Talk:Main Page/archive95

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

TV item on Main Page

Numerous things wrong with this item...the cited article does not imply that people are using Conservapedia as opposed to TV; possible correlation does not imply causation. Also, shouldn't the "content free" American Idol be removed from the list of best conservative television shows? TimothyAWallace 14:57, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

I'm going to have to agree. Yes we'de like them to be going to us, but saying they absolutly are is a bit of a stretch. --SeanS 15:59, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
Conservapedia has seen a remarkable uptick in readership in recent months, while the Hollywood values industry is obviously no longer able to keep up. The corresponding increase in conservative words only confirms the trend. Deny this and lose all credibility. LloydR 16:18, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
^What? --SeanS 17:11, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
There's nothing wrong with the headline. Television is losing its relevancy, and some viewers are shifting to Conservapedia. The television audience is declining; Conservapedia's is growing. Welcome to the future here.--Andy Schlafly 17:24, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

I think the problem here is that people can't see the forest for the trees. At the moment, Conservapedia doesn't have as large an audience as television; therefore, the headline must be wrong. Of course, I'm sure radio listeners said the same thing when television first came along. "Television doesn't have as large an audience as radio; therefore, it's not in a position to overtake radio!" Of course, as we all know, that turned out to be false. The history of communication is one of more efficient and reliable media replacing older, less reliable ones. When you take into account the top-heavy and bureaucratic nature of the mainstream media's heirarchy, as compared to the leaner, meaner, more responsive nature of a meritocratic medium driven by the best of the public, can there be any doubt that the trend will continue? --Benp 17:45, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
Because the wording makes it look like your making a grandiose boast about how legions of people are shifting from TV to here, as opposed to the much more practical "some" statement you made here. And please don't use page view amounts, they are not a reliable source of "whos here because they actually want to improve or learn" and "whose here to laugh at people here or vandalize"--SeanS 18:10, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
I have only recently started reading Conservapedia, and one of the main reasons I continue to do so is because it cuts the wheat from the chaff - TV is 95% chaff and I don't have the time to sift through it. And SeanS, as you are unable to grasp basic spelling and grammar, I doubt your ability to analyse the shift away from TV towards places such as conservapedia... JacksonB 18:48, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
-notes the lack of spelling or noticeable grammar errors and therefor throws your insult from the record- --SeanS 19:18, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
Sean: "your making"; ""whos here"; ""whose here" (you wanted "who's here") No problem. LloydR 19:20, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
Three instances do not at all reveal somebody's intelligence or reasoning skills. You shouldn't be so quick to assume somebody is "capable of holding this discussion."
The headline is accurate. I suspect the real objection may not be to the wording of the headline, but to the reality of what is happening. I'm sure horse-and-buggy types were critical of the automobile too. The future is in sites that deliver more content, more truth, more interactive ability, and more efficient learning - as Conservapedia does and television does not. Don't fight the future, but welcome it.--Andy Schlafly 19:35, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
Then block it, revert it, and burn the page just like Conservapedia, right Andy? Your hubris is astounding.GregoryY 19:59, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
Actually, i dont watch TV all that often so... it's hard to be in denial. --SeanS 20:59, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
I don't see the point of the above two comments in connection with the issue of this discussion topic.--Andy Schlafly 21:14, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
The one above mine is most likely a troll. Mine was in relation to saying the objection was out of dislike of the actual event. I still maintain that the current wording makes a more grandiose statement then what is currently happening. --SeanS 21:34, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
What do you think is happening, if not people fleeing television to find more content and less political correctness on the internet, including Conservapedia?--Andy Schlafly 21:58, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
Books? Tv on the internet? video games? Movies? other internet sites for taking up time? The internets pretty big, and most people have never heard of this website. --SeanS 22:23, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
Nope. Books are declining just as television is. And increased traffic here doesn't result from fewer people hearing about this website.--Andy Schlafly 23:36, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
Nor does it imply new people are visiting here in large numbers (or how many stay either, a trait true to most websites). There seems to be a steady stream of vandal accounts, and apparently many people blocked out (and who dislike this website) can view again. so we can't really rely on page-views. as i mentioned before, it doesnt tell the difference between legitimate users (like you or I) or vandals--SeanS 23:57, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
Vandals are small in number and easy to separate out from the legitimate users, who grow in number just as one would expect based on the decline in book-reading and television-watching. Some liberals, of course, try to censor conservative free speech, but free speech always prevails.--Andy Schlafly 00:44, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
That idea only works if all the people are going to conservapedia, instead of say another conservative website that is more widely known (say all you want, conservapedia isn't a widely known website in comparison to the main centers of the internet) or that they are even going to a political website at all. And not watching tv doesn't = not going to other sources dominated by liberals. I have nothing against the growth of this website but we have to be careful about how much we claim is because of us or how many people are coming here, it could easily backfire on us.--SeanS 08:10, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
The data speak for themselves. Conservapedia's number of unique visitors will likely break our May record, just as we broke our March and April records. I think your objection to Conservapedia may be partly ideological, and I encourage you to be objective about this site.--Andy Schlafly 12:19, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
im from nebraska, raised by conservative parents, im a fundamentalist christian who believes in a literal approach to the bible and i support pretty much every conservative principle there is (im in the middle on fiscal matters). I CAN'T be ideologically opposed to this site. And If i remember, in march the site had long periods of down time due to a DDOS attack, which would also spike page views. and a slew of IP's got unbanned according to the ban logs. Both of these, along with the "we are growing message" this site holds (which I dont say isnt true) will also acount for increases in views. --SeanS 12:40, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
Unique visitors have nothing to do with overall page views, and in March, April and likely in May Conservapedia has set new records for our unique visitors for each month. Unsuccessful attempts to censor this site only confirm its growing significance.--Andy Schlafly 12:51, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
If you say so. im done discussing this now. --SeanS 12:58, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
Liberal last wordism at its finest. Even if you are a conservative you have been infected with some liberal habits. JimmyRa 19:49, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

