3,101
edits
Changes
New page: ==This is probably the worst wiki I have ever seen.== You allow no neutrality. You lock articles to make sure they stay the same. I can not edit homosexuality to change the bullsh*t th...
==This is probably the worst wiki I have ever seen.==
You allow no neutrality. You lock articles to make sure they stay the same. I can not edit [[homosexuality]] to change the bullsh*t that's in there. [[User:GayMan|GayMan]] 17:23, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:If you're not happy with how things are run here, feel free to start your own "Homopedia" or something.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:31, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
So then you admit that this wiki is not neutral. Nice comment by the way, mature and helpful and relevant etc... {{unsigned|Wow}}
:I wouldn't take what an editor with a red link to his name says as necessarily representing Conservapedia, but yes, this Wiki aims to be accurate and fair, not neutral. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:52, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
::: Mr. Rayment, your consistent hypocrisy across this messageboard is quite frankly jaw-dropping. Are you ''seriously'' claiming that neutrality is '''not''' the hallmark of an unbiased article? I find it bizarre that anyone would claim that an opinionated point of view makes for a fair and accurate article. I thought this website was created as an alternative to Wikipedia because it was 'too biased'... and from what i've read here you seem to be saying that Conservapedia is biased, and therefore 'accurate and fair'. If that's the case, what's Conservapedia's problem with Wikipedia?
:::signed, [[User:noform|noform]]
::::Constant hypocrisy? Perhaps you could point out a specific example? Or withdraw the accusation.
::::Did I say "neutrality is not the hallmark of an unbiased article"? I don't believe that I did.
::::No, as I understand it (and I didn't start it), this web-site was not created as an alternative to Wikipedia "because it was 'too biased'", but because it had ''liberal'' and ''anti-American'' biases. I'm not saying that Conservapedia is "accurate and fair" ''because'' it is biased. I'm saying that it has a bias towards conservatism (among other things), and ''tries'' to be truthful, accurate, and fair. You seem to be implying that if one is biased (regardless of the bias), one cannot be truthful, accurate, or fair? How is that?
::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:41, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
I didn't see any specific suggestions, but I did see an instance of [[hate speech]], which is itself a form of blatant bias.
Liberals often pretend they have something important to say, but then lapse into name-calling, profanity, or other tricks to change the subject. What is missing from the [[homosexuality]] article? Please suggest it here - or, preferably, at [[talk:Homosexuality]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:25, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
== Critics and Sicko ==
The main page currently states that critics pan Michael Moores new film Sicko. But isn't that an bit of an overstatement especially when the link is to only one review. For example Metacritic [http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/sicko] a site that collects reviews from all over rates Sicko quite high after 36 reviews from various news papers etc. So it could actually be said, that the opposite of the main page news seams to be true, critics have liked the document. [[User:HeikkiL|HeikkiL]] 20:09, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
Rotten Tomatoes has it as a 91% positive rating from 116 critics. Most movies would kill to get "panned" that bad by critics! But remember the front page is not for facts, just for propoganda. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 16:19, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
== "Your boarding pass, please?"... ==
...is kind of a tacky caption to a story about terrorism. God be with those who were hurt or killed in that tragedy.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]]
: Yes, God be with the innocent victims of terrorism. But we're not going to be politically correct in describing terrorism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:07, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
::I don't think it has anything to do with political correctness, but moreso good taste. [[User:NonXtianConservative|NonXtianConservative]] 15:34, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
That was my point, Nonx. Feel free in insulting as many terrorist ****s as you want. But please don't demean the victims with crass jokes about death.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 16:36, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
: I agree - it doesn't do the site any favours to have that sort of comment. On a separate note, there were TWO car bombs defused in London. Could someone update please? [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 18:19, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
:: OK, fine, now it's 2 car bombs defused in London. That makes the point all the stronger.
