User:GregG/RSS 3
From Conservapedia
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:10:45 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Essay: The "Reason Rally" was so depressing</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
The Almighty caused it to rain on the "Reason Rally":
New page
== The Almighty caused it to rain on the "Reason Rally" ==
God humbles the "Reason Rally," a national atheist rally in America, via a rainy day.
[5] The Almighty rained on your parade atheists. What are you going to do about it?
The rally was billed as "the largest gathering of the secular movement in world history," but only several thousand people gathered during the rainy day for the event.[6][7]
== See also ==
- Atheism and depression
- Atheism and suicide
- Atheism and health
- Essay: The benefits of atheism
- Atheism and marriageability
- Atheism and mass murder
- Atheism and uncharitableness
- Atheism and morality
Other resources:
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 00:55:56 GMT (edit by JoshuaB)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Possible bit of quoteming detected.
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 00:55, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
::::::::Then why do you insist with this anti-religious pseudoscience?--DavidEdwards 14:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ::::::::Then why do you insist with this anti-religious pseudoscience?--DavidEdwards 14:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
← Now you have intrigued me: what's your definition of pseudoscience? AugustO 14:45, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ← Now you have intrigued me: what's your definition of pseudoscience? AugustO 14:45, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | =Question= | ||
| + | This snipet of sentence appears in the introduction: "...a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory." Let's compare that to the entire sentence it was lifted from: "Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory." One can't help but notice that the part of the sentence that states that the theory has been observed to be valid in real world experimentation, has been surgically removed. Why is this? Is it because it stands in contradiction to the claim the lead author of this article is trying to promulgate? --JoshuaB 20:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 00:55:28 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>Mystery:Why Do Atheists Dislike Underdogs?</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
punctuation after the comma
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 00:55, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | In Britain, where 55% of the population describe themselves as Christian<ref>http://www.brin.ac.uk/news/2011/yougovcambridge-on-religion/</ref> | + | In Britain, where 55% of the population describe themselves as Christian,<ref>http://www.brin.ac.uk/news/2011/yougovcambridge-on-religion/</ref> people dislike underdogs and tend to root for the contestant who is favored to win. The opposite is true in the Christian United States, where the underdogs have traditionally been the favorites of the people. |
However, as the liberal media in the United States becomes increasingly atheistic, victories by underdogs are increasingly met with dismay or disapproval. | However, as the liberal media in the United States becomes increasingly atheistic, victories by underdogs are increasingly met with dismay or disapproval. | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 00:54:52 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>Template:Mainpageleft</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
trimmed, while adding to the popular article list
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 00:54, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 178: | Line 178: | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
|} | |} | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
== Featured article == | == Featured article == | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 00:50:45 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Rain:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 00:50, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 515: | Line 515: | ||
::::It is a glorious time to be a Bible believer and a depressing time to be an atheist (see: Atheism and depression). Conservative 20:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ::::It is a glorious time to be a Bible believer and a depressing time to be an atheist (see: Atheism and depression). Conservative 20:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| - | | + | |
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 03:50:43 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Rain:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 03:50, 26 March 2012 | ||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
| Line 523: | Line 523: | ||
::Atheists are so simpy though with their "why is their evil" whining. Like, if there was a God, then why is my triple scoop ice cream cone dripping on my hand and why did it rain on my parade? Of course, Christian apologists have a ready defense about the existence of evil which confounds simpy atheists: Atheism and the Problem of Evil No doubt any pockets of whiny and simpy atheist resistence is going to be easily defeated with the Question evolution! campaign and other Christian initiatives. Conservative 22:51, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ::Atheists are so simpy though with their "why is their evil" whining. Like, if there was a God, then why is my triple scoop ice cream cone dripping on my hand and why did it rain on my parade? Of course, Christian apologists have a ready defense about the existence of evil which confounds simpy atheists: Atheism and the Problem of Evil No doubt any pockets of whiny and simpy atheist resistence is going to be easily defeated with the Question evolution! campaign and other Christian initiatives. Conservative 22:51, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
:::Conservative, did you ever play Mad Libs as a kid? It's the game where you supply a random collection of nouns, verbs, adjectives... etc. that get placed randomly into a pre-written story. The end results can be quite comical. Anyway, that's what many of your replies read like. Either that, or a poorly written Turing program. --JoshuaB 23:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | :::Conservative, did you ever play Mad Libs as a kid? It's the game where you supply a random collection of nouns, verbs, adjectives... etc. that get placed randomly into a pre-written story. The end results can be quite comical. Anyway, that's what many of your replies read like. Either that, or a poorly written Turing program. --JoshuaB 23:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | ::JoshuaB, why don't you show me how it's done. Show me a well-written article that you have composed which has received a wide readership. Of course, we both know that is not going to happen, don't we? The "criticmeister" is no doubt quite lame when it comes to his own writing. Conservative 23:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 03:56:14 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Rain:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 03:56, 26 March 2012 | ||
| (2 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 521: | Line 521: | ||
or maybe it was just rain, without any political implications? | or maybe it was just rain, without any political implications? | ||
| - | ::Atheists are so simpy though with their "why is their evil" whining. Like, if there was a God, then why is my triple scoop ice cream cone dripping on my hand and why did it rain on my parade? Of course, Christian apologists have a ready defense about the existence of evil which confounds simpy atheists: Atheism and the Problem of Evil No doubt any pockets of whiny and simpy atheist | + | ::Atheists are so simpy though with their "why is their evil" whining. Like, if there was a God, then why is my triple scoop ice cream cone dripping on my hand and why did it rain on my parade? Of course, Christian apologists have a ready defense about the existence of evil which confounds simpy atheists: Atheism and the Problem of Evil No doubt any pockets of whiny and simpy atheist resistance to the gospel being spread throughout the world is going to be easily defeated with the Question evolution! campaign and other Christian initiatives. Conservative 22:51, 25 March 2012 (EDT) |
:::Conservative, did you ever play Mad Libs as a kid? It's the game where you supply a random collection of nouns, verbs, adjectives... etc. that get placed randomly into a pre-written story. The end results can be quite comical. Anyway, that's what many of your replies read like. Either that, or a poorly written Turing program. --JoshuaB 23:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | :::Conservative, did you ever play Mad Libs as a kid? It's the game where you supply a random collection of nouns, verbs, adjectives... etc. that get placed randomly into a pre-written story. The end results can be quite comical. Anyway, that's what many of your replies read like. Either that, or a poorly written Turing program. --JoshuaB 23:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | ::JoshuaB, why don't you show me how it's done. Show me a well-written article that you have composed which has received a wide readership. Of course, we both know that is not going to happen, don't we? The "criticmeister" is no doubt quite lame when it comes to his own writing. Conservative 23:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 03:19:49 GMT (edit by JoshuaB)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Rain:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 03:19, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 522: | Line 522: | ||
or maybe it was just rain, without any political implications? | or maybe it was just rain, without any political implications? | ||
::Atheists are so simpy though with their "why is their evil" whining. Like, if there was a God, then why is my triple scoop ice cream cone dripping on my hand and why did it rain on my parade? Of course, Christian apologists have a ready defense about the existence of evil which confounds simpy atheists: Atheism and the Problem of Evil No doubt any pockets of whiny and simpy atheist resistence is going to be easily defeated with the Question evolution! campaign and other Christian initiatives. Conservative 22:51, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ::Atheists are so simpy though with their "why is their evil" whining. Like, if there was a God, then why is my triple scoop ice cream cone dripping on my hand and why did it rain on my parade? Of course, Christian apologists have a ready defense about the existence of evil which confounds simpy atheists: Atheism and the Problem of Evil No doubt any pockets of whiny and simpy atheist resistence is going to be easily defeated with the Question evolution! campaign and other Christian initiatives. Conservative 22:51, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | :::Conservative, did you ever play Mad Libs as a kid? It's the game where you supply a random collection of nouns, verbs, adjectives... etc. that get placed randomly into a pre-written story. The end results can be quite comical. Anyway, that's what many of your replies read like. Either that, or a poorly written Turing program. --JoshuaB 23:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 03:11:43 GMT (edit by JoshuaB)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Question:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 03:11, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
:::::Also, did you ever answer my simple question on Talk:Main Page about how much time you've spent reading the Bible this month?--Andy Schlafly 22:50, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | :::::Also, did you ever answer my simple question on Talk:Main Page about how much time you've spent reading the Bible this month?--Andy Schlafly 22:50, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::::::Come off it Schlafly. This article is not about my Bible reading, is it? No. Does my opinion of the publishing criteria of physics academia have any bearing on the assertions you are trying make? No. Again: Do you not accept that mass and energy are interchangeable or is it a problem with this specific equation? --JoshuaB 23:11, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 02:58:01 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Rain:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 02:58, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 521: | Line 521: | ||
or maybe it was just rain, without any political implications? | or maybe it was just rain, without any political implications? | ||
| - | ::Atheists are so simpy though with their "why is their evil" whining. Like, if there was a God, then why is my triple scoop ice cream cone dripping on my hand and why did it rain on my parade? Of course, Christian apologists have a ready defense about the existence of evil which confounds simpy atheists: Atheism and the Problem of Evil No doubt whiny and simpy | + | ::Atheists are so simpy though with their "why is their evil" whining. Like, if there was a God, then why is my triple scoop ice cream cone dripping on my hand and why did it rain on my parade? Of course, Christian apologists have a ready defense about the existence of evil which confounds simpy atheists: Atheism and the Problem of Evil No doubt any pockets of whiny and simpy atheist resistence is going to be easily defeated with the Question evolution! campaign and other Christian initiatives. Conservative 22:51, 25 March 2012 (EDT) |
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 02:57:04 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
improved
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 02:57, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics is impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis. | Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics is impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis. | ||
| - | Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of gravity. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object (such as an atom) is a function of electrostatic charge, having nothing to do with gravity. Declaring the object's energy to be a function of inertia rather than electrostatics is an absurd and impossible attempt to unify the forces of nature, contrary to Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge. | + | Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of gravity. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object (such as an atom) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity. Declaring the object's energy to be a function of inertia rather than electrostatics is an absurd and impossible attempt to unify the forces of nature, contrary to Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge. |
For more than a century, the claim that E=mc<sup>2</sup> has never yielded anything of value. Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "energy" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the lamestream media. The equation has been used as a possible explanation for process involved in nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons, and in the study of antimatter.<ref>Tyson, Peter. "The Legacy of E=mc<sup>2</sup>." October 11, 2005. PBS NOVA. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html</ref> | For more than a century, the claim that E=mc<sup>2</sup> has never yielded anything of value. Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "energy" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the lamestream media. The equation has been used as a possible explanation for process involved in nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons, and in the study of antimatter.<ref>Tyson, Peter. "The Legacy of E=mc<sup>2</sup>." October 11, 2005. PBS NOVA. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html</ref> | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 02:53:39 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Rain:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 02:53, 26 March 2012 | ||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
| Line 521: | Line 521: | ||
or maybe it was just rain, without any political implications? | or maybe it was just rain, without any political implications? | ||
| + | ::Atheists are so simpy though with their "why is their evil" whining. Like, if there was a God, then why is my triple scoop ice cream cone dripping on my hand and why did it rain on my parade? Of course, Christian apologists have a ready defense about the existence of evil which confounds simpy atheists: Atheism and the Problem of Evil No doubt whiny and simpy atheists are going to be easily defeated with the Question evolution! campaign. Conservative 22:51, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 02:50:14 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Question: The qualifications on your answer render it almost meaningless.
