Last modified on October 3, 2007, at 04:53

Talk:Main Page/archive26

Return to "Main Page/archive26" page.

"General Betray Us"

Let me get this straight... Congress voted to force MoveOn to remove that ad from their site? What ever happened to the 1st Amendment? Do we not still have free speech? I don't care how right or wrong the general or our government is, you can say what you want about them. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." PhilipB 11:14, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Philip, Congress didn't force them to remove that ad. Congress used their freedom of speech to condemn for smearing a military commander during a time of war. That's not abridging their freedom of speech, as despicable as it is. --Crocoite 11:27, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
(Edit conflict) If I understand correctly, it was a resolution, not a law. So the Senate officially said "shame on you" but they didn't stop MoveOn from doing anything. You rightly point out that it would be incredibly wrong squash their speech. ("I may not agree with what you have to say but I will fight to the death your right to say it").
Unfortunately, it seems as if all the press (and the Senate action) has only helped MoveOn. Granted, it has also helped to realign the Republican party, even some anti-war Republicans, but on the day that the Senate passed the resolution, MoveOn got a half a million dollars in donations. In one day! Unfortunately it seems this is the avenue our political discourse is going down these days.... HelpJazz 11:31, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
Thank goodness! PhilipB 13:11, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

I think the Senate simply wasted their time and others time. I mean, I strongly oppose the war in Iraq and have done from the very start, but the emphasis here seems to be away from providing for the troops risking their lives over there and concentrated on protesting against a silly add. No wonder the US Congress has only an 11% approval rating. Graham 13:14, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Graham, whatever the liberals do or say is ok with you right? Smearing a military commander during a time of war is ok with you too, right? You ignore the progress being made in Iraq, right? You like the policy of Retreat and Defeat... don't you? You don't think the 11% rating has anything to do with the Democrats being in charge and accomplishing little if anything? --Crocoite 14:28, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
First of all, he didn't say any of that. Why are you putting words in his mouth? Second of all, the low congressional approval rating is due entirely to the fact that Congress is filled with politicians, and politicians, almost by definition, are liars. Their approval rating is low, as it almost always is, because they make promises they can't keep in order to get elected. This is nothing new. --BillOhannity 15:59, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Hi Crocite,

I actually didn't say any of those things. I believe that protesting against someones constitutional right to free speech when there is a war going on with equipment shortages and other plight which soldiers need dealing with is just moronic. I think the troops who are over there by no will of their own deserve as much support as possible, and wasting time like this in the houses of government is nothing short of an outrage. Of course, your entitled to believe what you want to believe also. Graham 16:36, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Graham, of course you didn't say those things; however, I believe your answers would be yes to all except the last one. Let me know if you feel otherwise.
What? "troops who are over there by no will of their own". Last time I checked this was a volunteer military. When I was in the military, we trained for war. The US military is not trained to be UN peacekeepers. --Crocoite 17:12, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

I have already made my feelings on the war clear, Crocite. In fact I specifically stated that I strongly oppose it. The Surge that Petraues reported noted some improvements in Baghdad but the country as a whole is a complete mess. Many parts of Iraq are completely out of the control of the government. It is in effect a collapsed state.

My feelings on's add is generally one of apathy. I don't care what they wrote about in an American Newspaper. Last I checked, writing what you want in a free press is exactly the sort of thing that marks a democracy from a dictatorship. Nothing has stopped an opposing group from posting a rebuttal add. In many ways, it is a beautiful, mind-boggling thing that people can do this in the national press when we compare this to what is happening in Burma as we speak.

I know you mean well, but personally I feel that the Senate has more important things to spend its time on that criticising what some leftist group posted in a newspaper. Providing for the troops would be a start.

Also, the troops are over there by no will of their own (In that, its hardly their fault that they were packed off to a war in a distant land). US troops are sent to war to protect the US Constitution, in effect. What happens when the US government decides to criticise something boldly stated in its first Amendment? Not only are they wasting the countries time, they are betraying the very principles the US military stand for. Graham 18:32, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Graham, you are so full of liberal talking points (the country as a whole is a complete mess, the troops are over there by no will of their own). Stop repeating liberal talking points and ignoring the positive results in Iraq. Here's the real results at Defend America. Check out a few examples from September 2007:
The liberal media won't report the positive results in Iraq because they are invested in Retreat and Defeat. I refuse to believe their liberal propoganda. --Crocoite 19:25, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Stop candying Liberal around like that... It just looks stupid.

