User talk:RSchlafly

good edit to Einstein article.--Aschlafly 00:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks Roger. Whatever I can do to help, let me know. Are there any plans for coordinated projects similiar to like they have over in, you know, that other place? RobS 12:48, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Review

Roger, here's some material you may wish to review regarding "expansion of due process", [1]

it can be argued that the legislative intent of the Amendment was especially to grow with the times, which it certainly has done. RobS 11:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Gospel of Thomas

It is true that the Gospel of Thomas is not part of the Bible, and not recognized outside the Coptic Christian church; I simply wanted to clarify that it nevertheless is a valuable source of information about early Christian beliefs, and that many Christians today do find great value in it. Boethius 15:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

It is my understanding that Christians have historically regarded these apocryphal gospels as being tainted with heresy. Yes, fascinating, but fascinating in the way that heresy is fascinating. I didn't want the Thomas entry to imply that Thomas is a good source of Christian beliefs. RSchlafly 23:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for your reply. I have amended the entry, both on the Gospels and the Gospel of Thomas, to make this more explicitly clear.

Boethius 17:42, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

reply

I banned him because 3 times in row he posted to my userpage the same cross examination type garbage much of which (if not all) was unrelated to the article in question. I warned him to stop though and he ignored me. Three strikes and your out.

Secondly, are you related to Aschlafly? Conservative 17:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Yes, Aschlafly is my brother. I had nothing to do with creating Conservapedia; I first learned about it from reading blogs. RSchlafly 17:56, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

That is wrong! your own brother didnt tell you! Mr. Schlafly! how could you! j/k :) welcome aboard. --Will N. 17:58, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Scientology

Hello RSchlafly. In your recent modification to the article, [2], you introduced that "not everyone considers it to be a religion". But that would be true of any religion that can be named, some people, somewhere, will consider it to not be a 'true' religion. Are we really trying to present such value judgements to our readers? Can't we simply be brief and to the point and inform readers, then let readers do as they like with their information? If we remain conservative and steadfast and present good, clean information, clear of bias and potential confusions or criticsm, our readers are better served, don't you think ?
Yes, there are controversial issues the Church of Scientology has involved itself in but are those actually necessary to a brief, clear description of the religion? Can we discuss, please ? Terryeo 14:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I was understating the controversy. I think that it is fair to say that most people do not consider Scientology a religion. IRS did not, until just a few years ago. RSchlafly 14:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Okay. How does one explain news items like this one [3] ("Scientology Religion") in the Kansas City Star ? Or the 7000+ hits a person gets by googling "Scientology" (its religous locations) at google maps? Or the many website pages about the Scientology Religion? There is nothing like that for a "Scientology Cult" search, with the exception of thousands of pages of criticsm. If an organization presents itself as a religion, is accepted by most governments as a religion, is presented in newspapers as a religion, then shouldn't we present it as a religion, too ? On the other hand, if an article is to be large, then other points of view could be presented ? But if small, then why not as direct and simple as possible ? Terryeo 17:14, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I did your test, and I found 113,000 google hits for "scientology religion", and 168,000 hit for "scientology cult". This does indeed suggest that more people call it a cult than a religion. But that is just one controversy. Care to say anything about psychotherapy? The Xenu story? Battles over leaks of the OT documents? RSchlafly 17:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

McCarthy

Much of the material User:PF Fox is "obsolete and deprecated", as per WP's new WP:ATTFAQ' I fought for this along time ago. Plus there is evidence of trolling on the talk page, as I forecasted. [4] I would propose a roll back to my version, with whatever material you may wish to save from the recent editing, and then Page Protection. RobS 15:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

My inclination is to start a section titled, "Criticism of McCarthy's methods", and start it by saying: "It is often alleged that McCarthy's methods were irresponsible, inhumane, and reckless. Here are some examples of where his committee supposedly ruined lives." Then let PF Fox put in his most egregious examples, as long as they are factual. You want to do it? RSchlafly 16:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I've protected the page. That sounds like a good idea. Let's have PF Fox place his proposed language on the Talk page while I work on completing the Venona materials. RobS 16:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Newton

I bet Isaac Newton cared about his title of "sir." Not to split hairs. Publicly evaluating a person's legacy based on your opinion of it is a bad idea, and sounds like opinion forbidden by the Commandments.-AmesG 01:02, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Sure, Newton may have cared, in the way that people care about honorary degrees and awards. Maybe he got some privileges from it, I don't know. But nobility status carries no weight with the typical American reader of Conservapedia. Nobody knows what Newton did to get that title, or why the title should make anyone deserving of any respect. It is just stupid and meaningless.

