Difference between revisions of "User talk:RSchlafly"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 423: Line 423:
Peace Pact. If you want to make reversions, propose them on the Talk page. I know I have one other person who is editing who will support my point of view.
Peace Pact. If you want to make reversions, propose them on the Talk page. I know I have one other person who is editing who will support my point of view.
Can I point out that the reason the Conservapedia was set up in the first place was that some conservative views were being sidelined by an obviously liberal organ because those views did not concur whith the majority. Your revert of the [[Geocentric Theory]] page then protection of it clearly demonstrates that the are some conservative elements who are quilty of the same crime that Wikipedia is accused of.  [[User:OfficerDibble]]

Revision as of 09:15, 6 May 2007

good edit to Einstein article.--Aschlafly 00:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks Roger. Whatever I can do to help, let me know. Are there any plans for coordinated projects similiar to like they have over in, you know, that other place? RobS 12:48, 9 March 2007 (EST)


Roger, here's some material you may wish to review regarding "expansion of due process", [1]

it can be argued that the legislative intent of the Amendment was especially to grow with the times, which it certainly has done. RobS 11:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Gospel of Thomas

It is true that the Gospel of Thomas is not part of the Bible, and not recognized outside the Coptic Christian church; I simply wanted to clarify that it nevertheless is a valuable source of information about early Christian beliefs, and that many Christians today do find great value in it. Boethius 15:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

It is my understanding that Christians have historically regarded these apocryphal gospels as being tainted with heresy. Yes, fascinating, but fascinating in the way that heresy is fascinating. I didn't want the Thomas entry to imply that Thomas is a good source of Christian beliefs. RSchlafly 23:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for your reply. I have amended the entry, both on the Gospels and the Gospel of Thomas, to make this more explicitly clear.
Boethius 17:42, 15 March 2007 (EDT)


I banned him because 3 times in row he posted to my userpage the same cross examination type garbage much of which (if not all) was unrelated to the article in question. I warned him to stop though and he ignored me. Three strikes and your out.

Secondly, are you related to Aschlafly? Conservative 17:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Yes, Aschlafly is my brother. I had nothing to do with creating Conservapedia; I first learned about it from reading blogs. RSchlafly 17:56, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

That is wrong! your own brother didnt tell you! Mr. Schlafly! how could you! j/k :) welcome aboard. --Will N. 17:58, 15 March 2007 (EDT)


Hello RSchlafly. In your recent modification to the article, [2], you introduced that "not everyone considers it to be a religion". But that would be true of any religion that can be named, some people, somewhere, will consider it to not be a 'true' religion. Are we really trying to present such value judgements to our readers? Can't we simply be brief and to the point and inform readers, then let readers do as they like with their information? If we remain conservative and steadfast and present good, clean information, clear of bias and potential confusions or criticsm, our readers are better served, don't you think ?
Yes, there are controversial issues the Church of Scientology has involved itself in but are those actually necessary to a brief, clear description of the religion? Can we discuss, please ? Terryeo 14:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I was understating the controversy. I think that it is fair to say that most people do not consider Scientology a religion. IRS did not, until just a few years ago. RSchlafly 14:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Okay. How does one explain news items like this one [3] ("Scientology Religion") in the Kansas City Star ? Or the 7000+ hits a person gets by googling "Scientology" (its religous locations) at google maps? Or the many website pages about the Scientology Religion? There is nothing like that for a "Scientology Cult" search, with the exception of thousands of pages of criticsm. If an organization presents itself as a religion, is accepted by most governments as a religion, is presented in newspapers as a religion, then shouldn't we present it as a religion, too ? On the other hand, if an article is to be large, then other points of view could be presented ? But if small, then why not as direct and simple as possible ? Terryeo 17:14, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
I did your test, and I found 113,000 google hits for "scientology religion", and 168,000 hit for "scientology cult". This does indeed suggest that more people call it a cult than a religion. But that is just one controversy. Care to say anything about psychotherapy? The Xenu story? Battles over leaks of the OT documents? RSchlafly 17:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Sure, I'll talk with you about anything you like. psychotherapy sucks, no one who knows the myth talks, the Church defends itself vigorously in court. The critics are loud, the critics can publish cheaply. A simplicity of the situation exists, but how can a person view the simplicity, there's the question, would you say? Terryeo 09:39, 24 April 2007 (EDT)