:::I was just trying to be helpful in regard to the number of cars. [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 00:33, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
:: The objection above to "Your boarding pass, please?" is political rather than a matter of taste. The photo caption is an appropriate commentary on how airports and governments deal with terrorism ... and why this is failing. Time to correct the policies, not pretend to be more concerned about "good taste."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
:How can anyone think that the caption makes any kind of useful political commentary? It's just insulting to all victims of terrorism. For shame.[[User:FredRidr|FredRidr]] 00:27, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
== Assault? ==
Where does it say in the linked article that the man who tried to steal the Fox reporter's microphone was a "fairness doctrine activist?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:10, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
: That is pretty funny. The "fairness doctrine" angle was actually a sarcastic comment by someone from Motorola, nothing to do with the thief. Keep in mind though, that according to CP, sarcasm is a liberal deceit, so therefore the Motorola spokesman is a liberal deciever, so it is therefore acceptable to make up the front page headline, as a counter-deceit tactic. To paraphrase Saint Augustine, "A lie told to further the work of Conservapedia is not a sin." [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 16:27, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
::I think "thief" is incorrect, this was a violent crime of persons, a physical assualt, not a property crime. As to "activist," we've already toned it down from "terrorist," what more do you want? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:06, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
:::So grabbing a microphone from a reporter doing a piece on the iPhone is terrorism? I would have though "thief", or simply "idiot" would have been the proper term, but then I am not an expert on anti-Apple terrorism. Oh well, someone realized that the article had nothing to do with pro-Conservative propoganda, so it is no longer on the front page. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 21:02, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::What more could I want? The language "toned down" so that it actually reflects the story it links to. Again Rob -- What evidence do you have that the thief was a "fairness doctrine activist?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 10:52, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Silly Boomcoach and PF Fox! RobS never has facts! Have you not read his other writings? FOr a trip to the surreal, ask him about the "Great Ordeal." For even more fun, ask him to prove it!--[[User:1455221|1455221]] 14:12, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
LOL, now the "assault" is back on the front page, as a "liberal assault". No claim is too idiotic or false that CP won't keep pumping it, it appears. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 23:20, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
:Yeah, the website doesn't say it was a liberal, and it's wrong to assume that he was liberal because it was Fox News. Also, the Motorola comment was made up. Looking through that website, I realized the author(s?) add in their own snarky satire at the end of otherwise valid and reliable articles.--[[User:Smedricksman24|Smedricksman24]] 23:56, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
:: Folks, I spoke with the crew today about this. And guess what? It wasn't a conservative attacking Fox News. Try fooling someone else. You're just spinning your wheels trying to fool us here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:50, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Schlafly, I'm not trying to fool anyone. I'm just trying to make the front page, the first thing new users see, obey the Second CP Commandment. The source does not say it was a liberal. The front page, therefore, unless it cites another news source, should not say it was.--[[User:Smedricksman24|Smedricksman24]] 23:56, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
:::: The guy screamed profanity and stole the mike from Fox News and ran away, until a member of the Fox News crew tackled him. It's evident to me that he didn't respect private property in this instance, or morality, or Fox News. Do you seriously think this guy voted for [[Ronald Reagan]]???
:::: Perhaps this is another instance where a [[liberal]] doesn't doubt the truth of what is said, but wants to deny something that is true but difficult to prove. We've been around the track on that before.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:04, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::Regardless of what I think here, anyone who wants this website to abide by it's '''first commandment''' should speak up. It's not verifiable.--[[User:Smedricksman24|Smedricksman24]] 00:13, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::: You're right: our entry for [[liberal]] was incomplete. I have added these important elements of [[liberal]]:
::::::* support of obscenity and pornography as a [[First Amendment]] right
::::::* opposition to full private property rights
:::::: Now the use of the word [[liberal]] on the front page is verifiable. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:24, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Yeah, but now [[liberal]] is even more unverified. Aschlafly, you've built a nice little house of cards. Except the base isn't steady. The rules are never enforced here, except to make the dissenters go away.--[[User:Smedricksman24|Smedricksman24]] 00:45, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
::::: No, Smedricksman24, the problem is that you'll never be satisfied unless this site becomes more [[liberal]]. It's not going to. The definition here of [[liberal]] is the best on the internet, and it is all verifiable. In fact, I'll verify the change I just made for you right now. Of course that won't make you happy either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:10, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
Isn't there some commandment about "bearing false witness?" Or does it not apply when you're "bearing false witness" against liberals? The fact is, you have not one shred of evidence that the person who stole the microphone in that incident was a liberal, and citing your own prejudices about liberals does not qualify as "evidence." I'm reminded of a southerner I knew who, when he heard about a case of rape, just assumed the perp must have been black, using roughly the same reasoning you've offered here. Let's hope no innocent liberal ever has to stand trial with you on a jury. You'll just assume they're guilty because of their politics. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 01:15, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
: Oh, right. Here we have the standard [[liberal]] canard, trying to call a [[conservative]] a racist. Should I add that as another trademark [[liberal]] trait? Maybe it's too obvious to add. Maybe you can go over to Wikipedia and try to claim some more people are racists, as was done to [[Thad Cochran]] there. See [[Bias in Wikipedia]].