Newton was a great man, and I am not putting him down. He is great for what he did, not because he was friends with some silly king or however he got the title. RSchlafly 01:11, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

'Sir' is a title of respect. Not placing it would be equivalent to removing Doctor from the name of those holding a doctorate. Geo. 01:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

It is only a title of respect among fans of British nobility. Besides, encyclopedias do not normally list people with doctorates under the title "Doctor". RSchlafly 01:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Okay, can the bold text at least show that he was a peer? Geo. 01:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I assume that you are joking. I don't know what a peer is, except that my dictionary says that it has something to do with British nobility. I think that the average American has very low respect for British nobility. RSchlafly 01:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

A Peer of the Realm is a member of the British nobility. Geo. 03:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

"Nobody knows what Newton did to get that title, or why the title should make anyone deserving of any respect. It is just stupid and meaningless." ... "I don't know what a peer is, except that my dictionary says that it has something to do with British nobility. I think that the average American has very low respect for British nobility." Are you serious? You don't know what Newton did that resulted in his title? I'd guess Calculus? Maybe Gravity? That deserves a heck of a lot of respect. I don't think we need to know the ins and outs of honorary titles in Britain to understand the basics of this one. According to Answers in Genesis, [5] "His country officially recognized his work in 1705 when he became the first person to receive a knighthood for scientific achievement." Surely this is important enough to include his "Sir"? --Hsmom 19:51, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I am serious. No American has any respect for British nobility titles. Apparently you don't know how Newton got the title either, because you are just guessing. You have a source that says that it was for "his work". Okay, that narrows it a little bit. It wasn't for his relatives. RSchlafly 20:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Honorary knighthoods (accepted & thus I'm guessing respected...)

• George Bush
• Ronald Reagan
• Colin Powell
• General Norman Schwarzkopf
• Bob Hope

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1091938.stm

Any more sweepingly daft generalisations to make? :P --Robledo 20:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

No, you've made it for me. I've never heard any American call any of those men "sir". RSchlafly 21:01, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

It's a simple matter of respect. "Sir" is his title in his native country and therefore should be the title that he is addressed by whenever he is addressed, wherever he is addressed. Aside from that argument, he is known the world over as "Sir Isaac Newton".Airdish 21:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Theory

I would like to argue this edit. It is an extremely important distinction, because scientifically, nothing can ever really be proven. Gravity, relativity, etc. are all still theories, but are backed up with massive amounts of evidence, and are used regularly as facts. In any usage outside science, "theory" usually means a "hunch", or unsubstantiated guess. --Hojimachong^talk 03:05, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I just don't think that it is true that usage of "theory" outside science is significantly different from its usage in science. Do you have any source for that? Theories have varying levels of substantiation, both inside and outside science. I think that the distinction is completely bogus and misleading.

Why is this so important, anyway? The subject of what can be proven is another topic. RSchlafly 03:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Any self-respecting scientist would never use the term theory to mean an unsubstantiated guess. Theories do not have varying levels of substantiation, only the true definition and the misuse by everyone else. ColinR^talk 03:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

That is just not true. Physicists use the term "String Theory", even tho it is just an unsubstantiated guess. Where is the evidence that scientists use the word "theory" differently from others? RSchlafly 03:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Regarding string theory, it has a large amount of "evidence" backing it up. That doesn't mean it's true, but it's certainly not an unsubstantiated guess. Regarding how scientists use the word differently, ask anybody with any sort of involvement in science, it's considered common knowledge that a scientific theory is different than a "guess". --Hojimachong^talk 03:51, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

No, there is no evidence for String Theory. The disputed section has no cited source, and is contrary to common knowledge. Are you just giving your opinion, or can you cite a source? RSchlafly 04:04, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

It's not a disputed fact that theory in the scientific community is not the same as a hypothesis. Sorry. ColinR^talk 04:08, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Correct, that point is not under dispute. RSchlafly 04:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Theory II

Is there a reason for [[6]] this edit? What was objectionable? --Letusratiocinate 04:16, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I apologize for the ad hominem attack, but there is nothing disputed about what is said in those entries. And protecting articles only hurts the site. ColinR^talk 04:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Those entries certainly are disputed. I disputed them on the Talk pages, and here. The disputed material has no cited sources. I only protected the page because of the removal of the "disputed" tag. If you are right and I am wrong, then you should be able to give some evidence on the Talk page or here. RSchlafly 04:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