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 02:50, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
::::Yes. We already know the Theory of Relativity is an incomplete model of our universe. So yes, the theory may be "false", but the one that takes it's place will most likely have many of the same properties. Secondly, would I approve of a "well-written paper that criticized it"? I don't know what that means. I'm not a physicist, so I don't see what difference my "approval" of said paper would make. Now that I've been so kind as to answer your questions, would you return the courtesy and answer the ones I posted above? --JoshuaB 22:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ::::Yes. We already know the Theory of Relativity is an incomplete model of our universe. So yes, the theory may be "false", but the one that takes it's place will most likely have many of the same properties. Secondly, would I approve of a "well-written paper that criticized it"? I don't know what that means. I'm not a physicist, so I don't see what difference my "approval" of said paper would make. Now that I've been so kind as to answer your questions, would you return the courtesy and answer the ones I posted above? --JoshuaB 22:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::::The qualifications on your answer render it almost meaningless. I'm not asking whether your approval of a paper would make a difference, or your opinion about whether you think the replacement of the Theory of Relativity will "most likely" be another theory of relativity. The question was simple and straightforward, referring to a paper critical of the theory of relativity without any appeasement to those who insist on believing in it. An unqualified answer is requested. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::::Also, did you ever answer my simple question on Talk:Main Page about how much time you've spent reading the Bible this month?--Andy Schlafly 22:50, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 02:44:27 GMT (edit by DorMouse)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Rain:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 02:44, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 519: | Line 519: | ||
| | | ||
:::Please see: Essay: The "Reason Rally" was so depressing Conservative 21:16, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | :::Please see: Essay: The "Reason Rally" was so depressing Conservative 21:16, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| - | + | ||
| + | or maybe it was just rain, without any political implications? | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 02:40:12 GMT (edit by JoshuaB)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Rain:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 02:40, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 519: | Line 519: | ||
| | | ||
:::Please see: Essay: The "Reason Rally" was so depressing Conservative 21:16, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | :::Please see: Essay: The "Reason Rally" was so depressing Conservative 21:16, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 02:35:46 GMT (edit by JoshuaB)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Question:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 02:35, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
:::JoshuaB, do you accept the possibility that the Theory of Relativity may be false, and would you approve a well-written paper that criticized it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question.--Andy Schlafly 21:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | :::JoshuaB, do you accept the possibility that the Theory of Relativity may be false, and would you approve a well-written paper that criticized it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question.--Andy Schlafly 21:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::::Yes. We already know the Theory of Relativity is an incomplete model of our universe. So yes, the theory may be "false", but the one that takes it's place will most likely have many of the same properties. Secondly, would I approve of a "well-written paper that criticized it"? I don't know what that means. I'm not a physicist, so I don't see what difference my "approval" of said paper would make. Now that I've been so kind as to answer your questions, would you return the courtesy and answer the ones I posted above? --JoshuaB 22:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 02:33:13 GMT (edit by DorMouse)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Main Page Left:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 02:33, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 500: | Line 500: | ||
:::RobS, do you imagine writing high traffic articles? Why don't you launch your own wiki if you are so unhappy? Show the world how it's done since you are often telling people how it should be done. Conservative 13:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | :::RobS, do you imagine writing high traffic articles? Why don't you launch your own wiki if you are so unhappy? Show the world how it's done since you are often telling people how it should be done. Conservative 13:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
And a message to certain gentlemen: Last time I checked, your website still was not notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article (Even your fellow liberals don't respect you). :) Conservative 14:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | And a message to certain gentlemen: Last time I checked, your website still was not notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article (Even your fellow liberals don't respect you). :) Conservative 14:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Newton, you have your own account at "that other site", so instead of posting red telephone messages that cast serious doubt on your sanity, why not use it?22:33, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
== Conservapedia Sports? == | == Conservapedia Sports? == | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 02:24:00 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
<a href="/Mass" class="mw-redirect" title="Mass">Mass</a> is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of <a href="/Gravity" class="mw-redirect" title="Gravity">gravity</a>. In contrast, the intrinsic <a href="/Energy" title="Energy">energy</a> of an object (such as an <a href="/Atom" title="Atom">atom</a>) is a function of electrost
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 02:24, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics is impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis. | Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics is impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of gravity. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object (such as an atom) is a function of electrostatic charge, having nothing to do with gravity. Declaring the object's energy to be a function of inertia rather than electrostatics is an absurd and impossible attempt to unify the forces of nature, contrary to Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge. | ||
For more than a century, the claim that E=mc<sup>2</sup> has never yielded anything of value. Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "energy" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the lamestream media. The equation has been used as a possible explanation for process involved in nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons, and in the study of antimatter.<ref>Tyson, Peter. "The Legacy of E=mc<sup>2</sup>." October 11, 2005. PBS NOVA. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html</ref> | For more than a century, the claim that E=mc<sup>2</sup> has never yielded anything of value. Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "energy" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the lamestream media. The equation has been used as a possible explanation for process involved in nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons, and in the study of antimatter.<ref>Tyson, Peter. "The Legacy of E=mc<sup>2</sup>." October 11, 2005. PBS NOVA. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html</ref> | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 02:18:03 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Essay: The "Reason Rally" was so depressing</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
See also:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 02:18, 26 March 2012 | ||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Essays: | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
Other resources: | Other resources: | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 02:13:05 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>Template:Mainpageright</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 02:13, 26 March 2012 | ||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<!-- Please, to help with searching of topics, include tag line in edit notes below before saving. EG:"Obama Fails" --> | <!-- Please, to help with searching of topics, include tag line in edit notes below before saving. EG:"Obama Fails" --> | ||
<!--============================BEGIN COPY BELOW THIS LINE!=============================== --> | <!--============================BEGIN COPY BELOW THIS LINE!=============================== --> | ||
| + | "Why isn't there more outrage when innocent kids die in Detroit? ... What have we done for Delric? Or Kade'jah? Or Je'Rean? They were black kids, too. They were innocent. And they were killed for stupid, stupid reasons right here in Detroit," writes Opinion Editor Stephen Henderson. | ||
| + | ---- | ||
No doubt very angry that atheists are but a squeak in American society and are destined to become a half a squeak [17][18], some atheists wash road Christians anointed with oil.[19] | No doubt very angry that atheists are but a squeak in American society and are destined to become a half a squeak [20][21], some atheists wash road Christians anointed with oil.[22] | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:59:56 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Template:Mainpageright</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 01:59, 26 March 2012 | ||
| (2 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<!-- Please, to help with searching of topics, include tag line in edit notes below before saving. EG:"Obama Fails" --> | <!-- Please, to help with searching of topics, include tag line in edit notes below before saving. EG:"Obama Fails" --> | ||
<!--============================BEGIN COPY BELOW THIS LINE!=============================== --> | <!--============================BEGIN COPY BELOW THIS LINE!=============================== --> | ||
| + | No doubt very angry that atheists are but a squeak in American society and are destined to become a half a squeak [23][24], some atheists wash road Christians anointed with oil.[25] | ||
| + | |||
| + | On a related note, please read the new Conservapedia comedy/satire entitled The "Reason Rally" was so depressing | ||
| + | ---- | ||
The high speed Question evolution! campaign booklet composition train is leaving the station![26] | The high speed Question evolution! campaign booklet composition train is leaving the station![27] | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:55:58 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Question: do you accept the possibility that the <a href="/Theory_of_Relativity" class="mw-redirect" title="Theory of Relativity">Theory of Relativity</a> may be false, and would you approve a well-written paper that criticized it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question.
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 01:55, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
::Why won't a peer-reviewed journal publish a criticism of SR or GR? Liberal conspiracy? Also, do you not accept that mass and energy are interchangeable or is it a problem with this specific equation? --JoshuaB 21:24, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ::Why won't a peer-reviewed journal publish a criticism of SR or GR? Liberal conspiracy? Also, do you not accept that mass and energy are interchangeable or is it a problem with this specific equation? --JoshuaB 21:24, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::JoshuaB, do you accept the possibility that the Theory of Relativity may be false, and would you approve a well-written paper that criticized it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question.--Andy Schlafly 21:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:36:55 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Essay: The "Reason Rally" was so depressing</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
See also:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 01:36, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| + | |||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:33:52 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Rain:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 01:33, 26 March 2012 | ||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
| Line 515: | Line 515: | ||
::::It is a glorious time to be a Bible believer and a depressing time to be an atheist (see: Atheism and depression). Conservative 20:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ::::It is a glorious time to be a Bible believer and a depressing time to be an atheist (see: Atheism and depression). Conservative 20:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| - | | + | |
:::Please see: Essay: The "Reason Rally" was so depressing Conservative 21:16, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | :::Please see: Essay: The "Reason Rally" was so depressing Conservative 21:16, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:31:12 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Essay: The "Reason Rally" was so depressing</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 01:31, 26 March 2012 | ||
| (2 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | | + | |
| + | <br /><br /> | ||
| + | See also: [[Atheism and depression]] and Global atheism is shrinking | ||
== The Almighty caused it to rain on the "Reason Rally" == | == The Almighty caused it to rain on the "Reason Rally" == | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:24:54 GMT (edit by JoshuaB)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 01:24, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
:Peer-reviewed journals won't publish a criticism of relativity. That's obvious. Although I don't have a copy of the full paper, I doubt it attempts to fully support the hearsay that was excluded, and I would not be surprised if it was included simply to safeguard against complaints for what followed. It adds nothing to the basic point that follows and is quoted here.--Andy Schlafly 21:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | :Peer-reviewed journals won't publish a criticism of relativity. That's obvious. Although I don't have a copy of the full paper, I doubt it attempts to fully support the hearsay that was excluded, and I would not be surprised if it was included simply to safeguard against complaints for what followed. It adds nothing to the basic point that follows and is quoted here.--Andy Schlafly 21:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::Why won't a peer-reviewed journal publish a criticism of SR or GR? Liberal conspiracy? Also, do you not accept that mass and energy are interchangeable or is it a problem with this specific equation? --JoshuaB 21:24, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:23:31 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Essay: The "Reason Rally" was so depressing</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
See also:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 01:23, 26 March 2012 | ||
| (4 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
== The Almighty caused it to rain on the "Reason Rally" == | == The Almighty caused it to rain on the "Reason Rally" == | ||
| - | | ||
[28] The Almighty rained on your parade atheists. What are you going to do about it? | [29] The Almighty rained on your parade atheists. What are you going to do about it? | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| - | Other resources: | + | Other resources: |
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:20:18 GMT (edit by JoshuaB)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Irrelevant claims:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 01:20, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
::::::::Then why do you insist with this anti-religious pseudoscience?--DavidEdwards 14:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ::::::::Then why do you insist with this anti-religious pseudoscience?--DavidEdwards 14:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
← Now you have intrigued me: what's your definition of pseudoscience? AugustO 14:45, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ← Now you have intrigued me: what's your definition of pseudoscience? AugustO 14:45, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Pssst! DavidEdwards! You're trying waaaaay too hard. --JoshuaB 21:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
=Question= | =Question= | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:20:17 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Essay: The "Reason Rally" was so depressing</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
The Almighty caused it to rain on the "Reason Rally":
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 01:20, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
== The Almighty caused it to rain on the "Reason Rally" == | == The Almighty caused it to rain on the "Reason Rally" == | ||
| - | | + | |
[30] The Almighty rained on your parade atheists. What are you going to do about it? | [31] The Almighty rained on your parade atheists. What are you going to do about it? | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:19:00 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Question: I would not be surprised if it was included simply to safeguard against complaints for what followed. It adds nothing to the basic point that follows and is quoted here.
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 01:19, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
=Question= | =Question= | ||
This snipet of sentence appears in the introduction: "...a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory." Let's compare that to the entire sentence it was lifted from: "Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory." One can't help but notice that the part of the sentence that states that the theory has been observed to be valid in real world experimentation, has been surgically removed. Why is this? Is it because it stands in contradiction to the claim the lead author of this article is trying to promulgate? --JoshuaB 20:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | This snipet of sentence appears in the introduction: "...a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory." Let's compare that to the entire sentence it was lifted from: "Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory." One can't help but notice that the part of the sentence that states that the theory has been observed to be valid in real world experimentation, has been surgically removed. Why is this? Is it because it stands in contradiction to the claim the lead author of this article is trying to promulgate? --JoshuaB 20:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Peer-reviewed journals won't publish a criticism of relativity. That's obvious. Although I don't have a copy of the full paper, I doubt it attempts to fully support the hearsay that was excluded, and I would not be surprised if it was included simply to safeguard against complaints for what followed. It adds nothing to the basic point that follows and is quoted here.--Andy Schlafly 21:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:16:56 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Rain:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 01:16, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 516: | Line 516: | ||
::::It is a glorious time to be a Bible believer and a depressing time to be an atheist (see: Atheism and depression). Conservative 20:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ::::It is a glorious time to be a Bible believer and a depressing time to be an atheist (see: Atheism and depression). Conservative 20:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| | | ||
| + | :::Please see: Essay: The "Reason Rally" was so depressing Conservative 21:16, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:14:00 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Essay: The "Reason Rally" was so depressing</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
The Almighty caused it to rain on the "Reason Rally":
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 01:14, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
== The Almighty caused it to rain on the "Reason Rally" == | == The Almighty caused it to rain on the "Reason Rally" == | ||
| - | | + | |
[32] The Almighty rained on your parade atheists. What are you going to do about it? | [33] The Almighty rained on your parade atheists. What are you going to do about it? | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:13:15 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Essay:Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 01:13, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| + | |||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:10:45 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Essay: The "Reason Rally" was so depressing</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
The Almighty caused it to rain on the "Reason Rally":
New page
== The Almighty caused it to rain on the "Reason Rally" ==
God humbles the "Reason Rally," a national atheist rally in America, via a rainy day.
