Difference between revisions of "User talk:DMorris/Archive 1"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Reverted edits by JeremyAP (talk) to last revision by DMorris)
Line 130: Line 130:
  
 
Your assistance would be much appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:08, 16 November 2011 (EST)
 
Your assistance would be much appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:08, 16 November 2011 (EST)
−
 
−
 
−
 
−
==DICK==
 
−
 
−
 
−
 
−
Karajou, my voice will not be censored any longer. I want to respect you, and I wish you could respect me, but that will never be possible if you don't directly communicate with me. Please send me and email, or a message on CP if you don't want to disclose your email address. I am not demanding instant change or personal gratification; I merely want people to start working together instead of fighting. I will not make any mainspace edits if you will agree to give me a voice. Please do not ban me; I will find a way back on with the below message again and again. I would love to talk to you about this; I simply disagree with the direction that Conservapedia has taken, and I would like to help it become a positive resource again. Also, please don't label me using pejorative smears. Thank you.
 
−
Hello, Conservapedia. My name is Jared Hoeft, and I became a user on this sight under the name of ForeverPeace with the hopes of being able to reverse some of the hateful partisanship I saw flooding through almost every page. I wanted to display my opinions as one man's ideas, while at the same time respecting the rules and the opinions of others, in the hopes of showing my fellow users kindness, open mindedness, and love. It pains me to admit this, but I now see that this mission is impossible. Please, read this entire essay before erasing it, and please, talk to me about it before banning me. I apologize in advance for sounding angry in this essay, and I apologize to anybody who feels personally offended. Please email me with your concerns. My email is hoeftfam@hutchtel.net.
 
−
Allow me to begin with a brief self-explanation. I was born into a Christian and moderately Liberal family 17 years ago, and I was immersed in the Methodist Church from my earliest infancy. When I was in middle school, I began to reconsider my religious beliefs. It's not that I didn't love my family, for they are wonderful people. I simply wanted to start thinking for myself. For a while, I was Atheist because it was the cool thing to do in my group of friends. Then I became a self-aware Christian for a short time, before becoming something of a directionless Agnostic. My thoughts on this matter are this: God did not create man, man created God. I look back to ancient civilizations like Ur, Rome, and Egypt, and I see barbaric religions bluntly based on control and tradition, often maintaining influence through fear. Today's religions are much more thoughtful than those, but at their core, they are no different. Religions, like the sciences, are the product of human beings attempting to explain the world around them. I can't put my faith in either of the two, but I have to say I prefer science because true scientists go out into the field in order to establish a hypothesis or piece of knowledge, while religious science goes out with a preconceived notion it wants to defend.
 
−
When I look at Religion, I generally see control and the suppression of thought. I was born into a Christian family, and therefore I was a Christian. However, had I been born in India, I probably would have been Hindu. We as a species so easily accept what is dumped into our brains as the truth without thought or honest observance and self-examination. I do not self-identify as a Conservative, a Liberal, or any other ideological categorization. I recognize that many of my ideas are Liberal in nature, and because my family tends to be Liberal, I must always question whether the things I believe are my ideas or the ideas of my parents. I simply haven't decided what makes the most sense to me philosophically; to me, and to the pastor at my church, spirituality is a journey, not a static choice. I'm on a search for a truth I may never find, but my solace is that I am open to every different opinion to some extent.
 
−
Sorry about that! I just had to get it off my chest. When I first became a user at CP not too long ago, I entered with the plan of creating and editing only non-controversial pages, mainly involving music. I decided that I would not make any controversial mainspace edits, but I have contributed my thoughts to several talk pages, which leads me to the reason that I am writing this manifesto. Conservapedia was founded with the perceived intention of providing an alternative to Wikipedia written from a family-friendly, Pro-American, Conservative, and Young Earth Creationist viewpoint. I am not here to argue about the validity of any of those matters; they are all unfalsifiable viewpoints that generate useless, endless bickering. I am here to say that CP has become something that's almost the exact opposite of what it aspired to be.
 
