Changes

1,145 bytes added ,  02:31, January 8, 2009
→‎Australia: Not "far more rural"
Line 56: Line 56:     
::::::: Tell us how Australia's largest cities compare with those in the United States, and how the drug cultures compare.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:54, 29 December 2008 (EST)
 
::::::: Tell us how Australia's largest cities compare with those in the United States, and how the drug cultures compare.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:54, 29 December 2008 (EST)
−
   
:::::::: No, Andy, it is ''you'' who is censoring truthful information to push a point of view about gun control.  The only restoration I made was to a valid talk post.  I did not reinstate an abusive addendum.  But as for comparisons with Wikipedia, this incident provides an example of one way in which Conservapedia is, unfortunately, ''like'' Wikipedia.  I observed on Wikipedia good editors having their views suppressed and rejected so arrogantly that they got angry and lashed out, giving the administrators the excuse they needed to block the user.  Of course they justified it by calling the editors trolls, vandals, or whatever.  That is exactly what has happened here on this talk page.  You don't want Conservapedia to be like Wikipedia?  Then don't follow that approach.
 
:::::::: No, Andy, it is ''you'' who is censoring truthful information to push a point of view about gun control.  The only restoration I made was to a valid talk post.  I did not reinstate an abusive addendum.  But as for comparisons with Wikipedia, this incident provides an example of one way in which Conservapedia is, unfortunately, ''like'' Wikipedia.  I observed on Wikipedia good editors having their views suppressed and rejected so arrogantly that they got angry and lashed out, giving the administrators the excuse they needed to block the user.  Of course they justified it by calling the editors trolls, vandals, or whatever.  That is exactly what has happened here on this talk page.  You don't want Conservapedia to be like Wikipedia?  Then don't follow that approach.
 
:::::::: Why should I answer your questions when you have not answered questions put to you above?
 
:::::::: Why should I answer your questions when you have not answered questions put to you above?
Line 90: Line 89:  
:::TK, you attack the persons and not the issue at hand. You know nothing of me and yet you brand me as such immediately, so I removed your personal attacks against me and Philip. Removing your attacks makes your reply very much smaller, doesn't it? I don't introduce "rules" as I can't make them, so facts suffice rather well. If you want a better source, how about [http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html The Australian Government] itself? If you look at [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304 World Net Daily], it makes a claim in the headline, but the bullet points don't inquire if the crimes have firearms involved. The statement ''"In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent"'' is the same misleading method I said before, the overall number of deaths declined which makes the percentage of firearm homicide climb. From 1996, to 2003, gun homicides have fallen by almost 50%[http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502]. Now, has ALL crime declined? Of course not, but firearm-related crimes have dropped. They're misleading statistics to push their POV, and I'm afraid you've fallen for their hooplah. Prove me wrong, I'm more than willing to learn from my mistakes and admit it, but the arguments so far have been nothing more than attacks of character. I still see no citation in the article... if any time-wasting is done, its the lack of effort to prove the statement right. As far as I'm concerned, the part of ''Conservapedia'' is the '''-pedia''' part, which pertains to facts. And for what it's worth, I have a small gun collection and support the 2nd Amendment. ^_^
 
:::TK, you attack the persons and not the issue at hand. You know nothing of me and yet you brand me as such immediately, so I removed your personal attacks against me and Philip. Removing your attacks makes your reply very much smaller, doesn't it? I don't introduce "rules" as I can't make them, so facts suffice rather well. If you want a better source, how about [http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html The Australian Government] itself? If you look at [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304 World Net Daily], it makes a claim in the headline, but the bullet points don't inquire if the crimes have firearms involved. The statement ''"In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent"'' is the same misleading method I said before, the overall number of deaths declined which makes the percentage of firearm homicide climb. From 1996, to 2003, gun homicides have fallen by almost 50%[http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502]. Now, has ALL crime declined? Of course not, but firearm-related crimes have dropped. They're misleading statistics to push their POV, and I'm afraid you've fallen for their hooplah. Prove me wrong, I'm more than willing to learn from my mistakes and admit it, but the arguments so far have been nothing more than attacks of character. I still see no citation in the article... if any time-wasting is done, its the lack of effort to prove the statement right. As far as I'm concerned, the part of ''Conservapedia'' is the '''-pedia''' part, which pertains to facts. And for what it's worth, I have a small gun collection and support the 2nd Amendment. ^_^
 
:::I'll start contributing again when and if (doubtful, though) attitudes among users improves to where appreciation, and not unprovoked harassment or attacks is more prevalent. My apologies if removing parts of your post are uncalled for, but the parts removed don't contribute anything to the discussion. [[User:JimJeweler|Jalast Jeweler]] 13:53, 31 December 2008 (EST)
 
:::I'll start contributing again when and if (doubtful, though) attitudes among users improves to where appreciation, and not unprovoked harassment or attacks is more prevalent. My apologies if removing parts of your post are uncalled for, but the parts removed don't contribute anything to the discussion. [[User:JimJeweler|Jalast Jeweler]] 13:53, 31 December 2008 (EST)
 +
 +
Can we please address the "far more rural" error?  I've looked into this, and USA and Aus have not kept demographic data in the same manner, so it takes a lot of interpretation to arrive at any kind of comparison at all.  USA lists population distribution by Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan, and Aus lists distribution by Major Cities, Inner Regional, Outer Regional, Remote and Very Remote.  The percentage of USA's population in Non-Metropolitan areas (which would include but not be exclusively composed of rural areas) is about 10.5%.  The percentage of Australia's population in Outer Regional, Remote and Very Remote areas is about 12%.  Again these areas include rural and non-rural.  So there ''could be'' a difference of about 1.5 percentage points.  The "far more rural" statement as it stands is misleading and groundless. Regardless, shouldn't the editor who inserted the comparisons (rural/non rural, and drug culture) be the one to substantiate those comparisons, especially as they have been challenged?  I am going to modify the "rural" statement for now, pending better data.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 21:31, 7 January 2009 (EST)
    
==Loss of the frontier spirit to urban "values" ==
 
==Loss of the frontier spirit to urban "values" ==
Block, SkipCaptcha
195

edits