[34] The Almighty rained on your parade atheists. What are you going to do about it?
The rally was billed as "the largest gathering of the secular movement in world history," but only several thousand people gathered during the rainy day for the event.[35][36]
== See also ==
- Atheism and depression
- Atheism and suicide
- Atheism and health
- Essay: The benefits of atheism
- Atheism and marriageability
- Atheism and mass murder
- Atheism and uncharitableness
- Atheism and morality
Other resources:
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 00:55:56 GMT (edit by JoshuaB)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Possible bit of quoteming detected.
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 00:55, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
::::::::Then why do you insist with this anti-religious pseudoscience?--DavidEdwards 14:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ::::::::Then why do you insist with this anti-religious pseudoscience?--DavidEdwards 14:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
← Now you have intrigued me: what's your definition of pseudoscience? AugustO 14:45, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ← Now you have intrigued me: what's your definition of pseudoscience? AugustO 14:45, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | =Question= | ||
| + | This snipet of sentence appears in the introduction: "...a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory." Let's compare that to the entire sentence it was lifted from: "Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory." One can't help but notice that the part of the sentence that states that the theory has been observed to be valid in real world experimentation, has been surgically removed. Why is this? Is it because it stands in contradiction to the claim the lead author of this article is trying to promulgate? --JoshuaB 20:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 00:55:28 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>Mystery:Why Do Atheists Dislike Underdogs?</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
punctuation after the comma
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 00:55, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | In Britain, where 55% of the population describe themselves as Christian<ref>http://www.brin.ac.uk/news/2011/yougovcambridge-on-religion/</ref> | + | In Britain, where 55% of the population describe themselves as Christian,<ref>http://www.brin.ac.uk/news/2011/yougovcambridge-on-religion/</ref> people dislike underdogs and tend to root for the contestant who is favored to win. The opposite is true in the Christian United States, where the underdogs have traditionally been the favorites of the people. |
However, as the liberal media in the United States becomes increasingly atheistic, victories by underdogs are increasingly met with dismay or disapproval. | However, as the liberal media in the United States becomes increasingly atheistic, victories by underdogs are increasingly met with dismay or disapproval. | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:01:32 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Essay: The "Reason Rally" was so depressing</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
The Almighty caused it to rain on the "Reason Rally":
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 04:01, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
See also: Atheism and depression and Global atheism is shrinking ]] | See also: Atheism and depression and Global atheism is shrinking ]] | ||
| - | == The Almighty | + | == The Almighty poured rain upon the "Reason Rally" == |
[[File:Gloomy.jpg|200px|right|thumbnail| | [[File:Gloomy.jpg|200px|right|thumbnail| | ||
<br /> | <br /> | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 03:56:14 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Rain:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 03:56, 26 March 2012 | ||
| (2 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 521: | Line 521: | ||
or maybe it was just rain, without any political implications? | or maybe it was just rain, without any political implications? | ||
| - | ::Atheists are so simpy though with their "why is their evil" whining. Like, if there was a God, then why is my triple scoop ice cream cone dripping on my hand and why did it rain on my parade? Of course, Christian apologists have a ready defense about the existence of evil which confounds simpy atheists: Atheism and the Problem of Evil No doubt any pockets of whiny and simpy atheist | + | ::Atheists are so simpy though with their "why is their evil" whining. Like, if there was a God, then why is my triple scoop ice cream cone dripping on my hand and why did it rain on my parade? Of course, Christian apologists have a ready defense about the existence of evil which confounds simpy atheists: Atheism and the Problem of Evil No doubt any pockets of whiny and simpy atheist resistance to the gospel being spread throughout the world is going to be easily defeated with the Question evolution! campaign and other Christian initiatives. Conservative 22:51, 25 March 2012 (EDT) |
:::Conservative, did you ever play Mad Libs as a kid? It's the game where you supply a random collection of nouns, verbs, adjectives... etc. that get placed randomly into a pre-written story. The end results can be quite comical. Anyway, that's what many of your replies read like. Either that, or a poorly written Turing program. --JoshuaB 23:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | :::Conservative, did you ever play Mad Libs as a kid? It's the game where you supply a random collection of nouns, verbs, adjectives... etc. that get placed randomly into a pre-written story. The end results can be quite comical. Anyway, that's what many of your replies read like. Either that, or a poorly written Turing program. --JoshuaB 23:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | ::JoshuaB, why don't you show me how it's done. Show me a well-written article that you have composed which has received a wide readership. Of course, we both know that is not going to happen, don't we? The "criticmeister" is no doubt quite lame when it comes to his own writing. Conservative 23:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:05:31 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>Essay:Best New Conservative Words</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
sidewalk counseling | 1975 | the practice, which <a href="/Pro-aborts" class="mw-redirect" title="Pro-aborts">pro-aborts</a> have passed laws to try to stop, of volunteers giving good advice against <a href="/Abortion" title="Abortion">abortion</a> to women as they approach abortion clinics
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 04:05, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
|- | |- | ||
|1900s | |1900s | ||
| - | | | + | |229 |
|- | |- | ||
|2000s | |2000s | ||
| Line 1,565: | Line 1,565: | ||
|1937 | |1937 | ||
|trials, especially in communist countries, which have preordained outcomes but are used for propaganda purposes | |trials, especially in communist countries, which have preordained outcomes but are used for propaganda purposes | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | |sidewalk counseling | ||
| + | |1975 | ||
| + | |the practice, which pro-aborts have passed laws to try to stop, of volunteers giving good advice against abortion to women as they approach abortion clinics | ||
|- | |- | ||
|silent majority | |silent majority | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:06:56 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>Essay:Best New Conservative Words</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Conservative words and terms: trim
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 04:06, 26 March 2012 | ||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
|- | |- | ||
|1900s | |1900s | ||
| - | | | + | |229 |
|- | |- | ||
|2000s | |2000s | ||
| Line 1,552: | Line 1,552: | ||
|1630 | |1630 | ||
|concern with one's own interests <ref>Rand, Ayn. The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism</ref> | |concern with one's own interests <ref>Rand, Ayn. The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism</ref> | ||
| - | |||
|- | |- | ||
|separation of powers | |separation of powers | ||
| Line 1,565: | Line 1,564: | ||
|1937 | |1937 | ||
|trials, especially in communist countries, which have preordained outcomes but are used for propaganda purposes | |trials, especially in communist countries, which have preordained outcomes but are used for propaganda purposes | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | |sidewalk counseling | ||
| + | |1975 | ||
| + | |the practice, which pro-aborts have passed laws to try to stop, of volunteers giving good advice against abortion to women as they approach abortion clinics | ||
|- | |- | ||
|silent majority | |silent majority | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:10:41 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
move quote to <a href="/Rick_Santorum" title="Rick Santorum">Rick Santorum</a> now
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 04:10, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<!-- <div style="background-color: #f5faff; border: 1px solid #cedff2; padding: 20px; "><div style="margin: 0 auto; width: 400px; background-color: #cedff2; border: 1px solid #a3b0bf; padding: 5px;">  | <!-- <div style="background-color: #f5faff; border: 1px solid #cedff2; padding: 20px; "><div style="margin: 0 auto; width: 400px; background-color: #cedff2; border: 1px solid #a3b0bf; padding: 5px;"> | ||
America has much for which to be thankful. ... Let us recommit ourselves to that devotion to God and family <small>--Ronald Reagan, 1981</small></center></div> --> | America has much for which to be thankful. ... Let us recommit ourselves to that devotion to God and family <small>--Ronald Reagan, 1981</small></center></div> --> | ||
| - | |||
<!-- Beginning of about Conservapedia (left side) section --> | <!-- Beginning of about Conservapedia (left side) section --> | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:09:06 GMT (edit by JoshuaB)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Rain:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 04:09, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 524: | Line 524: | ||
:::Conservative, did you ever play Mad Libs as a kid? It's the game where you supply a random collection of nouns, verbs, adjectives... etc. that get placed randomly into a pre-written story. The end results can be quite comical. Anyway, that's what many of your replies read like. Either that, or a poorly written Turing program. --JoshuaB 23:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | :::Conservative, did you ever play Mad Libs as a kid? It's the game where you supply a random collection of nouns, verbs, adjectives... etc. that get placed randomly into a pre-written story. The end results can be quite comical. Anyway, that's what many of your replies read like. Either that, or a poorly written Turing program. --JoshuaB 23:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
::JoshuaB, why don't you show me how it's done. Show me a well-written article that you have composed which has received a wide readership. Of course, we both know that is not going to happen, don't we? The "criticmeister" is no doubt quite lame when it comes to his own writing. Conservative 23:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ::JoshuaB, why don't you show me how it's done. Show me a well-written article that you have composed which has received a wide readership. Of course, we both know that is not going to happen, don't we? The "criticmeister" is no doubt quite lame when it comes to his own writing. Conservative 23:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | :::You have me wrong Conservative, I lay no claims to being a skilled practitioner of the written word. Yet, one does not need to be a master to spot amateurishness in others. For example, I am not a gymnast. I have all the grace of a three-legged ox. But if I watched you take to the balance beam, do a triple back flip, and land squarely on your head... I wouldn't have to be Mary Lou Retton or Nadia Comaneci to tell you that you're doing it wrong. Hey! I just thought of something! You thought I was making a claim of skill, so you demanded proof. Very shrewd of you. Unfortunately for you, I made no such claim. Nice try though. But it does remind me that you have made many claims at never having lost a debate... got any proof? What's that? The street lights are on and you here your mom calling? ;-) --JoshuaB 00:09, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:06:56 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>Essay:Best New Conservative Words</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Conservative words and terms: trim
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 04:06, 26 March 2012 | ||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
|- | |- | ||
|1900s | |1900s | ||
| - | | | + | |229 |
|- | |- | ||
|2000s | |2000s | ||
| Line 1,552: | Line 1,552: | ||
|1630 | |1630 | ||
|concern with one's own interests <ref>Rand, Ayn. The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism</ref> | |concern with one's own interests <ref>Rand, Ayn. The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism</ref> | ||
| - | |||
|- | |- | ||
|separation of powers | |separation of powers | ||
| Line 1,565: | Line 1,564: | ||
|1937 | |1937 | ||
|trials, especially in communist countries, which have preordained outcomes but are used for propaganda purposes | |trials, especially in communist countries, which have preordained outcomes but are used for propaganda purposes | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | |sidewalk counseling | ||
| + | |1975 | ||
| + | |the practice, which pro-aborts have passed laws to try to stop, of volunteers giving good advice against abortion to women as they approach abortion clinics | ||
|- | |- | ||
|silent majority | |silent majority | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:01:32 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Essay: The "Reason Rally" was so depressing</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
The Almighty caused it to rain on the "Reason Rally":
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 04:01, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
See also: Atheism and depression and Global atheism is shrinking ]] | See also: Atheism and depression and Global atheism is shrinking ]] | ||
| - | == The Almighty | + | == The Almighty poured rain upon the "Reason Rally" == |
[[File:Gloomy.jpg|200px|right|thumbnail| | [[File:Gloomy.jpg|200px|right|thumbnail| | ||
<br /> | <br /> | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:12:36 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>Rick Santorum</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 04:12, 26 March 2012 | |||||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | |||||
 | | |||||
Richard John "Rick" Santorum (Winchester, Virginia, May 10, 1958) is an American conservative lawyer and politician. He is member of the Republican Party. Santorum served as United States Senator from Pennsylvania from January, 1995 to January, 2007. During that time, Santorum was known for his conservative political views. Santorum is currently an excellent candidate for the 2012 Presidential Election. Endorsed by the pro-life Susan B. Anthony organization,<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/17/susan-b-anthony-list-to-endorse-santorum/</ref> he is currently a candidate in the 2012 Republican Primary. | Richard John "Rick" Santorum (Winchester, Virginia, May 10, 1958) is an American conservative lawyer and politician. He is member of the Republican Party. Santorum served as United States Senator from Pennsylvania from January, 1995 to January, 2007. During that time, Santorum was known for his conservative political views. Santorum is currently an excellent candidate for the 2012 Presidential Election. Endorsed by the pro-life Susan B. Anthony organization,<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/17/susan-b-anthony-list-to-endorse-santorum/</ref> he is currently a candidate in the 2012 Republican Primary. | |||||
| + | ||||||
| + | After winning Louisiana in the Republican primary for the Presidential Election 2012, his 11th state victory, conservative Rick Santorum observed: | |||||
| + | ||||||
| + |
| |||||
In 2000, he was elected by his peers to the position of Senate Republican Conference Chairman. | In 2000, he was elected by his peers to the position of Senate Republican Conference Chairman. | |||||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:13:46 GMT (edit by JoshuaB)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Rain:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 04:13, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 524: | Line 524: | ||
:::Conservative, did you ever play Mad Libs as a kid? It's the game where you supply a random collection of nouns, verbs, adjectives... etc. that get placed randomly into a pre-written story. The end results can be quite comical. Anyway, that's what many of your replies read like. Either that, or a poorly written Turing program. --JoshuaB 23:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | :::Conservative, did you ever play Mad Libs as a kid? It's the game where you supply a random collection of nouns, verbs, adjectives... etc. that get placed randomly into a pre-written story. The end results can be quite comical. Anyway, that's what many of your replies read like. Either that, or a poorly written Turing program. --JoshuaB 23:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
