Talk:Main Page/archive16

From Conservapedia
< Talk:Main Page
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ed Poor (talk | contribs) at 12:19, July 17, 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archives

July 2

File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 04:27, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Hypocritic Oaf

War on Terror update: "Two doctors are among five people being held as terror suspects after the bomb plots in London and Glasgow. One, 26-year-old neurosurgeon Mohammed Asha, was arrested with his wife after police cars boxed them in on the M6. The second doctor is thought to have been one of two men who tried to drive a blazing Jeep packed with petrol, gas canisters and nails into Glasgow Airport on Saturday. He may also have driven one of the two Mercedes car bombs left in the West End of London early on Friday. Both doctors were working at UK hospitals and apparently here legally. The revelation raises the horrifying prospect that Al Qaeda propaganda is reaching beyond disaffected young Muslims. "These are highly-educated, articulate and intelligent people," one security source said. "They are men trained to heal but they were planning unbelievable atrocities."

Full story, latest images: Dail Mail London July 2 2007.

File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 04:27, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

July 3

  • 1890 - Idaho becomes the 43rd U.S. state.
  • 1928 - First color television pictures broadcast
  • 1938 - An English A4 class steam train, Mallard, sets the world speed record for a steam locomotive (126 mph/203 km/h); record still unbroken! (Any takers on article? I've uploaded decent Image:A4_Mallard.jpg)
  • 1976 - Operation Yonatan: Israeli commandos rescue 105 hostages in the famous raid on Entebbe Airport; 6 terrorists meet their maker.
  • 1979 - President Jimmy Carter approves $40 billion covert program of secret training for Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan and Afghanistan to aid in fight against Soviet invasion
  • 1986 - President Ronald Reagan officially relights the Statue of Liberty following its renovation
  • 1988 - Navy warship USS Vincennes accidentally shoots down Iran Air Flight 655 over the Persian Gulf; no survivors.
  • 2006 - 2004 XP14, a 900m asteroid, passes over the west coast of North America, missing by just 1.1 times the Moon's average distance from Earth.

File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 04:52, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Andy and I both put them in! (I got an edit conflict with him doing so.) I didn't check them this time, so I hope you got them all correct! :-) Philip J. Rayment 09:51, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
And I've created Mallard also. Philip J. Rayment 10:43, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Copied material?

With the sourcing of arthritis, arthralgia, etc... I am curious as to if this conflicts with the first Conservapedia commandment:

  1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia or elsewhere unless it was your original work.

While this appears to be in the public domain, what value does it have here besides pumping up the page count? These pages are often orphans - nothing linking to them, and no links from them. If this is just a start for more complete articles, do you think that the ongoing contest should be adjusted to make an improvement of existing articles worth more than creating another article that is similar in quality? The value of a wiki is in the interconnectivity of the articles - you go from one to another to another and browse and read rather than hitting on and ending there to do a new search. --Mtur 21:48, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

We paid for work on government websites. It's ours already. It's not just public domain, but it is also bought and paid for by the public. So it's fine to copy unbiased material from such sites. Of course the entries can and should then be improved. But it helps having a start, and having a succinct explanation.--Aschlafly 22:16, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
As far as I know (although I could be wrong), the same copyright situation does not apply with the Australian government, and not being an American taxpayer, I haven't paid for that already, so I guess I shouldn't copy verbatim from American government websites??? (Not that I would be anyway; it's just an observation I'm making.) :-) Philip J. Rayment 06:46, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
Do you have an idea of how much of the page count and edits are for these stubs starter pages? One problem that I see looking at recent edits with the direct copy approach is that many of these are in the plural form which makes it harder on the wiki software (needing redirects and/or pipelinks to handle the singular form). A large amount of cleanup (sysops moving files around) is needed in those articles.
I am also curious as to how you handle instances of larger copies from non-public domain sites (such as press releases 'about' or 'history' pages for various companies). There are some instances where this has been fairly well documented where the vast majority of the text is pulled from other sources with only cosmetic changes. --Mtur 22:33, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
Mtur, your comments are always somewhat hostile here, and this criticism is baseless. Concise explanations are preferred here, and this is one reason Conservapedia is better than Wikipedia. Try teaching some students, or try understanding something yourself, and you'll see why conciseness is preferred. When a government site gives that concise information, we'll use it.
This is a very small percentage of this site. Much smaller, for example, than the percentage of copying from archaic resources (like a 100-year-old encyclopedia) that I think Wikipedia did in its first year. Much of that archaic information still remains on Wikipedia nearly a decade later. So much so that there was a recent attempt to clean it up. I don't think the clean-up succeeded.--Aschlafly 22:46, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
It is a wonderful thing to have a concise first paragraph. However, if that first paragraph is all there is and my curiosity has been piqued, I will go and do a search elsewhere. And so lets look at arthritis for a moment. I read it, and want to know more - and so I go back to google and search - and Wikipedia is the second hit. And once there, I can browse and read dozens of articles about arthritis. If this is your intent, make someone interested in the subject and then have them go search google and end up at Wikipedia, you are doing an excellent job. I doubt this is your desire though.
If/when I do become a teacher, I would hope that my students would not regurgitate public domain works any more than they would regurgitate Wikipedia. Using control-C and control-V does not lead to any additional learning by writing (even having to re-type it has some help in remembering what is written). Nor would I be setting the example by doing so either. --Mtur 23:26, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
Mtur, your comments are all nitpicky little criticisms. How often have you complained to Wikipedia about how it copied 100-year-old encyclopedias? None, I bet. Concise explanations of terms like arthritis are desired, and if they are from an unbiased report by the CDC, then all the better. We paid for it and we will use what we paid for.--Aschlafly 23:56, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
Mtur, i would advise you to take a break. Geo.Complain! 01:10, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

July 4

File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 05:02, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

Ah, that's what I like to see—a list of dates before they are needed. In this case, about two and a half hours before the start of the day concerned (anywhere; about four and a half hours where I am, and even more for most of the users of this site)! I'll try and remember to copy them over in about two hours time. Philip J. Rayment 05:53, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
Oops, I did forget. Sorry New Zealand, but they are there now. :-) By the way, Fox, was that first one really important enough to be on the list??? :-)
(By the way, I don't think there's any point in red links for temporary Main Page stuff.) Philip J. Rayment 10:26, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
Well, Canada got their bumps, so I didn't want anyone to feel left out ;) The red links I just drop in for any editors here who might feel inspired to create an article :) File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 15:26, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
Yes, red links here are a good idea; someone might write something before it goes on the main page. But I still think that red links on the main page are not good (although I guess that I could be convinced otherwise). Philip J. Rayment 20:38, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
Agreed. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 04:31, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Hope I'm not too late but July 4th wasn't a good day for three US presidents

BrianCo 14:55, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm afraid that this is meaningless trivia, the kind that would be found on Wikipedia. July 4th was a good day for these presidents to the extent they did not die earlier, and to the extent they reached their salvation on that day.
The fact that they died on July 4 rather than another day has absolutely no historical significance.--Aschlafly 15:04, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Kudos on new direction with Breaking News

I'd just like to make the observation that the "Breaking News" section of the front page, in its current incarnation, is almost perfect! It covers several top news stories, and gives a great, general perspective of the news. Just a quick comment on the Henry Cisneros comparison to Libby though - that's apples and oranges. Henry Cisneros was, and still is, mired in personal scandal, whereas Libby's scandal has many political ramifications. If I have time during my lunch break today, I'm going to try to expand the Henry Cisneros article a bit; that's a story I've been interested in for quite some time now. Stryker 09:18, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

The comparison is not apples and oranges. Stryker, did you read the Tony Snow story included in the headline Cover Up???. At first, it does look like a personal scandal; however, you're missing the big picture that Tony doesn't miss. There was indeed a political connection that looks like a coverup.
“ Senators Byron Dorgan, John Kerry and Richard Durbin pulled a fast one last week on their congressional colleagues. They tried to bury forever documents alleging that senior government officials tried to transform portions of the IRS and the Justice Department into a goon squad for attacking political enemies and aiding political friends.

In this instance, that would mean burying charges that key officials in the Justice Department and the IRS abused their power by going easy on Cisneros and targeting political opponents of Bill Clinton. Those charges — not the Cisneros case — have served as the focal point of Barrett’s investigation for the last several years. While Senator Dorgan and his colleagues may not know this, lawyers for Henry Cisneros and other Clinton-era public servants do. They also know that Barrett is the first man ever to receive grand-jury subpoena power to look at the inner workings of the IRS.