−
Conservapedia is fascism disguised and promoted as Christianity. Fascism is defined as a political system of thought aimed at controlling a nation under a single-party system with a dictator, who eliminates thoughts and actions that he/she and the ruling party view as detrimental to the society (see answers.com for my source). This is precisely what Conservapedia is: When somebody disagrees with the dictator (Andrew Schlafly) and his political party (Extreme Conservatism), he or she is eliminated from the site. If you so much as admit to holding liberal thoughts, you run a high risk of being permanently banned, your thoughts and words forever suppressed. THIS IS FASCISM. Allow me to present some examples.
 
−
First and foremost is the page that originally drove me to join CP, the talk page to an entry lovingly titled "Mystery: Why do Non-Conservatives Exist?" Here's the link: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Mystery:Why_Do_Non-Conservatives_Exist%3F On this page, I watched in horror as people were banned left and right for pointing out that the "Statistical Analysis" was complete bogus, having no legitimate citations or factual backups. Conservapedia states in its page on deceit that Liberals are the prime practitioners, but this page presents the opposite message. This is a prime example of the opinions of some being expressed blatantly as the absolute truth. It's truly disgusting.
 
−
For another prime example, see the page on Barack Obama. Once again expressing opinions as the absolute truth, alternative ideas are suppressed. Furthermore, there is no sense of clarity or writing ability on the page, which meanders meaninglessly from one hateful opinion of Obama to another. Site admins claim that it is up to the reader to decide what they think, but the reader has no choices to make when all they are presented with is one viewpoint. An encyclopedia's job is to present the various opinions of many as just that: opinions. Their prime function should be to strive for the underlying truth, if there is any, but Conservapedia refuses to remove the fish-eye lens. I found this gem by Mr. Schlafly himself in the talk page on Obama: "Myles, one can tell you're a liberal just by observing how many words it takes you to say nothing. Your non-American spelling of "honor" is also a giveaway."--Andy Schlafly 22:43, 29 January 2009 (EST) See the subsection entitled "Real Koran NOT Bible" to check the context of this quote. Basically, Myles was saying that we should wait until Obama has been the president for a while before we throw our hatred at him, and I couldn't agree more. Our duty as Americans is to help our President do the best job he can of leading our nation, and fighting amongst ourselves doesn't help at all. Instead of addressing Myles's points, Andy simply gripes about foreign spelling and accuses Myles of being Liberal. And that brings me to my next piece of evidence.
 
−
First sentence on the entry entitled Conservative: "A conservative is one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral values."
 
−
First sentence on the entry entitled Liberal: "A liberal is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons." "Per capita atheists and agnostics in the United States give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists." (Taken from Conservapedia's Main Page)
 
−
Non-POV? That's a complete farce. These opinion-drenched "definitions" show Conservapedia for what it is: A political propaganda machine bent on demonizing Liberals and removing them from positions of power, regardless of their intelligence or ability. The Main Page itself contains an abundance of "News Articles" that focus on making Liberalism look bad, without showing any faults within Conservativism. Wikipedia does indeed have a Liberal bias, in my humble opinion, simply because many of the lead editors are Liberal. Conservapedia was founded to eliminate that bias, but it has become the ultimate example of the very thing it wanted to destroy. Jesus said in Matthew 7: "And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother,—Let me remove the speck from your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Conservapedia is the embodiment of hypocrisy, accusing Liberals of the very things it does best: Demonize, deceive, poison, undermine unity, control thoughts, and etcetera. It's not an encyclopedia at all; it's a place for immature "Christians" to go and foster hatred for those who disagree. It violates its own rules and morals left and right through a system of selective enforcement; only those who disagree with the site's preconceived notions of truth are subject to such things as the 90/10 rule.
 
−
The only hope for this site is to be destroyed and begun anew. I support Philip J. Rayment as the leader of Conservapedia for his calm, calculated, and mature approach to a site that should be advocating loving, Christian values, open-mindedness, and thoughtful self-exploration. Although I disagree with many of the Conservative ideas, I value openness and acceptance of others over all else; I believe that the solution to many of our world's problems and advancement standstills is for everybody to at least try to open up to the opinions of others. I am NOT perfect. I struggle with open-mindedness, too. All I'm asking for is peace and understanding, love and a sense of reason. Is that so much to ask from a site that claims to strive for those virtues to begin with? Why can't human beings try to love one another again?
 