Personally, I've given up even on Fox News. I get about 50% of my news from here and most of the rest from WND. I like this place a bit more because of the community and accessibility of the leadership. --[[User:AdamDiscordia|Yours in Christ, Adam Discordia]] 22:35, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

I gave up on Fox News a while ago. It's way behind the conservative movement at this point, almost like watching television shows from a decade ago in terms of ideas.--Andy Schlafly 00:02, 29 May 2011 (EDT)

Wait, what?

Why was the mainpage deleted and created? --SeanS 08:10, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

I don't think it was. Perhaps you're referring to the archiving of this talk page?--Andy Schlafly 11:58, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
No, the main page talk page was deleted: 00:34, 28 May 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Main Page" ‎ LloydR 12:06, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

Giant shrimp!

Ok, that story is simply wrong I'm afraid. The fact that the fossil was found on dry land is not in the least bit strange or surprising to anyone with even the most rudimentary knowledge of geology or palaeontology. Sea-levels have fluctuated significantly over the course of earth's history, and tectonic forces also shift the land itself. The point being made by the original article (which I have read) is that the fossil was found in a layer from the early Ordovician Period (490 million–440 million years ago), whereas previously it had been thought they died out by the end of the Cambrian Period, about 500 million years ago. That's it; not particularly big news to anyone who isn't a fan of giant shrimps. WilliamB1 10:46, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

Finding shrimp on dry land does suggest the Great Flood. Other explanations are not as plausible.--Andy Schlafly 12:00, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
Does the Great Flood and a 6000-year-old universe explain the finding that "these animals existed for 30 million years longer than previously realized," or is the linked-to article being read selectively in this case? LloydR 12:09, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
Technichaly the "water levels have risen and fallen and continents raised and fallen" theory can explain it, but that requires the opening portion of genesis to be ignored and is not an acceptable theory as such--SeanS 12:42, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
So, selective reading then? Okay, thanks. LloydR 12:44, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
Citations and links are to facts contained the articles, not to any speculation or opinion that might also be there. I don't see any difficulty with the fact/opinion dichotomy. If someone said, "I saw a car accident before the baseball game that the Yankees should win," one doesn't have to be a Yankees fan to respond to the car accident.--Andy Schlafly 12:45, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