No-one is denying that there is some progress going on, but that progress is been overshadowed by daily bombing attacks and an incompetant government. In fact the level of progress compared to the level of regress is much smaller. Schemes and programmes similar to the ones you mention were abundant in the Northern Ireland Troubles - that doesn't mean to say that the level of progress bettered the level of regress. Margaret Thatcher managed to get a car company into Belfast creating 600 jobs once; the ironic thing was though that an IRA bomb destroyed a flour mill in the other side of the city destroying over a thousand jobs. Let this be a little parable to your logic. Graham 19:55, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

P.S- Liberal talking points? Just get to the point of my argument rather than dandy words around like that. I'll not respond otherwise. Graham 20:09, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Graham, thank your for promising to not respond further here. To do otherwise would be a deceit. Now you will get your wished for block, very soon, I am certain, and can go back to the home of deceit and write it all up. I do aim to please. Godspeed! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 05:53, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Liberal Democrats shouldn't even bother claiming to not be anti-military anymore, especially if they're one of the twenty-five in the Senate that voted to not condemn -MikeZoeller 23:16, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

TK, I only said I would not respond if he continued to dandy the word 'Liberal' around like he did. I'm trying to make an effort here, I would appreciate a little less paranoia. Graham 09:07, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Graham, sometimes a bit of humor goes a long way....sorry mine fell flat. I respect the way you handle yourself in these give and takes. The only paranoia I have currently has to do with the Home Depot, and their continually loosing a special order of mine....they don't know I know it's on purpose they are doing this. I suspect a banned user works at their order desk.....;-) -- --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 06:37, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Thats ok TK, but when a sysop threatens to ban you the natural reaction is defensive! :-) Graham 06:49, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Sorry you thought that. I had no intention, actually, just figured one of my brethren would be doing it. :p Go get some rest! Your posts on other pages are cranky. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 07:11, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, I suppose your right buddy. I've gave up cigarettes yesterday - this is day No. 2. I'm about to go nuts but thanks for bearing with me. Graham 07:16, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Myanmar mobs and police

This statement is unsupported by the sources supplied. Also, the statement "Liberals like to pretend that countries friendly to the United States are more anti-democratic than they really are." is false. It makes it sound like the military regime that is being protested against is a U.S. allies, when we actually have sanctions against the regime that is known to be anti-democratic. --UPOD 11:29, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Wow! If what it says on the front page is true, Bush must really be wrong! He's been urging sactions against the Myanmar government, and here they were friendly to the US all along! We all know how traditionally violent Buddhist monks are. Maestro 11:37, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Does anyone know if this same type of behavior has been documented by Christian clergy? Just a thought. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 11:43, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Contrary to the American tradition, in East Asia protests often involve deliberately staged clashes between protestors and riot police. Western news media often omit this aspect and downplay the strategy of protestors, in order to imply falsely that a peaceful protest was suddenly and inexplicably turned into an atrocious violation of human rights. Liberals like to pretend that countries friendly to the United States are more anti-democratic than they really are.

As a result of this truly stupid, racist and pointless hatred, I am officially removing myself from this website. Words cannot express how disappointed I am. How a traditionally non-violent, pro democratic movement can be lambasted right now in the fact of a horrendous bunch of thugs like the BURMA MILITARY JUNTA is absolutely disgusting. I'm hoping other reasonable members like myself will now remove themselves from this place in light of this savage front page 'news' item. I have never been more disgusted in my whole life. The hypocrist of that statement is enough to make my stomach explode - I suppose Saddam was alright until he turned his back against you? Nations which are friendly to the US but are horrible human rights violaters are OK? Whoever put that notice up has made me literally sick, I actually threw up in disgust when I saw that. Graham 11:51, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