−
You can delete this page and block my account, but I will do whatever it takes to get this message out. Conservapedia has become an amoral, horrendous monster that strives to tear our "One Nation, Under God, Indivisible" into several barbaric ideological tribes. It presents to Liberals the message that Conservatives are generally hateful, hypocritical bullies out to start wars of thought. I know that the true Conservative line of thinking has a great deal of good, loving ideas within it that can benefit our society. But the bottom line is, no human is perfect, and no human thinking system is absolutely better than any other, including my own. We have to learn to work together in peace, and get past our differences. I believe Conservapedia can do that and then some, but the abomination it currently is does nothing but destroy and close minds.
 
−
JeremyJCH 22:36, 12 February 2009 (EST)
 

Revision as of 05:19, February 5, 2012

typo

the charish on you page should be cherish.

United Nations

Could you provide a cite for your statement that the U.N. supports mainly socialist, liberal ideas? It's not that I'm disagreeing, but statements like that typically need citations (unless things have changed in the past 3 months). -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 19:39, 6 February 2010 (EST)

Thought it to be pretty much common sense, but I'll find a citation and add it. DMorris 19:40, 6 February 2010 (EST)
I found three references and added them. I realize we usually don't reference Wikipedia, but I thought it wouldn't hurt to throw that one in there with the other references. When even Wikipedia says they're socialist... DMorris 19:58, 6 February 2010 (EST)
Ehh, it basically is common knowledge. The Wikipedia reference actually helps the argument in this case, methinks. I found another citation that I'll add right now. I appreciate the quick response! -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 20:00, 6 February 2010 (EST)

Sissy punks

Those crybabies don't need additional attention, removed example of bias talk.--Jpatt 17:42, 22 March 2010 (EDT)

It is never appropriate to reference non-notable vandal sources, either in articles or talk pages. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:55, 22 March 2010 (EDT)
Okay. DMorris 19:00, 22 March 2010 (EDT)

Thanks!

Not exactly the same sock, but most certainly the sock of other user names! Thanks for noticing. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 13:43, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

Anti-matter

Pretty snide. I think Roger Schlafly rises above ED, don't you? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 15:48, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

Absolutely. I think you took that the wrong way; I was arguing that the topic couldn't possibly be considered encyclopedic if ED and Uncyclopedia is. DMorris 16:08, 14 June 2010 (EDT)
Gotcha. Thanks. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:10, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

Public Schools....."Much Less Impressive" ?

And your contributions to society would be? Palin directly enriched the citizens of her state by tens of thousands of dollars each, by changing the royalty structure that the oil and gas companies have to pay...that, in and of itself, ranks pretty high in the over-all accomplishments of any elected official, ever. And you should not have forgotten that she is also an evangelical Christian. What were you thinking? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 05:39, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

I don't consider Sarah Palin "much less impressive," but she did attend public school. I did read the "much less impressive" part, but didn't quite understand that the list was only to consist of "less impressive" members of society since Medal of Honor recipents were also listed. I took the much less impressive to mean that the list was much less impressive, despite that list being longer (at the time) than the list of Before 1962 graduates. DMorris 15:48, 11 October 2010 (EDT)

Please consider creating these articles

Please consider Creating a feminism and obesity article

Please consider creating a Feminism and obesity article at Conservapedia and cite this material: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/02/feminism-is-good-for-children.html

In addition, have the web page list some overweight and/or obese feminists with some pictures of some overweight feminists. You can also have the article link to Conservapedia's atheism and obesity article and then have the Atheism and obesity article link to the Feminism and obesity article.

Also, you could also cite a thin Conservative woman (with her picture also featured) criticizing feminism! :)

You could then incorporate the Feminism and obesity content into the Feminism article.

I am going to take my 90 day vacation from Conservapedia so I won't be creating this article. conservative 19:06, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Please consider creating a chub (gay culture) article

Please create a Chub (gay culture) article. You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girth_and_mirth Then have that article link the Atheism and obesity article plus we can have the Atheism and obesity article link to the Chub (gay culture) article. See if you can find Chuck Norris saying something negative about homosexuality and then feature his pic on the web page. conservative 19:24, 5 February 2011 (EST)


  • I will get on these first thing tomorrow. DMorris 21:08, 5 February 2011 (EST)
Here is an article by Chuck Norris on homosexuality: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=59697 and here is another: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=81195 conservative 19:35, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Thanks!

