad Kenservative will not apply the same reasoning to several of "his" other articles, isn't it? The one's he has kept locked for months, not allowing any other editor to touch, and on the rare occasions he does, always reverts their additions, without ever once applying that "historiography" approach of reason. Oh well. Cheers! --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 05:37, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

==[[Science]] and [[falsifiability]]==

Hi, Order. I like what you said:

:The article is about falsifiability. It says that scientist can have it wrong. They propose a theory, look for evidence, and then its wrong, and they have to amend or change the theory.

What else do you know about science? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:02, 16 December 2007 (EST)

This is all you need to know. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:40, 16 December 2007 (EST)

== Quit ==

With the "I am a way from the computer right now." and sign in! --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 03:24, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== AIM ==

You never seem to be logged in even when editing here. Do you have an email address that you could register here? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 10:42, 9 January 2008 (EST)

My email works. Had my computer reinstalled. Give me a sec to reinstall AIM. [[User:Order|Order]] 11:01, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Nah. When clicking on the email this user link, I get the "This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users." message. I'll wait for you to pop up on AIM. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:02, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Ok, done.

Order

2,002

edits