And I will not return until that stupid news entry is taken down. I'm sorry, but this is an issue very personal for me. Graham 11:54, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

The original poster of this probably wouldn't be able to locate Burma on a map, never mind come up to the conclusion that it is a democracy. I believe the user was 'Conservative', and if this is the case I would call on everyone here to remove themselves from any conversations with this man until he can learn to control his idiotic hatred of all things Liberal (Apparantly supporting democracy is now a Liberal expression) Graham 11:59, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

My apologies to User:Conservative, it has now become clear that Edpoor has made the newspage entry. Edpoor should be stripped from his admin powers, if not banned completely. Graham 13:27, 26 September 2007 (EDT) I'm... extremely shocked by the spin currently posted on the Main Page.
Going with the linked sources:
At one point, a crowd of about 400 - about half of them monks - split from the main demonstration and tried unsuccessfully to approach the home where Suu Kyi, 62, is under house arrest.


On Saturday, more than 500 monks and sympathizers were allowed to walk to the house, where Suu Kyi greeted them in her first public appearance in more than four years. The meeting symbolically linked the current protests to the Nobel laureate's struggle for democracy, which has seen her detained for about 12 of the last 18 years.

But any optimism was tempered yesterday when government security forces, who had kept a low profile for the past few days, deployed to block the new march to Suu Kyi's house.


The crowd of about 400 people abandoned their bid peacefully yesterday to get to Suu Kyi's gate after being turned back at two approaches blocked by barbed-wire barricades.

At least four people were killed and 100 injured Wednesday as Myanmar's security forces clamped down on anti-government protests led by Buddhist monks, according to officials and witnesses.

About 200 people were also arrested, as many as half of them Buddhist monks, as soldiers and police cracked down on tens of thousands of protesters who swept across Myanmar's commercial hub Yangon, according to witnesses and diplomats.


Monks have lead nine straight days of anti-government protests in Yangon and other cities around the country, but Wednesday was the first day that security forces tried to violently break up the crowds.

Police used batons and teargas, sometimes firing warning shots over the crowd to disperse the protesters.

But throughout the day, the protesters regrouped, returning to taunt the security forces and sometimes throwing rocks, with as many as 100,000 people in the streets around the city, according to witnesses.

Notice something? The first source does mention the "400" number, but doesn't say ANYTHING about violence. In fact, it stresses that they "abandoned their bid peacefully yesterday". The second source only says that 100 were injured (plus the dead ones) and that 200 (half of them monks) were arrested. Nowhere does it say that those people broke out to attack the police. In fact, the article says that the police used teargas and batons "to violently break up the crowds" and that the rock throwing only happened sometimes as they regrouped.
Put plainly, I'm disgusted. Is this sort of spin "conservative" or even "Christian"? --Jenkins 13:44, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
Update: I notice that Graham received a 1-day block because of this by Ed. The irony is stunning. --Jenkins 13:46, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Graham, I blocked you for 1 day, because of your personal attack. The tradition around here - unlike at other projects like Wikipedia - is to discuss changes you don't like. Hyperbole about throwing up and suggestions of desysopping add nothing to the discussion.

It's better to point out the errors than to attack the person who makes the error: this is a principle of democracy as well as a custom of this encyclopedia project.

If you want to make the point that Bush put sanctions in place, than discuss that - either here or at talk:Myanmar. Errors can be corrected, but personal attacks are hard to "undo".

The issue is whether the "peaceful march" turned violent. The partisan question hanging on this issue is "who struck the first blow?" Did the monks and/or their escorts provoke the police in any way? If so, was the police response to the provocation out of the ordinary for Burmese culture?

Another issue is whether this was merely a peace march or more of an attempt to overthrow the government. Not that I support dictatorships, but to profess outrage that an attempt to overthrow a government resulted in a few deaths seems odd to me. Revolution is a battle; casualties are expected. --Ed Poor Talk 13:50, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

This does not address the problems with the news headline. Stating that the monks attacked the police is still unsupported by the sources provided. --UPOD 14:01, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Myanmar officials said at least three monks were killed, including one who was shot as he tried to wrestle a gun away from a soldier. (Yahoo News)

Who did what to whom is important, as well as the order of events. Were the monks and other protesters completely non-violent? Or did they respond to police violence with defensive action? Or did they initiate violent encounters?