Much of the material User:PF Fox is "obsolete and deprecated", as per WP's new WP:ATTFAQ' I fought for this along time ago. Plus there is evidence of trolling on the talk page, as I forecasted. [4] I would propose a roll back to my version, with whatever material you may wish to save from the recent editing, and then Page Protection. RobS 15:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

My inclination is to start a section titled, "Criticism of McCarthy's methods", and start it by saying: "It is often alleged that McCarthy's methods were irresponsible, inhumane, and reckless. Here are some examples of where his committee supposedly ruined lives." Then let PF Fox put in his most egregious examples, as long as they are factual. You want to do it? RSchlafly 16:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
I've protected the page. That sounds like a good idea. Let's have PF Fox place his proposed language on the Talk page while I work on completing the Venona materials. RobS 16:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)


I have copied the conversation below onto the Isaac Newton talk page. I think it makes more sense to have it there for future reference. If we need to continue the conversation, let's do so over there. --Hsmom 07:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I bet Isaac Newton cared about his title of "sir." Not to split hairs. Publicly evaluating a person's legacy based on your opinion of it is a bad idea, and sounds like opinion forbidden by the Commandments.-AmesG 01:02, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Sure, Newton may have cared, in the way that people care about honorary degrees and awards. Maybe he got some privileges from it, I don't know. But nobility status carries no weight with the typical American reader of Conservapedia. Nobody knows what Newton did to get that title, or why the title should make anyone deserving of any respect. It is just stupid and meaningless.
Newton was a great man, and I am not putting him down. He is great for what he did, not because he was friends with some silly king or however he got the title. RSchlafly 01:11, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
'Sir' is a title of respect. Not placing it would be equivalent to removing Doctor from the name of those holding a doctorate. Geo. 01:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
It is only a title of respect among fans of British nobility. Besides, encyclopedias do not normally list people with doctorates under the title "Doctor". RSchlafly 01:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Okay, can the bold text at least show that he was a peer? Geo. 01:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
I assume that you are joking. I don't know what a peer is, except that my dictionary says that it has something to do with British nobility. I think that the average American has very low respect for British nobility. RSchlafly 01:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
A Peer of the Realm is a member of the British nobility. Geo. 03:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
"Nobody knows what Newton did to get that title, or why the title should make anyone deserving of any respect. It is just stupid and meaningless." ... "I don't know what a peer is, except that my dictionary says that it has something to do with British nobility. I think that the average American has very low respect for British nobility." Are you serious? You don't know what Newton did that resulted in his title? I'd guess Calculus? Maybe Gravity? That deserves a heck of a lot of respect. I don't think we need to know the ins and outs of honorary titles in Britain to understand the basics of this one. According to Answers in Genesis, [5] "His country officially recognized his work in 1705 when he became the first person to receive a knighthood for scientific achievement." Surely this is important enough to include his "Sir"? --Hsmom 19:51, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, I am serious. No American has any respect for British nobility titles. Apparently you don't know how Newton got the title either, because you are just guessing. You have a source that says that it was for "his work". Okay, that narrows it a little bit. It wasn't for his relatives. RSchlafly 20:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood my comment, as you misunderstood Geo.'s use of the term "peer". I guess we need to back up a bit. In Britian, knighthoods are given for exceptional achievement or service to the nation, much like the USA gives the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal. Newton was the first to be made a knight for scientific achievement rather than prowess on the battlefield. (From doesgodexist.org: "In 1705, Queen Anne knighted him, Sir Isaac Newton. It was the first knighthood for scientific discoveries rather than deeds on the battlefield or in government." [6]) Thus Newton was given his title for his *body of work*, which of course included topics like gravity and calculus. I understand that *you* have no respect for such awards. Indeed, there is some controversy over modern versions, even in Britian (see [7]). However, I think it's simply not true to say that *No* American has any respect for British nobility titles - see Robledo's examples below. Given that Newton's achievements were so great as to be awarded an honor that had previously been given only for military prowess, I think the "Sir" is worth keeping. --Hsmom 21:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Honorary knighthoods (accepted & thus I'm guessing respected...)

