Let me see what I can do...I can expand on failure rate, but you have to be careful about how you massage statistics. For instance, if 3 out of 100 women will get pregnant using it, that does not mean that after 2 years, 6 out of 100 will. Trying to apply in aggregate is bad stats. If you have someone you know who is good with stats, that would be great.--PalMDtalk 20:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks - I've left a message on your talk page for you. Britinme 21:50 4 April 2007 (EDT)
That would be because I posted the original. This is the very long version of something I wrote in a much shortened version for another project completely (related to the QI site, of which I am a moderator). I edited it somewhat for this site, to make it more encyclopaedic in expression, and added some additional info I'd gleaned since then. Lobsters are remarkably fascinating creatures. If there's any copyright on it, it belongs to me. Britinme 21:57 5 April (EDT).
If you are going to quote an abortion poll, then please quote it correctly. RSchlafly 16:44, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
I think you'll find that I did, and that my correction of your selective quotation was then reverted. I suggest altering it to the unarguable fact (see the link) that 62% of Americans would prefer to retain the rights established under Roe v Wade. I have acknowledged in the piece that this is opposed by conservatives and some feminists. --Britinme 16:50, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Licensing issue with AFSC material
Well, I'm embarrassed that you're thanking me for my help... I'm afraid I think that you need to rewrite the article from scratch, rather than copying from the AFSC website, and that the article in its present state should still be deleted, even under the correct title. I'm sorry, but that's what I think. Dpbsmith 14:39, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Aschlafly decided to protect the article. That should make everyone happy. Dpbsmith 16:00, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Ann Coulter quotes
Sorry about that... they still seem to be there, though. Human 13:20, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
Just saw your comment on my talk page about the Harvard study article (I've been on jury duty the last couple of days). I actually think there are multiple issues with Andy's interpretation of the findings, but the overarching issue is this: he is convinced abortion causes breast cancer, and no amount of contradictory data will convince him otherwise. He (and he's hardly alone) will latch onto any issues with the study to suggest the whole thing is invalid. I do understand the stats pretty well, as I do health-related research and am well-trained in stats. I agree that it's silly to think that nurses wouldn't understand that spontaneous abortion = miscarriage. I'm not looking at the study right now but I'm not even sure if we know which term was used in the questionnaire. It's possible they used miscarriage but use spontaneous abortion in the article because it's medical terminology for a medical journal. Some of the issues that Andy raises are reasonable objections. The sample was not very ethnically diverse, though to accuse them of trying to hide that is also pretty silly. There are 2 more reasonable explanations - most likely they were conserving space to stay within the journal's page limit; also the details on the % of specific minorities don't change the interpretation substantially because there weren't very many of them. The issue of a quarter of the sample not responding fully to the abortion question is also a reasonable objection - it's unfortunate they weren't able to get this information. It is notable that they re-analyzed the data after excluding women who didn't respond to either of the questions and found the same results (last sentence of your quote), and that they found the same if they coded only some of those missing answers as non-abortions. Andy's ignoring these efforts by the authors to address the problem, presumably because they suggest that any confusion or embarrassment that caused people to leave the question blank didn't change the results. I'm not sure how well I addressed your question - if there's anything I didn't get to I'd be happy to try to clarify it. Murray 20:37, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
Conservative Party edits
Why are you deleting informative material from Conservative Party? That material was not written by me, but I find it illuminating. Can't you improve rather than simply delete?--Aschlafly 22:23, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
Ignatius of Loyola
Thank you for the thought TK. Sadly, my brother died. His funeral was last week. I am still in the UK as my daughter is getting married at the end of July and I won't be home until mid-August. I am able to get online occasionally, but won't be contributing much until I get home again.--Britinme 14:33, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
Edits to Homo sapiens
Some of your edits to homo sapiens assume that the evolutionary view is correct, i.e. introduce a bias that Conservapedia doesn't agree with. Please try and avoid this. Philip J. Rayment 08:48, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
My sympathies on the death of your brother. Philip J. Rayment 05:41, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
Thank you Philip. That's kind of you.--Britinme 18:16, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
DNA providing instructions
If you'll look at my contributions, you'll see that I'm a computer programmer with a very specific awareness of what certain codes will make the machine do.
So I'm interested in what a particular pattern in the DNA strand will make a gene do. Do scientists know what pattern, in what chromosome or gene, was responsible for making my daughter's hair blond?
As I understand it, Ed, a gene is a section of a chromosome that codes for a protein or RNA product. What dictates hair colour in particular is the DNA encoding for the amount of eumelanin produced by the body. Eye colour is also well understood. This is a fairly good explanation I think:  --Britinme 15:59, 14 July 2007 (EDT)