We have the Yahoo account of trying to take a gun from a soldier - generally considered a violent act - I think if an American tried to take a cop's gun in New York, he'd face a "violent" police response. --Ed Poor Talk 14:07, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

And what about the unsourced statement that the clash was deliberately staged by the government? You can't praise regime change in Iraq and condemn it in Myanmar. Then again, it's your site, I guess you can. Maestro 14:17, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

I agree that there's an enormous amount of spin in this news item. There's a difference between holding a conservative point of view, and shoving a conservative point of view down someone's throat.ConserveATory 14:39, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
I've not been very active here for a while, but I've got to say that story is really ghastly. It's a complete distortion.--British_cons (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

This is a fascinating discussion, something that puts Conservapedia above Wikipedia. My initial reaction is that the liberals seem to protest too much about the Main Page, even falsely accusing the wrong person of posting it. Also, I've just learned something I didn't know before: that foreign protest clashes are often staged purely for publicity purposes, unlike most protests in the United States. It makes me interested in reexamining the ugly WTO protest confrontations in the United States that had heavy foreign involvement.--Aschlafly 15:08, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

So wait...why would they stage something that made the government look bad? The world is watching, wouldn't it make more sense to stage something with a lot of dead soldiers rather than some dead protesters? Are why are we defending a government that would stage something like that? And where, exactly, did you 'just learn' that? Curious. Maestro 15:14, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
I hate to say this, but if you "learned" something that is unsubstantiated, doesn't that end up making you a victim of deceit?ConserveATory 15:16, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
What I find worst is the way all of these poor Burmese people are being used for cheap point-scoring. Still, no change there! By the way, if anyone's interested, there's some interesting, but depressing, stuff here. The case for the genocide of the Karen and others by the SPDC and Tatmadaw there is quite strong. --SayaSan

Moved from user talk:Ed Poor

The news section is better now, but I can still only get a reference for that rifle thing - and even that's a traditional ahimsa technique (a lot of Buddhist 'martial arts' are actually about disarming without hurting). --Wikinterpreter

"Disarming without hurting" is for a "bad vs. good" clash, where an assailant (the bad guy) is attacking you (the good guy). If you are taking part in an anti-government protest that has gone on for 9 days, and the police finally tell you to disperse, and you try to disarm a cop - how is that "disarming an assailant"? It's more like a revolutionary act, a political act. It's a far cry from taking away a mugger's knife.
Going up to a cop and taking away his rifle is not "disarming an opponent" in the traditional martial arts sense; it's not a defensive move in response to an attack. It's theft (at best), and a provocative act. It's an assault. It's violent. --Ed Poor Talk 16:05, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, but this brings a whole new meaning to the 'wuh?' factor. These police have already attacked the monks for peaceful protest. They've already used tear gas, and baton charges against people who were peacefully protesting. Also, if you wanted, we could go into how actually, it's the SPDC who are anti-government, what with having lost the election to the NLD, and, with the judiciary having been suspended ever since, they technically are still the government, with Sein Win as Prime Minister, but that's another debate ;-). Also, what he said below. --SayaSan
I'm happy to see that the news item got reworded (it could be better, but I guess this is as good as it gets - open doubt is better than simply blaming the monks and making up numbers), even though the "Maybe it's staged" thing that remained is unsourced opinion and an extremely strong claim in connection to this escalation.
About the rifle wrestling, it's very possible that the protester simply wanted to yank it away because he would have been shot otherwise. If a cop aimed at you with a rifle for no good reason, and you were in close range, you would most likely try to disarm him, too. (Yes, it would be violent, but what are the alternatives in such a situation?) Just a thought to show a different possible scenario.
However, I must complain about blocking both me and Graham (who will be blocked for another 22 hours or so) for protesting against obviously wrong news. I admit that I came over strongly, but I made PLENTY good points and did not try to "appeal to emotion". But I could live with the block if you didn't pretend to be interested in collaboration and discussion. Blocking me doesn't exactly make it easier for me to fix your stuff, nor does it make for a good incentive.
But what angers me the most is Andy going all "This discussion puts us above Wikipedia! And I learned so much from some completely unsourced claim!". I can't help but shake my head. Handling a discussion by blocking the first two people with strong points and then pretending to be interested in cooperation is low. Very low. I don't think this would have happened on Wikipedia. --Jenkins 16:16, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
I'm not suicidal. If a cop aimed a gun at me - and I didn't know why, which would almost certainly be the case - I would very slowly raise my hands and start to back away.
Trying to disarm a cop in the middle of riot - where presumably other cops are around - sounds like a quick way to go to one's eternal reward.
Anyway, we need to separate out the ends and the means. The consensus seems to be that the "good guys" are the protesters. But my question is about methods, not about the merit of the sides. Are the monks and their friends merely staging a peaceful protest? Are police firing into crowds for no good reason? Is this a repeat of what happened a decade ago?
To be trustworthy, we should neither condemn the government forces in a knee-jerk way, nor praise them unconditionally.
I'm still waiting for the first constructive suggestion about the news item. How about someone helping me with the wording? Try creating a new article at March in Myanmar - wherever you put your version, I'll see it in Recent changes. --Ed Poor Talk 16:32, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
Constructive advice: remove the entire last paragraph of the Myanmar news item.ConserveATory 17:55, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps some quotes from the State Department Religious Freedom Reports 2005 [1] will help put the Conservative back in Conservapedia:Christian persecution is occuring... PhilMcAvity 17:07, 26 September 2007 (EDT)