  • George Bush
  • Ronald Reagan
  • Colin Powell
  • General Norman Schwarzkopf
  • Bob Hope


Any more sweepingly daft generalisations to make? :P --Robledo 20:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

No, you've made it for me. I've never heard any American call any of those men "sir". RSchlafly 21:01, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Naturally....none of them are British citizens. Read the source, son....third paragraph. *sighs* --Robledo 21:26, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

That's because it is inappropriate for an American to use such a title.[8] Newton, however, was not American, thus the use of the title is appropriate. I know this stuff is complicated. --Hsmom 21:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Exactly. To put it in context. "Bono" will never be "Sir Bono" (aside from the fact that his real name is Paul Hewson) because he is not a British citizen. So he can never be a "Sir". However, Newton was a British citizen, or a subject of the queen (or king), if you will. So he should be referred to by his correct title. Airdish 21:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
It's a simple matter of respect. "Sir" is his title in his native country and therefore should be the title that he is addressed by whenever he is addressed, wherever he is addressed. Aside from that argument, he is known the world over as "Sir Isaac Newton".Airdish 21:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

My students are fond of this song about Sir Issac - it's in MP3 format. [9]--Hsmom 21:32, 30 March 2007 (EDT)


I would like to argue this edit. It is an extremely important distinction, because scientifically, nothing can ever really be proven. Gravity, relativity, etc. are all still theories, but are backed up with massive amounts of evidence, and are used regularly as facts. In any usage outside science, "theory" usually means a "hunch", or unsubstantiated guess. --Hojimachongtalk 03:05, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I just don't think that it is true that usage of "theory" outside science is significantly different from its usage in science. Do you have any source for that? Theories have varying levels of substantiation, both inside and outside science. I think that the distinction is completely bogus and misleading.
Why is this so important, anyway? The subject of what can be proven is another topic. RSchlafly 03:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Any self-respecting scientist would never use the term theory to mean an unsubstantiated guess. Theories do not have varying levels of substantiation, only the true definition and the misuse by everyone else. ColinRtalk 03:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
That is just not true. Physicists use the term "String Theory", even tho it is just an unsubstantiated guess. Where is the evidence that scientists use the word "theory" differently from others? RSchlafly 03:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Regarding string theory, it has a large amount of "evidence" backing it up. That doesn't mean it's true, but it's certainly not an unsubstantiated guess. Regarding how scientists use the word differently, ask anybody with any sort of involvement in science, it's considered common knowledge that a scientific theory is different than a "guess". --Hojimachongtalk 03:51, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
No, there is no evidence for String Theory. The disputed section has no cited source, and is contrary to common knowledge. Are you just giving your opinion, or can you cite a source? RSchlafly 04:04, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

It's not a disputed fact that theory in the scientific community is not the same as a hypothesis. Sorry. ColinRtalk 04:08, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Correct, that point is not under dispute. RSchlafly 04:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Theory II

Is there a reason for [[10]] this edit? What was objectionable? --Letusratiocinate 04:16, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I apologize for the ad hominem attack, but there is nothing disputed about what is said in those entries. And protecting articles only hurts the site. ColinRtalk 04:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Those entries certainly are disputed. I disputed them on the Talk pages, and here. The disputed material has no cited sources. I only protected the page because of the removal of the "disputed" tag. If you are right and I am wrong, then you should be able to give some evidence on the Talk page or here. RSchlafly 04:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
There is no disputing the difference between common usage of theory and the scientific meaning. Look it up in a dictionary and you'll see theory is defined as both. ColinRtalk 04:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
The disputed section says that a common speech theory is different from a scientific theory, with the former being an "unsubstantiated guess" and the latter having to be "well-supported and accepted". My dictionaries don't say any of those things, and they don't reflect any popular or scientific usage to my knowledge. I'd be happy to use a dictionary definition, but if you want something else, then you should provide some support for it. RSchlafly 04:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Look at webster's online. ColinRtalk 05:13, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
I looked at Merriam-Webster's, American Heritage, Compact Oxford English, Encarta, and a couple of others. They all disagree with you. You are promoting the oddball definition, so you find support for it. RSchlafly 05:21, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

A theory, as defined by Merriam-Webster:

1 : abstract thought : SPECULATION 2 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action 3 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light> 4 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption :CONJECTURE

As you can see, definition 3 is different than the others. This is because a scientific theory must follow what is known as the scientific method. The Scientific method is "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses". Of course, gravity, relativity, the theory of light, etc. are all unproven, but they are all backed up by massive amounts of evidence. A scientific theory is supported by evidence, though in modern usage outside of science, "theory" is synonymous with "guess". --Hojimachongtalk 15:29, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Your definition shows that your last sentence is wrong on both counts. A scientific theory does not have to be supported by evidence. In modern usage outside of science, "theory" is not synonymous with "guess". I am tempted to add a paragraph explaining this point. RSchlafly 17:17, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Theory of Relativity/draft