Thanks for your edit to the worst movies list! MaxFletcher 00:08, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

You're welcome. DMorris 00:29, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

Thanks again!

Thanks for fixing up my blundered article on Ada Lovelace. If you're wondering what was going on, I couldn't get through from my home computer, so I had to use a proxy. The proxy was horribly broken, wouldn't let me get through the captcha so I couldn't do the external link, and it also kept breaking the picture link. Then it stopped even letting me see Conservapedia at all. And by then the damage was done and I couldn't undo it. :-( Even a reboot of my machine didn't help. So I contacted Andy by email; he fixed it so I could access CP from my computer, but then the connection went down again. Another round of email; things seem to be OK now. If I were superstitious I would knock on wood, as they say. SamHB 20:36, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

What?

What were you trying to do here?--IDuan 22:17, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

There's a form at http://www.bugmenot.com/ that wanted me to make a specific URL come to life to verify my authority at Conservapedia.com to block people from posting their login credentials for CP on there, so I did that. Maybe I should have gotten Andy or somebody to do it, but I doubt they'll mind that I did it. Saw a scandal where somebody did that on another website, looked up Conservapedia.com just for giggles, and it turns out there's several vandal accounts listed there. But there won't be for long. DMorris 22:24, 29 April 2011 (EDT)
Ahh okay - I thought you might be trying to block websites, and I was just gonna say that's not the way at alllll. haha, but good luck in your user blocking!--IDuan 22:41, 29 April 2011 (EDT)
Mission accomplished DMorris 22:44, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

Pithy

Let's not drag this into the realm of ad hominem insults. If I must change my name, then I will, but I assure you, this "Whiny Little Atheist" has a stack of facts and logic to back up his claims. Short and sweet, I don't want to cause problems with anyone, but you're free to call me whatever you like. Just know that any harsh words you levy will be met with equal recourse.

You must really want to be blocked. DMorris 21:23, 1 May 2011 (EDT)

Why would I want to be blocked? As far as I can tell, I've done and said nothing contrary to the Conservapedia Commandments. Last I checked, the realm was open to opposing views (Not talk page debates, which is where this seems to be headed rather quickly). Let's not forget that you cast the first stone into the realm of personal attacks, and I had levied no complaints against any users. I only had an issue with the way atheists were unfairly represented, and with the lack of reasonable evidence to support the claims made in the thread.

But again, to be clear, I will not mince words. I do not want to cause problems, like I've already said; however, if you do choose to insult me in the future, I will not refrain from rebuttal. Let us hope we can both be civil about this and move past Religious differences. KiloByter 22:08, 1 May 2011 (EDT)

You just need to familiarize yourself with our rules here at Conservapedia, and I recommend you refrain from religious debate. We are a drama free wiki, and we don't have time to endlessly debate about religion. By the way, you can sign your posts using ~~~~. I'm not trying to attack you personally, just trying to point you in the right direction. Otherwise I would have just blocked you. DMorris 22:16, 1 May 2011 (EDT)

Essay:Resisting Socialist Landfills

Hi, I just found this essay that you wrote. I was wondering if you based it off of my Essay: Real Environmentalism, since it makes most of the same points.Thanks. AddisonDM 10:55, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

I'm just going to go with intelligent, conservative minds think alike. DMorris 16:31, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

MySpace

Good catch. I found one earlier on the Greatest Conservative Movies list on Space Jam where it said Michael Jackson rather than Michael Jordan starred. Kinda makes you wonder how much spare time these vandals have.--JamesWilson 23:32, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel

Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel. I invited someone to edit Conservapedia and they were blocked and they should not have been. I got the block overturned. So I think there is room for improvement in Conservapedia's blocking policy. Sysops can sign up HERE. I invited active Syops/Admins plus people with blocking rights who might wish to be Sysops. If I left anyone out, please let them know about the panel. The people with blocking rights can sign up HERE. The panel will probably convene when Iduan is back from his summer vacation or fairly soon afterwards. Conservative 13:47, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

I'm interested. DMorris 14:33, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
Ok, I will list you on the page. Iduan is on vacation. The panel can start when he gets back. Conservative
(: DMorris 14:40, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

The blocking policy refinement panel is convening on 8/17/11

The blocking policy refinement panel is beginning its proceedings on 8/17/11 here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Blocking_policy_refinement_panel_proceedings Conservative 02:20, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun

The panel proceeding have begun here: Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings You can start making your edits to the page should you wish to do so. Conservative 13:01, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

Block request

Could you please block someone with an inappropriate name? User:SexiiAshIafIyJK

thanks. ~ JonG ~ 17:50, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

I would have, but JPatt beat me to it . DMorris 17:54, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

Did we get them all?