: It's amazing how [[liberals]] refuse to admit their politics, and try to pretend they are something else. We admit we are [[conservatives]] here. Why can't [[liberals]] do likewise?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:25, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
::It doesn't seem that liberals are very welcomed here. I mean, if you look at the block log, several users in the past 24 hours have been banned or blocked for "liberalness." So, it makes perfect sense that a liberal wouldn't admit to it on this wiki.
::If you mean in reality as well, that answer is simple as well: liberal has been transformed into a dirty word. It's taboo to be called liberal, whereas conservative doesn't have nearly the bagged or negative connotations. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 01:33, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
:Not, to nitpick and antagonize, Aschlafly, but I've gotta say, I prefer the [http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/liberal Merriam Webster definition.] It's much more liberal (and complete) in its inclusions. My goal here is not to spread my own point of view, regardless of what it is. I'm a high school student, and I hate that my teachers refuse to accept Wikipedia (or Conservapedia) as credible sources. My goal here (and on Wiki) is to make more reliable resources. I object to the news article because it's not what the cite says. I know that Conservapedia isn't going to voice my opinions (chiefly agnosticism) and I know that it would be completely fruitless for me to try to do that. I may be a (gasp) public school student, and still in high school, but please don't underestimate my intelligence. I'm not pigheaded enough to think that by mere persistence will this website become a blog for me or anyone.--[[User:Smedricksman24|Smedricksman24]] 01:28, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
::Aschlafly, you're making an assumption many Northerners do, that all Southerners are conservatives. PF Fox's anecdote never specified the political ideology of the Southerner. Nor did it ever claim that there was a single conservative racist. It was an analogy, intending to show you your own bias.--[[User:Smedricksman24|Smedricksman24]] 01:34, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
::: It drew an analogy between a conservative (me) and a racist. That's the oldest trick in the [[liberal]] book. It doesn't fool anyone any more.
::: Why won't you and PF Fox admit that you're [[liberal]]? Are you embarrassed by it? Or do you think you're going to trick people here? You aren't going to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:48, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
Where, exactly, have I hidden that fact? Yes, I'm a liberal, and I don't make a habit of snatching items out of people's hands on the street or committing other such crimes. Nor, for that matter, do I go around assuming that people who do this are conservatives.
You use precisely the same kind of reasoning racists use. If you don't like having that pointed out, don't post pieces in which you assume someone must be "liberal" simply because they've committed a crime. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:47, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
: So you finally admit that you're a [[liberal]]. But you don't explain why you withheld that for so long. And note that Smedricksman24, your ally in this discussion, hasn't admitted it yet.
