Changes

:::: Looking at it again, I should have been clearer by adding something to the effect that "because the professoriate is so large, it would not be valid to conclude that this group of professionals is disproportionately more likely than other groups or the general public to commit crimes or other misdeeds based on a small sample of reported crimes unless the group and its crime rates are compared with those of other professionals or the general public."  I also should have place the stats citation right after I mentioned the number of professors.  The source supports that information and not the rest of the sentence.  While I could have been clearer, the statement should not have been removed because you were "cleaning out liberal bias."  What is liberal about that statement?  I was trying to make the article more substantial and accurate.  There are clearly claims in the article that are unsupported and therefore in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments, and I was doing research to find accurate data about the population under discussion.  It was only a start and I was enjoying the research, but having my contribution yanked was like getting an unwarranted suckerpunch.  In a sense, you did what you accuse professors of doing: you bullied someone you thought had an opposing point of view. Trying to verify facts and add documentation is neither liberal nor conservative - it is research.  [[User:CPlantin|Cplantin] 22:51:48, 23 April 2008 (CDT)

:::: Looking at it again, I should have been clearer by adding something to the effect that "because the professoriate is so large, it would not be valid to conclude that this group of professionals is disproportionately more likely than other groups or the general public to commit crimes or other misdeeds based on a small sample of reported crimes unless the group and its crime rates are compared with those of other professionals or the general public."  I also should have place the stats citation right after I mentioned the number of professors.  The source supports that information and not the rest of the sentence.  While I could have been clearer, the statement should not have been removed because you were "cleaning out liberal bias."  What is liberal about that statement?  I was trying to make the article more substantial and accurate.  There are clearly claims in the article that are unsupported and therefore in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments, and I was doing research to find accurate data about the population under discussion.  It was only a start and I was enjoying the research, but having my contribution yanked was like getting an unwarranted suckerpunch.  In a sense, you did what you accuse professors of doing: you bullied someone you thought had an opposing point of view. Trying to verify facts and add documentation is neither liberal nor conservative - it is research.  [[User:CPlantin|Cplantin] 22:51:48, 23 April 2008 (CDT)

== PZ Myers just linked to this article ==

== [[Debate:Are Liberals fundamentally evil?|Liberal]] professor [[PZ Myers]] just linked to this article ==

[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/a_temporary_palliative.php Here].  Be on the watch for vandals. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:20, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/a_temporary_palliative.php Here].  Be on the watch for vandals. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:20, 28 April 2008 (EDT)