: I did not remove the quote. It was someone else. You are complaining to the wrong guy. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:30, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Since there was no contribution between mine and yours, sir, I feel that you are fibbing. Peruse the history of the Don Imus page and see. Perhaps someone else made the revision and used your name? Unlikely. My only conclusion is that you or someone using your name condones institutional racism and sexism in the mainstream media. If this is true of you, you ought to be ashamed. If it is someone else using your name, you ought to be outraged. Either way, at least ACT like you care.
[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 15:30, 29 January 2008 (EDT)
: I checked the history. You inserted the quote here [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Don_Imus&diff=378862&oldid=288654] and it was removed by [User:Iduan], not me. I merely shortened your mischaracterization of what Imus said. You wrote that Imus "classified a group of female athletes as women of decidedly ill repute". That was just not correct. Imus did not say that anyone had ill repute. Please do not make false accusations against either Don Imus or me. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:15, 29 January 2008 (EST)
How did I make false accusations against Don Imus? He called those women "nappy-headed hoes." Where I come from, "nappy-headed" is meant as an insult against the typically tightly-curled African-American hair type. "Ho," in common use, is slang for a "whore" or "prostitute," which, when you clean it up for the good old "family-friendly" Conservapedia, means "woman of ill repute."
So, to insult typically African-American hair type, and to call these women "prostitutes," hmmm, I dunno, seems like RACISM and SEXISM to me. One doesn't have to be a trust fund baby to deny the truth, but it helps, I suppose. Good day, sir. [[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 16:30, 31 January 2008 (EDT)
: You are welcome to your opinions, but your edit was inaccurate. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:51, 31 January 2008 (EST)
== Thanks for the Unblock ==
I do enjoy especially the part of this project which concerns the history of sciences. It just a hobby of mine, and discussions like ours are a welcomed to delve into the literature. --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 16:15, 13 November 2008 (EST)
:RS, check me if I'm wrong, but I'm finding BRichtigen a bit of a distraction. Is he really doing good work somewhere around here? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 18:54, 13 November 2008 (EST)
:: I can't tell if ''you'' are finding him a distraction, but how is that ''his'' fault? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:35, 13 November 2008 (EST)
:::chuckle, you make a goood point there --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 20:38, 13 November 2008 (EST)
:: I had some disagreements with BRichtigen, but he is definitely doing good work. Please do not block him. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:23, 14 November 2008 (EST)
== question of lawyers responsibility as Officer of the court ==
Hi, is a lawyer who knows his client is guilty still permitted to provide a defense or is he meant as an officer of the court , to plead guilty and attempt to mitigate the sentancing ? I realize there may be a difference between what should happen and what does happen. I lived for a while in Australia and England so it may be an issue of US law vs English .. Thanks oh, this relates to the importance of good character in the appointment of white house counsel [[User:Markr|Markr]] 19:40, 21 November 2008 (EST)
: Under US law, the lawyer is required to argue the case however the client wants to plead it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:12, 23 November 2008 (EST)
:: ok , thanks [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:22, 24 November 2008 (EST)
== Merry Christmas ==
and I hope the New Year will give us ample opportunity to discuss interesting topics, like we have done this year!
Yours [[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 18:20, 23 December 2008 (EST)
== Happy New Year, Roger! ==
{{cquote|'''Cheers to a new year and another chance for us to get it right!'''<small><small>--Oprah Winfrey</small></small>}}
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]]</sup> 23:33, 31 December 2008 (EST)
== Continuum ==
Hi Roger. Foxtrot and I have been arguing over the Continuum article and we really need someone to step in and mediate. I have a problem with the entire second paragraph really: "The continuum is called so because it was the first (and most prominent) continuous set studied by mathematicians. No additional numbers may be added to the continuum (real line) without losing its dense linear order without endpoints. Since the complex numbers add the imaginary number, i, to the real line, this is one reason they have no natural linear order. Any linear order of the complex numbers needs the Axiom of Choice to be constructed."
First of all the reference to a continuous set is unneccessary. I had never heard of such a thing. When I googled it I saw that it is an obscure notion that has no place in such a short introductory article to the topic. I see no reason to believe that the continuum was called so because it is a continuous set. My best guess is that the use of the word continuum predates the use of the term continuous set.
The second sentence about not being able to add more numbers to the reals is essentially meaningless. What do we mean by number? We are discussing the real line as an order theoretic/topological object. It is easy to extend the reals as such an object with out losing the dense linear order. This ties into the last statement. I outline in http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Continuum&curid=81756&diff=621255&oldid=621024 how to construct the lexicographic order on the complex plane. This refutes the last sentence as such an ordering doesn't use AC. In addition the complex numbers ordered in such a way is, from an order theoretic point of view, <math> \mathfrak{c}</math> many copies of the reals laid out end-to-end (if you get my meaning). This shows that not only can we add a point to the reals we can add uncountably many copies of the reals to the reals without destroying the dense linear ordering.
Thanking you in advance for your time. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 08:38, 16 February 2009 (EST)
== Prime Number ==
You were the last editor to change the article on [[Prime Number]]s. Could you have a look at the section ''Sieve of Eratosthenes''? I tried to raise the interest in changing the - IMO poor - picture on [[Talk:Main Page]], [[Talk:Prime Number]] and [[File talk:Prime number.gif]], but no action took place. Could you have a look into it?