I don't see precisely what that analogy has to do with this discussion, or anything else for that matter. Could you please explain what the purpose of it is? WilliamB1 13:03, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

Re: WilliamB1 and 440 million years ago. 440 million years ago, GOD was still about 439,994,000 years away from creating the Earth and those giant shrimp. I really don't see what this discovery proves other than the Great Flood. Please, read your Bible and understand. Accept Jesus into your heart before it's too late. --[[User:AdamDiscordia|Yours in Christ, Adam Discordia]] 22:27, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
"440 million years ago, GOD was still about 439,994,000 years away from creating the Earth and those giant shrimp."
I'm sorry but this doesn't make any sense, there was no "years before" Creation, there was only God. Until the Creation of the Universe, time did not exist; nor was there anything to happen since there was nothing to which the event of happening could have affected anything since there was nothing to affect! DevonJ 00:05, 29 May 2011 (EDT)
Applying our notion of linear time to GOD I agree, is of limited use but it's the best we have. I'm inclined to think that GOD has some linear-ness to him though because at one point, He didn't want to create the universe and then the next moment He decided to, so He did. I think there's room for debate on this, but not here. My above comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek anyway.  :-P --[[User:AdamDiscordia|Yours in Christ, Adam Discordia]] 01:07, 29 May 2011 (EDT)

WilliamB1, are you asking about the distinction between fact and opinion? Citations to articles are for the facts contained therein, not for the opinion or speculation.--Andy Schlafly 00:05, 29 May 2011 (EDT)

WilliamB1 what you are failing to understand is that just because an opinion is stated in an article does not make it fact. The squid was undeniably found on land, supporting evidence for a great flood, the age of of the fossil however is subject to debate. I suggest you research all the possible errors with dating techniques. AdamBoorman

Re; Aschlafly - I'm quite comfortable with the concepts of fact and opinion, my point was that the article is factually incorrect. Secondly, I was also commented on what I have to say was one of the oddest analogies I have ever come across, both for its lack of internal coherence, and the fact that the point it is making bears little to no relevance to the matter at hand.
Re; AdamBoorman - I would take you up on your suggestion were it not for the fact that I have read extensively about the various dating methods and their reliability and have in fact read a number of articles from various scientific journals only this morning. I have no problem with citing opinion pieces, but when opinion is present as fact, there is an issue. WilliamB1 12:10, 29 May 2011 (EDT)

Give it up liberals!

Most obnoxious catchphrase ever. And no, I'm not liberal, everything in my user page is true. TerryB 23:07, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

The parody on this page is so obvious too. Seriously, you all use the same format, style, and language. It's sad. TerryB 23:08, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
"You all"??? A conspiracy, perhaps???--Andy Schlafly 23:16, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
I think "Give it up, liberals!" is funny; it's not meat to be taken seriously. TerryB, are you sure you're not a liberal? You certainly have the sense of humor of one! --[[User:AdamDiscordia|Yours in Christ, Adam Discordia]] 23:45, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
Maybe, Andy. I'm not going to pretend to not know about you know what and what those people do here. And Adam, you're so transparent it's pathetic. You get an F- for parody. TerryB 00:42, 29 May 2011 (EDT)
Why am I a parody? Because I agree with Andy on this? --[[User:AdamDiscordia|Yours in Christ, Adam Discordia]] 01:08, 29 May 2011 (EDT)
parodists agree with andy all the time; otherwise they'd be found out quicker. Your acting like a badly covered parodist. --SeanS 10:35, 29 May 2011 (EDT)

Most efficient?

