Talk:Main Page/Archive index/106

I'd like to point out that in 2010 we hadn't yet discovered neutrinos that traveled faster than light. Not on Conservapedia, and not in any laboratory. And the jury's still out on the significance--CamilleT 13:51, 22 November 2011 (EST)

Question: What is the difference between global atheism and the Question evolution campaign?

Here is the answer: The Question evolution campaign is growing and global atheism is currently shrinking by about 300 atheists a day![2]  :) Please pay special note to the words currently shrinking by about 300 atheists a day. :)

Question evolution! campaign community

A Question evolution! campaign online community is forming.[3] Creation Ministries International's Question evolution! campaign is about to break the sound barrier! Volunteer recruiting is picking up steam! Click HERE for details.

So... You're taunting atheists that they may soon be converting?--CamilleT 14:14, 22 November 2011 (EST)

I'd love to tell you more, but..... "Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate". - Sun Tzu :) "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." - Jesus. The motives and future paths of the conservative one are extremely mysterious and are like the paths of the birds in the sky. :) Conservative 14:22, 22 November 2011 (EST)

It's just that it seems as though you're gloating--CamilleT 15:05, 23 November 2011 (EST)

Gloating implies that something has happened. I have seen no evidence to support the 300 atheists/day stat though normal attrition rates say that more than that die per day. Not to mention if you ascribe to a tabula rasa view of humanity than ~217,000 atheists are born around the world every day. Only a minority remain atheists but that's another story. Ayzmo :) 17:15, 23 November 2011 (EST)

The jury did not reject the hate crimes part of the case. The were undecided as to whether or not to convict him of manslaughter or murder. There were also arguments about whether or not he should have been tried as an adult in the case which was the eventual problem. This plea deal was made with the addition of a charge as a minor instead of an adult. The news item is false. Ayzmo :) 16:49, 22 November 2011 (EST)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/11/22/pregnant-occupy-seattle-protester-has-miscarriage-after-being-pepper-sprayed-by-police/

A protester in was beaten and pepper sprayed by cops. Five days later her baby died, and I want to know why no pro-life websites are calling these cops what they are, murderers. I'm sorry if this comes off as rash, but babies being murdered is one of the most terrible things in this world. --KenN 18:24, 22 November 2011 (EST)

The crime of "murder" requires proof of an intent to do so. I think the bigger issue is why aren't the Occupy Wall Street folks objecting to the intentional killing of unborn children?--Andy Schlafly 22:56, 22 November 2011 (EST)

"Murder" requires intent, however I don't think "involuntary manslaughter" does, and it is still notable enough that pro-life websites should be raising a fuss. - JamesCA 08:35, 8 December 2011 (EST)

Actually I am unsure about the US but in the UK murder specifically does not require intent. It requires either intent to kill, do serious harm in the KNOWLEDGE that doing so COULD kill, or willfull disregard as to the result of your actions in the knowledge that you actions could lead to serious, or fatal, harm. I believe that US law is based, in a general way, on UK Common Law and so the situation may be similar but I stand to be corrected by a US legal person.Davidspencer 09:44, 8 December 2011 (EST)

Or am I misinterpreting the headline and the article? Certainly, accounts show that Larry King was acting inappropriately by sexually pursuing other students, but that's no reason to shoot him.--CamilleT 19:20, 22 November 2011 (EST)

Maybe you should hold your tongue until its been YOUR daughter being harassed, then decide if you want to shoot the guy. GeorgeSor 09:35, 13 December 2011 (EST)

Dear George, maybe you should have read the article, then you would have known, that the boy who was shot harassed other boys. One of those harassed boys shot the other boy. Thus above hypothetical example does not apply...
Btw: Why are commenting on posts that are quite old and inactive?--VPropp 09:56, 13 December 2011 (EST)

Dear all,

I'm not experienced with wikis and referencing (I'm used to Harvard referencing commonly used in academia, but citation style is preferred on wikis), and if someone could help me to merge these two references into one so that the reference can be reused, that would be much appreciated. Thank you

HumanGeographer 00:22, 23 November 2011 (EST)

I've merged them for you. You can see how it works from my changes, or you can read up on it in the help, too. :) --Sid 3050 08:41, 23 November 2011 (EST)

OK thanks alot. HumanGeographer 18:16, 23 November 2011 (EST)

A great wave of biblical creation is about to hit the SS Evolution in the state of Tennessee and their ship does not look very seaworthy![1]

See: Tennessee wave of biblical creation about to hit the SS Evolution

(photo obtained from Flickr, see: license agreement)