Please stop. Special and general relativity are separate theories. Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 14:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean by that? They are certainly closely related, conceptually and historically. Putting them in separate sections already implies differences. Saying that they are separate without any explanation of the difference is just stupid and misleading. RSchlafly 14:38, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
GR describes gravity, SR describes objects relative to each other. Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 07:06, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, but they are not separate. SR is just GR without the gravity. RSchlafly 12:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Wrong, dude. Please stop pretending that you and Andy are experts on everything. Andy's obviously not even an expert on theories of constitutional interpretation. Nor are you an expert on physics. Anyways, special relativity deals with time & length dilation and the Lorentz Transformation. GR is an explanation of gravity and spacetime curvature. Completely different except the name.-AmesGyo! 12:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

No, I am not wrong. I can see from your comments that you know very little about either subject. RSchlafly 13:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
These are difficult subjects, and I myself don't understand either one well. I can do the math of the Lorentz transformation - where fast things get heavy, though.
We need to make this subject accessible to our readership. If this means a simple (basic?) article which mentions both ideas, that will be a good start. We can use the {{main}} template (or something like it: {spinoff} or {more detail}) to refer the reader to an in-depth treatment.
Who wants to volunteer for any part of this? --Ed Poor 14:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Roger is correct; not only are GR and SR not 'separate,' SR is a limiting case of GR, just as Newtonian mechanics is a limiting case of SR. Tsumetai 14:29, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
How's that work? I guess I don't understand it.-AmesGyo! 17:32, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
I'll try to put in an explanation if no one else does. Currently, there are two relativity pages, and both need a lot of work. RSchlafly 18:15, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
GR generally operates in curved spacetime; in SR spacetime is always flat. But if you plug a flat spacetime into the equations of GR, SR is what falls out. The connection is not only quite deep, but very useful too; in any smooth, curved space, one can always pick a sufficiently small patch such that curvature can be safely neglected. In practical terms, this means that any observer can always choose to work within a region of spacetime small enough to make SR an arbitrarily good approximation. Tsumetai 04:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, that is correct. SR approximates GR in the way that a tangent line approximates a curve. RSchlafly 13:10, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
They were developed in very different ways and at very different times and they are taught in very different ways and at very different times in university. They deserve completely separate articles (I am educated to graduate level on both). Airdish 17:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
I believe the latest version of the draft is mine. I'm knowledgeable of Special Relativity and I was trying to explain it in as basic terms as possible. I don't know much about General Relativity other than what I've picked up from other people. However RSchlafly I hope you realise that gravity is a fairly complex force which adds a lot of extra levels of difficulty onto Special Relativity. If anything they should be given different sections simply because they are so abominably different in scale. MatteeNeutra 17:11, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, Special Relativity is simpler. That is why it is called "special". I favor one article titled Relativity that tries to give a concise explanation. There are many textbooks on the subject if the reader really wants the full course. RSchlafly 17:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Personally, I'd favour Relativity as a very short concise "these are the principles of" style article (a sentence or two on each) with links to separate articles for each of the two theories. Also, because it is specialised, "simpler" is not the word. It is "simpler" because the maths is less hardcore, two very different things. Airdish 17:54, 29 March 2007 (EDT)


Your biased editing is an insult to the subjects you touch, to the site, and to your brother's ideals. Please defend your edits to the Copernicus article stating that those problems still exist in modern astronomy today (preposterous!) and your blatant POV articles to the Scalia article. Please use new arguments that I have not already refuted.-AmesGyo! 13:23, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

