Sysop:Talk/Archive 1

A hangout place for Conservapedia Sysops

(Sysops: please mark this page as watched)

You might wonder who our Sysops are. We have 33 Sysops. Only one of them is related to me, and we often disagree with each other.

Most of our active Sysops are fine people we first met online through this website. Our Sysops reflect all political views, and nearly all time zones. We have several from Britain, several from Australia and at least one from Canada. Some of our Sysops are high school and college students. Sysops are promoted based on initiative and merit, not ideology.--Aschlafly 21:49, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

User:SirCliff

I've blocked this user indefinitely, mainly on the basis of an article that he created titled Membrum Virile and with content claiming that it was an ancient lay Catholic order with some unusual practices. However, all I can find on the topic via Google is that Membrum Virile is a reference to the penis.

His other edits do appear from a quick look to be reasonably accurate if a bit flippant, but I wonder if someone should investigate them a bit closer. Also of some concern is the favourable post about that article that user:CatWatcher put on SirCliff's talk page.

Philip J. Rayment 05:13, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. I'll investigate further. It's fine to block an account when in doubt, as we can always unblock it further investigation warrants reinstatement.--Aschlafly 08:55, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Vulgar metaphors on the page Talk:Theory of evolution

Ladies and gentlemen, the debate on the above page is getting increasingly vulgar. Here is the latest example:

Vulgarity TerryH? Are you as clueless of the definition of that word as you are of evolution? Please.

In any case, both Dimensio and Murray are quite right (as was I): evolution does not give a rat's behind whether a god or gods exist or don't exist, it is utterly irrelevant to the theory.

Now, what Dawkins writes regarding theology is his own opinion and has no bearing on the science of evolution. As Dimensio says, Dawkins is a piss-poor theologian and his arguments, poor as they are, are his own. In my opinion, both theists and atheists, especially of the rabid variety (Benny Hinn and Richard Dawkins) are intellectual fools: as any deities would exist in the realm of the paranormal, there is no way to either prove nor disprove their existence -- arguing vehemently and vociferously on either side of the equation is a waste of brain cells. Personally, I don't care if deities exist, I'm more concerned with being a good father, good friend, etc. NousEpirrhytos 07:42, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Urine, ladies and gentlemen? And the pudendum of Rattus rattus? And the saliva of hamsters, which was what I originally replied to and cited as vulgar? (In addition to User NousEpirrhytos, the other offender is User Dimensio.)

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm too close to this. But if someone is going to use vulgar metaphors, then I think perhaps some short-term blocks would be in order--perhaps for a day or two or three. But rather than take that action unilaterally (because it might appear to be self-serving), I now lay it before you all.--TerryH^Talk 08:17, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

"Pudendum - The human external genital organs, especially of a woman. Often used in the plural". Explain yourself Terry.

In any case the use of "behind" in "rat's behind" is a euphemism. I would tell what we would say in Australia but I suspect it might cause trouble. --Horace 08:28, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps I ought to have said "haunch." In any case, ought we to permit people to use metaphors that speak of urine and haunches and saliva? I thought that minors used this site.

Oh, and one more thing: shouldn't this page be protected?--TerryH^Talk 08:44, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Do you mean protected from me? --Horace 08:49, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

No obscenity is allowed, even on talk pages. This is an absolute rule. The user above is going to be warned of blocking, at a minimum. Thanks.--Aschlafly 08:57, 7 April 2007 (EDT)