I have a song for evolutionists HERE

To the widows and widowers of the evolutionary paradigm: The state, it is said, never gives up her dead when the skies of November turn gloomy. :) Conservative 03:14, 25 November 2011 (EST)

I gotta say, I really enjoy your violent metaphors, Conservative. So far, my favorite is the one where the fire of Christianity burns down somebody's home! Oh, but bad news: The ship there made it through the storm: "A lesser ship could have been lost" - but not this one. So the biblical creation wave apparently isn't enough to sink the SS Evolution... ;) I believe the technical term is... "Olé!"? --Sid 3050 12:46, 25 November 2011 (EST)

Sid, I know common sense is not a forte of liberals. With that being said, I think the availability and free use of pictures of ships being sunk by large waves is exceeding small or non-existent and the current picture more than adequately suffices. The prefix SS before SS Evolution was a good choice because unlike modern creation science, Darwinism/evolutionism is an antiquated 18th century ideology. The world has had many ideologies which have ultimately slipped into the ocean of history, yet biblical Christianity lives on and remains triumphant (see: Global Christianity). The Bible: Tested, true and triumphant![4]

By the way, how do you know the fire was at a home? Is this yet another case of liberal prideful speculation failing? According to a Google search: "ruby avenue fire | Flickr - Photo Sharing! - Feb 14, 2005 – this fire broke out at an old mill at 2am...no one was hurt but the flames lit the morning sky for hours...."[5] By the way, you still haven't shown the building didn't have unknown toxic gases so the fire ultimately may have saved lives. :) Unfortunately, I see that complex concepts such as the greater good is still hard for many liberals to grasp. Let me make it easier for you. Getting a flat tire may ultimately save someone's life if it prevents someone from getting an accident down the road which would have happened if they hadn't been fortunate enough to get a flat tire. I hope that helps. :) Conservatives are far more apt not to speculate on whether an event was ultimately bad as we do not pretend to have God like powers to see the greater good which may ultimately arise from events. Conservative 13:29, 25 November 2011 (EST)

Yes, but if a ship does sink, it's not like we just stop sailing forever and accept the ocean as all powerful. We just build a ship with fewer holes in it. Ships and the oceans can co-exist, ever if they don't like each other. There's a reason there aren't many pictures of ships sinking; We build them so they float. And even if the ocean does one day become so turbulent that sailing is impossible, its cool, because we have airplanes now. FCapra 14:10, 25 November 2011 (EST)

It will certainly be nice when petty bickering does not arise due to pictures being associated with Darwinism/evolutionism. Unlike global atheism, the Question evolution! campaign is growing and evolutionists still haven't effectively countered the 15 questions which evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer which can be seen HERE among other places. The seed of the Question evolution! campaign has far more potential than the antiquated ideology of evolutionism. Here is parable of Jesus that may help you better understand the potential of good seeds: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches.” - Jesus Conservative 14:32, 25 November 2011 (EST)

I can see my subtle use of metaphor when entirely over your head. The Question evolution! campaign (waves) is great, but it's only going to appeal to creationists (people afraid of the sea). Evolutionists (sailors) don't really care, since their views are built specifically to resist "non-scientific proof" (oceanic turbulence). Actual scientists, (pilots) don't care about any of this, because they preform actual scientific research (fly), and don't base their discoveries on conjecture and "logic", but philosophical scientific evidence (They fly, they don't sail). Question evolution! (waves) doesn't matter to scientists (pilots), because it doesn't use science (wind turbulence) to provide evidence or make arguments (crash the plane). Essentially, Question evolution! is trying to hit an airplane with a wave. FCapra 14:59, 25 November 2011 (EST)

FCapra, your commentary will be quite humorous in retrospect when the pseudoscience of Darwinism/evolutionism is pulverized by the Question evolution! campaign. By the way, FCapra, are you an atheist? Do you have any proof and evidence that atheism is true? Conservative 15:08, 25 November 2011 (EST)

I don't need proof to be a Christian. That's why it's called faith, not science. And if someone does find some scientific evidence that there is a better explanation for life than the explanations we have now, I will happily embrace the new evidence while roasting "On the Origin of Species" over a burning pile of Dawkins literature. Yes, evolution theory does have gaps, and as time goes on, it will be refined, and may be scrapped in exchange for something better. And evolution is not pseudo science, its is perfectly capable of being proven wrong. It just hasn't been done yet. FCapra 16:08, 25 November 2011 (EST)