: You then resort to the most desperate [[liberal]] argument of all, trying to compare your opponent to a racist. Pathetic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:07, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
:::I had thought that fact was obvious. And again, Mr. Schlafly, when you use the same reasoning racists use, I intend to point it out. If that upsets you, too bad. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:13, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
:::: Pathetic [[liberal]] claims don't upset me. You can discredit yourself all you like here. Try to make as many absurd comparisons to racism as you possible can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:18, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
You really can't defend your silly and malicious claim that the guy who snatched the mic was a "liberal" can you? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:21, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
:Still trying to push your viewpoint as to who or who isn't guilty of "thought crimes"? Could you be a proud member of the "thought police", Pam? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:04, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Simply arguing with you qualfies me as a member of the "thought police?" How? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:24, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
::::You need to read your own blog, Pam. You set yourself up as judge and jury as to who is a member of the thought police, and by coming here in hopes you can control the outcome of any given argument makes you just as guilty. Have a nice day. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:29, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
LOL! I don't come here to "control the outcome of any given argument," K. I come here to gather material on the sheer malice that drives much of what is posted on Conservapedia. (I don't like posting accusations without providing some sort of evidence, you see.) This particular exchange has been a treasure trove. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:43, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
:And you also posted false edits while you were here, haven't you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:40, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
:::What "false edits" were those? I never knowingly posted anything untrue on this website. Those additions I made to articles were factual and cited. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:49, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
::::Sorry it took me a while to get back. Good Job, Andy! Phyllis Diller would be proud that you figured out who the analogy was comparing. BUT, it did not call you a racist. I can draw an allusion between myself and Tennessee Williams; We're both Pisces. Does that mean that my sister had a lobotomy? Does that mean I'm gay? No. It means we're both Pisces. I feel no need to tell you where I fall on the political spectrum. And, if I gave you my political compass coordinates, or told you that I was anything but a liberal, would you not just accuse of me of "liberal deceit"? I'm savvy enough to know wat appens to liberals on this site.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AMiller922|][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ASierraTangoCharlie][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AWinkey][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AGayMan][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ADick3507+][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ARaeganrules1+][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AUmischy][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3APerson123].
::::Regardless of what the "Blocks and Locks" pages says.--[[User:Smedricksman24|Smedricksman24]] 15:28, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
::::: See, User:Smedricksman24 still won't admit he's a [[liberal]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:31, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
And you're STILL unable to offer any evidence that the guy who grabbed the mic was a liberal. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:50, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::See, User:Asclafly still wont admit hes done anything wrong. Andy, if you refuse to focus on the debate, and instead attack my character, (not that I consider liberal an insult, but Andy seems to synopsizes it with evil-doer) then you're not much of a debater. Ad hominem arguments don't fly with most people, see. {{unsigned|Smedricksman24}}
:::::::Note: For my efforts on this page, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASmedricksman24&diff=218578&oldid=108943| I've been threatened]. {{unsigned|Smedricksman24}}
(reset indent) Strike two. Either make a positive contribution or leave. Thanks. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 15:05, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
You allow no neutrality. You lock articles to make sure they stay the same. I can not edit [[homosexuality]] to change the bullsh*t that's in there. [[User:GayMan|GayMan]] 17:23, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:If you're not happy with how things are run here, feel free to start your own "Homopedia" or something.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:31, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
So then you admit that this wiki is not neutral. Nice comment by the way, mature and helpful and relevant etc... {{unsigned|Wow}}
:I wouldn't take what an editor with a red link to his name says as necessarily representing Conservapedia, but yes, this Wiki aims to be accurate and fair, not neutral. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:52, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
::: Mr. Rayment, your consistent hypocrisy across this messageboard is quite frankly jaw-dropping. Are you ''seriously'' claiming that neutrality is '''not''' the hallmark of an unbiased article? I find it bizarre that anyone would claim that an opinionated point of view makes for a fair and accurate article. I thought this website was created as an alternative to Wikipedia because it was 'too biased'... and from what i've read here you seem to be saying that Conservapedia is biased, and therefore 'accurate and fair'. If that's the case, what's Conservapedia's problem with Wikipedia?
:::signed, [[User:noform|noform]]
::::Constant hypocrisy? Perhaps you could point out a specific example? Or withdraw the accusation.
::::Did I say "neutrality is not the hallmark of an unbiased article"? I don't believe that I did.
::::No, as I understand it (and I didn't start it), this web-site was not created as an alternative to Wikipedia "because it was 'too biased'", but because it had ''liberal'' and ''anti-American'' biases. I'm not saying that Conservapedia is "accurate and fair" ''because'' it is biased. I'm saying that it has a bias towards conservatism (among other things), and ''tries'' to be truthful, accurate, and fair. You seem to be implying that if one is biased (regardless of the bias), one cannot be truthful, accurate, or fair? How is that?
::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:41, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
I didn't see any specific suggestions, but I did see an instance of [[hate speech]], which is itself a form of blatant bias.