”
Of course, the liberals will deny this devious strategy, but it sure looks fishy to me. Crocoite 18:54, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the feedback. Note that our news is not always flattering to the Bush Administration, as in the case of this expedited pardon. Sometimes the news can provoke disagreement among conservatives.--Aschlafly 15:42, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

July 5

File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 04:57, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Done, and thanks. The Salvation Army already existed as Salvation Army, but I've now moved it. Philip J. Rayment 08:39, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
Many thanks :) File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 08:43, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Main Page format

I've been thinking about the main page of Conservapedia over the past few days. Maybe it's just been within the past few days, but the whole page to me seems too spread out and large in general, taking up too much space and not utilising the large gaps. It would probably take me a few days to devise a suitable solution, however I'm just proposing a change in overall format, so you don't have to scroll 4 pages worth.

Let's face it. This is the Main Page of Conservapedia, the first impression a new user would confront in clicking a hyperlink, or testing out conservapedia.com . In my opinion, the main page should be more concise, pictures could be smaller, 3 days in Today in History and using the gaps that are there now. Looking to reduce the webpage scrolling size to around 50% of its current state.

Just an idea. Niandra talk 12:43, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Good idea Geo.Complain! 13:04, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
I agree. Crocoite 13:26, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
We could bring the stuff at the bottom of the page in to the template that would reduce the size 40% Geo.Complain! 15:18, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

I guess this is some kind of disclaimer: I'm not trying to cut valuable news and ideas from the main page to illustrate that they aren't as important, I'm just looking to transform the main page into a more concise overview with links that direct users into the deeper parts of Conservapedia (articles, archived news, etc.) Niandra talk 06:32, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

So far, I like the changes you're testing out - a main page that involves a lot of scrolling down isn't efficient; as a "shop window" it should clearly and concisely display what I'm going to find inside, as well as pointing me in the direction of the right departments :) File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 06:39, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Summary:

  • Moved quick links to the main template
  • Removed some quick links as duplicates or integrated them into the mediawiki:recentchangestext
  • Removed half of Today in History - suggest archive of previous days
  • Justified the Los Angeles Times logo to center - TK reduced its size
  • Resized the American flag image and "Al Qaeda story" image into 150px and 140px, respectively. This eliminated the ugly white spaces around the images.
  • Changed the border of main page to aqua in colour, however, SharonS changed it to the current, preferring a darker border.

Niandra talk 07:27, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Niandra, your changes are excellent. I changed the border color to a dark red that matches the logo, and made the corners rounded. ~ SharonTalk 07:29, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
Also, I made the headers for each section blue. The ones on the right were originally red. ~ SharonTalk 07:33, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks! Niandra talk 07:36, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
Your changes are fantastic!!!!--Aschlafly 10:36, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
They look awesome!--BethTalk 10:55, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
I like the new appearance. I will incorporate the pixel changes on my future Breaking News articles. --Crocoite 12:26, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

News - Alan Johnston

Alan Johnston was released today - important, no? Also, there are ramifications vis a vis standing of Hamas. --wikinterpreter woo!

There are a few links to the development of this wondrous good news on my user page, in the "Yerushaláyim calling" box. It will be interesting to see if Hamas can become a positive force for change in the region... File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 14:48, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
I don't know that there is a political message in the release of the prisoner. Thank God, of course, that he was released, but what's the point in publicizing that? That the terrorists aren't so bad after all???--Aschlafly 15:02, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
That perhaps they are willing to make the transition into a proper government?
Seems like a stretch. I defer to our Sysops on this.--Aschlafly 15:27, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
I personally judged it to be a "my user page news" item only - Johnston's release is happy news, but the wider implications - if any - need to be watched from beyond blast range; Hamas are still attacking Israel, didn't secure the release of the Israeli soldier (or whereabouts of his body if he is in fact dead) and this is, IMHO, political posturing aimed for Western consumption. of far more significance is the Palestinian arab connection with ongoing terror attacks and suicide bombings in the UK File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 16:07, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
I agree, Fox. By the way, like all Sysops, you now have authority to post directly to the front page by going to Editing main page. By now I'm sure you have a good feel for what works best there. Thanks.--Aschlafly 16:15, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Also, OT, CP gets a mention here, if anyone's interested. A bit mocking, but it does present CP as a viable alternative to WP. --wikinterpreter woo!

Thanks for the link. I skimmed the article and found it to be biased and uninformative, as one would expect from the Guardian. Not even worth posting on the front page. As just one example, did the reporter really have to waste so much of our time describing a mistake between "East 59th Street" and "West 59th Street"? I don't think that reporter has a clue about the direction of Conservapedia or Wikipedia or education in general.--Aschlafly 15:27, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
It's inane chatter - the sort of thing you get in a Sunday essay. --wikinterpreter woo!

Why can't I edit the talk page for the "Homosexuality" article?

It's one thing to block edits to the article itself, but now we can't even discuss proposed changes to the article? Why not? previous unsigned comment added by User:Concernedguy 07:50, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Please add your suggestion; the page was locked by someone else, so I will have to lock it again once you have done so. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 07:49, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
I just tried, but when I went to submit my changes, the talk page was locked again. Oh well. :( --Concernedguy 08:04, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
I waited 15 mins or so, nothing was posted, I assumed you'd gone. Post your comment here instead. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 08:05, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Al Gore vs Cheney on Wikipedia

Perhaps it's because many people do not consider mentioning being a lesbian to be a smear. And what happened to example two? Also, Wikipedia has an entire article called Al Gore controversies [1], hardly a liberal article. Maestro 11:53, 5 July 2007 (EDT)


A general note on Wikipedia: Wikipedia's articles are not created by some singular entity, with goals or motives of its own. Wikipedia's articles are a collaboration of the combined works of each and every individual user who chooses to make contributions. As such, Wikipedia articles are just as subject to vandalism and opportunistic editing as Conservapedia articles are. By the same token, examples of outrageous bias in Wikipedia are not set in stone. You, the concerned and intelligent reader, have the power to change them.
Anyway, just some food for thought. -Simple (GMT -5) 5 July 2007

Perhaps the fact that Gore's son was arrested only yesterday, whereas Ms. Cheney has been out of the closet for a number of years would explain the difference. I don't recall seeing the problems the Bush twins had for underage drinking in his bio, for that matter. Why? Because it doesn't matter any more than Gore the younger's arrest or Ms. Cheney's sexual preference. C'mon Conservapedia, get a grip.--Trajsmith 13:38, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

The news page neglects to mention that the drug charges were brought up YESTERDAY and Mary Cheney's been out of the closet for quite a while now. Not to mention the fact that Mary actually works for her father, so she's a relevant political figure (and as Maestro mentioned, the word "lesbian" was not at all used as a smear, any more than the word "daughter" was) and Al Jr. has done nothing notable to date. (And the WP page on Al Gore III does mention his arrest; it's not like it's being censored). I really would like to know how this news page makes Wikipedia a "smear factory" and Conservapedia a bastion of truth? (I just noticed that Trajsmith beat me to the punch. Oh well). Jazzman831 13:50, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

REPLY TO THE ABOVE:

  • Of course the lesbian reference in Cheney's entry is designed to embarrass him. No one would seriously claim otherwise. But even if User:Maestro were right, then why not also include Gore's son's drug charges because some may not consider that a smear??? There is plainly a double standard at Wikipedia, one that favors and protects liberals while attempting to smear conservatives.
  • As to User:Simple's comments, the above examples are not vandalism, which is screened quickly at Wikipedia. Rather, these biased entries have been screened and approved at Wikipedia and no one is likely to be successful in changing them. Don't believe me? Try yourself and watch what happens over time.
  • Trajsmith's (and now Jazzman___'s) explanation doesn't hold water either. Current events are posted quickly on Wikipedia. Moreover, this is not the first time that Gore's son has faced a drug charge, and Gore's own entry lacks the prior charge also.