::JoshuaB, why don't you show me how it's done. Show me a well-written article that you have composed which has received a wide readership. Of course, we both know that is not going to happen, don't we? The "criticmeister" is no doubt quite lame when it comes to his own writing. Conservative 23:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ::JoshuaB, why don't you show me how it's done. Show me a well-written article that you have composed which has received a wide readership. Of course, we both know that is not going to happen, don't we? The "criticmeister" is no doubt quite lame when it comes to his own writing. Conservative 23:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| - | :::You have me wrong Conservative, I lay no claims to being a skilled practitioner of the written word. Yet, one does not need to be a master to spot amateurishness in others. For example, I am not a gymnast. I have all the grace of a three-legged ox. But if I watched you take to the balance beam, do a triple back flip, and land squarely on your head... I wouldn't have to be Mary Lou Retton or Nadia Comaneci to tell you that you're doing it wrong. Hey! I just thought of something! You thought I was making a claim of skill, so you demanded proof. Very shrewd of you. Unfortunately for you, I made no such claim. Nice try though. But it does remind me that you have made many claims at never having lost a debate... got any proof? What's that? The street lights are on and you | + | :::You have me wrong Conservative, I lay no claims to being a skilled practitioner of the written word. Yet, one does not need to be a master to spot amateurishness in others. For example, I am not a gymnast. I have all the grace of a three-legged ox. But if I watched you take to the balance beam, do a triple back flip, and land squarely on your head... I wouldn't have to be Mary Lou Retton or Nadia Comaneci to tell you that you're doing it wrong. Hey! I just thought of something! You thought I was making a claim of skill, so you demanded proof. Very shrewd of you. Unfortunately for you, I made no such claim. Nice try though. But it does remind me that you have made many claims at never having lost a debate... got any proof? What's that? The street lights are on and you hear your mom calling? ;-) --JoshuaB 00:09, 26 March 2012 (EDT) |
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:15:06 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>Rick Santorum</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 04:15, 26 March 2012 | ||||||||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||||||||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||||||||
Richard John "Rick" Santorum (Winchester, Virginia, May 10, 1958) is an American conservative lawyer and politician. He is member of the Republican Party. Santorum served as United States Senator from Pennsylvania from January, 1995 to January, 2007. During that time, Santorum was known for his conservative political views. Santorum is currently an excellent candidate for the 2012 Presidential Election. Endorsed by the pro-life Susan B. Anthony organization,<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/17/susan-b-anthony-list-to-endorse-santorum/</ref> he is currently a candidate in the 2012 Republican Primary. | Richard John "Rick" Santorum (Winchester, Virginia, May 10, 1958) is an American conservative lawyer and politician. He is member of the Republican Party. Santorum served as United States Senator from Pennsylvania from January, 1995 to January, 2007. During that time, Santorum was known for his conservative political views. Santorum is currently an excellent candidate for the 2012 Presidential Election. Endorsed by the pro-life Susan B. Anthony organization,<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/17/susan-b-anthony-list-to-endorse-santorum/</ref> he is currently a candidate in the 2012 Republican Primary. | ||||||||
| - | After winning Louisiana in the Republican primary for the Presidential Election 2012, his 11th state victory, conservative Rick Santorum observed: | + | After winning Louisiana in the Republican primary for the Presidential Election 2012, his 11th state victory, conservative Rick Santorum observed:<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/santorum-i-want-to-go-one-on-one-with-weak-romney-in-debate/</ref> | ||||||
|
| ||||||||
| - | In 2000, | + | In 2000, Rick Santorum was elected by his peers to the position of Senate Republican Conference Chairman. | ||||||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||||||||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:13:46 GMT (edit by JoshuaB)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Rain:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 04:13, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 524: | Line 524: | ||
:::Conservative, did you ever play Mad Libs as a kid? It's the game where you supply a random collection of nouns, verbs, adjectives... etc. that get placed randomly into a pre-written story. The end results can be quite comical. Anyway, that's what many of your replies read like. Either that, or a poorly written Turing program. --JoshuaB 23:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | :::Conservative, did you ever play Mad Libs as a kid? It's the game where you supply a random collection of nouns, verbs, adjectives... etc. that get placed randomly into a pre-written story. The end results can be quite comical. Anyway, that's what many of your replies read like. Either that, or a poorly written Turing program. --JoshuaB 23:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
::JoshuaB, why don't you show me how it's done. Show me a well-written article that you have composed which has received a wide readership. Of course, we both know that is not going to happen, don't we? The "criticmeister" is no doubt quite lame when it comes to his own writing. Conservative 23:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ::JoshuaB, why don't you show me how it's done. Show me a well-written article that you have composed which has received a wide readership. Of course, we both know that is not going to happen, don't we? The "criticmeister" is no doubt quite lame when it comes to his own writing. Conservative 23:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| - | :::You have me wrong Conservative, I lay no claims to being a skilled practitioner of the written word. Yet, one does not need to be a master to spot amateurishness in others. For example, I am not a gymnast. I have all the grace of a three-legged ox. But if I watched you take to the balance beam, do a triple back flip, and land squarely on your head... I wouldn't have to be Mary Lou Retton or Nadia Comaneci to tell you that you're doing it wrong. Hey! I just thought of something! You thought I was making a claim of skill, so you demanded proof. Very shrewd of you. Unfortunately for you, I made no such claim. Nice try though. But it does remind me that you have made many claims at never having lost a debate... got any proof? What's that? The street lights are on and you | + | :::You have me wrong Conservative, I lay no claims to being a skilled practitioner of the written word. Yet, one does not need to be a master to spot amateurishness in others. For example, I am not a gymnast. I have all the grace of a three-legged ox. But if I watched you take to the balance beam, do a triple back flip, and land squarely on your head... I wouldn't have to be Mary Lou Retton or Nadia Comaneci to tell you that you're doing it wrong. Hey! I just thought of something! You thought I was making a claim of skill, so you demanded proof. Very shrewd of you. Unfortunately for you, I made no such claim. Nice try though. But it does remind me that you have made many claims at never having lost a debate... got any proof? What's that? The street lights are on and you hear your mom calling? ;-) --JoshuaB 00:09, 26 March 2012 (EDT) |
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:12:36 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>Rick Santorum</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 04:12, 26 March 2012 | |||||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | |||||
| | | |||||
Richard John "Rick" Santorum (Winchester, Virginia, May 10, 1958) is an American conservative lawyer and politician. He is member of the Republican Party. Santorum served as United States Senator from Pennsylvania from January, 1995 to January, 2007. During that time, Santorum was known for his conservative political views. Santorum is currently an excellent candidate for the 2012 Presidential Election. Endorsed by the pro-life Susan B. Anthony organization,<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/17/susan-b-anthony-list-to-endorse-santorum/</ref> he is currently a candidate in the 2012 Republican Primary. | Richard John "Rick" Santorum (Winchester, Virginia, May 10, 1958) is an American conservative lawyer and politician. He is member of the Republican Party. Santorum served as United States Senator from Pennsylvania from January, 1995 to January, 2007. During that time, Santorum was known for his conservative political views. Santorum is currently an excellent candidate for the 2012 Presidential Election. Endorsed by the pro-life Susan B. Anthony organization,<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/17/susan-b-anthony-list-to-endorse-santorum/</ref> he is currently a candidate in the 2012 Republican Primary. | |||||
| + | ||||||
| + | After winning Louisiana in the Republican primary for the Presidential Election 2012, his 11th state victory, conservative Rick Santorum observed: | |||||
| + | ||||||
| + |
| |||||
In 2000, he was elected by his peers to the position of Senate Republican Conference Chairman. | In 2000, he was elected by his peers to the position of Senate Republican Conference Chairman. | |||||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:10:41 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
move quote to <a href="/Rick_Santorum" title="Rick Santorum">Rick Santorum</a> now
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 04:10, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<!-- <div style="background-color: #f5faff; border: 1px solid #cedff2; padding: 20px; "><div style="margin: 0 auto; width: 400px; background-color: #cedff2; border: 1px solid #a3b0bf; padding: 5px;"> | <!-- <div style="background-color: #f5faff; border: 1px solid #cedff2; padding: 20px; "><div style="margin: 0 auto; width: 400px; background-color: #cedff2; border: 1px solid #a3b0bf; padding: 5px;"> | ||
America has much for which to be thankful. ... Let us recommit ourselves to that devotion to God and family <small>--Ronald Reagan, 1981</small></center></div> --> | America has much for which to be thankful. ... Let us recommit ourselves to that devotion to God and family <small>--Ronald Reagan, 1981</small></center></div> --> | ||
| - | |||
<!-- Beginning of about Conservapedia (left side) section --> | <!-- Beginning of about Conservapedia (left side) section --> | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:09:06 GMT (edit by JoshuaB)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Rain:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 04:09, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 524: | Line 524: | ||
:::Conservative, did you ever play Mad Libs as a kid? It's the game where you supply a random collection of nouns, verbs, adjectives... etc. that get placed randomly into a pre-written story. The end results can be quite comical. Anyway, that's what many of your replies read like. Either that, or a poorly written Turing program. --JoshuaB 23:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | :::Conservative, did you ever play Mad Libs as a kid? It's the game where you supply a random collection of nouns, verbs, adjectives... etc. that get placed randomly into a pre-written story. The end results can be quite comical. Anyway, that's what many of your replies read like. Either that, or a poorly written Turing program. --JoshuaB 23:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
::JoshuaB, why don't you show me how it's done. Show me a well-written article that you have composed which has received a wide readership. Of course, we both know that is not going to happen, don't we? The "criticmeister" is no doubt quite lame when it comes to his own writing. Conservative 23:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ::JoshuaB, why don't you show me how it's done. Show me a well-written article that you have composed which has received a wide readership. Of course, we both know that is not going to happen, don't we? The "criticmeister" is no doubt quite lame when it comes to his own writing. Conservative 23:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | :::You have me wrong Conservative, I lay no claims to being a skilled practitioner of the written word. Yet, one does not need to be a master to spot amateurishness in others. For example, I am not a gymnast. I have all the grace of a three-legged ox. But if I watched you take to the balance beam, do a triple back flip, and land squarely on your head... I wouldn't have to be Mary Lou Retton or Nadia Comaneci to tell you that you're doing it wrong. Hey! I just thought of something! You thought I was making a claim of skill, so you demanded proof. Very shrewd of you. Unfortunately for you, I made no such claim. Nice try though. But it does remind me that you have made many claims at never having lost a debate... got any proof? What's that? The street lights are on and you here your mom calling? ;-) --JoshuaB 00:09, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:21:09 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 04:21, 26 March 2012 | ||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
!Comments | !Comments | ||
!Gross (Domestic) | !Gross (Domestic) | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | |October Baby | ||
| + | |2012 | ||
| + | |PG-13 | ||
| + | |"More slickly packaged than most faith-based fare, "October Baby" gussies up its anti-abortion message with gauzy cinematography ...," a biased review by the liberal New York Times laments.<ref>http://movies.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/movies/october-baby-with-jasmine-guy-and-john-schneider.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1332734947-uk/3k62P/3qFaThE1X8mlA</ref> | ||
| + | | | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Soul Surfer | |Soul Surfer | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:36:51 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
wikify further
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 04:36, 26 March 2012 | ||
| (2 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
!Comments | !Comments | ||
!Gross (Domestic) | !Gross (Domestic) | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | |October Baby | ||
| + | |2012 | ||
| + | |PG-13 | ||
| + | |"More slickly packaged than most faith-based fare, "October Baby" gussies up its anti-abortion message with gauzy cinematography ...," a biased review by the liberal New York Times laments.<ref>http://movies.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/movies/october-baby-with-jasmine-guy-and-john-schneider.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1332734947-uk/3k62P/3qFaThE1X8mlA</ref> | ||
| + | | | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Soul Surfer | |Soul Surfer | ||
| Line 24: | Line 30: | ||
|2002 | |2002 | ||
|PG-13 | |PG-13 | ||
| - | |Praises moral virtue (hard-working teenager, devout aunt and well-meaning uncle) and pokes fun at liberals (entertainers and journalist). Hero chooses abstinence. This was one of the most profitable films ever made. | + | |Praises moral virtue (hard-working teenager, devout aunt and well-meaning uncle) and pokes fun at liberals (entertainers and journalist). Hero chooses abstinence. This was one of the most profitable films ever made. |
|$ 403,706,375 | |$ 403,706,375 | ||
|- | |- | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:46:10 GMT (edit by Wiggy)
<html>
<head> <title>Agnosticism</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Agnosticism and Uncharitableness:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 04:46, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
==Agnosticism and Uncharitableness== | ==Agnosticism and Uncharitableness== | ||
| - | [[ | + | There is no clear relationship between agnosticism and giving to charity, although capita atheists and agnostics in the United States give significantly less to charity than theists. However internationally, a much less religious country such as Denmark gives considerably more per head that those in the US. These figures are confused by different tax rates and cultures making them hard to interpret. |
| + | |||
== Famous Agnostics == | == Famous Agnostics == | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:49:54 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Essay: 10 reasons why American atheism will be cut by at least 50%</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