There is no disputing the difference between common usage of theory and the scientific meaning. Look it up in a dictionary and you'll see theory is defined as both. ColinR^talk 04:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

The disputed section says that a common speech theory is different from a scientific theory, with the former being an "unsubstantiated guess" and the latter having to be "well-supported and accepted". My dictionaries don't say any of those things, and they don't reflect any popular or scientific usage to my knowledge. I'd be happy to use a dictionary definition, but if you want something else, then you should provide some support for it. RSchlafly 04:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Look at webster's online. ColinR^talk 05:13, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I looked at Merriam-Webster's, American Heritage, Compact Oxford English, Encarta, and a couple of others. They all disagree with you. You are promoting the oddball definition, so you find support for it. RSchlafly 05:21, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

A theory, as defined by Merriam-Webster:

1 : abstract thought : SPECULATION 2 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action 3 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light> 4 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption :CONJECTURE

As you can see, definition 3 is different than the others. This is because a scientific theory must follow what is known as the scientific method. The Scientific method is "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses". Of course, gravity, relativity, the theory of light, etc. are all unproven, but they are all backed up by massive amounts of evidence. A scientific theory is supported by evidence, though in modern usage outside of science, "theory" is synonymous with "guess". --Hojimachong^talk 15:29, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Your definition shows that your last sentence is wrong on both counts. A scientific theory does not have to be supported by evidence. In modern usage outside of science, "theory" is not synonymous with "guess". I am tempted to add a paragraph explaining this point. RSchlafly 17:17, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Theory of Relativity/draft

Please stop. Special and general relativity are separate theories. Liπus the Turbogeek^{(contact me)} 14:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean by that? They are certainly closely related, conceptually and historically. Putting them in separate sections already implies differences. Saying that they are separate without any explanation of the difference is just stupid and misleading. RSchlafly 14:38, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

GR describes gravity, SR describes objects relative to each other. Liπus the Turbogeek^{(contact me)} 07:06, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, but they are not separate. SR is just GR without the gravity. RSchlafly 12:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Wrong, dude. Please stop pretending that you and Andy are experts on everything. Andy's obviously not even an expert on theories of constitutional interpretation. Nor are you an expert on physics. Anyways, special relativity deals with time & length dilation and the Lorentz Transformation. GR is an explanation of gravity and spacetime curvature. Completely different except the name.-AmesG_yo! 12:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

No, I am not wrong. I can see from your comments that you know very little about either subject. RSchlafly 13:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

These are difficult subjects, and I myself don't understand either one well. I can do the math of the Lorentz transformation - where fast things get heavy, though.

We need to make this subject accessible to our readership. If this means a simple (basic?) article which mentions both ideas, that will be a good start. We can use the {{main}} template (or something like it: {spinoff} or {more detail}) to refer the reader to an in-depth treatment.

Who wants to volunteer for any part of this? --Ed Poor 14:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Roger is correct; not only are GR and SR not 'separate,' SR is a limiting case of GR, just as Newtonian mechanics is a limiting case of SR. Tsumetai 14:29, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

How's that work? I guess I don't understand it.-AmesG_yo! 17:32, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I'll try to put in an explanation if no one else does. Currently, there are two relativity pages, and both need a lot of work. RSchlafly 18:15, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

GR generally operates in curved spacetime; in SR spacetime is always flat. But if you plug a flat spacetime into the equations of GR, SR is what falls out. The connection is not only quite deep, but very useful too; in any smooth, curved space, one can always pick a sufficiently small patch such that curvature can be safely neglected. In practical terms, this means that any observer can always choose to work within a region of spacetime small enough to make SR an arbitrarily good approximation. Tsumetai 04:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, that is correct. SR approximates GR in the way that a tangent line approximates a curve. RSchlafly 13:10, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