Liberals often pretend they have something important to say, but then lapse into name-calling, profanity, or other tricks to change the subject. What is missing from the [[homosexuality]] article? Please suggest it here - or, preferably, at [[talk:Homosexuality]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:25, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
== Critics and Sicko ==
The main page currently states that critics pan Michael Moores new film Sicko. But isn't that an bit of an overstatement especially when the link is to only one review. For example Metacritic [http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/sicko] a site that collects reviews from all over rates Sicko quite high after 36 reviews from various news papers etc. So it could actually be said, that the opposite of the main page news seams to be true, critics have liked the document. [[User:HeikkiL|HeikkiL]] 20:09, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
Rotten Tomatoes has it as a 91% positive rating from 116 critics. Most movies would kill to get "panned" that bad by critics! But remember the front page is not for facts, just for propoganda. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 16:19, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
== "Your boarding pass, please?"... ==
...is kind of a tacky caption to a story about terrorism. God be with those who were hurt or killed in that tragedy.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]]
: Yes, God be with the innocent victims of terrorism. But we're not going to be politically correct in describing terrorism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:07, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
::I don't think it has anything to do with political correctness, but moreso good taste. [[User:NonXtianConservative|NonXtianConservative]] 15:34, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
That was my point, Nonx. Feel free in insulting as many terrorist ****s as you want. But please don't demean the victims with crass jokes about death.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 16:36, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
: I agree - it doesn't do the site any favours to have that sort of comment. On a separate note, there were TWO car bombs defused in London. Could someone update please? [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 18:19, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
:: OK, fine, now it's 2 car bombs defused in London. That makes the point all the stronger.
:::I was just trying to be helpful in regard to the number of cars. [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 00:33, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
:: The objection above to "Your boarding pass, please?" is political rather than a matter of taste. The photo caption is an appropriate commentary on how airports and governments deal with terrorism ... and why this is failing. Time to correct the policies, not pretend to be more concerned about "good taste."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
:How can anyone think that the caption makes any kind of useful political commentary? It's just insulting to all victims of terrorism. For shame.[[User:FredRidr|FredRidr]] 00:27, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
== Assault? ==
Where does it say in the linked article that the man who tried to steal the Fox reporter's microphone was a "fairness doctrine activist?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:10, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
: That is pretty funny. The "fairness doctrine" angle was actually a sarcastic comment by someone from Motorola, nothing to do with the thief. Keep in mind though, that according to CP, sarcasm is a liberal deceit, so therefore the Motorola spokesman is a liberal deciever, so it is therefore acceptable to make up the front page headline, as a counter-deceit tactic. To paraphrase Saint Augustine, "A lie told to further the work of Conservapedia is not a sin." [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 16:27, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
::I think "thief" is incorrect, this was a violent crime of persons, a physical assualt, not a property crime. As to "activist," we've already toned it down from "terrorist," what more do you want? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:06, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
:::So grabbing a microphone from a reporter doing a piece on the iPhone is terrorism? I would have though "thief", or simply "idiot" would have been the proper term, but then I am not an expert on anti-Apple terrorism. Oh well, someone realized that the article had nothing to do with pro-Conservative propoganda, so it is no longer on the front page. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 21:02, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::What more could I want? The language "toned down" so that it actually reflects the story it links to. Again Rob -- What evidence do you have that the thief was a "fairness doctrine activist?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 10:52, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Silly Boomcoach and PF Fox! RobS never has facts! Have you not read his other writings? FOr a trip to the surreal, ask him about the "Great Ordeal." For even more fun, ask him to prove it!--[[User:1455221|1455221]] 14:12, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
LOL, now the "assault" is back on the front page, as a "liberal assault". No claim is too idiotic or false that CP won't keep pumping it, it appears. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 23:20, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
:Yeah, the website doesn't say it was a liberal, and it's wrong to assume that he was liberal because it was Fox News. Also, the Motorola comment was made up. Looking through that website, I realized the author(s?) add in their own snarky satire at the end of otherwise valid and reliable articles.--[[User:Smedricksman24|Smedricksman24]] 23:56, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
:: Folks, I spoke with the crew today about this. And guess what? It wasn't a conservative attacking Fox News. Try fooling someone else. You're just spinning your wheels trying to fool us here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:50, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Schlafly, I'm not trying to fool anyone. I'm just trying to make the front page, the first thing new users see, obey the Second CP Commandment. The source does not say it was a liberal. The front page, therefore, unless it cites another news source, should not say it was.--[[User:Smedricksman24|Smedricksman24]] 23:56, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
:::: The guy screamed profanity and stole the mike from Fox News and ran away, until a member of the Fox News crew tackled him. It's evident to me that he didn't respect private property in this instance, or morality, or Fox News. Do you seriously think this guy voted for [[Ronald Reagan]]???