Bottom line: be honest, guys, just this time: Wikipedia has a biased double standard here. Don't hurt your own credibility by denying the obvious.--Aschlafly 13:56, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

My credibility? Don't worry it's not being hurt at all. Yours might be though. You call WP a "smear factory" but it is quite obvious that you are the one doing the smearing. You say on your own talk page[2]: "But this is also gossipy, which is why I wouldn't put it in Al Gore's entry here or on our front page. Wikipedia loves stuff like that, and gossip mongers are a big part of Wikipedia's traffic." But guess what? It's NOT on the WP page! So this way you get to smear WP if they don't put it on there, because they are liberally biased, and you get to smear WP if they do put it on there, because they are "gossipy"! I have no beef against Conservapedia, but doing stuff like this really hurts your reputation as a valid source of information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jazzman831 (talk)

I notice the CP article on Gore has a lengthy critizism section, but the G.W. Bush article does not. In the interest of being fair and ballanced, I'm sure you'll want to include Bush's drunk driving arrest and the controversy over his military service. Or delete the controversies in Gore's article. Or stop complaining that other sites aren't as fair and ballanced as you are. Maestro 15:29, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

To put it quite simply, stories like this are the playground of the propagandist. If you dislike them, fine, but to those with an interest in statecraft, such as myself, every bit of information is a valuable tool. Anything that can be used in an election to hurt a candidate is a valuable piece of information, be it Cheney's Daughter, or Gore's Son. To the layperson, political smears might seem lowbrow and cheap, which don't get me wrong, they are. However, they WORK. They are valuable tools, and politics is war by any means possible.--Elamdri 16:08, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Smear of Dobson and Kennedy

Did the person who wrote this comment actually read the Wikipedia articles? They appear to be pretty straight forward accounts of these gentlemens' views. And, in their article on Dominionism, it notes the controversy over that particular name. While I clearly view the world through my liberal filters, I believe I am objective enough to say that Wikipedia is far superior to this site for "fair and balanced" articles.--Trajsmith 13:44, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Did you read the articles, you troll? Go home to Wikipedia --Fahrenkopf 14:19, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

I assume by your comment, Fahrenkopf, that you are very young, so you get a pass on your immature response. However, I did read the articles. If by chance, you are older than 14, it is pretty easy to guess where your head is travelling.--Trajsmith 14:44, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Oh, and your comments concerning my age are soooooooo mature and moreover so totally not off-topic! --Fahrenkopf 14:48, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

The Crown rests. Go outside and play.--Trajsmith 14:55, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

It seems that in the Dobson, et al articles, they mention that they have been 'accused' of being 'Dominionists' or whatever. The articles also include rebuttals. Quoting someone is not the same as agreeing with them. Maestro 15:30, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

How about learning to spell before you tell others how to do their job. --Fahrenkopf 15:41, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Just because others throw insults around does not make it an acceptable thing for everyone to do; stop and think about whether this issue is of such vital importance that you want to get into a verbal brawl about it. It not only distracts us from the real issues building a better encyclopedia, it wastes people's time. Eg mine File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 15:49, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

I agree, issues such as these do indeed waste people's time. Why, then, are they staring us in the face on the front page of this fine, developing encyclopedia? It seems more than a bit odd, really. -Simple 17:12 (GMT -5) 5 July 2007
It isn't the meat of the issues that I find indigestible, its the handbags-at-5-paces verbal ping pong that follows, and I'm just waiting for someone to post, "My dad's bigger than your dad". File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 17:16, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

72 year-old ex-Marine beats up liberal thief

Score one for the good guys...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19612312/

--Conservateur 16:34, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Where are you getting his 'liberalness' from? POV, perhaps? --wikinterpreter woo!
He didn't respect private property in this instance, or morality, or the elderly. Do you seriously think this guy voted for Ronald Reagan???--Conservateur 16:49, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
And Conservatives NEVER steal or disrespect the elderly? Are you seriously making that claim? --PF Fox 16:51, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
Is it now policy at Conservapedia to refer to all crooks as "liberal?" --PF Fox 16:49, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
I would posit that anyone who steals or fails to respect the elderly by definition is not a conservative.--Conservateur 17:28, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
I would posit that anyone who advocates violence is not a liberal. Maestro 23:48, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
It's a ridiculous hypothesis. Whether or not someone is a pickpocket has nothing to do with their political beliefs. And the line about voting for Reagan is foolish as well. The thief is only 27, he would have been 5 during the 84 election. NonXtianConservative 18:14, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Don't bite. I want to post some articles, not police spats :/ File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 16:48, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

I thought it would be uplifting to see a story about some hoodlum getting his comeuppance.--Conservateur 17:02, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
It is, and I loved watching that old bootneck knocking seven shades of shinola out of the thug :) But let's not keep trolling with each other. The argument starts about liberal vs conservative and everyone loses sight of the bigger issue - some punk got pwnt by a veteran :) File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 17:04, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
Indeed.--Elamdri 20:33, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
  • coughcoughPARODISTcoughcough* DanH 02:32, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

children

you should say this encyclopedia (cough cough) is written by children for children. Raccoons can catch diseases like rabies and distemper which make them act very strangely. A healthy raccoon will hardly ever walk right up to a person (unless someone has been feeding it). If a raccoon does this, it may be sick, and a grown-up should be told. Often, the raccoons that get hit by cars are the sick ones (or maybe they were trying to eat other roadkills). People can catch rabies if they are bitten. If you get bitten, you must get shots to stop you from getting the disease. Shots may not feel good, but they’re definitely better than getting the disease and dying. The best thing to do is NEVER touch, feed, or go near a wild animal. You look very tall and dangerous to a wild animal. It may bite you because it is scared. If you stay away from the animal, it won’t be able to bite you!

Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Raccoon"

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Casenj (talk)

The children know more than you do, as you failed even to sign your entry. The above advice is correct and adults would avoid rabies and the need for rabies shots by reading it.
Or is that liberals even want to censor safety information???--Aschlafly 00:54, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
From Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia:
"We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support."
Might you please point out to me where the creator of the Raccoon article has been required to present authoritative support, or to report that this article is a record of someones opinion? These opinion-based safety procedures have been presented as facts, but they are not supported as facts. -Simple 9:57 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007


Christian denied his constitutional rights due to oppressive ordinance that bans offending another person.

It sounds to me as if the victim here, the man preaching in public, is quite justified in his stance. Protection of public speaking is pretty much the primary reason for the First Ammendment, as I understand it. And from the sounds of this article, this man was doing exactly that. Had he been singling out a single individual and following them, the circumstances would've been much different - as things stand, I can only say that I hope the offending officer has the sense to try and settle out of court. Thoughts on this? -Simple 10:11 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007

Assuming that the ADF's description is largely accurate and that the person was not very loud or abusive then yes it is a clear violation of the first amendment. However, the volume and other details that are not discussed in the ADF press release may be relevant. To use an extreme example, I doubt most of us would see someone as necessarily having a first amendment right to preach from a megaphone at 1 AM in a residential neighborhood. JoshuaZ 11:09, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
Excellent point, I had not considered that angle. It would be interesting to know if there is a source that could shed more light on this topic. -Simple 11:14 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007
The papers filed with the court state clearly: "On November 18, 2006, at approximately 9:00 p.m., Mr. Netherland traveled to a publiceasement (the unpaved shoulder and grassy area separating a local street from the local bar, Sidelines) and began to express his religious message. He was positioned about 75-100 feet from the front entrance of Sidelines. He expressed his message verbally, without amplification." File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 11:17, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

Not Main Page material

but a feel-good story on today, the 7/7 anniversary. Report about one of the Glaswegians who "set aboot" the suicide bombers at Glasgow airport [3] :D File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 08:48, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Google and Sicko?

Where exactly does the article mention that Google "muzzled" the employee? All that it says is that a clarification was posted:

"After being bombarded with complaints for two days, Turner returned to the blog to quell the unrest by explaining that the opinions she expressed were her own, not Google's. The confusion, she said, was her mistake for failing to offer a clear explanation of whose views she was sharing.

Apparently still under attack, Google offered a second, more strident apology shortly thereafter -- this time in a posting on its main corporate blog, which has a bigger readership."

It doesn't say anything about Google forcing anything at all. --Bucklesman 09:57, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Google publicly declared, "We blew it," which unmistakably implies that it has taken steps to prevent this from happening by its employees again in the future.
But feel free to suggest another verb other than "muzzle". Perhaps "Google cracks down on free speech"?--Aschlafly 10:04, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

It was a corporate blog for the company. Ms. Turner posted a personal opinion on it. The opinion was different to that of Google's. So they had to issue a clarification to show that the employee was posting in a personal capacity, not as an employee of Google. No muzzling, gagging, stifling, covering-up or cracking down on free speech. --Bucklesman 11:16, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Buckle. Mr. Schlafly, I think that trying to say that Google cracked down on speech here is a huuuuuuuuuge stretch. --SwmngStar 11:28, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

However, note the double standard here! Google officially said that they agreed with Moore and encouraged their employees to see it. DanH 19:28, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Fox News video