10 reasons why American atheism will be cut by at least 50%:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 04:49, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
</ref> Also, college is clearly not delivering the goods in terms of intellectual development for a large percentage of its students. An American study found that forty-five percent of students achieved no significant improvement in their critical thinking, reasoning or writing skills during the first two years of college. After four years, 36 percent displayed no significant increases in these so-called "higher order" thinking skills.<ref>Study of college education and critical thinking skills</ref> Students, particularly those who made poor curriculum choices, are increasingly angry that college does not adequately prepare them for the marketplace and leaves them with a pile of debt.<ref>Forbes - Higher education bubble</ref> | </ref> Also, college is clearly not delivering the goods in terms of intellectual development for a large percentage of its students. An American study found that forty-five percent of students achieved no significant improvement in their critical thinking, reasoning or writing skills during the first two years of college. After four years, 36 percent displayed no significant increases in these so-called "higher order" thinking skills.<ref>Study of college education and critical thinking skills</ref> Students, particularly those who made poor curriculum choices, are increasingly angry that college does not adequately prepare them for the marketplace and leaves them with a pile of debt.<ref>Forbes - Higher education bubble</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | In addition, a worldwide grassroots Christian apologetics(defense of Christianity) organization has recently formed called Ratio Christi which aims to plant a Christian apologetics club on every college/university campus. | ||
- the liberal media, such as the American liberal newspapers and television networks, continue to lose market share.<ref> | - the liberal media, such as the American liberal newspapers and television networks, continue to lose market share.<ref> | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:57:10 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Essay: 10 reasons why American atheism will be cut by at least 50%</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
10 reasons why American atheism will be cut by at least 50%:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 04:57, 26 March 2012 | ||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
</ref> Also, college is clearly not delivering the goods in terms of intellectual development for a large percentage of its students. An American study found that forty-five percent of students achieved no significant improvement in their critical thinking, reasoning or writing skills during the first two years of college. After four years, 36 percent displayed no significant increases in these so-called "higher order" thinking skills.<ref>Study of college education and critical thinking skills</ref> Students, particularly those who made poor curriculum choices, are increasingly angry that college does not adequately prepare them for the marketplace and leaves them with a pile of debt.<ref>Forbes - Higher education bubble</ref> | </ref> Also, college is clearly not delivering the goods in terms of intellectual development for a large percentage of its students. An American study found that forty-five percent of students achieved no significant improvement in their critical thinking, reasoning or writing skills during the first two years of college. After four years, 36 percent displayed no significant increases in these so-called "higher order" thinking skills.<ref>Study of college education and critical thinking skills</ref> Students, particularly those who made poor curriculum choices, are increasingly angry that college does not adequately prepare them for the marketplace and leaves them with a pile of debt.<ref>Forbes - Higher education bubble</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | In addition, a worldwide grassroots Christian apologetics(defense of Christianity) organization has recently formed called Ratio Christi which aims to plant a Christian apologetics club on every college/university campus. The clubs will be focused on outreach to their college/university community. The mission statement of Ratio Christi declares: "Ratio Christi is a global movement that equips university students and faculty to give historical, philosophical, and scientific reasons for following Jesus Christ."<ref>Ratio Christi mission statement</ref> | ||
- the liberal media, such as the American liberal newspapers and television networks, continue to lose market share.<ref> | - the liberal media, such as the American liberal newspapers and television networks, continue to lose market share.<ref> | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:46:10 GMT (edit by Wiggy)
<html>
<head> <title>Agnosticism</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Agnosticism and Uncharitableness:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 04:46, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
==Agnosticism and Uncharitableness== | ==Agnosticism and Uncharitableness== | ||
| - | [[ | + | There is no clear relationship between agnosticism and giving to charity, although capita atheists and agnostics in the United States give significantly less to charity than theists. However internationally, a much less religious country such as Denmark gives considerably more per head that those in the US. These figures are confused by different tax rates and cultures making them hard to interpret. |
| + | |||
== Famous Agnostics == | == Famous Agnostics == | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:36:51 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
wikify further
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 04:36, 26 March 2012 | ||
| (2 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
!Comments | !Comments | ||
!Gross (Domestic) | !Gross (Domestic) | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | |October Baby | ||
| + | |2012 | ||
| + | |PG-13 | ||
| + | |"More slickly packaged than most faith-based fare, "October Baby" gussies up its anti-abortion message with gauzy cinematography ...," a biased review by the liberal New York Times laments.<ref>http://movies.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/movies/october-baby-with-jasmine-guy-and-john-schneider.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1332734947-uk/3k62P/3qFaThE1X8mlA</ref> | ||
| + | | | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Soul Surfer | |Soul Surfer | ||
| Line 24: | Line 30: | ||
|2002 | |2002 | ||
|PG-13 | |PG-13 | ||
| - | |Praises moral virtue (hard-working teenager, devout aunt and well-meaning uncle) and pokes fun at liberals (entertainers and journalist). Hero chooses abstinence. This was one of the most profitable films ever made. | + | |Praises moral virtue (hard-working teenager, devout aunt and well-meaning uncle) and pokes fun at liberals (entertainers and journalist). Hero chooses abstinence. This was one of the most profitable films ever made. |
|$ 403,706,375 | |$ 403,706,375 | ||
|- | |- | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:15:06 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>Rick Santorum</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 04:15, 26 March 2012 | ||||||||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||||||||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||||||||
Richard John "Rick" Santorum (Winchester, Virginia, May 10, 1958) is an American conservative lawyer and politician. He is member of the Republican Party. Santorum served as United States Senator from Pennsylvania from January, 1995 to January, 2007. During that time, Santorum was known for his conservative political views. Santorum is currently an excellent candidate for the 2012 Presidential Election. Endorsed by the pro-life Susan B. Anthony organization,<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/17/susan-b-anthony-list-to-endorse-santorum/</ref> he is currently a candidate in the 2012 Republican Primary. | Richard John "Rick" Santorum (Winchester, Virginia, May 10, 1958) is an American conservative lawyer and politician. He is member of the Republican Party. Santorum served as United States Senator from Pennsylvania from January, 1995 to January, 2007. During that time, Santorum was known for his conservative political views. Santorum is currently an excellent candidate for the 2012 Presidential Election. Endorsed by the pro-life Susan B. Anthony organization,<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/17/susan-b-anthony-list-to-endorse-santorum/</ref> he is currently a candidate in the 2012 Republican Primary. | ||||||||
| - | After winning Louisiana in the Republican primary for the Presidential Election 2012, his 11th state victory, conservative Rick Santorum observed: | + | After winning Louisiana in the Republican primary for the Presidential Election 2012, his 11th state victory, conservative Rick Santorum observed:<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/santorum-i-want-to-go-one-on-one-with-weak-romney-in-debate/</ref> | ||||||
|
| ||||||||
| - | In 2000, | + | In 2000, Rick Santorum was elected by his peers to the position of Senate Republican Conference Chairman. | ||||||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||||||||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 05:00:26 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>Abortion legislation 2012</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Utah added
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 05:00, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
!Comments | !Comments | ||
!Politics | !Politics | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | |Utah | ||
| + | |passed a law establishing, similar to most operations, a minimum 72-hour waiting period "after a face-to-face consultation informing her how the fetus grows and providing information about alternatives such as adoption," before having an abortion<ref>http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/03/21/Abortion-waiting-period-now-law-in-Utah/UPI-16701332303997/#ixzz1qCCds2pW</ref> | ||
| + | |Loopholes included in the law allow the initial consultation to be almost anywhere rather than in the abortion clinic, rendering the 72-hour waiting period less meaningful. | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Virginia | |Virginia | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 05:02:54 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Rain:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 05:02, 26 March 2012 | ||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
| Line 525: | Line 525: | ||
::JoshuaB, why don't you show me how it's done. Show me a well-written article that you have composed which has received a wide readership. Of course, we both know that is not going to happen, don't we? The "criticmeister" is no doubt quite lame when it comes to his own writing. Conservative 23:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ::JoshuaB, why don't you show me how it's done. Show me a well-written article that you have composed which has received a wide readership. Of course, we both know that is not going to happen, don't we? The "criticmeister" is no doubt quite lame when it comes to his own writing. Conservative 23:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
:::You have me wrong Conservative, I lay no claims to being a skilled practitioner of the written word. Yet, one does not need to be a master to spot amateurishness in others. For example, I am not a gymnast. I have all the grace of a three-legged ox. But if I watched you take to the balance beam, do a triple back flip, and land squarely on your head... I wouldn't have to be Mary Lou Retton or Nadia Comaneci to tell you that you're doing it wrong. Hey! I just thought of something! You thought I was making a claim of skill, so you demanded proof. Very shrewd of you. Unfortunately for you, I made no such claim. Nice try though. But it does remind me that you have made many claims at never having lost a debate... got any proof? What's that? The street lights are on and you hear your mom calling? ;-) --JoshuaB 00:09, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | :::You have me wrong Conservative, I lay no claims to being a skilled practitioner of the written word. Yet, one does not need to be a master to spot amateurishness in others. For example, I am not a gymnast. I have all the grace of a three-legged ox. But if I watched you take to the balance beam, do a triple back flip, and land squarely on your head... I wouldn't have to be Mary Lou Retton or Nadia Comaneci to tell you that you're doing it wrong. Hey! I just thought of something! You thought I was making a claim of skill, so you demanded proof. Very shrewd of you. Unfortunately for you, I made no such claim. Nice try though. But it does remind me that you have made many claims at never having lost a debate... got any proof? What's that? The street lights are on and you hear your mom calling? ;-) --JoshuaB 00:09, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | ::::::Thanks for providing us a sample of poor writing. Conservative 01:02, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 05:01:29 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>Abortion legislation 2012</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 05:01, 26 March 2012 | ||
| (2 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
!Comments | !Comments | ||
!Politics | !Politics | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | |Utah | ||
| + | |passed a law establishing, similar to most operations, a minimum 72-hour waiting period "after a face-to-face consultation informing her how the fetus grows and providing information about alternatives such as adoption," before having an abortion<ref>http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/03/21/Abortion-waiting-period-now-law-in-Utah/UPI-16701332303997/#ixzz1qCCds2pW</ref> | ||
| + | |Loopholes included in the law allow the initial consultation to be almost anywhere rather than in the abortion clinic, rendering the 72-hour waiting period less meaningful. | ||
| + | | | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Virginia | |Virginia | ||
|passed an ultrasound bill requiring that women be given the opportunity to view an ultrasound of the unborn child, and that the abortion provider describe the ultrasound to her<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/07/us-abortion-virginia-idUSTRE82623E20120307</ref> | |passed an ultrasound bill requiring that women be given the opportunity to view an ultrasound of the unborn child, and that the abortion provider describe the ultrasound to her<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/07/us-abortion-virginia-idUSTRE82623E20120307</ref> | ||
|This law contains several of the provisions passed in Texas and upheld by the federal Court of Appeals for that state | |This law contains several of the provisions passed in Texas and upheld by the federal Court of Appeals for that state | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| | | | ||
|- | |- | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 05:08:19 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Rain:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 05:08, 26 March 2012 | ||
| (2 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 525: | Line 525: | ||
::JoshuaB, why don't you show me how it's done. Show me a well-written article that you have composed which has received a wide readership. Of course, we both know that is not going to happen, don't we? The "criticmeister" is no doubt quite lame when it comes to his own writing. Conservative 23:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ::JoshuaB, why don't you show me how it's done. Show me a well-written article that you have composed which has received a wide readership. Of course, we both know that is not going to happen, don't we? The "criticmeister" is no doubt quite lame when it comes to his own writing. Conservative 23:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
:::You have me wrong Conservative, I lay no claims to being a skilled practitioner of the written word. Yet, one does not need to be a master to spot amateurishness in others. For example, I am not a gymnast. I have all the grace of a three-legged ox. But if I watched you take to the balance beam, do a triple back flip, and land squarely on your head... I wouldn't have to be Mary Lou Retton or Nadia Comaneci to tell you that you're doing it wrong. Hey! I just thought of something! You thought I was making a claim of skill, so you demanded proof. Very shrewd of you. Unfortunately for you, I made no such claim. Nice try though. But it does remind me that you have made many claims at never having lost a debate... got any proof? What's that? The street lights are on and you hear your mom calling? ;-) --JoshuaB 00:09, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | :::You have me wrong Conservative, I lay no claims to being a skilled practitioner of the written word. Yet, one does not need to be a master to spot amateurishness in others. For example, I am not a gymnast. I have all the grace of a three-legged ox. But if I watched you take to the balance beam, do a triple back flip, and land squarely on your head... I wouldn't have to be Mary Lou Retton or Nadia Comaneci to tell you that you're doing it wrong. Hey! I just thought of something! You thought I was making a claim of skill, so you demanded proof. Very shrewd of you. Unfortunately for you, I made no such claim. Nice try though. But it does remind me that you have made many claims at never having lost a debate... got any proof? What's that? The street lights are on and you hear your mom calling? ;-) --JoshuaB 00:09, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | ::::::Thanks for providing us another sample of poor writing that is devoid of any real significance. Conservative 01:02, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 05:15:30 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Template:Mainpageright</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 05:15, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