How can you quantify or qualify your claim that Conservapedia is the most efficient way to gain information? This claim seems specious to me. RichDunbar 23:48, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

The spoken word (television, radio) is much slower than reading. Wiki-linking enables much quicker access than using indexes in books or libraries. Synthesizing politics and encyclopedic information here results in far more efficient learning than in other media.--Andy Schlafly 00:00, 29 May 2011 (EDT)
How can it be the most efficient if there are large gaps in it? Some articles seem very bare bones, like many articles on the Constitution. Other sites use wikilinking, and if you think this single site is the absolute most efficient site on the internet then you are crazy. Also, you still haven't quantified or qualified your claim with statistics or evidence. RichDunbar 00:06, 29 May 2011 (EDT)
Do you doubt my comparison to other media? Watch television and notice how slow it is, and how little substance is conveyed. Radio is even less.
As to other websites on the internet, I can't think of any that combine education, politics, and religion -- the three fields that count most -- as efficiently as Conservapedia does. But I welcome suggestions if you know of any.--Andy Schlafly 00:12, 29 May 2011 (EDT)
Andy, I'm pretty sure almost nothing ever created by humans has conveyed less than the "two meters" stub created by Ed Poor on this very site. Besides, I never get a 403 alert from my TV or radio. RichDunbar 00:17, 29 May 2011 (EDT)
It sounds like Andrew has delusions of grandeur regarding his accomplishments... Has there ever been one single positive story on the internet about Conservapedia??? Has it ever occurred to Andy that people use this site for.. entertainment and nothing more? Or do you deny this possibility? Paulhernandez 10:26, 29 May 2011 (EDT)
Sour grapes? I don't think "Horse and Buggy News" carried positive stories about automobiles either!--Andy Schlafly 10:30, 29 May 2011 (EDT)
I'm sure you're right. Paulhernandez 10:35, 29 May 2011 (EDT)
The internet is well known for hating a lot of things. Yes this site has flaws but., so does everything humans make. Tats why people are encouraged to edit. --SeanS 11:15, 29 May 2011 (EDT)

Recent spate of articles

I saw that there's been a spate of articles related to PZ Myers and New Atheism; these articles all seem to be covering the same bases but are separated. Should we consider merging many of them into one larger article? It's a waste of space to have so many extremely similar articles all covering the same information especially when many of them share large chunks of text. RichDunbar 23:20, 29 May 2011 (EDT)

That's a question for the person who has done those edits, but please realize that large articles on wikis have disadvantages with respect to issues like loading times, particularly for rural users who have slow connections. The "flatter" a wiki is, typically the better with respect to efficiency.--Andy Schlafly 23:44, 29 May 2011 (EDT)
I think it is better to have 19 skinny PZ Myers related articles/satires than to have one overweight one. :) conservative 06:34, 30 May 2011 (EDT)
Andy, if that is the case that smaller articles lead to a more efficient wiki, why are some of the most important articles, such as atheism (188,178 bytes), Evolution ‎(158,444 bytes) and Homosexuality ‎(192,722 bytes) not split into hundreds of small articles, because they are far more important than a parody about PZ Myers being fat?

BenDylan 09:20, 30 May 2011 (EDT)

Those entries could be further improved by moving some material to separate entries. I recently did that successfully for Essay:Best New Conservative Words.--Andy Schlafly 10:28, 30 May 2011 (EDT)
I don't think a one size fits all approach is warranted as far as policy. A case sometimes can be made for one stop shopping where people can go to an individual article or expand sub articles. For example, homosexuality and Homosexuality and AIDS or Atheism and Atheism and mass murder. Also, one of the largest Christian organizations in the world linked to Conservapedia's evolution and atheism articles as they thought the articles offered comprehensive treatments of the subjects. In addition, people with doctorates in related fields have linked to the the atheism article. conservative 12:25, 30 May 2011 (EDT)

the jet image

it's a little wide and makes stretches the page downward to much, perhaps we could thin it a little?? --SeanS 00:08, 30 May 2011 (EDT)

OK, thanks for the suggestion, how's it look now?--Andy Schlafly 00:36, 30 May 2011 (EDT)
Better, at least to my eyes. it just pushed the MPR to much before. --SeanS 08:46, 30 May 2011 (EDT)