No, you have not refuted anything. Your edits are false, malicious, misleading, and disrupted. You do not defend what you do on the Talk pages. Please stop, or I'll have to block you.
I did not say that those problems "still exist in modern astronomy today". Reread it. I even gave a date for resolving the parallax problem. Your change called Tycho one of "previous astronomers". That is not correct, as Tycho lived after Copernicus.
Your changes to Scalia's article are also completely unacceptable. No encyclopedia would say that. You are trying to put words in his mouth that he never said. If you have proof that Scalia is against desegregation, then document it. Otherwise, don't say it. The article is about Scalia and what he has said and done, not about your personal speculations about what his opinions might have been in the 1950s.
You are becoming a nuisance. Use the Talk pages to make your points. RSchlafly 13:40, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
I blocked him. --Ed Poor 13:42, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't know AmesG's other work. My objection is to these edits: Scalia [11] Copernicus [12] Theory [13], and to his subsequent edit wars over those edits. RSchlafly 14:12, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
What's wrong with the Brahe insert? He did solve many of the problems with Copernicus' theory.--Dave3172 14:16, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Tycho Brahe did some important works, as did dozens of later eminent astronomers. I think that AmesG's comments were inappropriate because it is peculiar to single out Tycho in this context, Tycho was not a "previous astronomer", and Tycho did not solve any of the 3 problems that were mentioned in the previous sentence. RSchlafly 14:27, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
As to the other two, I think Ames could've left out the Brown v. Board part and left it at that. And most of the "Theory" part is good, except for this: " In fact, it is hard to find anyone who makes this distinction, outside those who are promoting the theory of evolution to the general public." That's a flat-out falsehood. It's also unsubstantiated and opinion, not fact.--Dave3172 14:19, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
If the statement is "flat-out falsehood", then it should be easy to prove me wrong. Just give me a couple of URLs of pages that make the distinction. I did discuss the matter on the Talk page. RSchlafly 14:36, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Are you serious?? If anything, the burden should be on you to prove your statement. I make that distinction all the time, b/c it'd be less than honest to tell people that the word "theory" can't be used in different ways. And again, you can't cite that claim. It should be removed.--Dave3172 15:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, I am quite serious. If you have some evidence that I am wrong, please post it on Talk:Theory. RSchlafly 15:11, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

ACLU and Evolution

Thanks for the revert; however, what is wrong with reverting back to my edit [14]. (sourced ref from Ann Coulter). I think it is wrong for liberal editors to change sourced conservative views and replace them with their own liberal opinions (in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments). This is Conservapedia, and I don't want this to turn into Wikipedia, where the libs edit out what they don't like. They preach about free speech, including burning the flag, but they won't allow sourced comments from Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter. Crocoitetalk 12:37, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

If some edit of yours got lost, go ahead and put it back in. I was merely trying to revert an edit of AmesG. He removed a perfectly good quote, and inserted a sentence in a half that had 3 factual errors in it. Almost every edit of his is erroneous and destructive. RSchlafly 20:22, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

My Reply

A few things.

  1. As requested by Ed Poor, I have posted my reply to your "charges" here. I feel that my edits to Copernicus have been vindicated.
  2. In re the Theory article, Shlaf, you've been argued into a corner you can't get out of on the talk page. Please answer the comments there before claiming that you're right.
  3. In re the Antonin Scalia article, I never intended to imply that Scalia does not support the Brown decision. I'm sure he comes up with his own way to back it up. However, the Earl Warren opinion on Brown did rest on responsivism, which Scalia disagrees with flat out, as you have proven for me. So he disagrees with the popular reason for Brown, which is all that I argued, regardless of what you inferred. And you haven't disproven that thesis except to say, "Wha?! Who!??! Huh!?"
  4. Thank you to everyone who defended me. I appreciate it.
  5. I still think you can't be serious regarding the Theory article.
  6. Peace.-AmesGyo! 16:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

No, your edits to Copernicus were entirely wrong. In fact, all of you edits have been 100% bogus. I just had to revert this edit [15] to ACLU. You just changed one line and managed to insert three errors. I believe that you should be blocked for persisting in making such destructive edits. RSchlafly 21:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

As discussed on talk:ACLU, yours is a bias-laden statement that makes no pretense at neutrality. Mine is legal fact. Look it up, or read the case, if it's just not too much trouble for ya. I would be thrilled to e-mail you a PDF from Lexis so you can have a go at it. I already have.-AmesGyo! 17:39, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Good delete

Good delete on Flat Earth Society. I believe that both of those organizations, while the URLs exist, are hoaxes and do not belong on this site. MountainDew 23:19, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, those sites are hoaxes, and so was the article. I just added an article on Flat Earth. RSchlafly 00:48, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Pedophilic priests

I had previously deleted that, but sysop Ed Poor wanted to try to make it into an article. Do you think it would be maybe appropriate to make a more general article called something such as "Catholic Church abuse scandal"? MountainDew 01:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I was thinking of moving it to a more general Pedophila article, but someone deleted that. Not sure why. RSchlafly 01:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

That could also be done. At the very least, there should be a section on the specific Catholic aspects within that article, because it was obviously a fairly significant news story. MountainDew 01:47, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Flat Earth