"Why isn't there more outrage when innocent kids die in Detroit? ... What have we done for Delric? Or Kade'jah? Or Je'Rean? They were black kids, too. They were innocent. And they were killed for stupid, stupid reasons right here in Detroit," writes Opinion Editor Stephen Henderson. | "Why isn't there more outrage when innocent kids die in Detroit? ... What have we done for Delric? Or Kade'jah? Or Je'Rean? They were black kids, too. They were innocent. And they were killed for stupid, stupid reasons right here in Detroit," writes Opinion Editor Stephen Henderson. | ||
---- | ---- | ||
| - | + | Atheists wash road Christians anointed with oil.atheists-wash-florida-road-christians-anointed-with-oil/ Atheists are but a squeak in American society and are destined to become a half a squeak [41][42] and they are often subject to bouts of anger and engaging in futile behavior. | |
On a related note, please read the new Conservapedia comedy/satire entitled The "Reason Rally" was so depressing | On a related note, please read the new Conservapedia comedy/satire entitled The "Reason Rally" was so depressing | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 05:08:19 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Rain:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 05:08, 26 March 2012 | ||
| (2 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 525: | Line 525: | ||
::JoshuaB, why don't you show me how it's done. Show me a well-written article that you have composed which has received a wide readership. Of course, we both know that is not going to happen, don't we? The "criticmeister" is no doubt quite lame when it comes to his own writing. Conservative 23:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ::JoshuaB, why don't you show me how it's done. Show me a well-written article that you have composed which has received a wide readership. Of course, we both know that is not going to happen, don't we? The "criticmeister" is no doubt quite lame when it comes to his own writing. Conservative 23:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
:::You have me wrong Conservative, I lay no claims to being a skilled practitioner of the written word. Yet, one does not need to be a master to spot amateurishness in others. For example, I am not a gymnast. I have all the grace of a three-legged ox. But if I watched you take to the balance beam, do a triple back flip, and land squarely on your head... I wouldn't have to be Mary Lou Retton or Nadia Comaneci to tell you that you're doing it wrong. Hey! I just thought of something! You thought I was making a claim of skill, so you demanded proof. Very shrewd of you. Unfortunately for you, I made no such claim. Nice try though. But it does remind me that you have made many claims at never having lost a debate... got any proof? What's that? The street lights are on and you hear your mom calling? ;-) --JoshuaB 00:09, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | :::You have me wrong Conservative, I lay no claims to being a skilled practitioner of the written word. Yet, one does not need to be a master to spot amateurishness in others. For example, I am not a gymnast. I have all the grace of a three-legged ox. But if I watched you take to the balance beam, do a triple back flip, and land squarely on your head... I wouldn't have to be Mary Lou Retton or Nadia Comaneci to tell you that you're doing it wrong. Hey! I just thought of something! You thought I was making a claim of skill, so you demanded proof. Very shrewd of you. Unfortunately for you, I made no such claim. Nice try though. But it does remind me that you have made many claims at never having lost a debate... got any proof? What's that? The street lights are on and you hear your mom calling? ;-) --JoshuaB 00:09, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | ::::::Thanks for providing us another sample of poor writing that is devoid of any real significance. Conservative 01:02, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 05:01:29 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>Abortion legislation 2012</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 05:01, 26 March 2012 | ||
| (2 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
!Comments | !Comments | ||
!Politics | !Politics | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | |Utah | ||
| + | |passed a law establishing, similar to most operations, a minimum 72-hour waiting period "after a face-to-face consultation informing her how the fetus grows and providing information about alternatives such as adoption," before having an abortion<ref>http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/03/21/Abortion-waiting-period-now-law-in-Utah/UPI-16701332303997/#ixzz1qCCds2pW</ref> | ||
| + | |Loopholes included in the law allow the initial consultation to be almost anywhere rather than in the abortion clinic, rendering the 72-hour waiting period less meaningful. | ||
| + | | | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Virginia | |Virginia | ||
|passed an ultrasound bill requiring that women be given the opportunity to view an ultrasound of the unborn child, and that the abortion provider describe the ultrasound to her<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/07/us-abortion-virginia-idUSTRE82623E20120307</ref> | |passed an ultrasound bill requiring that women be given the opportunity to view an ultrasound of the unborn child, and that the abortion provider describe the ultrasound to her<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/07/us-abortion-virginia-idUSTRE82623E20120307</ref> | ||
|This law contains several of the provisions passed in Texas and upheld by the federal Court of Appeals for that state | |This law contains several of the provisions passed in Texas and upheld by the federal Court of Appeals for that state | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| | | | ||
|- | |- | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:57:10 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Essay: 10 reasons why American atheism will be cut by at least 50%</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
10 reasons why American atheism will be cut by at least 50%:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 04:57, 26 March 2012 | ||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
</ref> Also, college is clearly not delivering the goods in terms of intellectual development for a large percentage of its students. An American study found that forty-five percent of students achieved no significant improvement in their critical thinking, reasoning or writing skills during the first two years of college. After four years, 36 percent displayed no significant increases in these so-called "higher order" thinking skills.<ref>Study of college education and critical thinking skills</ref> Students, particularly those who made poor curriculum choices, are increasingly angry that college does not adequately prepare them for the marketplace and leaves them with a pile of debt.<ref>Forbes - Higher education bubble</ref> | </ref> Also, college is clearly not delivering the goods in terms of intellectual development for a large percentage of its students. An American study found that forty-five percent of students achieved no significant improvement in their critical thinking, reasoning or writing skills during the first two years of college. After four years, 36 percent displayed no significant increases in these so-called "higher order" thinking skills.<ref>Study of college education and critical thinking skills</ref> Students, particularly those who made poor curriculum choices, are increasingly angry that college does not adequately prepare them for the marketplace and leaves them with a pile of debt.<ref>Forbes - Higher education bubble</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | In addition, a worldwide grassroots Christian apologetics(defense of Christianity) organization has recently formed called Ratio Christi which aims to plant a Christian apologetics club on every college/university campus. The clubs will be focused on outreach to their college/university community. The mission statement of Ratio Christi declares: "Ratio Christi is a global movement that equips university students and faculty to give historical, philosophical, and scientific reasons for following Jesus Christ."<ref>Ratio Christi mission statement</ref> | ||
- the liberal media, such as the American liberal newspapers and television networks, continue to lose market share.<ref> | - the liberal media, such as the American liberal newspapers and television networks, continue to lose market share.<ref> | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 05:17:56 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Template:Mainpageright</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 05:17, 26 March 2012 | ||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
"Why isn't there more outrage when innocent kids die in Detroit? ... What have we done for Delric? Or Kade'jah? Or Je'Rean? They were black kids, too. They were innocent. And they were killed for stupid, stupid reasons right here in Detroit," writes Opinion Editor Stephen Henderson. | "Why isn't there more outrage when innocent kids die in Detroit? ... What have we done for Delric? Or Kade'jah? Or Je'Rean? They were black kids, too. They were innocent. And they were killed for stupid, stupid reasons right here in Detroit," writes Opinion Editor Stephen Henderson. | ||
---- | ---- | ||
| - | + | Atheists wash road Christians anointed with oil.atheists-wash-florida-road-christians-anointed-with-oil/ Atheists are but a squeak in American society and are destined to become a half a squeak [45][46]. They often have bouts of anger plus engage in futile anti-Christian behavior. | |
On a related note, please read the new Conservapedia comedy/satire entitled The "Reason Rally" was so depressing | On a related note, please read the new Conservapedia comedy/satire entitled The "Reason Rally" was so depressing | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 05:20:50 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Template:Mainpageright</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 05:20, 26 March 2012 | ||
| (3 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
"Why isn't there more outrage when innocent kids die in Detroit? ... What have we done for Delric? Or Kade'jah? Or Je'Rean? They were black kids, too. They were innocent. And they were killed for stupid, stupid reasons right here in Detroit," writes Opinion Editor Stephen Henderson. | "Why isn't there more outrage when innocent kids die in Detroit? ... What have we done for Delric? Or Kade'jah? Or Je'Rean? They were black kids, too. They were innocent. And they were killed for stupid, stupid reasons right here in Detroit," writes Opinion Editor Stephen Henderson. | ||
---- | ---- | ||
| - | + | Atheists wash road Christians anointed with oil.atheists-wash-florida-road-christians-anointed-with-oil/ Atheists are but a squeak in American society and are destined to become a half a squeak [49][50]. [[Militant atheism|Militant atheists]] often have bouts of anger plus engage in futile anti-Christian behavior. | |
On a related note, please read the new Conservapedia comedy/satire entitled The "Reason Rally" was so depressing | On a related note, please read the new Conservapedia comedy/satire entitled The "Reason Rally" was so depressing | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 05:21:59 GMT (edit by JoshuaB)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Rain:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 05:21, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 525: | Line 525: | ||
::JoshuaB, why don't you show me how it's done. Show me a well-written article that you have composed which has received a wide readership. Of course, we both know that is not going to happen, don't we? The "criticmeister" is no doubt quite lame when it comes to his own writing. Conservative 23:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ::JoshuaB, why don't you show me how it's done. Show me a well-written article that you have composed which has received a wide readership. Of course, we both know that is not going to happen, don't we? The "criticmeister" is no doubt quite lame when it comes to his own writing. Conservative 23:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
:::You have me wrong Conservative, I lay no claims to being a skilled practitioner of the written word. Yet, one does not need to be a master to spot amateurishness in others. For example, I am not a gymnast. I have all the grace of a three-legged ox. But if I watched you take to the balance beam, do a triple back flip, and land squarely on your head... I wouldn't have to be Mary Lou Retton or Nadia Comaneci to tell you that you're doing it wrong. Hey! I just thought of something! You thought I was making a claim of skill, so you demanded proof. Very shrewd of you. Unfortunately for you, I made no such claim. Nice try though. But it does remind me that you have made many claims at never having lost a debate... got any proof? What's that? The street lights are on and you hear your mom calling? ;-) --JoshuaB 00:09, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | :::You have me wrong Conservative, I lay no claims to being a skilled practitioner of the written word. Yet, one does not need to be a master to spot amateurishness in others. For example, I am not a gymnast. I have all the grace of a three-legged ox. But if I watched you take to the balance beam, do a triple back flip, and land squarely on your head... I wouldn't have to be Mary Lou Retton or Nadia Comaneci to tell you that you're doing it wrong. Hey! I just thought of something! You thought I was making a claim of skill, so you demanded proof. Very shrewd of you. Unfortunately for you, I made no such claim. Nice try though. But it does remind me that you have made many claims at never having lost a debate... got any proof? What's that? The street lights are on and you hear your mom calling? ;-) --JoshuaB 00:09, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| - | + | ::::Thanks for providing us another sample of poor writing that is devoid of any real significance. Conservative 01:02, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | |
| + | :::::Burn? --JoshuaB 01:21, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 05:20:50 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Template:Mainpageright</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 05:20, 26 March 2012 |
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 06:27:57 GMT (edit by NKeaton)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Rain:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 06:27, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 527: | Line 527: | ||
::::Thanks for providing us another sample of poor writing that is devoid of any real significance. Conservative 01:02, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | ::::Thanks for providing us another sample of poor writing that is devoid of any real significance. Conservative 01:02, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
:::::Burn? --JoshuaB 01:21, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | :::::Burn? --JoshuaB 01:21, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | ::::::Your pridefulness is damaging this website's credibility and would be embarrassing to a well man. I sincerely hope you get good care. I feel so badly for you. Nate 02:27, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 05:21:59 GMT (edit by JoshuaB)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Rain:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 05:21, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 525: | Line 525: | ||
::JoshuaB, why don't you show me how it's done. Show me a well-written article that you have composed which has received a wide readership. Of course, we both know that is not going to happen, don't we? The "criticmeister" is no doubt quite lame when it comes to his own writing. Conservative 23:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ::JoshuaB, why don't you show me how it's done. Show me a well-written article that you have composed which has received a wide readership. Of course, we both know that is not going to happen, don't we? The "criticmeister" is no doubt quite lame when it comes to his own writing. Conservative 23:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