4-1 was a long time ago for the Broncos. They're 5-5 now. In sports, the question isn't even "what have you done for me lately," but "what are you doing for me wight now?" And Tebow isn't doing much for anybody these days. ScottDG 20:40, 25 November 2011 (EST)

Scott, Tim Tebow became the starting QB only five games ago, and his record is 4-1. Perhaps you'd like to change the heading for your comment now.--Andy Schlafly 20:48, 25 November 2011 (EST)

Scott, the heading has been changed, because I don't think you actually follow the game. Karajou 20:51, 25 November 2011 (EST)

Touche. That's one for you. ScottDG 20:59, 25 November 2011 (EST)

You're good-natured, Scott. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 21:13, 25 November 2011 (EST)

On the subject of Obamas 'mission accomplished' speech is a typo. In regards to Qaddafi it says: Not that he's gone, lawlessness and brutality has increased. I suppose it should say Now. I found it a bit confusing. À dieu --VPropp 10:51, 26 November 2011 (EST)

Corrected - thanks!--Andy Schlafly 10:59, 26 November 2011 (EST)

Andy, if we use templates for each news story, we could let newbies help with typos. --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:58, 26 November 2011 (EST)

Here is an editable template

Blah blah blah, or as we say on the Upper East Side, yadda yadda yadda.

It wasn't video games, it was heart disease. He could just as easily have died during a football game or during a heated discussion.--CamilleT 20:29, 26 November 2011 (EST)

Maybe video games are more harmful to the heart than college football. But probably even more harmful is having an enlarged and weakened heart due to cardiomyopathy. EricAlstrom 20:36, 26 November 2011 (EST)

Cardiomyopathy is a treatable condition, and I think a teenage death from it is very rare. Presumably substantial stress can tragically induce cardiac arrest, particularly if there is a heart condition.--Andy Schlafly 20:45, 26 November 2011 (EST)

Please stop dancing on graves. It's horrible to exploit this poor boy's tragic death to legitimize your own views through the coincidental circumstances of his death. You are not a scientist trying to actually study the effects of video games on health, you are not a social scientist doing a formal study on the impact of games on society, and you are not an objective news reporting on the facts of a tragedy. You are a man using a tragedy for his personal benefit and to further your views. You should be ashamed of yourself and if you have any sense of morality whatsoever, you will take down your statement on the supposed connection between this boy's death and your beliefs. FCapra 21:17, 26 November 2011 (EST)

The same logic could be used to argue that TK's death was a result of the stress of editing and contributing to Conservapedia. Aschlafly, please address this point. I'd love to hear your thought on this. JFG 21:29, 26 November 2011 (EST)

Give it up, folks: the immense harm caused by video games has been shown by scientific studies, by common sense, and by specific tragic examples. It's time to stop denying it and stop defending a $60 billion industry that profits from harming kids.--Andy Schlafly 21:32, 26 November 2011 (EST)

Cardiomyopathy affects people of all ages, is usually hereditary, and can often go undetected. The only possible link between heart disease and video gaming would only be a confirmation of the link between living a sedentary lifestyle and heart disease. There is no plausible mechanism of action that would explain how sitting in front of a screen mashing buttons could cause heart failure, much less (in this particular case) the heart to grow larger and weaker.--CamilleT 21:45, 26 November 2011 (EST)

The kid died from a genetic heart condition, anything could have killed him. If he played an hour of videogames a day, he had a 1/24 chance in dying then from nothing but coincidence, that is not statistically insignificant. You are exploiting this poor boy's death to support your own agenda, and it's sick. If video games are so harmful, you should be able to find actual evidence, not shameful exploitation of a horrific coincidences. FCapra 21:48, 26 November 2011 (EST)

Studies exist about the harmful cardiovascular effects of video games. Here's one: Baldaro et al., Aggressive and Non-Violent Videogames: Short-Term Psychological and Cardiovascular Effects on Habitual Players, 20 Stress & Health: J. Int’l Society for Investigation of Stress 203 (2004). In only about 60 seconds of searching on the internet, this was also found: "Stress cardiomyopathy can definitely be life threatening in some cases." Hopkins FAQs--Andy Schlafly 22:52, 26 November 2011 (EST)

Sometimes, I love having electronic journal access. According to the study, it takes an extremely violent, high pressure game like Unreal Tournament to actually increase blood pressure, and in a healthy individual is not even enough to push the average person beyond a healthy pressure. Exercise also increases blood pressure, as does taking tests and reading particularly thrilling novels. This boy didn't die because of video games, he died because anything stressful could have killed him, and it happened to be a video game. So yes, you are dancing on his grave to prove a point you can't support with actual statistics. FCapra 23:13, 26 November 2011 (EST)

What was "extremely violent" and realistic in video games in 2004 (the date of the published article) is commonplace today. The extremely violent and highly realistic games available today were not accessible in 2004.