I've noticed a lot of gossip in many key articles associated with the left wing (Democratic Presidential Candidates, Environmentalism, atheism etc.) such as Obama been called a Marxist Leftist by Tom DeLay, this was presented as fact and not gossip. In fact, I though Schalfy prided himself at the lack of gossip here. I guess this could be a good example of Conservative Deceit. Graham 10:50, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Just because Liberals hate the truth does not mean they should not see it.(ErstBlenchPoet 16:35, 23 September 2007 (EDT))

Oh come on. Do you really believe Obama and say, Khruschev can even be compared??? Thats obscene. Gossip should not be included in an encylopedia, and even worse, that same said encyclopedia shouldn't boast that it doesn't have any gossip when it clearly has. Its endemic in a lot of articles. Graham 16:41, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

I don't care if he did or not. The fact of the matter is that Obama isn't a Leftist Marxist. What DeLay said is irrelevant to Obama - adding it in to the biography of the next president of the United States *cough* is gossip. It's like mentioning in the Margaret Thatcher article that Gerry Adams once called her a 'she-witch'. Its irrelevant. Graham 09:58, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

  • That's just Gerry trying to explain why Mrs T was up and about at 3am when the IRA (to which he had no affiliation WHATSOEVER, for all you lawyers out there watching this) tried to murder her in her bed. :-) -- Ferret Nice old chat 02:53, 25 September 2007 (EDT)


Multiple things

Didn't feel like making multiple sections since these are minor things:

  1. "backpeddle" does not appear to be a word. Maybe try "backpedal" instead.
  2. Google results: Googling for "liberal" makes CP appear at the bottom of page one for me, NOT at #2. It's possible that Google results vary, depending on region and possibly Google account settings. (I won't go into the issue of why CP is ranked so high...)
  3. Related to that section: I think the "Welcome to the future. [...] National Enquirer of the internet." part belongs to the Wikipedia section, not the NYT one.
  4. The "not one pageview for gossip" claim is extremely strong. I would go as far as saying that it's impossible to prove. And even if you manage to do so (possibly by bending the definition of "gossip" to suit your needs), I'm willing to bet that thousands (or even millions) of pageviews were for mockery and entertainment. You are of course free to make the claim (I have pretty much given up the hope that posting here actually causes change), but I just felt like noting that it appears to be over the top and paints a slightly... erm... unrealistic picture.
  5. The Economy is (still) Good, as is evident because Apple slashed its iPhone prices by $200 to make it more affordable. (see a section a bit above this one)

Even if you disagree with some/most of my points (I'm sure somebody will), I at least hope that the typo gets corrected. --Jenkins 16:42, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. --Ed Poor Talk 19:10, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to respond to Jenkins' lines...