I think that the main page headline needs to be altered in regard to the Fox News video on Wikipedia. Conservapedia claims that the video shows that our criticisms of Wikipedia are true. However, Fox News only makes one argument during the video - they claim that it is open to abuse and vandalism because absolutely anybody can edit. Conservapedia operates the same way. Pot, kettle, black? --SwmngStar 11:36, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Not so fast. What you're missing are these points:
  1. CP users may not necessarily edit any time they like. First, you have to register in order to edit. Second, at certain randomly selected times of the day, new users are not allowed to edit. At other times, the sysops are carefully watching.
  2. If a CP user publishes libel, slander, or just plain and simple silly gossip about a person, especially if that person is living, the sysops will not let that stand for any longer than it takes to detect and revert it. On WP, much of what they have on living figures is gossip, and even outright libel can stand for days until someone protests. The sysops simply have not achieved the level of editorial policing that we have on CP.
So you see, CP is better policed and reviewed than WP has ever been or likely ever will be. This addresses the specific complaint about WP that FoxNews' interview subjects had.--TerryHTalk 12:06, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
I agree with the Fox News critique and disagree with the pot and kettle metaphor.
I was one of the top 200 editors on Wikipedia from 2001 to 2004 and participated in most of the major policy decisions, including the formation of the Arbitration and Mediation Committees (I'm still a member in good standing of the latter).
The decision to let "anyone, anytime" edit with no editorial oversight was something both Larry Sanger and I protested loud and long. Of course, he did something about it: started Citizendium. I'm not that resourceful or well connected, but the criticism still stands.
Wikipedia allows people with an evil agenda to put in whatever they want, and as long as there are enough people with the same aim, they can create a "virtual consensus" that prevents anyone from correcting the error. Even worse, because Wikipedia has promoted itself as "self-correcting", the general public relies on it too much and can be taken in by rumors masquerading as breaking news.
I need not belabor the point about liberal bias on controversial topics. With the liberal/conservative ratio at the English Wikipedia just as high as in mainstream TV and newspapers, it's easy for "the impact of sockpuppets, small-POV groups, and parties with any personal or financial interests" to be felt (quoting George Maxwell of Wikipedia here). --Ed Poor Talk 21:18, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
Very well put, Ed. We're lucky to have you. Ditto for TerryH above.
I would add another point: at Conservapedia we have principles. No gossip, for example. If Wikipedia banned gossip, that alone would eliminate many smears. A place that has principles does not suffer from as much crime and injury to innocent people. When was the last time you heard about someone being robbed in a church, for example?--Aschlafly 22:28, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Mikhail Kalashnikov

Is Mikhail Kalashnikov the only weapons designer/manufacturer/dealer who doesn't lose sleep over the havoc wrought with their inventions? He blames the Nazi Germans, Should we blame the Japanese for the atom bomb? Islamists for the dilution of our civil rights and the rule of law? Why Mikhail Kalashnikov in particular - because he's a Commie? Perhaps politicians are to blame for not stopping the violence. Though, when freedom is under attack what is the alternative? BritishConservative 19:13, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

I think Stoner, Oppenheimer, Colt, and Browning would agree with your viewpoint, BC (I hope that nickname is acceptable, please let me know if it is not). I agree that Mr. Kalashnikov is being unfairly targeted, a point I tried to address when writing AK-47. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 19:17, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
Just so long as this BC doesn't get confused with the other one! BrianCo 19:27, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
What BC is that? BritishConservative 19:43, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
The nickname is fine Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ. Lets see how long we can use it before some enthusiatic participant in the team contest blocks me in order to gain 2 points. If the same person hurries to welcome me beforehand they'll get a point for that too. Using what I've written they might even get 6 points for creating the article Arms trade or even another 6 points for Arms dealing if they don't redirect. (Oh no! Time for a new rule in the scoring system). If its a quality new entry 10 points could be had. Oh my, all this points stuff is very heroic and reminds one of this and this . Perhaps the winner should be awarded something like this. It all comes accross as very Liberal to me. More about this way of organising production can be found here. Just because Liberals do it don't mean we should!
BritishConservative 19:43, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
The AK-47 is a fine rifle, and a good model of functionality. Many people don't realize it, but I'm sure AK-47s have saved many American lives, in addition to taking them. You cannot blame a rifle manufacturer or designer for their weapon. It is the people responsible for disseminating weapons among people who would use them to harm innocents and those people themselves that deserve the blame. At the end of the day, a weapon is a tool, which can be misused.--Elamdri 21:32, 7 July 2007 (EDT)


Human Life International smear

Well, I added a {{fact}} tag to the smear, and if the sentence isn't properly cited by tomorrow at noon EDT, I'll remove the entire sentence.--Autofire 23:10, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

While your action is welcome, that obviously does not end the matter. That same smear appears on another entry in Wikipedia, and there are perhaps thousands of similar vicious smears there.
The admin(s) who approved this particular smear retain their authority to approve others.
Your response is like returning a stolen good to its rightful owner, but with no apology and no action to prevent repetition of the crime against him and others.--Aschlafly 23:16, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Main Page Observations

First, a couple of compliments: The new formatting of the Main Page looks great; much cleaner and pleasing to the eye. Also, the Breaking News section has been particularly good lately, with lots of stories not seen elsewhere. Second, a quibble: The Daily Bible Verse has been unchanged for quite some time (a month, maybe?). I realize there's much work to do here (I myself have not had the time to devote to this place as I desire), but I'd suggest that the "daily" Bible verse is important enough to warrant some attention. The news and calendar are updated on a daily-or-more basis, and I see no reason that the Bible verse shouldn't be the same.--PeteVan 11:54, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for your thoughtful compliment, which is much appreciated. And you are right: we should update the daily Bible verse more often. I'll do so now for today, and we welcome future suggestions here.--Aschlafly 13:13, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

HIV

Is there any reason that the word "booty" appears twice in the HIV article in lieu of the more clinical and correct term? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PFoster (talk)

Wouldn't it be best to ask this on the talk page for that article? Philip J. Rayment 02:36, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
It was caused by the filter; it's now fixed. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 07:56, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

al Qaeda threatens Iran

Well...wasn't expecting THAT.--Elamdri 03:03, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Can someone who knows more about the Iraq situation explain it? I'm guessing the idea is to draw Iran and Saudi Arabia into the war (directly) on opposite sides? That would leave the allies in a terrible position. Dreadful stuff. Ferret 07:31, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
Well, personally, I don't think infighting among Al Qaeda and Iran is gonna really hurt the US. Personally, its sorta like trash that takes itself out. However, that only is gonna work if we decide not to get involved.--Elamdri 07:37, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
Its just the family pet barking at the junkyard dog from behind the safety of the chainlink fence. Yes, the Sunni and Shi'ites are at each others throats right now, but this is where its all going to kick off: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3422565,00.html I understand that the IDF is preparing right now for war on the Golan Heights, too. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 07:49, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
Heck, I say we just glass the entire region.--Elamdri 09:38, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Happy Birthday Venezuela?

I’m writing these words to mention the omission of “Venezuelan Declaration of Independence” from Spain on July 5 in the section “Today History”. This event happened in 1811. Conservapedia has said “Happy Birthday” to Canada (July 1), the United States (July 4) and Argentina (July 9). Why don’t you do the same with Venezuela? On the other hand Conservapedia may refer to Simón Bolívar’s Birthday in “Today History” next July 24.

Juanmanuelarcia 13:06(UTC), 9 July 2007.
We'll make sure Simon Bolivar is mentioned on July 24. We skipped Venezuela's birthday possibly because we didn't know of it, but we'll correct it next time around. Karajou 13:06, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Dingell's Tax Hike

Far be it from me to defend a Democrat (especially one who is now unfortunately "my" rep in Congress), but...regarding the Breaking News item about Dingell's proposed 50cent/gallon tax hike: It is my understanding that Dingell thinks global warming is hokum, and is supposedly introducing the tax increase bill only to show what a dumb idea it is, and to stop Pelosi&Crew from introducing harsher regulations come fall. So maybe he's not all bad?--PeteVan 22:46, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Worth 2 pts?

I don't know if this is a quality contribution to the front page or not; if not, maybe its worth 2 pts for an edit to NASA. But I'll let somebody else have it. NASA buys toilet for $19 million (I got a picture of it to, if anybodies interested....). RobS 00:10, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Gun story headline shouldn't use "anti-gun" to describe Miles

Based on the story linked, it does not appear Rep. Miles is "anti-gun" as the Breaking News headline claims. Miles is a former law enforcement officer and has a CCW license, so obviously he is not against guns.

He is a hypocrite, however, for opposing legislation giving Texans a stronger legal right to do exactly as he did when he shot that intruder. I would suggest replacing the headline with something like "Texas Democrat State Lawmaker Who Opposed Deadly Force Bill Shoots Would-Be Thief"

--Conservateur 13:37, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Apology

Just wanted to apologize for my absence from CP for the past week or so... I was out of state and without internet access. And I'm really mad I missed the joining of the teams. Is there any way I can still join one and help? Thanks! DeborahB. 13:50, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Apology accepted.--Conservateur 14:20, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
Conservateur is a parodist, Deborah. Sometimes it's funny.
I think Joaquin does have a team player who would like to substitute out, and I've asked him. Hope he agrees and that you can join the contest!--Aschlafly 14:30, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

A question regarding CP

I'm a little unclear on how CP is planning to provide an accurate and reliable resource of information when there is clearly (by definition) a bias in the way articles are to be written. Speaking personally, I don't believe Christianity is correct on a large number of issues (I'll skim over this bit and save the arguments), but am willing to admit that it has some basis in fact.(I accept, of course, that a lot of readers here will have a different view.) I'd like to know why you think restricting content to fit your own view of the world is going to provide a useful resource? Surely you'll just be providing information on your opinion? In which case, are you unwilling to admit you may be wrong? or simply not interested in contrary views? how do you reconcile the stories in the bible contradicting with scientific "fact"? Lastly, do you believe any reference is useful if it is inherently biased?