:::You have me wrong Conservative, I lay no claims to being a skilled practitioner of the written word. Yet, one does not need to be a master to spot amateurishness in others. For example, I am not a gymnast. I have all the grace of a three-legged ox. But if I watched you take to the balance beam, do a triple back flip, and land squarely on your head... I wouldn't have to be Mary Lou Retton or Nadia Comaneci to tell you that you're doing it wrong. Hey! I just thought of something! You thought I was making a claim of skill, so you demanded proof. Very shrewd of you. Unfortunately for you, I made no such claim. Nice try though. But it does remind me that you have made many claims at never having lost a debate... got any proof? What's that? The street lights are on and you hear your mom calling? ;-) --JoshuaB 00:09, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | :::You have me wrong Conservative, I lay no claims to being a skilled practitioner of the written word. Yet, one does not need to be a master to spot amateurishness in others. For example, I am not a gymnast. I have all the grace of a three-legged ox. But if I watched you take to the balance beam, do a triple back flip, and land squarely on your head... I wouldn't have to be Mary Lou Retton or Nadia Comaneci to tell you that you're doing it wrong. Hey! I just thought of something! You thought I was making a claim of skill, so you demanded proof. Very shrewd of you. Unfortunately for you, I made no such claim. Nice try though. But it does remind me that you have made many claims at never having lost a debate... got any proof? What's that? The street lights are on and you hear your mom calling? ;-) --JoshuaB 00:09, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| - | + | ::::Thanks for providing us another sample of poor writing that is devoid of any real significance. Conservative 01:02, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | |
| + | :::::Burn? --JoshuaB 01:21, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 06:37:16 GMT (edit by AugustO)
<html>
<head> <title>E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Experimental verification:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 06:37, 26 March 2012 | ||||||||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||||||||
|
| ||||||||
| - | == | + | ==Experimental verification== | ||||||
Some claim that the first experimental verification for the equation was performed 1932 by a team of an English and an Irish physicist, John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton, as a byproduct of "their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles"<ref>Nobel Prize Organization</ref> for which they were honored with the Nobel Prize in physics in 1951. In fact, neither E=mc<sup>2</sup> nor "relativity" are even mentioned in Cockcroft's Nobel Lecture accepting the prize.<ref>http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-lecture.pdf</ref> | Some claim that the first experimental verification for the equation was performed 1932 by a team of an English and an Irish physicist, John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton, as a byproduct of "their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles"<ref>Nobel Prize Organization</ref> for which they were honored with the Nobel Prize in physics in 1951. In fact, neither E=mc<sup>2</sup> nor "relativity" are even mentioned in Cockcroft's Nobel Lecture accepting the prize.<ref>http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-lecture.pdf</ref> | ||||||||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:43:38 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
An Isolated Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium: -> subheading
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 14:43, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
Some claim that the best empirical verification of E=mc<sup>2</sup> was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville et al., as published in Nature (which is not a leading physics journal).<ref>Nature 438, 1096-1097 (22 December 2005) doi:10.1038/4381096a; Published online 21 December 2005</ref> The authors state in their article in Nature magazine that "Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1−Δmc²/E=(−1.4±4.4)×10<sup>−7</sup>, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described." But no Nobel Prize has been awarded for this claimed achievement. | Some claim that the best empirical verification of E=mc<sup>2</sup> was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville et al., as published in Nature (which is not a leading physics journal).<ref>Nature 438, 1096-1097 (22 December 2005) doi:10.1038/4381096a; Published online 21 December 2005</ref> The authors state in their article in Nature magazine that "Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1−Δmc²/E=(−1.4±4.4)×10<sup>−7</sup>, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described." But no Nobel Prize has been awarded for this claimed achievement. | ||
| - | ==An Isolated Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium== | + | ===An Isolated Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium=== |
For most types of physical interactions, the masses of the initial reactants and of the final products match so closely that it is essentially impossible to measure any difference. But for nuclear reactions, the difference is measurable. That difference is related to the energy absorbed or released, described by the equation E=mc². (The equation applies to all interactions; the fact that nuclear interactions are the only ones for which the mass difference is measurable has led people to believe, wrongly, that E=mc² applies only to nuclear interactions.) | For most types of physical interactions, the masses of the initial reactants and of the final products match so closely that it is essentially impossible to measure any difference. But for nuclear reactions, the difference is measurable. That difference is related to the energy absorbed or released, described by the equation E=mc². (The equation applies to all interactions; the fact that nuclear interactions are the only ones for which the mass difference is measurable has led people to believe, wrongly, that E=mc² applies only to nuclear interactions.) | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:42:48 GMT (edit by AugustO)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 14:42, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
Pssst! DavidEdwards! You're trying waaaaay too hard. --JoshuaB 21:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | Pssst! DavidEdwards! You're trying waaaaay too hard. --JoshuaB 21:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| - | =Question= | + | ==Question== |
This snipet of sentence appears in the introduction: "...a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory." Let's compare that to the entire sentence it was lifted from: "Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory." One can't help but notice that the part of the sentence that states that the theory has been observed to be valid in real world experimentation, has been surgically removed. Why is this? Is it because it stands in contradiction to the claim the lead author of this article is trying to promulgate? --JoshuaB 20:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | This snipet of sentence appears in the introduction: "...a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory." Let's compare that to the entire sentence it was lifted from: "Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory." One can't help but notice that the part of the sentence that states that the theory has been observed to be valid in real world experimentation, has been surgically removed. Why is this? Is it because it stands in contradiction to the claim the lead author of this article is trying to promulgate? --JoshuaB 20:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
:::Andy, do you accept the possibility that the Theory of Relativity may be correct, and would you approve a well-written paper or book that supported it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question. --FrederickT3 03:28, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | :::Andy, do you accept the possibility that the Theory of Relativity may be correct, and would you approve a well-written paper or book that supported it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question. --FrederickT3 03:28, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| - | = Some points = | + | == Some points == |
*Misplaced claims of experimental verification: if you want to put on the disclaimer misplaced, please explain the results of the experiments in another way. | *Misplaced claims of experimental verification: if you want to put on the disclaimer misplaced, please explain the results of the experiments in another way. | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:40:36 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)
<html>
<head> <title>E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Experimental verification: -> Claims of Experimental Verification
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 14:40, 26 March 2012 | ||||||||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||||||||
|
| ||||||||
| - | ==Experimental | + | ==Claims of Experimental Verification== | ||||||
The first experimental verification for the equation was performed 1932 by a team of an English and an Irish physicist, John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton, as a byproduct of "their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles"<ref>Nobel Prize Organization</ref> for which they were honored with the Nobel Prize in physics in 1951. The idea of the mass defect - and its calculation using E=mc² can be found on page 169-170 of his Nobel lecture.<ref>http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-lecture.pdf</ref> | The first experimental verification for the equation was performed 1932 by a team of an English and an Irish physicist, John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton, as a byproduct of "their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles"<ref>Nobel Prize Organization</ref> for which they were honored with the Nobel Prize in physics in 1951. The idea of the mass defect - and its calculation using E=mc² can be found on page 169-170 of his Nobel lecture.<ref>http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-lecture.pdf</ref> | ||||||||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:40:05 GMT (edit by Cyclofile)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Has the scope of Conservapedia changed?:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 14:40, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 545: | Line 545: | ||
Furthermore I would like to excuse myself for my language. As you have probably noticed english is not my mother-tongue. Understanding however is no problem at all. Cyclofile 09:45, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | Furthermore I would like to excuse myself for my language. As you have probably noticed english is not my mother-tongue. Understanding however is no problem at all. Cyclofile 09:45, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
:::There are plenty of news stories on other issues. Conservapedia goes through seasons where various issues have more coverage depending on events occurring. Lately, there has been a rash of anti-evolution bills and increased advocacy of biblical creationism in the world. Plus, evolutionary thought is at the root of much of liberal thought. In addition, post the growth of Christian conservatism and post New Atheism, the issues of theism/atheism/evolutionism have become more an issue in the public discourse. Conservative 09:56, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | :::There are plenty of news stories on other issues. Conservapedia goes through seasons where various issues have more coverage depending on events occurring. Lately, there has been a rash of anti-evolution bills and increased advocacy of biblical creationism in the world. Plus, evolutionary thought is at the root of much of liberal thought. In addition, post the growth of Christian conservatism and post New Atheism, the issues of theism/atheism/evolutionism have become more an issue in the public discourse. Conservative 09:56, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| - | :: I have to agree on the fact that issues on evolutionism are in the public discourse. Howver, I think that the balance between anit-evolutionisme/anti-theism and "normal" topics is a bit tilted. Why not some more links to the the many non-political lemmas this | + | :: I have to agree on the fact that issues on evolutionism are in the public discourse. Howver, I think that the balance between anit-evolutionisme/anti-theism and "normal" topics is a bit tilted. Why not some more links to the the many non-political lemmas this encyclopedia has? I read somewhere that Conservapedia is a family-encyclopedia, so why not link to interesting topics like famous poets, painters or geographical articles? I think there's enough space for both anti-atheist articles and for "not-anti-articles" on the main page at the same time. Cyclofile 10:10, 26 March 2012 (EDT) |
:::Well for a while, I relentlessly pounded the atheism beaches via the main page and it was very popular post New Atheism. :) Shockofgod and his fans certainly liked it. :) I think Christendom is going to be increasingly active on the evolutionism front and I see no reason for not covering it on the main page. With global atheism getting weaker by the day and this trend accelerating, Christendom should certainly capitalize on this matter and evolutionism is the air supply of atheism. Much of conservatism is driven by religious conservatism after all and this is going to increasingly be the case.[51] Conservative 10:30, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | :::Well for a while, I relentlessly pounded the atheism beaches via the main page and it was very popular post New Atheism. :) Shockofgod and his fans certainly liked it. :) I think Christendom is going to be increasingly active on the evolutionism front and I see no reason for not covering it on the main page. With global atheism getting weaker by the day and this trend accelerating, Christendom should certainly capitalize on this matter and evolutionism is the air supply of atheism. Much of conservatism is driven by religious conservatism after all and this is going to increasingly be the case.[52] Conservative 10:30, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| - | :::: Ok I think I get your point. I also think you should cover the anti-atheistic artciles on the frontpage. Still I miss a bit of normal artcles which are not anti-XXXX, but just neutral and non-political. I understand that as a conservative you want to use the encyclopedia as a measure to bring down atheism, but please don't forget that | + | :::: Ok I think I get your point. I also think you should cover the anti-atheistic artciles on the frontpage. Still I miss a bit of normal artcles which are not anti-XXXX, but just neutral and non-political. I understand that as a conservative you want to use the encyclopedia as a measure to bring down atheism, but please don't forget that Conservapedia is also a encyclopedia which is just interesting to read and learn from. Anyway, in the end it's all a matter of taste and mine is just a bit different than the main page we have nowadays. Cyclofile 10:39, 26 March 2012 (EDT) |
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:39:44 GMT (edit by AugustO)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Aschlafly, could you give us...: new section
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 14:39, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
:The quotes (and others that could be added) illustrate how meaningless the formula is.--Andy Schlafly 10:02, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | :The quotes (and others that could be added) illustrate how meaningless the formula is.--Andy Schlafly 10:02, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Aschlafly, could you give us... == | ||
| + | |||
| + | ... your interpretation of the results of the experiment by Cockroft and Walton? Cockroft describes in his Nobel Lecture how the kinetic energy of the alpha-particles could be provided by diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass | ||
| + | units. (p. 170). Please take into account that this isn't about energy in form of electromagnetic waves! | ||
| + | |||
| + | If you don't address the results of the actual experiments, all your claims are just meaningless verbiage. | ||
| + | AugustO 10:39, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:39:06 GMT (edit by Cyclofile)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Has the scope of Conservapedia changed?:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 14:39, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 547: | Line 547: | ||