  • "Backpeddle" is wrong, and should be corrected.
  • I agree that Google results vary over time. What was number 1 yesterday could be number 10 tomorrow.
  • Wikipedia is the "National Enquirer of the internet", and that is because of the low quality of writing from its many editors, as well as its continued inclusion of articles meant to slander or lie. As to the New York Times, well, these days that paper isn't much better. Maybe we could petition the many supermarket chains to include the NYT in an honored place at the checkout line along side the "Enquirer" and the "Weekly World News" and the "Globe".
  • As for mockery and entertainment or plain reading, nobody knows what the other guy is doing or thinking on the other side of the computer screen, unless he or she tells us. And since we are on record as having in excess of 24 million page views, I don't see a similar number of statements from 24 million individuals on the internet pertaining to viewing Conservapedia for "mockery and entertainment".
  • Yes, the economy is still good, but I won't get an iPhone.

Not much to disagree with after all! Karajou 07:32, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Masterpiece of the week

Our "Masterpiece of the week" is at present number 5 in Google among 46,200! The Getty Center is number 4. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:40, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Clintons kill negative story in magazine

See and . SkipJohnson 16:07, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm Done

I have tried to be a productive contributor to this project, but I just read the straw that broke the camel's back. The main page (and its author) have the audacity to claim that the murder of Matthew Shepard was not motivated by hatred of gay people. What?! Are you honestly that obtuse?

This wiki is the most ignorant, unscientific, biased, spun, derogatory and shameful pretender to the cause of human knowledge that I have ever encountered. You people are poisoning the minds of children with falsehoods and lies. You present fables and mythology as facts and ignore any credible or rational information that contradicts your fabricated "reality". You exist in a bubble that you are only able to maintain by hawkishly censoring information that does not conform to your naive world view.

It is abundantly clear to me that this project has no interest in furthering the cause of human knowledge. You do not seek new information about reality. You seek to reinforce (in whatever feeble manner you can) the reality you want to exist. In the world of academia, this wiki is akin to a child who cannot cope with an unpleasant situation and responds by sticking his fingers in his ears, closing his eyes tight, and humming while slowly rocking back and forth. You believe that by denying reality, you can somehow make it go away.

I will no longer be contributing to this wiki. I will content myself to sit back and observe while laughing at the ridiculous statements and manufactured "truths" you so blindly adhere to. You can rest assured that I, and others, will voraciously monitor your dangerous activities on this site and post them for an intelligent audience on [censored], under my username [censored] (which also happened to be my original username on this wiki before it was banned).

You are not fooling anyone. Your page views rise steadily, but I assure you that the majority of those page views are people who come to stare at your articles in disbelief while thinking to themselves, "They can't be serious!" I weep for the children whose lives you are ruining with this disgrace. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Goodbye.--Porthos 15:44, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Yeah, like we didn't know who you were/are already! All you said in your rant is that you used lots of deceit which is typical of Liberal Deceit LMAO! Godspeed to you! Bye. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 16:07, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
    • I'm beginning to question your maturity TK.ConserveATory 16:10, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
Bye too, Porthos...I'm gonna miss you! As he indicated above, he reserves the right to lie, distort, and deceive in an effort to stop our own rights to free speech. He proves our point. Karajou 16:11, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
I suspect that no one will be disappointed to hear this news. Good riddance, I say.--Conservateur 16:58, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
  • "You people are poisoning the minds of children"
  • "You people..." Who do you think you're talking to? Don't be using that racist language here. You sound just like Ross Perot. [2] Rob Smith 18:02, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Could you support your claim that they are conservaphobic? Many would argue that Conservapedia is not simply 'conservative', but 'ultra-conservative' (Me included) Personally I have an opposition to extremism, and I'm guessing they do too. Graham 08:13, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Could you support your claim that you do not come from the opposite extreme?
In any event:
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Senator Barry Goldwater, R-AZ.--TerryHTalk 09:38, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
In case you've never heard it:
A witty saying proves nothing
Voltaire- basically saying "don't resort to quotes in a discussion". ConserveATory 10:30, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
I think that ive just found conclusive evidence that TK, Rob Smith, Conservateur, and Karajou are all liberals!
6. concealing one's liberal views rather than admitting them
8. pretending to know more than he does; Isaac Newton admitted that he knew almost nothing, yet a liberal rarely admits that and often pretends to know more than he does
11. insistence on having the last word in a discussion or debate
12. over-reliance on mockery
28. dismissing legitimate criticism as "a joke"
and in TK's case, 10. preference for obscenity and profanity (lmAo)
Ban them all, Andy! NickJ10 18:11, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