They were developed in very different ways and at very different times and they are taught in very different ways and at very different times in university. They deserve completely separate articles (I am educated to graduate level on both). Airdish 17:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I believe the latest version of the draft is mine. I'm knowledgeable of Special Relativity and I was trying to explain it in as basic terms as possible. I don't know much about General Relativity other than what I've picked up from other people. However RSchlafly I hope you realise that gravity is a fairly complex force which adds a lot of extra levels of difficulty onto Special Relativity. If anything they should be given different sections simply because they are so abominably different in scale. MatteeNeutra 17:11, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, Special Relativity is simpler. That is why it is called "special". I favor one article titled Relativity that tries to give a concise explanation. There are many textbooks on the subject if the reader really wants the full course. RSchlafly 17:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Personally, I'd favour Relativity as a very short concise "these are the principles of" style article (a sentence or two on each) with links to separate articles for each of the two theories. Also, because it is specialised, "simpler" is not the word. It is "simpler" because the maths is less hardcore, two very different things. Airdish 17:54, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Copernicus

Your biased editing is an insult to the subjects you touch, to the site, and to your brother's ideals. Please defend your edits to the Copernicus article stating that those problems still exist in modern astronomy today (preposterous!) and your blatant POV articles to the Scalia article. Please use new arguments that I have not already refuted.-AmesG_yo! 13:23, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

No, you have not refuted anything. Your edits are false, malicious, misleading, and disrupted. You do not defend what you do on the Talk pages. Please stop, or I'll have to block you.

I did not say that those problems "still exist in modern astronomy today". Reread it. I even gave a date for resolving the parallax problem. Your change called Tycho one of "previous astronomers". That is not correct, as Tycho lived after Copernicus.

Your changes to Scalia's article are also completely unacceptable. No encyclopedia would say that. You are trying to put words in his mouth that he never said. If you have proof that Scalia is against desegregation, then document it. Otherwise, don't say it. The article is about Scalia and what he has said and done, not about your personal speculations about what his opinions might have been in the 1950s.

You are becoming a nuisance. Use the Talk pages to make your points. RSchlafly 13:40, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I blocked him. --Ed Poor 13:42, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't know AmesG's other work. My objection is to these edits: Scalia [7] Copernicus [8] Theory [9], and to his subsequent edit wars over those edits. RSchlafly 14:12, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

What's wrong with the Brahe insert? He did solve many of the problems with Copernicus' theory.--Dave3172 14:16, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Tycho Brahe did some important works, as did dozens of later eminent astronomers. I think that AmesG's comments were inappropriate because it is peculiar to single out Tycho in this context, Tycho was not a "previous astronomer", and Tycho did not solve any of the 3 problems that were mentioned in the previous sentence. RSchlafly 14:27, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

• Just a little note here, a quick check of the edit history of the page reveals AmesG's edit did not say that Tycho was a "previous astronomer" but in fact, said the exact opposite! http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nicolaus_Copernicus&oldid=71299 . HTH Rob Pommer_TALK 15:03, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

As to the other two, I think Ames could've left out the Brown v. Board part and left it at that. And most of the "Theory" part is good, except for this: " In fact, it is hard to find anyone who makes this distinction, outside those who are promoting the theory of evolution to the general public." That's a flat-out falsehood. It's also unsubstantiated and opinion, not fact.--Dave3172 14:19, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

If the statement is "flat-out falsehood", then it should be easy to prove me wrong. Just give me a couple of URLs of pages that make the distinction. I did discuss the matter on the Talk page. RSchlafly 14:36, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Are you serious?? If anything, the burden should be on you to prove your statement. I make that distinction all the time, b/c it'd be less than honest to tell people that the word "theory" can't be used in different ways. And again, you can't cite that claim. It should be removed.--Dave3172 15:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I am quite serious. If you have some evidence that I am wrong, please post it on Talk:Theory. RSchlafly 15:11, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

My Reply

A few things.

1. As requested by Ed Poor, I have posted my reply to your "charges" here. I feel that my edits to Copernicus have been vindicated.
2. In re the Theory article, Shlaf, you've been argued into a corner you can't get out of on the talk page. Please answer the comments there before claiming that you're right.
3. In re the Antonin Scalia article, I never intended to imply that Scalia does not support the Brown decision. I'm sure he comes up with his own way to back it up. However, the Earl Warren opinion on Brown did rest on responsivism, which Scalia disagrees with flat out, as you have proven for me. So he disagrees with the popular reason for Brown, which is all that I argued, regardless of what you inferred. And you haven't disproven that thesis except to say, "Wha?! Who!??! Huh!?"
4. Thank you to everyone who defended me. I appreciate it.
5. I still think you can't be serious regarding the Theory article.
6. Peace.-AmesG_yo! 16:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)