So, are you going to explain your block of the Flat Earth page? Given that my arguments are valid and need to be addressed I would have thought that an open, and more thoughtful outcome of the situation could have arisen. Also, given that its either my version or yours, the decision to block should be made by a different sysop (i.e. not one of the involved editors!) as to whether or not the page should be blocked. MatteeNeutra 11:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

So tell me on the Talk page where my version is in error. I posted why your version is wrong. RSchlafly 11:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, I had already posted this before I realised you had posted on the talk page! MatteeNeutra 11:49, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
I added a lot to Flat Earth and made some comments at talk:Flat Earth. --Ed Poor 13:04, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks. Conservapedia ought to be one place where evolutionists cannot make fun of Christians as flat earthers. RSchlafly 15:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)


Mohammedans? Never heard of it. I guess you learn something new every day... --Hojimachongtalk 17:55, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

It's a very old fashioned term, and considered to be offensive. MountainDew 17:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it is an old-fashioned term, but it used to be extremely common and it is still in dictionaries. It fell out of favor, but I don't think that it is correct to say that it is offensive. It is no more offensive than "moslem". Some people prefer "muslim" to "moslem", but there is nothing wrong with using "moslem" or "mohammedan". RSchlafly 18:03, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Moslem vs. Muslim is a trans-Atlantic distinction. As for "Mohammedan," I studied with one of the nation's best Islamicists when I was at Rice. She specifically told us never to use "Mohammedan," and if you read any formal scholarship (after 1900) on the subject, you'll learn not to do it either. May I suggest Berkey, "the Formation of Islam"? Or, if you still disagree, we might as well revert to the Sayers translation of Song of Roland, and just call Muslims Paynims. It has about the same pejorative meaning.-AmesGyo! 01:24, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, there are those who prefer not to use the term Mohammedan, but their objection is not that it is an ethnic slur or a synonym for paynim. RSchlafly 12:57, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Those who "prefer not to use" the term are the Muslims themselves :-/ -AmesGyo! 01:04, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
And there are terrorists who prefer not to be called terrorists, and Moslems who prefer not to be called Moslems. RSchlafly 02:37, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
My understanding is that the reason why it is not used is because it falsely implies that Muslims worship Mohammed. MountainDew 02:38, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Reasons like that are sometimes given, but they don't make much sense. Note that your reason is different from AmesG's reason. I don't think that there is any good reason. RSchlafly 03:13, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
I suppose the #1 determinant for whether the term goes in should be whether it is, in fact, commonly used or not. I can't speak for others, but I don't hear it used. Maybe in other parts of the country the term is more common, I don't know. MountainDew 03:31, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
It used to be more common. You'll find it a lot if you read old books. I would not be suggesting it if I thought that it was an ethnic slur. It is not. It literally means just a follower of Mohammad. Nothing wrong with the term. RSchlafly 03:44, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
I think the one place I've seen it is in an old book in my church library, so that makes sense. MountainDew 03:51, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it's bad because it is an ethnic slur, and insulting for the reason that MountainDew stated - it implies that Muslims worship Mohammed, which is insulting in the same way that saying that Jews worship Moses would be insulting. If you can find it in old books, guys, but not in any other books, it probably means that the term is outdated, as I've argued. I'm sure you'll find "colored" in old books describing African Americans, but I'd advise against using it in an article...-10:36, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

It is VERY offensive for muslims to be referred to as Mohammadeans, for the above reasons. They are a very adamantly monotheistic faith, and any implication that they worship a human being is considered blasphemy (and you know how they feel about that). It's like calling Christians John-ians or Luke-ians. Leave it out already. Why would you want to be so offensive. PalMDtalk 10:57, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think that Mohammedan is an ethnic slur any more than "Abrahamic religion" is an ethnic slur on Jews. RSchlafly 11:19, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
You don't think a lot of the time. Apology accepted.-AmesGyo! 15:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
AmesG, I was not apologizing to you.
PalMD, calling Christians John-ians or Luke-ians is not particularly offensive. Of course, there are people who are offended by innocuous statements. RSchlafly 01:04, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Since you weren't apologizing to me before, I'll accept it now.-AmesGyo! 18:08, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

For what? Are you a Mohammedan who doesn't like to be called a Mohammedan? RSchlafly 18:57, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Abortion poll