As I said before, this is intended as a sensible discussion and I'd appreciate it if people would keep it in that vein. Thanks for your time - Basiclife

Have a look at my second reply under the heading This is probably the worst wiki I have ever seen, above. And I reject that the stories in the Bible are in contradiction with scientific "fact", if for no other reason that much of the Bible is history, whereas science is used for studying things in the present. Philip J. Rayment 20:24, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

By what definition is science limited to the study of the present? Archaeology, for one, is a scientific approach to the history of the past, as are branches of geology and astrophysics. One could even argue that the study of history itself, using the scientific method of testing a hypotheosis with evidence in a controlled manner, constitutes the use of science to study the past. PFoster 20:46, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

I was generalising with my comment. Archaeologists also study things in the present, although, as you say, they are trying to produce an account of the past. I agree that science (more precisely, the scientific method) can be a useful when studying the past, but it pales into insignificance compared to eyewitness testimony in the past, as represented by various ancient documents. The Bible claims to be one such ancient document, so if one considers it to be a reliable ancient document (and there's plenty of reasons for thinking so), then it is the far better source than scientists studying things in the present and trying to provide accounts of past events. My point was to highlight the limitations of science when dealing with the past, not to say that it was of no use whatsoever. Philip J. Rayment 21:23, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

bias

Hi, have you considered a policy that restricts article editing by African Americans? (wouldn't support that in real life, but because this is conservapedia...) --Andersmusician 00:20, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Have you considered putting up a sensible argument against whatever disagreement you have with this site, instead of a specious one? Or is that too hard? Philip J. Rayment 00:24, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
Yes--a sensible, faith-based argument. Xenophobia 22:35, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
I had in mind a sensible, logic-based argument. Philip J. Rayment 22:39, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Pope's Decree

WOW! Benedictine throws down some punches there. I hate it when Christianity has internal matches over pecking order. Wouldn't it be so much better to show a united front?--Elamdri 04:41, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes, but only with your friends, not your enemies. Which is the case here?? This is nothing new, by the way. The Catholic church has for some time pursued union with other churches, but for even longer indicated, as here, that they don't really consider other churches as anything more than heretical. Philip J. Rayment 04:52, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
Yes, I know, but I really don't think we live in a world where the Christian faith can afford to keep moving into separatist movements. Personally, I feel the worst idea that ever presented itself in Christianity is the idea of a non-denominational church. By allowing everyone to simply make up their own rules when they disagree with the rules of another church, you only encourage the religion to fragment even more. Does that mean that everyone has to submit to the Catholic Church? No. But does that mean that the Catholic Church doesn't have much in the way of clout? NO. Its a very large and powerful organization, and it should know better than to do stuff like this. I just find it childish and disappointing.--Elamdri 16:47, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
It is no more childish and disappointing than one branch of Christianity calling another branch of Christianity not a Christian. --Mtur 18:58, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
Hey, I was raised in non-denominational churches! But seriously, I don't see anything wrong with non-denominational churches, as long as they don't claim that they are the only correct church, or keep themselves isolated from other churches. The churches I was raised in worked with other churches in the area.
Mtur, your point begs the question of whether those "branch[es] of Christianity" really are branches of Christianity, or perversions of it. If you allow anything that calls itself "Christian" to be accepted as part of Christianity, it will become a meaningless term. There has to be a line drawn somewhere, and while different people will disagree with exactly where that line should be, there is nothing wrong in principle with declaring some group that calls itself "Christian" as not being so.
Philip J. Rayment 08:24, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
I think Mtur is arguing that WHO has the right to make that choice is not apparent. Everyone seems to think they have the right idea. Christianity doesn't have a central unified body. Therefore, it becomes hard to determine what is truly heretical. The numerous versions of the bible don't help either.--Elamdri 19:43, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Is the Pope right? Is he the head of the only true Church established by Christ here on earth ? Is it true that because of their refusal to recognize the primacy of the Pope the others do not have have apostolic succession therefore their priestly ordinations are not valid and do not have the means of salvation?

Will the trustworthy conservative encyclopedia tell us the truth and set us free?

"Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage-with great patience and careful instruction.
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." (2 Tim 4:2-4:4)

BritishConservative 06:25, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

He also revived the Tridentine Mass. Geo.Complain! 19:32, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Links on articles to ships

Unfortunately, none have responded on the talk pages that I have occasionally posted to and the changes are getting lost in the cut and paste fest of the contest... and the talk pages of the syosps doing this particular cut and paste job are locked so that I can't notify them...

It is awkward when the single reference at the bottom of the page is to the index page. For example Banqust originally linked to http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/b2-list.htm which is a page that just lists the ships that have a name that starts with 'b'. With only a little bit more work, it would be possible to link to http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/b2/bangust-i.htm which is the actual reference used. There have been situations where the ship linked to the wrong index page also.

I beseech you, sysops who are doing this, please link to the correct page when citing the location for the cut and paste material. Also consider that the ship name is more formally with USS in front of it (USS Beagle[4] is not the same as HMS Beagle). It is not Bangust but rather USS Bangust, or even more formaly, USS Bangust (DE-739). This becomes more important when you get to ships such as USS San Francisco (SSN-711) so that you don't have confusion with San Francisco. --Mtur 18:51, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Lady bird Johnson

She died today. Can someone find the link and post it? Geo.Complain! 19:29, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Done --Crocoite 19:38, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks Geo.Complain! 20:00, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

economics materials on Conservapedia

Thankfully for the students that relied on the Conservapedia economics materials, Timothy Hammersmith was nice enough to correct a couple of Mr. Schlafly's errors. --LuckyJN 10:03, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

LuckyJN, just what do you think was corrected? I have been corrected by homeschooled students, but frankly I doubt you have a clue about economics. Please prove me wrong by saying something intelligent. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 10:24, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafly, perhaps you would like to take a look at this link: [5]. As you can see, one of your students had a question about your lecture materials. You presented erroneous information that was corrected by Mr. Hammersmith. As you can see, you admitted you were in error back in April. Again, thankfully Timothy corrected your error before the students were examined. --LuckyJN 19:10, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
LuckyJN, I looked at your comments and link and I concluded that you don't have the foggiest idea of economic concepts. I suggest you study the economics lectures and take the exams and then let us know how you did. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 19:27, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Volleyball coach and Title IX

What does a story about a questionable firing have to do with Title IX? The article doesn't mention Title IX. Is any story about women's collegiate athletics automatically the fault of Title IX? Boomcoach 13:03, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

That was a Title IX case. The newspaper article omitted that key fact. So I added another link that includes that.--Aschlafly 14:00, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Protestors arrested for expressing their faith

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/12/prayer.protest.reut/index.html

--Conservateur 16:38, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Interesting, but the news story does not say the protesters were Christian and this kind of stunt could easily have been arranged to embarrass Christians.--Aschlafly 17:30, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
How much do you want to bet that the "Americans United for Separation of Church and State" were behind this? Bohdan 17:32, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
You still taking offers? Aziraphale 17:55, 12 July 2007 (EDT) <-bets he shouldn't gamble. . .