:: I have to agree on the fact that issues on evolutionism are in the public discourse. Howver, I think that the balance between anit-evolutionisme/anti-theism and "normal" topics is a bit tilted. Why not some more links to the the many non-political lemmas this encyclopeida has? I read somewhere that Conservapedia is a family-encyclopedia, so why not link to interesting topics like famous poets, painters or geographical articles? I think there's enough space for both anti-atheist articles and for "not-anti-articles" on the main page at the same time. Cyclofile 10:10, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | :: I have to agree on the fact that issues on evolutionism are in the public discourse. Howver, I think that the balance between anit-evolutionisme/anti-theism and "normal" topics is a bit tilted. Why not some more links to the the many non-political lemmas this encyclopeida has? I read somewhere that Conservapedia is a family-encyclopedia, so why not link to interesting topics like famous poets, painters or geographical articles? I think there's enough space for both anti-atheist articles and for "not-anti-articles" on the main page at the same time. Cyclofile 10:10, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
:::Well for a while, I relentlessly pounded the atheism beaches via the main page and it was very popular post New Atheism. :) Shockofgod and his fans certainly liked it. :) I think Christendom is going to be increasingly active on the evolutionism front and I see no reason for not covering it on the main page. With global atheism getting weaker by the day and this trend accelerating, Christendom should certainly capitalize on this matter and evolutionism is the air supply of atheism. Much of conservatism is driven by religious conservatism after all and this is going to increasingly be the case.[53] Conservative 10:30, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | :::Well for a while, I relentlessly pounded the atheism beaches via the main page and it was very popular post New Atheism. :) Shockofgod and his fans certainly liked it. :) I think Christendom is going to be increasingly active on the evolutionism front and I see no reason for not covering it on the main page. With global atheism getting weaker by the day and this trend accelerating, Christendom should certainly capitalize on this matter and evolutionism is the air supply of atheism. Much of conservatism is driven by religious conservatism after all and this is going to increasingly be the case.[54] Conservative 10:30, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | :::: Ok I think I get your point. I also think you should cover the anti-atheistic artciles on the frontpage. Still I miss a bit of normal artcles which are not anti-XXXX, but just neutral and non-political. I understand that as a conservative you want to use the encyclopedia as a measure to bring down atheism, but please don't forget that Coservapedia is also a encyclopedia which is just interesting to read and learn from. Anyway, in the end it's all a matter of taste and mine is just a bit different than the main page we have nowadays. Cyclofile 10:39, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:33:47 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Has the scope of Conservapedia changed?:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 14:33, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 546: | Line 546: | ||
:::There are plenty of news stories on other issues. Conservapedia goes through seasons where various issues have more coverage depending on events occurring. Lately, there has been a rash of anti-evolution bills and increased advocacy of biblical creationism in the world. Plus, evolutionary thought is at the root of much of liberal thought. In addition, post the growth of Christian conservatism and post New Atheism, the issues of theism/atheism/evolutionism have become more an issue in the public discourse. Conservative 09:56, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | :::There are plenty of news stories on other issues. Conservapedia goes through seasons where various issues have more coverage depending on events occurring. Lately, there has been a rash of anti-evolution bills and increased advocacy of biblical creationism in the world. Plus, evolutionary thought is at the root of much of liberal thought. In addition, post the growth of Christian conservatism and post New Atheism, the issues of theism/atheism/evolutionism have become more an issue in the public discourse. Conservative 09:56, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
:: I have to agree on the fact that issues on evolutionism are in the public discourse. Howver, I think that the balance between anit-evolutionisme/anti-theism and "normal" topics is a bit tilted. Why not some more links to the the many non-political lemmas this encyclopeida has? I read somewhere that Conservapedia is a family-encyclopedia, so why not link to interesting topics like famous poets, painters or geographical articles? I think there's enough space for both anti-atheist articles and for "not-anti-articles" on the main page at the same time. Cyclofile 10:10, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | :: I have to agree on the fact that issues on evolutionism are in the public discourse. Howver, I think that the balance between anit-evolutionisme/anti-theism and "normal" topics is a bit tilted. Why not some more links to the the many non-political lemmas this encyclopeida has? I read somewhere that Conservapedia is a family-encyclopedia, so why not link to interesting topics like famous poets, painters or geographical articles? I think there's enough space for both anti-atheist articles and for "not-anti-articles" on the main page at the same time. Cyclofile 10:10, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| - | :::Well for a while, I relentlessly pounded the atheism beaches and it was very popular post New Atheism. :) Shockofgod and his fans certainly liked it. :) I think Christendom is going to be increasingly active on the evolutionism front and I see no reason for not covering it on the main page. With global atheism getting weaker by the day and this trend accelerating, Christendom should certainly capitalize on this matter and evolutionism is the air supply of atheism. Much of conservatism is driven by religious conservatism after all and this is going to increasingly be the case.[55] Conservative 10:30, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | + | :::Well for a while, I relentlessly pounded the atheism beaches via the main page and it was very popular post New Atheism. :) Shockofgod and his fans certainly liked it. :) I think Christendom is going to be increasingly active on the evolutionism front and I see no reason for not covering it on the main page. With global atheism getting weaker by the day and this trend accelerating, Christendom should certainly capitalize on this matter and evolutionism is the air supply of atheism. Much of conservatism is driven by religious conservatism after all and this is going to increasingly be the case.[56] Conservative 10:30, 26 March 2012 (EDT) |
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:32:23 GMT (edit by AugustO)
<html>
<head> <title>E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 14:32, 26 March 2012 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
== Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman == | == Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman == | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| - | Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms E=mc<sup>2</sup>:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html</ref>
| + | Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms E=mc<sup>2</sup>:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html</ref>
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| - | cquote|It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}}
| + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| + |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
== History of E=mc<sup>2</sup> == | == History of E=mc<sup>2</sup> == | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:31:37 GMT (edit by Conservative)
<html>
<head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Has the scope of Conservapedia changed?:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 14:31, 26 March 2012 | ||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
| Line 546: | Line 546: | ||
:::There are plenty of news stories on other issues. Conservapedia goes through seasons where various issues have more coverage depending on events occurring. Lately, there has been a rash of anti-evolution bills and increased advocacy of biblical creationism in the world. Plus, evolutionary thought is at the root of much of liberal thought. In addition, post the growth of Christian conservatism and post New Atheism, the issues of theism/atheism/evolutionism have become more an issue in the public discourse. Conservative 09:56, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | :::There are plenty of news stories on other issues. Conservapedia goes through seasons where various issues have more coverage depending on events occurring. Lately, there has been a rash of anti-evolution bills and increased advocacy of biblical creationism in the world. Plus, evolutionary thought is at the root of much of liberal thought. In addition, post the growth of Christian conservatism and post New Atheism, the issues of theism/atheism/evolutionism have become more an issue in the public discourse. Conservative 09:56, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
:: I have to agree on the fact that issues on evolutionism are in the public discourse. Howver, I think that the balance between anit-evolutionisme/anti-theism and "normal" topics is a bit tilted. Why not some more links to the the many non-political lemmas this encyclopeida has? I read somewhere that Conservapedia is a family-encyclopedia, so why not link to interesting topics like famous poets, painters or geographical articles? I think there's enough space for both anti-atheist articles and for "not-anti-articles" on the main page at the same time. Cyclofile 10:10, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | :: I have to agree on the fact that issues on evolutionism are in the public discourse. Howver, I think that the balance between anit-evolutionisme/anti-theism and "normal" topics is a bit tilted. Why not some more links to the the many non-political lemmas this encyclopeida has? I read somewhere that Conservapedia is a family-encyclopedia, so why not link to interesting topics like famous poets, painters or geographical articles? I think there's enough space for both anti-atheist articles and for "not-anti-articles" on the main page at the same time. Cyclofile 10:10, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | :::Well for a while, I relentlessly pounded the atheism beaches and it was very popular post New Atheism. :) Shockofgod and his fans certainly liked it. :) I think Christendom is going to be increasingly active on the evolutionism front and I see no reason for not covering it on the main page. With global atheism getting weaker by the day and this trend accelerating, Christendom should certainly capitalize on this matter and evolutionism is the air supply of atheism. Much of conservatism is driven by religious conservatism after all and this is going to increasingly be the case.[57] Conservative 10:30, 26 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:27:29 GMT (edit by CPalmer)
<html>
<head> <title>Derby (sports)</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Scotland: more Scottish derbies
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 14:27, 26 March 2012 | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
==Scotland== | ==Scotland== | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
==Spain== | ==Spain== | ||
In Spain, there is a Madrid derby between Real Madrid and Atletico Madrid, and a Barcelona derby between Barcelona FC and Espanyol. However, in recent years the match between Real Madrid and Barcelona, generally agreed to be the top two teams in the country, has eclipsed the local derbies in terms of significance; this match is known as El Clásico. | In Spain, there is a Madrid derby between Real Madrid and Atletico Madrid, and a Barcelona derby between Barcelona FC and Espanyol. However, in recent years the match between Real Madrid and Barcelona, generally agreed to be the top two teams in the country, has eclipsed the local derbies in terms of significance; this match is known as El Clásico. | ||
</body>
</html>
Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:25:41 GMT (edit by AugustO)
<html>
<head> <title>E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman:
| ← Older revision | Revision as of 14:25, 26 March 2012 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
== Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman == | == Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman == | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms E=mc<sup>2</sup>:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html</ref>
| Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms E=mc<sup>2</sup>:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html</ref>
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| - | cquote|It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}} | + | cquote|It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}}
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| </td> | </td> | </td> | </td></tr> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| </td> | == History of E=mc<sup>2</sup> == </td> | </td> | == History of E=mc<sup>2</sup> == </td></tr>
</table> </body> </html> Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:23:28 GMT (edit by TerryH)<html> <head> <title>Template:Mainpageright</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
</body> </html> Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:21:09 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)<html> <head> <title>E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false"> Reverted edits by <a href="/Special:Contributions/AugustO" title="Special:Contributions/AugustO">AugustO</a> (<a href="/User_talk:AugustO" title="User talk:AugustO">talk</a>) to last revision by <a href="/User:Aschlafly" title="User:Aschlafly">Aschlafly</a>
</body> </html> Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:18:02 GMT (edit by Joaquín Martínez)<html> <head> <title>Template:Mainpageright</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
</body> </html> Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:17:59 GMT (edit by AugustO)<html> <head> <title>E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false"> repeating a statement doesn'tt make an argument
</body> </html> Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:16:50 GMT (edit by AugustO)<html> <head> <title>Talk:E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false"> Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman:
</body> </html> Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:10:39 GMT (edit by BlackCat)<html> <head> <title>Talk:Evolution</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false"> Factual error:
</body> </html> Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:10:11 GMT (edit by Cyclofile)<html> <head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false"> Has the scope of Conservapedia changed?:
</body> </html> Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:02:46 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)<html> <head> <title>Talk:E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false"> Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman: The quotes (and others that could be added) illustrate how meaningless the formula is.
</body> </html> Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:01:58 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)<html> <head> <title>E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false"> Reverted edits by <a href="/Special:Contributions/AugustO" title="Special:Contributions/AugustO">AugustO</a> (<a href="/User_talk:AugustO" title="User talk:AugustO">talk</a>) to last revision by <a href="/User:Aschlafly" title="User:Aschlafly">Aschlafly</a>
</body> </html> Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:59:27 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)<html> <head> <title>Abortion legislation 2012</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false"> improved
</body> </html> Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:59:11 GMT (edit by AugustO)<html> <head> <title>E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false"> please make your point at the talk-page before reverting the title
</body> </html> Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:58:01 GMT (edit by AugustO)<html> <head> <title>Talk:E=mc²</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false"> Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman: new section
</body> </html> Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:56:35 GMT (edit by CPalmer)<html> <head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false"> Rain: reply
</body> </html> Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:56:05 GMT (edit by Cyclofile)<html> <head> <title>Willem de Kooning</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">
</body> </html> Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:56:04 GMT (edit by Conservative)<html> <head> <title>Talk:Main Page</title> <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom"> </head> <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false"> Has the scope of Conservapedia changed?:
</body> </html> |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