Dear Ms Schlafly - I did quote the abortion poll correctly, and when you quoted it selectively I expanded your quotation to give details. Please check the link. My subsequent editing of your misleading statement has been reverted. I suggest altering it to the unarguable one that 62% of Americans do not want Roe v Wade to be returned. Unless I hear your reasons why you believe this to be less than factual, I will edit it to that version shortly. --Britinme 16:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Your statement did not match the most recent poll on the cited page with the poll results. Yes, your statement is less than factual. Give support on the Talk page, if you wish. RSchlafly 17:12, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
The page I linked to had a whole series of polls. The two most recent polls said that 16% of the American public favored retaining unlimited rights to abortion, and 39% favored abortion being 'legal in most cases'. Of the remainder, 31% favored it being illegal in 'most' cases and 12% illegal in all cases. In other words, 55% favor it being legal in all or most cases and 43% favor it being illegal in all or most cases, with 2% unsure either way. The other poll referred to the retention of the rights granted under Roe v Wade and 62% favored this. This should be reflected in the article because as it stands the article misrepresents the facts. Please tell me why you think we should misrepresent facts clearly laid out in a neutral opinion poll. --Britinme 17:37, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
No, I posted actual facts. I am against misrepresenting facts. RSchlafly 18:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Here is something I put on my userpage. Please spread the word among your friends



Conservative 19:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Sysop Pledge

As my good deed of the day I am requesting that you place this template on your userpage. Participating sysops will earn my respect and gratitude. --BenjaminS 00:05, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Sysop Pledge
As a Conservapedia Sysop, I will NEVER ARBITRARILY block anyone who is not in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments or related CP Guidelines.


Could we divide the topic of adultery into, for example, the Sin of adultery and "Adultery"? I'm not sure what the two types of infraction should be called, but it might make it easier on readers if we did a sort of division. What do you think would be best? --Ed Poor 20:11, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

What's the difference between the Sin of adultery and Adultery? What's the latter, the crime? I don't really agree with the recent edits on that page, and I guess I'll say so there. RSchlafly 21:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Homosexuality article

Hi Roger. Could you please alter the first sentences of Homosexuality in accordance with talk:homosexuality#attraction or activity or comment there? I see you altered the Biblical Prohibition section. Thanks. --Scott 10:15, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Capital punishment

What was dubious about explaining the context of Leviticus and Deuteronomy as a covenant between the Israelis and God?

By the way, I wasn't the one who put the stupid comment about the Ten Commandments in there. DanH 13:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

please vote for me

Please vote for me here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Request_for_Bureaucratship Conservative 00:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Why do you hate gay people so much?

Just curious. I'd love to know the reasons behind your "principled" disagreement.-AmesGyo! 10:52, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

My disagreement is with your edits, as they are frequently erroneous and destructive. It has nothing to do with you being gay or not gay. RSchlafly 14:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I never said I was gay or not (!?), but as someone who believes in equality & egalitarianism, I think it offends all of humanity, the level of distaste that your edits level against homosexuals.-AmesGyo! 16:31, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I never said that I hate gay people. Your bigotry is noted. RSchlafly 20:02, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Hmm, bigotry is not accepting bigotry now? (butting in where I'm not wanted) Human 21:32, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Apparently AmesG and you want to use this page for ad hominem attacks on me. You will note that AmesG does not mention any specific edits to support his attacks. RSchlafly 22:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

i know i have no part in this, but doesnt it seem like "mr. equality and egalitarianism and tolerance" AmesG is showing an utter lack of tolerance?Bohdan

No, AmesG asked Roger a question and he schlaflied it by avoiding the question and making a random assessment of the user. Jrssr5 15:51, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I liked this edit. [16] It's exactly what I was trying to say, but couldn't put into words. --Ed Poor 12:29, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Question about your beliefs

Have you heard how they genetically alter fruit to make new fruits? I strongly disagree with this practice because it messes with the Earth the way it was created. Next it will be human cloning. This is just a stepping stone. Whats your opinion? (By the way I love your user page! It is so exciting. Mine is boring.) Thanks your friend--BushRules12 23:40, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I think that the genetic modifications have been for the better, so far. Human cloning is another story. RSchlafly 00:25, 29 April 2007 (EDT)


Please do not ever use the above-referenced word in an encyclopedia article. It is an offensive and ignorant slur, and does not reflect well upon the user. Thank you. --JeffersonDarcy 14:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Why do you say that it is "ignorant"? Is it more offensive than "homophobic"? Why? RSchlafly 15:39, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