Heckling and shouting "abomination" to a Hindu chaplain attempting to lead a prayer service is classified as 'expressing their faith'? For more on this, the Fox news article names names of the protesters - http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jul12/0,4670,SenatePrayer,00.html . I am not so sure that this 'stunt' was arranged to embarrass Christians. Anyone willing to make predictions as to if they were Christian faithful or not? --Mtur 17:37, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
Mtur, don't get too worked up. User:Conservateur is a parodist, and probably not even conservative. But sometimes he's funny, and his entry here is provocative.--Aschlafly 17:40, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
I think Conservateur is one of the funnier parodists. Bohdan 17:45, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
Apparently, the protestors are members of pro-life group Operation Save America (aka Operation Rescue), who were in D.C. to fight against the so-called hate-crimes bill. While there, they heard about the Hindu, and felt called to make their displeasure heard.--PeteVan 21:21, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Pages

It seems taht most pages are protected. This so-called "Encyclopedia" (Correct spelling:encyclopædia) is not free to edit at all, and isn't even registered under Richard Stallman's GNU software. Why can't I edit all pages? This is more restricted than Wikipedia. Where is the "free to edit" part of here? [[User:Peaceofmind|

Wow, just wow. Dude/tte, I know it's fun to show off what you know, but this is picking some awfully small fights.
No, most pages aren't protected. Probably the ones you most want to make a stink out of are, for the very reason that you aren't unique in wanting to make a stink. Not rare, not uncommon... there's 11 of you in every pack.
Even if you were right about the spelling, who wants to go to the trouble you did to put the "æ" in each time? By the by, if you go to any dictionary or "encyclopædia" and look up "encyclopedia" you'll get a hit. Heck, my browser thinks "encyclopædia" is a misspelling.
I normally don't do this, but with a snarky attitude like yours I honestly can't resist: "taht"? Correct spelling: that. Your wiki-code is broken, too.
Waka waka, Aziraphale 12:37, 13 July 2007 (EDT) <-doesn't look like a presbyterian to me. . .
I really enjoyed that, Aziraphale! Give us more.--Aschlafly 12:51, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
I would, but I'm already flirting with 90/10 and can't seem to get motivated to edit actual articles very often. The curse of the dilettante, I'm afraid. Aziraphale 14:02, 13 July 2007 (EDT) <- woe is me!
I prefer a 50/50 rule; Wiki's are all about community, and part of a community is conversation. It's important to contribute positively, but also important to engage others and make yourself known, as it just fosters a more scholarly and cooperative atmosphere. Stryker 15:17, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
Well crap, if I'm not able to get 10% "quality" edits (I think I technically am, but barely) I don't know where the other 40% would come from. In fact, just responding here pushes me farther out! ACK! Aziraphale 15:57, 13 July 2007 (EDT) <- or is it further?
I enjoyed that as well, Aziraphale. However, please get it through your head that the 90/10 rule DOES NOT STATE that you must have 90% quality edits, 10% talk to stay unblocked. It states that unproductive activity (SUCH AS 90% talk and 10% useful edits) (the 90/10 numbers are purely arbritary examples) could merit a block. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 19:33, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
Well put, Hoji. Aziraphale, the 90/10 rule does not require quality edits, but it does prohibit never-ending cranks and provocateurs, discourages those who insist on having the last word without contributing anything of value. Godspeed and I look forward to your contributions, Aziraphale.--Aschlafly 19:39, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

If we just look at raw figures and ignore quality, 195 edits out of Aziraphale's 305 edits have been in (main namespace) articles. No worries there, I'd suggest. Philip J. Rayment 07:41, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

*grin* True dat (as the kids say) but that wasn't true when this conversation started. Friday afternoon I discovered that I could scratch my OCB (that's behavior instead of disorder) by categorizing. Makes me productive, stays almost entirely above the fray, and earns me "coupons" towards talk page comments. :D Aziraphale 17:21, 15 July 2007 (EDT) <-coupon-clipper...

Borris Miles is pro-gun-control?!?

I just noticed this on the front page, and I did a double take. Borris Miles is pro gun-control? Since when? He voted against that one bill to change the self-defense rules, but he's solidly anti gun-control. Heck, the NRA gave him an A- overall on gun freedoms the last time he came up for election. (The NRA report in question) The national Democratic party is pretty strongly anti gun-control, but lots and lots of state Democrats, especially southern or midwestern ones, just blow off that bit of the party line. AManInBlack 13:02, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

I was flipping through some of my old NRA mailer stuff from when I still lived in the area, and I remember the NRA supporting him pretty heavily back when he was running against Edwards. He supports concealed carry and opposed registration; I can't see anything about him that's pro gun-control. This doesn't make any sense at all.
Admittedly, I only have what the NRA was saying on him to go on, because I was living in Bellaire and his district was Harris, but this is rather befuddling. AManInBlack 16:54, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

The Kiss

Today's picture is considered one of the classic expressions of eroticism...i wont go into details, but... "The Kiss is a fascinating icon of the loss of self that lovers experience. Only the faces and hands of this couple are visible; all the rest is great swirl of gold, studded with colored rectangles as if to express visually the emotional and physical explosion of erotic love.[6]. Appropriateness?SumsUp 23:01, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Looking carefully, also the feet of the woman are seen! --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 23:09, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Something tells me there is a difference between art and Penthouse.--Elamdri 03:13, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

Adolf

Keith Ellison wasn't comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler but how the Bush Administration reminds him of the way Adolf Hitler's government expanded its power. Utter tosh as it may be, all the same, comprehension skills seem to be lacking here. How am I supposed to graduate from elementary school[7] if this is the educational stuff I'm using? BritishConservative 08:39, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

One state, two state, red state, blue state...

Given the conservative/republican theme of this wiki, I'm surprised at the default blue of the page. Aren't the "blue" states the other side, as it were? Of course, I never understood how red - the colour of the Communist revolution - was picked for the Republican states to begin with. PFoster 17:52, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

Red state/blue state came due to their use as an arbitrary metric in the 2000 election if I recall, the terms then grew from that to be used more generally. I think there was some plan to alternate red and blue or base it upon the incumbent or something like that, but once the terms came into general use the plan fell by the wayside. JoshuaZ 19:19, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

They're just colors. Don't read too far in to it. --9820 18:05, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

The LA Times

Looking at the main page today, I noticed that the LA Times article has been up for nearly a month now with nary a change, and now it seems rather stale. This, of course, got me to wonder, "What qualifies for a main page big article?" Are there plans for a "featured article" type affair, or is it for particularly interesting news, or some other thing?

Anyway, yeah. Just thought you'd like to know my thoughts.--Offeep 23:42, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

"Garbage In, Garbage Out"

This phrase from the front page strikes me as a little harsh - does C-pedia mean to imply that the 97.8% of American high school-aged kids that aren't home-schooled are "garbage?" PFoster 13:31, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

I wouldn't describe a human being as "garbage". The metaphor of "Garbage In, Garbage Out" obviously refers to the teaching of these students (the "Garbage In") and their resultant views and beliefs (the "Garbage Out"). The beliefs and attitudes of the student pictured on the front page is a product of what he has been learning and not learning at public school. Lord help him, and maybe He could if public school weren't so godless.--Aschlafly 13:52, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
If the public schools included God, it would open the way for atheists, Hindus, Muslims, animists, and every non-Christian to be hateful and spiteful of their school system. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 15:17, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
They're not already? File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 15:21, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
Aren't the majority of Americans Christian, at least nominally? If so, that seems to make your (Hoji's) logic: Exclude God, and offend the majority, or include God, and offend the minority. Please excuse me if that doesn't make much sense. Philip J. Rayment 20:47, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
You guys love to blame the school system for everything.... but you do see that religious schools and churches in general have been responsible for more than a few of American society problems too right? Just checking.... SirJim 15:28, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
What exactly have religious schools done? What society problems have churches caused? Please, do tell. Bohdan 15:33, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Does little boys being abused by Catholic priests and then the Church trying to cover it up count as a "society problem?" PFoster 15:38, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Public schools have a far greater problem of sex abuse and cover-up. "As many as 10 percent of public school students are targets of unwanted sexual advances, and the perpetrators are often popular, award-winning teachers, a new report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education states."[8] It's liberal bias that singles out the Catholic church for criticism on this issue.
The Columbine-Virginia Tech massacres are anti-Christian and uniquely the product of godless public schools, I'm afraid. Often the killers have even admitted their anti-Christian motives.--Aschlafly 16:42, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
So by your logic, whenever someone commits a terrible act, the system they come from is to blame? So we can blame the entire religious world for the few zealots that bomb clinics? We can consider all pro wrestlers dangerous because Chris Benoit killed his family? You're attacking an entire system because of a few people. Besides, the fact that so many American are still Conservative despite graduating from public schools shows that us liberals aren't quite as coersive as thought. SirJim 18:59, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
I don't believe that's the logic at all. All schools (i.e. government, religious, and other) have problems; none is perfect. The argument is that excluding teaching about the source of morality from government schools will inevitably result in many people abandoning that morality (some will get it from other sources). Religious schools aren't perfect, but because they do teach about the source of morality, the problems they have are significantly fewer and not due to their worldview, but to departures from that worldview. Philip J. Rayment 20:47, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Philip, that's a circular argument, religious schools don't have problems because they present morality, and when they do have problems, it's because someone went outside their teaching.... So I can't say I agree with your issue, and public schools do teach morality, they just don;t teach that morality is dictated by god (which by the way, a lot of Christian Philosiphers argue against... but this is about the main page and that's better discussed elsewhere) SirJim 21:51, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