Thanks for the help in reverting a vandal's edits - did we get them all? I was working from the most recent back, and you were going from earliest - did we meet in the middle? Taj 09:51, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

It looks like it; I don't see anymore edits from the user that say "Top".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DMorris (talk)
I don't understand what you mean by "Top". I don't see anything that says that - where do I look? Thanks! Taj 15:23, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
I wish these idiots would stop this nonsense. Blanking pages is quite juvenile.--James Wilson 13:22, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
It wasn't quite blanking, this person added some gibberish. Who knows why? But there is an "undo" button that makes it really easy to just erase the last entry and make it go back to what it was before. Taj 15:25, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
It's annoying, but it also gives me something to do to pass the time: revert their juvenile nonsense and report to their ISPs. Hopefully some day I'll prove myself enough for Andy to give me checkuser; I'm perfectly okay with asking the senior admins for the logs, but it'd be easier if I had checkuser myself. But I don't ever see us being vandal free; there's always going to be eleven year olds that hear that they can change the contents of wikis and get inspired to mess around. DMorris 13:53, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
Yeah, that's true: there will always be liberal vandals trying to attack the site. I do hope you can become an Administrator eventually; you seem to be really good at what you do. I've been trying to get image uploading privileges here for a while, so good luck!--James Wilson 14:01, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
An aside: it seems those liberal vandals (likely the same guys) came by again earlier and messed up some pages with vulgar images. They nearly destroyed another conservative wiki. I think we need more adminstrators who are dedicated to stopping these guys and seeing from your work here you would be an excellent candidate. Personally, I think these liberal vandals just need to get a life. In any case, good luck on your endeavor!--James Wilson 13:16, 16 November 2011 (EST)
If Mr. Schlafly were ever to make me a senior administrator with CheckUser rights, I would see to it that every vandal that ever touched Conservapedia and continued vandalizing after being warned was reported to his/her network operator. Vandalism is always going to happen, it's the one's that obsessively do it over and over again that get annoying, and even boring. DMorris 13:20, 16 November 2011 (EST)
Yeah, that would do them some good. I assume you've seen some of the vulgar vandalism some of the last batch did. You have to be careful reverting that rubbish without Rollback, y'know. I just don't know why these characters have to repeatedly do this stuff. You would think they would have something better to do than repeated vandalism, like doing stuff with their family or friends... In any case, good luck on your endeavor!--James Wilson 13:24, 16 November 2011 (EST)
There's different reasons why vandals do what they do... A lot of the CP vandals do it to protest our political and religious beliefs, and/or because they hate us. The persistent one's that won't give up probably have mental illness. Then you have the common vandals that you see in any wiki, the middle school girls that think an article would look prettier with hearts and smiles, the one's who want to make a star out of themselves/their friends/a group that they're a part of by spamming their names or links to their websites on articles, the one's who want to just randomly attack someone or something they don't like by writing negative comments about it on here, and the one's that are just curious about how wikis work and decide to start changing things around to see what will happen, and sometimes they mess things up in the process. All except the curious ones that mess things up by accident are sad little souls who could really benefit from reading the Lord's good book or going to church. DMorris 13:47, 16 November 2011 (EST)
For example, I've been doing vandal patrol at Wikipedia the last couple of days, and I encountered a sad little girl in Indiana that felt compelled to trash about six other people and declare that she is pretty from her high school computer and a sad little kid in Texas that somehow thought it to be funny to add vulgarities to articles. Those are just the two recent ones that stick out in my mind that I bothered to file abuse reports on. Why these sad souls do such things I don't know DMorris 13:54, 16 November 2011 (EST)

Blocking policy improvement panel member - please give your feedback here

Blocking policy improvement panel member - please give your feedback HERE

Your assistance would be much appreciated. Conservative 15:08, 16 November 2011 (EST)

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DMorris/Archive_1&oldid=958926"