Thanks, [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 12:28, 25 April 2009 (EDT)
== [[Physics]] ==
Could you please take a look to the last edits? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 08:20, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
: Why did you revert? I don't necessarily agree with all the edits, but they appeared to be constructive edits. Did you disagree? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:38, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
: At first it seems to be wrong in Mechanics and Thermodynamics. The editor E-mail me and I was not sure; that is why I asked your opinion. Now I will fix the mistake. Thank you. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 17:45, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
:: He also made some other edits. Did you object to those also? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:04, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
== From PatrickD ==
There has been some discussion of the recent changes by RoyL to the [[divergence]] and [[curl]] articles. Your name came up. So you might want to look at those pages, and their histories, and their talk pages, and my [[User_talk:PatrickD]] page. [[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 21:36, 15 August 2009 (EDT)
==Small Thanks from WLink==
Wanted to thank you for the support you gave for my proposed changes on the relativity page. I am a bit saddened that some people won't see reason, but at least we gave it the old college try. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 07:19, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
== L.A. Official: 55 Jobs After $111B Stimulus ==
The story tease on their main page said 111B.....but it is indeed 111M. Thanks for spotting it! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 02:50, 17 September 2010 (EDT)
== Evidence ==
Should there not be evidence for this? References etc.?
== Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel ==
Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel. I invited someone to edit Conservapedia and they were blocked and they should not have been. I got the block overturned. So I think there is room for improvement in Conservapedia's blocking policy. You can sign up [[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. I invited active Syops/Admins plus people with blocking rights who might wish to be Sysops. If I left anyone out, please let them know about the panel. The people with blocking rights can sign up [[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. The panel will probably convene when Iduan is back from his summer vacation or fairly soon afterwards. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:47, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
== Request for Admin assistance ==
To all senior admins and sysops. I am being repeatedly abused by user:conservative who, among other things, accuses me continuously of being an atheist simply because I point out some of the holes in his articles. See [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=113357&diff=924642&oldid=924636 here for the latest accusation]. I have asked him numerous times to desist with his sneering name calling as I find it offensive to have my faith questioned and nothing is ever done. He state’s I am atheist because I don’t agree with some of his ridiculous contentions. In actual fact it isn’t even that I disagree with him it is that I point out his shoddy research, poor scholarship and his berating, insulting and sarcastic behaviour towards others. I am of the opinion now that he is purposely calling me names because he knows I don’t like it which is unchristian, impolite and, above all, insulting. Is anyone going to teach this man some manners? Has Conservapedia become a place where Conservative is allowed to behave this way without any warning or comeuppance but all other editors and warned and blocked for minor infractions. He is in continual violation of the commandments yet NOTHING is done whereas people like myself are always watching out to avoid being banned. Well, fine, ban me if you like. I probably will be after this posting and no doubt Conservative will cackle with glee at “winning” again. But laugh Conservative, you win nothing. I post this is full knowledge that I might be blocked banned and insulted by you in my absence and I have always remained polite and civil plus I can hold my head up high. Hopefully one of you will take a stand and insist on standards of civility. But I don’t hold out much hope. Thanks, many of you were kind, decent people whom I enjoyed working with and I pray for you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:22, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
== Out of curiousity ==
....what do you think about your brother's attempt to rewrite the Bible? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:01, 17 November 2011 (EST)
: As far as I know, he is trying to translate it, not rewrite it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:55, 19 November 2011 (EST)
==A serious Biblical matter==
Aschlafly wrote the essay [[Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?]]. This wouldn't have been to problematic, but now he puts his outlandish idea into an article in the main space ([[Epistle to the Hebrews]]). First he wrote:
{{cquote|"The [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] is the nineteenth book of the [[New Testament]], and one of the greatest mysteries in all of intellectual history: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and '''the most plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it.'''"}}
[[User:Iduan]] toned this down somewhat, so that we read at the moment:
{{cquote|"The [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] is the nineteenth book of the [[New Testament]], and one of the greatest mysteries in all of intellectual history: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and '''one plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it'''."}}
I couldn't find any Biblical scholar who shares this idea, I couldn't find any authorative figure who promotes this - and this isn't much of a surprise if you read the epistle for yourself! The only "scholar" who has proposed this "theory" in the last 2000 years is Andrew Schlafly.
I tried to delete this sentence, and then I tried to make it clear that this idea is a personal insight by Andrew Schlafly. My edits were reverted: any reader of this encyclopedia gets the impression that this theory is something commonly known or well discussed. That's utterly untrue.
I tend to be quite strict on Biblical matters - I'm often accused of being nitpicky. As one of the sysops of Conservapedia who was active in 2012 I ask you to weigh in on this problem: maybe it is just me and most of the of you and your fellow sysops think that it is acceptable to present an insight of a single person '''in a Biblical matter''' (an insight shared by virtually no one) as a plausible theory. But - as the title of this section indicates - for me this is a very serious matter.
: This is out of my expertise. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:19, 26 November 2012 (EST)
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:25, 25 November 2012 (EST)
==E=mc<sup>2</sup>==
Please take a look at the first section of this article. We seem to be at an impasse. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:25, 25 March 2013 (EDT)