No, it's not a circular argument; you have misrepresented what I said. I didn't say that religious schools don't have problems. I said that they have fewer problems, because they teach about the source of morality (i.e. God). And that the problems they do have is due to going outside that teaching. Whether you accept the premises of the argument or not, the logic is valid and not circular.
Yes, government schools do teach morality, but because they don't teach about the source of morality, the morality they teach is (a) sometimes wrong, and (b) more importantly, without basis. If you teach that there is no God (which is effectively the teaching of evolution etc.), then the only basis for morality becomes whatever you think seems good, which is no basis at all. Therefore, if some students decide to "improve the gene pool" by knocking off a few fellow students, that seems good to them. That is, their actions are consistent with the teaching they received, whereas the actions of paedophile priests is inconsistent with their teaching.
Philip J. Rayment 22:24, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
That's the same thing, you said Quote "they have fewer problems, because they teach about the source of morality (i.e. God). And that the problems they do have is due to going outside that teaching." Applying that same logic, you can say that Government schools teach morality, and whenever a tragedy or trouble happens, it's because someone went outside that morality.
On another subject all together, as I stated, even Christian Debaters and Philosiphers don't always agree that God is the source of morality, for several problems arrise when using that logic. Also, your comments state that Quote "Therefore, if some students decide to "improve the gene pool" by knocking off a few fellow students, that seems good to them. That is, their actions are consistent with the teaching they received, whereas the actions of paedophile priests is inconsistent with their teaching." No serial killer ever came out and said that they were doing the right thing, and to my knowledge, none of them have ever attributed their killings to any form of Eugenics, as for the priests, I'm yet to see any Catholic literature that advocates sexual acts with minors.... and just to throw some dirt, Catholics are taught that morality comes from God as Well SirJim 16:22, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
No, it's not the same thing I said. When government schools teach that there is no absolute basis for morals (i.e. no God), and that morals are what we choose them to be (which is the logical conclusion if there is no absolute basis for them) and that we are merely evolved animals, then it is not going outside that teaching to do bad things to others.
What is wrong with the logic that God is the source of morality?
You claim that no serial killer ever said that they were doing the right thing. What you mean, is the no serial killer that you know of has ever said this. And so what if they haven't? They don't need to say it for it to be the case. But here's one example where one did:

If a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing, and I’ve since come to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is truly God, and I believe that I, as well as everyone else, will be accountable to Him. (Jeffrey Dahmer)

I don't know what you are getting at with the bit about the priests. They are clearly acting contrary to their teaching.
Philip J. Rayment 01:02, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
Andy, where did the killers in either the Columbine or Virginia Tech shootings say that anti-Christian sentiment was a motivation? TigersRoar 21:32, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
Why, what planet were you a-roarin' on, Tiger? The two Columbine killers left diaries behind in which they declared their intentions, and the motivation behind the same. So did the Virginia Tech killer. And in the Columbine case, witnesses caught this exchange between one of the killers (I think it was Klebold) and one of his victims:
  • Q. Do you believe in God?
  • A. Yes.
  • Q. Why? (followed by a point-blank shot to the victim's face)
Does that answer your question?--TerryHTalk 21:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
Not true, while that is a widely reported myth, the final investigation concluded, based on eye-witness testimony, that if that particular event happened, it was with a sutdent who survived the attacks. SirJim 22:06, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
The anti-Christian animosity is evident in the Columbine killers' writings, and in an article about the Virginia Tech killer that was discussed here after that massacre. You can find this easily on the internet. I would find it for you, if I felt you had an open mind about it. Unfortunately, I expect that you don't sincerely doubt what we are saying, but merely doubt we can prove it and want to put us to the trouble to do so. I've got higher priority objectives right now. Take a look at their writings themselves if you're genuinely interested. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 22:12, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
Just to be clear, the conversation that we had here ( http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/archive5#Anti-Christian_Zealot ) sussed out a lot of evidence that he seemed to be deranged and had bizarre religious beliefs by almost anyone's standards. That said, he seemed to think of himself as a Christian, and found himself disappointed in his religion. Granted, the things that a mass murderer finds disappointing are probably things to be embraced. Just sayin', I don't think he saw himself as outside of all religion, despising it. He seemed to see himself as religious, Christian even, but also insane and deriving poor conclusions. Aziraphale 23:37, 15 July 2007 (EDT) <-Disappointed in his dinner...
For the benefit of other readers, the above comment by Aziraphale is referring to the Virginia Tech killer, whose computer messages (likely containing hatred) continue to be withheld from the public. The Columbine investigators did release the writings of the Columbine killers, which contained anti-Christian hatred.--Aschlafly 00:58, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
Ooo, good catch. The conversation I linked to was around the time of the Virginia Tech incident, I don't think any comment in there has anything to do with Columbine, nor do I know much about the details of the Columbine incident. Aziraphale 15:22, 16 July 2007 (EDT) <-clarified for your protection...
For the record, TerryH, that was widely reported as being what Cassie Bernall said, but it was later found to be a different exchange with a different student. --ηοξιμαχονγθαλκ 01:11, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Masterpiece of the week shows exposed breasts

Is there some reason we're putting nudity on the main page? Seems inappropriate considering this resource is being used by students.--Conservateur 15:05, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Andy has stated in the past that artistic nudity (in the specific statement, he was referring to Michelangelo's David) does not merit censorship. This was, however, several months ago. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 15:15, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
There is a difference between presentation in art and in pornography, in which one merits display, and the other merits...well you know what.--Elamdri 15:58, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
I'd love to know what that difference is, because I can't see it. Philip J. Rayment 20:39, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
Same here. Xenophobia 22:21, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
There is nothing wrong with the depiction of the human body, male or female, but there is something wrong with pornography (Greek: "a record of prostitutes") and the gratuitous use of nudity purely for sexual gratification. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 05:16, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks Fox, thats exactly my thoughts.--Elamdri 06:04, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
First, what's to say that "artistic" nakedness is not "gratuitous use of nudity purely for sexual gratification", and second, who says there's "nothing wrong with the depiction of the [naked] human body, male or female"? Philip J. Rayment 06:29, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

(reset indent)I didn't say "all art is not porn" - I deliberately didn't follow that line of reasoning. As for their being nothing inherently wrong with the human body, Gen 2:25: "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed," "for shame can only arise from a consciousness of sinful or irregular conduct" (Clarke); "Their bodies were sanctified by the spirit, which animated them. Shame entered first with sin, which destroyed the normal relation of the spirit to the body, exciting tendencies and lusts which warred against the soul, and turning the sacred ordinance of God into sensual impulses and the lust of the flesh," (Keil & Delitzsch); the implication being that any sinfulness is purely in the heart and mind of the beholder. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 06:54, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Acknowledging that some art can be porn does not really answer the question. Yes, Genesis does say that they were naked and not ashamed, and I agree that it is sin that makes it shameful, but "all have sinned", so it is (should be) shameful for all. Philip J. Rayment 09:03, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
That implies that we can only sin, and have no choice in whether we sin or not. Which is not the case at all, otherwise we could all do whatever we fancied, using "original sin" and thus a preordained state of sin as our justification. I can admire great art without sinning, and I'm sure most others can too; it is the perverse and flawed mind which finds arousal in otherwise innocent expression. moreover, the blood of the Lamb cleansed us of sin; He died that we would no longer be sinful. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 09:20, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
Couldn't you also admire pornography without sinning? Couldn't you also walk around naked without sinning? Is being able to "admire great art without sinning" really the point? Philip J. Rayment 09:32, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
If it isn't the point, then what is? Pornography, incidentally, is a form of prostitution, which is considered differently. You are trying to obfuscate the argument, which is answered quite clearly above :) Either we are redeemed by the blood of Yeshua Ha Moshiach or the New Testament isn't worth the paper its printed upon. The sin is committed by the individual who takes unnatural pleasure in innocent nudity; the sin is the willful inclination, attitude and thought: just as pusuing adulterous thoughts equals adultery, pursuing thoughts about sex outside of marriage equals fornication. Those who walk in the Spirit can easily discern whether their reaction to a particular image is of innocent appreciation of form or looking "at a woman with lust for her" (Matthew 5:28) File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 09:59, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
The point is that you seem to be splitting hairs. "Pornography" is wrong because of the intentions of the person producing it. "Art" is okay if the intentions of the person viewing it is okay. That's two different rationales being applied with the effect of condemning one with one rationale and justifying the other with a different rationale. Philip J. Rayment 10:11, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
LoL, I'm not. You are. I've already stated that pornography can never be anything other than a sin because it is fornication. A painting of a naked human is not always pornographic simply on the basis that it depicts nudity - that's preposterous. Yes, some paintings are deliberately pornographic, but that doesn't mean that all paintings featuring nudity are. It's a very simple distinction, Scripturally based, as I answered above. Furthermore, one has to accept that often disapproval of nudity is a result of cultural norms/social conditioning, NOT anything that is contained within Scripture. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 11:13, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
You're confusing me. Are you saying that nothing is inherently pornographic; that it is only pornographic depending on how it is used? If so, then perhaps it's okay to stick some "pornography" on the Main Page because we aren't going to use it that way? If not, then what is the distinction between pornography and other "artistic" nudity? Philip J. Rayment 01:07, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
In the words of SCJ Potter Stewart;
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it"
Quite true. IMHO, The picture on the front page cannot reasonably be interpreted as pornography. --ηοξιμαχονγθαλκ 01:13, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
In other words, "I don't know how to explain the distinction, so just take my word for it that they are not the same thing". Sorry, but if the distinction can't be explained, perhaps there isn't one.
I'll add that this is an issue that I've never looked into to any significant extent, and during this conversation I've thought that perhaps someone will actually be able to make me realise that there is a difference. The problem is, so far it hasn't happened, which tends to reinforce my view that there is no distinction that can be made.
Philip J. Rayment 01:26, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
Fox did a good job of pointing out the distinction; pornography is produced for the sole purpose of arousing sexual feelings in the viewer. That is the distinction between pornography and "normal" art. Nudity in and of itself cannot be sinful, but a graphic depiction of sex - obscenity - is. But to say that all nudity is obscenity? That is (to use the words of Fox) preposterous. We can safely say that this painting (a very famous piece) was not produced for the sole purpose of providing sexual gratification in the viewer. Following this line of logic, I come to the conclusion that Michelangelo's David (well, a huge portion of art from the Renaissance period) should be banned for being pornographic. That is simply untrue. --ηοξιμαχονγθαλκ 01:39, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

