Talk:War of 1812

Re: The reversion of my revision of this article to "The War of 1812 AD"

I submit that leaving off the "AD" in "The War of 1812 AD" is as intellectually dishonest as using the ridiculous and meaningless terms "BCE" and "CE". It makes the actual date of the war quite uncertain (Was it 200 or 2000 years ago? Who can say? That's an uncertainty with an order of magnitude of 10, by the way, which is a lot). Granted, this uncertainty won't confuse everyone, especially many historians, but the main point I think we should all be making here is that to remove the "AD" is to deny the very event that the date 1812 is derived from--the very conception of Jesus of Nazareth. Now, I'm no religious nut or anything, but I think we can all agree that credit should be given where credit is due. Sure, we can shorten the "unimportant" part of the date, but I think what we are really doing is cheating History.

Then there's Sevenstring's reason for reverting--That nobody calls it "The War of 1812 AD". That, I can actually get behind. Sevenstring is completely right, there. And maybe that's reason enough to keep it simply "The War of 1812". But then again, aren't there a lot of things that many many people hold to be true, that are actually false? I think many of you know what exactly I'm talking about. In this Liberal Media Saturated Environment (LMSE) where we are constantly bombarded with "conventional wisdom" and "overwhelming evidence" and "common sense" from so-called "experts" and "scientists"; isn't it worth it, every once in a while, to stand up for what we believe?

I will, of course acquiesce to the collective will of Conservapedia. I really hope that, if nothing else, this fosters some intelligent discussion on this subject.

Thank you, Mr. Pony

I disagree - putting EVERY date with the AD suffix is not only unnecessary, it makes the people who want this website to look credible look silly by association. Save the effort for things that make a more valuable intellectual contribution.

Sevenstring

I agree that it's a question of style, Sevenstring. It's also okay that you think I'm silly ;) Anyway, I think it's clear what side of the fence you fall on in this debate. I hope that others will read this, and decide for themselves.

Thanks for having the courtesy to respond so quickly and concisely! Mr. Pony

You're really good at math. I agree with you completely, and will try to improve this article, inspite of what the "liberals" may do for the sake of appearances. Nt 12:23, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Your attempts at "improving" this article resulted in silly editing. SILLY. Get the picture? If you cannot get serious about contributing here, you better get silly somewhere else. Karajou 12:29, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

I had thought that all the liberal trolls from all the liberal blogs had stopped coming here at this point, and had gone back to looking at naked pictures of naked stars from the WB and crying about global warming. If you think faith is silly, fine; we get that, but attempting to silence a reasonable debate by declaring it "silly" (without citations, in all caps, no less) is unAmerican, unConservapedian, and downright cowardly. It's no wonder that all the good writers have left for the other Conservative Wiki. Here's hoping you see the light,
Mr. Pony.

Two things. First, you never bothered to look at his edit, which is freely available for all to look at via the history page. Second, what he edited wasn't even part of a debate, unless you think revisionist history should be applied here. And there is the third thing, which someone else solved for me. You got banned. Have a nice day. Karajou 07:52, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Both sides tried invasions which led in every case to humilation and defeat. The British did raid Washington and burned public buildings, but they failed to capture Baltimore, the Americans killed the commanding British officer, and the Brits immediately retreated to their ships and sailed away. Worse, the affair united the Americans who demanded revenge and got it at New Orleans. That's what failure looks like. The British commander of the invasion of New York state failed just as badly; he died just as he went to court martial. As for the British invasion of New Orleans, it was one of the most lopsided defeats in the history of the British army, with its top commanders both shot dead. On the other hand, the American performance in invading Canada was even worse, believe it or not. "Abject" is defined as "sunk to or existing in a low state or condition; cast down in spirit : without spirit or pride." It seems to fit. RJJensen 22:59, 5 November 2008 (EST)

!

Part of this article was copied from Conservapedia and Wikipedia but the copied text was originally written by me, RJJensen (under the names Richard Jensen and RJensen) and does not include alterations made by others on that site.

RJJensen 11:15, 7 November 2008 (EST)