:::: Perhaps this is another instance where a [[liberal]] doesn't doubt the truth of what is said, but wants to deny something that is true but difficult to prove. We've been around the track on that before.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:04, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::Regardless of what I think here, anyone who wants this website to abide by it's '''first commandment''' should speak up. It's not verifiable.--[[User:Smedricksman24|Smedricksman24]] 00:13, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::: You're right: our entry for [[liberal]] was incomplete. I have added these important elements of [[liberal]]:
::::::* support of obscenity and pornography as a [[First Amendment]] right
::::::* opposition to full private property rights
:::::: Now the use of the word [[liberal]] on the front page is verifiable. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:24, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Yeah, but now [[liberal]] is even more unverified. Aschlafly, you've built a nice little house of cards. Except the base isn't steady. The rules are never enforced here, except to make the dissenters go away.--[[User:Smedricksman24|Smedricksman24]] 00:45, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
::::: No, Smedricksman24, the problem is that you'll never be satisfied unless this site becomes more [[liberal]]. It's not going to. The definition here of [[liberal]] is the best on the internet, and it is all verifiable. In fact, I'll verify the change I just made for you right now. Of course that won't make you happy either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:10, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
Isn't there some commandment about "bearing false witness?" Or does it not apply when you're "bearing false witness" against liberals? The fact is, you have not one shred of evidence that the person who stole the microphone in that incident was a liberal, and citing your own prejudices about liberals does not qualify as "evidence." I'm reminded of a southerner I knew who, when he heard about a case of rape, just assumed the perp must have been black, using roughly the same reasoning you've offered here. Let's hope no innocent liberal ever has to stand trial with you on a jury. You'll just assume they're guilty because of their politics. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 01:15, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
: Oh, right. Here we have the standard [[liberal]] canard, trying to call a [[conservative]] a racist. Should I add that as another trademark [[liberal]] trait? Maybe it's too obvious to add. Maybe you can go over to Wikipedia and try to claim some more people are racists, as was done to [[Thad Cochran]] there. See [[Bias in Wikipedia]].
: It's amazing how [[liberals]] refuse to admit their politics, and try to pretend they are something else. We admit we are [[conservatives]] here. Why can't [[liberals]] do likewise?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:25, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
::It doesn't seem that liberals are very welcomed here. I mean, if you look at the block log, several users in the past 24 hours have been banned or blocked for "liberalness." So, it makes perfect sense that a liberal wouldn't admit to it on this wiki.
::If you mean in reality as well, that answer is simple as well: liberal has been transformed into a dirty word. It's taboo to be called liberal, whereas conservative doesn't have nearly the bagged or negative connotations. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 01:33, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
:Not, to nitpick and antagonize, Aschlafly, but I've gotta say, I prefer the [http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/liberal Merriam Webster definition.] It's much more liberal (and complete) in its inclusions. My goal here is not to spread my own point of view, regardless of what it is. I'm a high school student, and I hate that my teachers refuse to accept Wikipedia (or Conservapedia) as credible sources. My goal here (and on Wiki) is to make more reliable resources. I object to the news article because it's not what the cite says. I know that Conservapedia isn't going to voice my opinions (chiefly agnosticism) and I know that it would be completely fruitless for me to try to do that. I may be a (gasp) public school student, and still in high school, but please don't underestimate my intelligence. I'm not pigheaded enough to think that by mere persistence will this website become a blog for me or anyone.--[[User:Smedricksman24|Smedricksman24]] 01:28, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
::Aschlafly, you're making an assumption many Northerners do, that all Southerners are conservatives. PF Fox's anecdote never specified the political ideology of the Southerner. Nor did it ever claim that there was a single conservative racist. It was an analogy, intending to show you your own bias.--[[User:Smedricksman24|Smedricksman24]] 01:34, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
::: It drew an analogy between a conservative (me) and a racist. That's the oldest trick in the [[liberal]] book. It doesn't fool anyone any more.