As I said, it's getting confusing. I thought that's what Fox was saying was the definition of pornography, then I thought that he said that I had that wrong.

Can I please ask for a simple and clear definition of what makes something pornographic or not. Is it, for example, according to the intentions of the person producing the material, the person viewing the material, or what?

But responding to more of your message, part of your argument is simply state your beliefs as being self-evidently true ("this is simply untrue"), which, if was the case, would not be giving me reason to question. I'm asking for reasons, not bland statements.

Philip J. Rayment 02:01, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Spin

I fail to see how Edwards comments, wrong as they may be, can even come close to suggesting that the Democrats rig the election. He said that we should narrow down the candidates.... How much circular reasoning and spin does it take to infer rigging out of that? SirJim 15:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
When I was stationed in Florida during the 2000 election the Democrats tried (and failed, fortunately), to throw out every overseas military ballot that came in. That's called rigging, SirJim. Karajou 21:08, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Irony, anybody?

After reading the posts here I started laughing. I genuinely found it funny that there seem to be more liberal and openminded people here then what we would call American "conservatives." I checked what this wiki had to say on Conservativism as an ideology and political philosophy and it did not mention the so-called father of conservativism Edmund Burke, who rather eloquently put forward a view that stated that Man has a responsibility both to his past and his progeny and that the wide-eyed and idealistic Socialists and Communists of the Ninteeth Century in their support of violent and widespread revolution were being rash. True conservativsm in itself does not reject change or discriminate against people based on if they like boys or girls (or whatever, god knows people like some weird things), but rather states that man needs the framework of government to keep order and in pursuance of that belief it is unfair to flip the table over and start a new game of cards, becuase that new game can be quite violent (re: anarchy and not the peaceful kind). I find it APPALLING that no mention of Burke is on the Conservative page of Conservapedia and find it funny how narrowminded American "Conservativsm" has become. The bible is not a series of historical accuracies but rather a book contaning metaphorical stories that are supposed to teach a lesson. The message in the Creation Story is not that the world is 6000 years old, but rather that humans are flawed and our lives from birth are a struggle to overcome the evils the plague all of us, with an added realization that there is something greater than all of us. These are things that I think it is easy to see in life and the Creation Story is simply one metaphor out of the thousands for teaching this to us.

Please people, think. This being said I would like to hear what some other people have to say about the lack of actucal conservativsm on Conservapedia and the twisted wretch that conservativism has become in America.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rollon067 (talk)

Just picking up on one point: What makes you think that the creation story is a metaphor? Jesus didn't think so. Philip J. Rayment 23:59, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
I picked up a book about the conservative movement and looked in the index for (Irishman) Edmund Burke and did not fine a single reference to him. I rarely hear a conservative invoke his work in a speech or essay. Perhaps the neoconservatives like to cite him, but Burke has little enduring influence on conservativism in America.--Aschlafly 01:07, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
Conservatives don't quote him saying, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."??? :-) Philip J. Rayment 01:28, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
Ah, that is a great quote. I've quoted him myself for that!!! Thank God for Burke's insight there.--Aschlafly 01:30, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

This is sort of a ramble, but there's a positive message, here. There's no reason not to cover basics of historical conservativism on this project, so let's get busy! AManInBlack 15:14, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

What I was trying to say about the bible is that it was written in a time when scientific discoveries of the present day were not made, so fantastic explinations were dreamed up by humans for various things. We see this in every ancient culture from the Greeks to the Hebrews, and as we as a species come to understand the world around us these stories no longer have literal meaning but often retain their moral value. Jesus lived 2000 years ago with the knowledge that was avaliable to him at the time and by all accounts he was an ordinary man who attempted to reform Judaeism and who's legacy was heavily embellished starting about fifty years after his death by followers that had never met him (we call those writings our Gospels). As we discover that Jesus was not a mythological godlike figure but rather a man with a great grasp on human nature, perhaps religion will be weakened but the power of his parables as pertain to our lives will not be.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rollon067 (talk)


"fantastic explinations were dreamed up by humans for various things": That is your belief, based on your worldview that rejects the Bible as authoritative. So you (a) reject the Bible as authoritative, then (b) explain Biblical explanations as "dreamed up", then (c) use that to argue that the Bible is wrong. Sorry, but that's a circular argument.
"as we as a species come to understand the world around us these stories no longer have literal meaning": Something can't have a literal meaning one day and not have it the next day. If they once had a literal meaning, they still do, whether they are correct or not.
"Jesus lived 2000 years ago with the knowledge that was avaliable to him at the time ...": Only true if you first of all assume that Jesus was not the all-knowing God, and the Creator of the world. Again, you are begging the question.
"...by all accounts he was an ordinary man...": Blatantly, obviously, clearly, wrong! You might believe that He was an ordinary man, and you might be able to find other accounts claiming that He was an ordinary man, but it is simply not true to claim that He was an ordinary man "by all accounts" when the main account in question—the Bible—specifically says otherwise!
"...who's legacy was heavily embellished starting about fifty years after his death by followers that had never met him ...": And the evidence for this is...?
"we call those writings our Gospels": Three of those Gospels were written by his disciples, i.e. they knew him personally. The critics (such as you and whomever you got this nonsense from), however, lived around 2000 years after his death. Hmmm.
"As we discover that Jesus was not a mythological godlike figure...": Hooray! You finally said something that I agree with! True, He was not mythological! Nor "godlike"—He was not like God, he is God.
"... but rather a man with a great grasp on human nature, perhaps religion will be weakened but the power of his parables as pertain to our lives will not be.": So if much of what He said and of what is said about Him in the Bible is wrong, why should we take any notice of His parables? No, this is a typical argument pretending to respect the structure of Christianity whilst undermining its foundations. Yet it is so obvious, I wonder why you bother.
Philip J. Rayment 01:22, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Russian royal family "executed"

This use of the term 'executed' is becoming all too common in the media (terrorist threats to 'execute' hostages, etc. etc). I thought execution was the imposition of the death penalty after at least some form of due process by a state-sanctioned authority (leaving aside the question of whether the death penalty itself is justifiable, or is just or unjust in particular cases). To use the term 'executed' as a synonym for 'murdered' muddies the language, and conveys some sort of justification or authorisation for the murderers. The Tsar's family was murdered; Ken Bigley was murdered; all the victims of terrorism over the past years were murdered. Not executed, murdered. Pachyderm 05:20, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Valid point! Not suicide bombers, but Homicide Bombers. The details count. Done. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 05:51, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, TK. Pachyderm 05:58, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

As they were killed by order of Lenin, execute is the correct term. Your definition of "execute" is flawed. Execute means "to kill in a planned fashion", not necessarily to kill following a trial. Murder implies some form of randomness, execute implies the cold blooded and deliberate nature of the killing. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 06:23, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Regardless, please put your petty upset with me aside, and don't be taking it out on editors, okay? I believe most people, would say they were murdered, which implies more prejudice than execute. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 06:52, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
I think I agree with Fox on "executed" (the news sometimes talks about an "execution-style killing"), but not so readily on "murdered". That is, perhaps he is correct in saying that it implies some form or randomness, but I would define "murder" as killing of someone innocent, random or otherwise. Philip J. Rayment 07:58, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page/archive16&oldid=237571"