It is more offensive than "homophobic." The parallel is, "n****r" : "racist" :: "f****t" : "homophobe".-AmesGyo! 16:32, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

So you say, but that is not my experience. Do you have any evidence to back up what you say? RSchlafly 16:56, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Call a gay man a "f****t" and see the effect. Ask a homosexual how they feel about that word. If you have any emotions at all, you can see why it's more offensive.-AmesGyo! 16:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I hear black men say "nigger" frequently. I have heard homosexual man say "faggot" frequently. Both are obviously "in words". --Ed Poor 17:02, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, let's clarify the difference. I'm not saying it's okay to say it under any circumstances. But the generally accepted cultural convention is that someone "in" the group may use a derogatory slur, just like you can say, "yeah, I sucked on that exam," but your friend saying, "DUDE, you sucked on that exam," is not okay. That doesn't make EITHER words that are okay when used by someone outside the group, and esp. not to convey malice.-AmesGyo! 17:03, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

shouldnt the "homophobes" only be able to call themselves homophobes?Bohdan

NO. There is a difference. But tell you what if you don't see it, and if you don't want to be called a "homophobe," fine. I won't call you that, and I'll not use the word, if you won't use the words discussed above. This is only because I can't seem to make the difference clear to you, although it would be clear to anyone who actually is gay.-AmesGyo! 17:06, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, I see the difference. You just happen to like some name-calling better than other name-calling, based on your own personal prejudices. That's all. RSchlafly 00:46, 1 May 2007 (EDT)


Hey can you revert my user talk page? --Will N. 14:34, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Geocentric theory

Roger: Strange as it might seem, I have personally run into people who cite the Bible in support of the geocentric theory of the solar system. I'm not saying that I buy those interpretations. I am saying that there's more to that proposition than someone (like user Mmeelliissssaa) trying to be a "wiseguy." I would say to Mmeelliissssaa that she ought to cite her sources for any claims of "evidence advanced to support geocentrism." Then we can cite contrary evidence. But as I say--I don't think those edits really constituted subtle vandalism. I believe that the editor submitted them in good faith, and all that they need are appropriate citations.--TerryHTalk 12:13, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't know whether she believes that stuff or not, but even if she believes it, that is not reason enough to put it in an encyclopedia. A lot of people believe a lot of kooky things, and we can't list them all. RSchlafly 12:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
I don't see why you are so opposed to the page stating that some people believe the geocentric theory. Clearly some people do believe it. --CPAdmin1 12:30, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
No, it is not clear. Who? Where? How do you know that the web page is not a joke? RSchlafly 12:36, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
It looks real, as does This one --CPAdmin1 12:41, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
I am not going to pay the $27 to try to find out. What if someone else says the Moon is made of green cheese and cites a web site? It is not much evidence that there is any significant belief in a green cheese theory. Maybe it could be mentioned in an article on Internet scams or something like that. I did look at the work that Mmeelliissssaa referred me too, and it is not a serious piece of work. RSchlafly 12:49, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
Exactly what i try to tell to creationists time to time, if 99% of biologists think creationism has no merits and is just view held by few people because of their religious beliefs, why waste time and space on encyclopedia for that. But still, most encyclopedias like Wikipedia are willing to add articles that admit that some people still believe earth to be 6000 years old. But i see Conservapedia is taking a stricter attitude here. I'm all in favour of it. Timppeli 12:57, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
What is the idea in adding joke pages (for example fixedearth) as references - I don't understand it if this site is trying to be encyclopedic one and not a joke collection!? They are parodies written about Christians. Irony and taunt. And even better joke if someone takes it as earnestly written. --Aulis Eskola 13:42, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
Well to be fair, I thought YEC was a parody of Christian beliefs until I did some research on it. Geocentrism doesn't sound that much more implausible to me. --Sulgran 14:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Vandalism to Geocentric Theory

You managed to cut out all of my well-researched and highly-relevant material from the article without any comment whatsoever. I consider this to be vandalism. If this behaviour continues I shall report this to a SySop. User:OfficerDibble.



Peace Pact. If you want to make reversions, propose them on the Talk page. I know I have one other person who is editing who will support my point of view.


Can I point out that the reason the Conservapedia was set up in the first place was that some conservative views were being sidelined by an obviously liberal organ because those views did not concur whith the majority. Your revert of the Geocentric Theory page then protection of it clearly demonstrates that the are some conservative elements who are quilty of the same crime that Wikipedia is accused of. User:OfficerDibble