::: Why won't you and PF Fox admit that you're [[liberal]]? Are you embarrassed by it? Or do you think you're going to trick people here? You aren't going to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:48, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
Where, exactly, have I hidden that fact? Yes, I'm a liberal, and I don't make a habit of snatching items out of people's hands on the street or committing other such crimes. Nor, for that matter, do I go around assuming that people who do this are conservatives.
You use precisely the same kind of reasoning racists use. If you don't like having that pointed out, don't post pieces in which you assume someone must be "liberal" simply because they've committed a crime. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:47, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
: So you finally admit that you're a [[liberal]]. But you don't explain why you withheld that for so long. And note that Smedricksman24, your ally in this discussion, hasn't admitted it yet.
: You then resort to the most desperate [[liberal]] argument of all, trying to compare your opponent to a racist. Pathetic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:07, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
:::I had thought that fact was obvious. And again, Mr. Schlafly, when you use the same reasoning racists use, I intend to point it out. If that upsets you, too bad. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:13, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
:::: Pathetic [[liberal]] claims don't upset me. You can discredit yourself all you like here. Try to make as many absurd comparisons to racism as you possible can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:18, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
You really can't defend your silly and malicious claim that the guy who snatched the mic was a "liberal" can you? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:21, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
:Still trying to push your viewpoint as to who or who isn't guilty of "thought crimes"? Could you be a proud member of the "thought police", Pam? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:04, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Simply arguing with you qualfies me as a member of the "thought police?" How? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:24, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
::::You need to read your own blog, Pam. You set yourself up as judge and jury as to who is a member of the thought police, and by coming here in hopes you can control the outcome of any given argument makes you just as guilty. Have a nice day. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:29, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
LOL! I don't come here to "control the outcome of any given argument," K. I come here to gather material on the sheer malice that drives much of what is posted on Conservapedia. (I don't like posting accusations without providing some sort of evidence, you see.) This particular exchange has been a treasure trove. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:43, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
:And you also posted false edits while you were here, haven't you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:40, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
:::What "false edits" were those? I never knowingly posted anything untrue on this website. Those additions I made to articles were factual and cited. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:49, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
::::Sorry it took me a while to get back. Good Job, Andy! Phyllis Diller would be proud that you figured out who the analogy was comparing. BUT, it did not call you a racist. I can draw an allusion between myself and Tennessee Williams; We're both Pisces. Does that mean that my sister had a lobotomy? Does that mean I'm gay? No. It means we're both Pisces. I feel no need to tell you where I fall on the political spectrum. And, if I gave you my political compass coordinates, or told you that I was anything but a liberal, would you not just accuse of me of "liberal deceit"? I'm savvy enough to know wat appens to liberals on this site.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AMiller922|][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ASierraTangoCharlie][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AWinkey][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AGayMan][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ADick3507+][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ARaeganrules1+][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AUmischy][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3APerson123].
::::Regardless of what the "Blocks and Locks" pages says.--[[User:Smedricksman24|Smedricksman24]] 15:28, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
::::: See, User:Smedricksman24 still won't admit he's a [[liberal]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:31, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
And you're STILL unable to offer any evidence that the guy who grabbed the mic was a liberal. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:50, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::See, User:Asclafly still wont admit hes done anything wrong. Andy, if you refuse to focus on the debate, and instead attack my character, (not that I consider liberal an insult, but Andy seems to synopsizes it with evil-doer) then you're not much of a debater. Ad hominem arguments don't fly with most people, see. {{unsigned|Smedricksman24}}
:::::::Note: For my efforts on this page, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASmedricksman24&diff=218578&oldid=108943| I've been threatened]. {{unsigned|Smedricksman24}}
(reset indent) Strike two. Either make a positive contribution or leave. Thanks. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 15:05, 5 July 2007 (EDT)