I've had enough

I came across a realisation a few days ago that the vast majority of you are parodists.

In this list I count:

  • TerryH (I've never seen somebody so pompous and so wrong at the same time)
  • Aschlafy (You have this certain aura of smugness around you that is suffocating, and 90% of your posts seem to mention in some manner 'Liberal Deceit', 'Liberals this', 'Wah wah wah why won't everyone do what I want you are all librulz..')
  • Ed Poor (Man you are too dumb for mention. Not even considering the Burma mishap, you regularly wander into articles to insert your hatred. What is a Liberal Bias anyway? At least try to be neutral in language. Twist the facts to suit your agenda if you want, but some of the language in the articles here just looks like a sexually frustrated 40 year old virgin wrote them)
  • Karajou (You just keep reading the bible literally, you idiot)
  • Crocite (Another one of these people that loves to say Liberal in between oxygen breaks)
  • RobS (This is one person I would never let my sister get near)
  • Conservative (Methinks the lady does protest too much with the constant insults of homosexuals. You might get a girlfriend Conservative. Someday.)

With all this in mind, I find it desperately hard to believe that you lot are not striking intellectuals, making these caricatures of the extreme religious right. On the off chance you are genuine people, and not elaborate hoaxes, then I feel sorry for you. Honestly.

You mention this 25 million page view figure all the time, but you must know at this stage that the vast majority of the these people visit to laugh at the likes of Kangeroo, Evolution, Homosexuality etc. This is self evident by the lack of edits made here! Every day I check here, its the same old creeps editing the same old articles.

I'm away for a nice hot bath, and maybe a few pints this evening with a few friends, because honestly, I cannot see how any of you judgemental wankers can truly be happy living this lie. Online. Graham 13:13, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

And just for the record before you nuts start dandying 'Liberal Deceit' around, I never denied who and what I was; A Liberal with strong misgivings about this place who wanted to check it out before passing judgement. Well I have, and quite frankly I am amazed by the ridiculousness of some of your opinions. This by the way is not an ideological thing; Its related to your insistence that this rubbish be treated to children. A generation of children who even resemble you is enough to give me nightmares for the rest of my life. Graham 13:21, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

The only problem this "editor" had was trying, and failing, to force his own nightmarish views on children. No wonder we have violence and learning problems in our public's by people like him! Karajou 13:44, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Exactly what one would expect from a member of the Homosexual conspiracy, a godless soul so incensed to have found enlightened Conservatives who can and do challenge the discredited Liberal talking points you use, so full of deceit. I can only wish you Godspeed, Graham! Should you ever come to the realization that your ideas are just a discredited re-hash of old Communist Conspiracy babble, you would be welcomed back. Unlike liberals, we don't hold grudges or resort to the type of nasty, highly personal attacks on those we disagree with, as you do. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 13:45, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
Graham, in looking to find any intelligence in your edits here, I found this contribution by you:
Robin was a heartless socialist, taking the wealth of the rich and redistributing it among the lazy poor. He also had scant regard for law and order, constantly undermining the statutes and the common law system prevalent under Medieval England.
Perhaps this site is above you. Maybe you'd be more at home watching Comedy Central instead?--Aschlafly 13:52, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
And I'll continue to read that Bible literally. It's the only book that gives a lot of people comfort. And, for quite a few people, fits! Karajou 14:19, 29 September 2007 (EDT)