The possibility that this was "stress cardiomyopathy" would explain why it wasn't detected during the many physicals and repeated exercise routines that a high school and college football player typically has.--Andy Schlafly 23:30, 26 November 2011 (EST)

Actually, Doom has been around since 1993, and was played by over 10 million people, so violence in popular video games has been around for decades. You don't really seem to have any evidence, but still try to claim that video games are somehow more exceptionally harmful than any other stressful activity. You can't support your claims with facts, so you make assumptions from scientific abstracts, exploit a tragedy for "evidence", and attempt to use "logic" to extrapolate outdated information and make assumptions. You don't put the cart before the horse, and you don't make a claim and then look for evidence to back it up. What you are doing is disgraceful to Mr. Uekman's memory and you should be ashamed for using his death as a tool to advance your own moral ideals. FCapra 23:44, 26 November 2011 (EST)

The realistic nature of the violence -- and the level of stress -- obviously increases with technology. Here's another article about the effects on the cardiovascular system of video games as of 1996: Ballard & Wiest, Mortal Kombat (tm): The Effects of Violent Videogame Play on Males’ Hostility and Cardiovascular Responding, 26 J. Applied Soc. Psychology 717 (1996). This effect is probably orders of magnitude worse with today's technology.

What is the alternative explanation? That multiple doctors who would have performed physicals on a football player since high school tragically missed detecting a heart condition that could fail without stress at any random time? That does not seem as plausible to me.--Andy Schlafly 00:49, 27 November 2011 (EST)

Considering that the autopsy revealed that he had such a disorder, yes, it does seem plausible. "There are several types of cardiomyopathy, though it wasn't clear which type Uekman suffered from, Morris said. One kind, called hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, thickens the heart and makes it harder to pump blood, and is often the culprit when young athletes suddenly collapse and die. Symptoms can include an irregular heartbeat and shortness of breath. In many cases, it goes undetected." Ayzmo :) 00:57, 27 November 2011 (EST)

I'm not trying to argue with your claim, Mr. Schlafly, I am arguing that the way you are supporting your claim is flawed and immoral. The man's death could have been caused by anything stressful, it happened to be video games. You are claiming that video games were inherently more responsible than any other stressful factor in his life. This is wrong. Almost anything could have resulted in his death, and if anything else had, he would be unknown to the face of Conservapedia. You cannot make a conclusion and then retroactively provide evidence without introducing bias to your claim. A person, a human being, tragically died at the peak of his life, you shouldn't pervert the circumstances of this tragedy to support an inherently flawed claim. FCapra 01:40, 27 November 2011 (EST)

Here's a 2008 articley on the impact of the advances in the technology of video games on the heart rate of players: Barlett, Rodeheffer, Baldassaro, Hinkin, & Harris, The Effect of Advances in Video Game Technology and Content on Aggressive Cognitions, Hostility, and Heart Rate, 11 Media Psychology 540 (2008).

As to stress cardiomyopathy, it "is a condition in which intense emotional or physical stress can cause rapid and severe heart muscle weakness .... Most of the patients we have seen with it do not have a previous history of heart disease." It is caused (Hopkins FAQs link above)--Andy Schlafly 11:23, 27 November 2011 (EST)

Far too many assumptions for my taste. You assume that he was playing a violent video game, that the effect of video games on the human body is "orders of magnitude worse with today's technology", that nothing else happened in the time between last witness and death, and that it's that particular kind of cardiomyopathy. Those are far too many assumptions when you consider that you're exploiting a young man's death to push your anti-videogame agenda.

The Hopkins FAQ lists death of a loved one as a possible emotional trigger for that particular kind of sudden cardiomyopathy - I really doubt that any video game comes anywhere near such a stress level, and you obviously are just guessing wildly, too.

If you don't believe that a physical exam didn't catch it, I gotta hold up two points: First, do all physical exams for college football teams include an echocardiogram or electrocardiogram? Two, here's a statement citing Arkansas Heart Hospital cardiologist Dr. Jeffrey Stewart: "According to Dr. Stewart, cardiomyopathy is difficult to detect becasue the symptoms are absent, early on. But symptoms include shortness of breath, fainting and heart palpitations. Dr. Stewart says the problem can be detected through an echocardiogram or electrocardiogram. But even through that, Dr. Stewart says it might not detect it."

Further, athletes have died from other forms of cardiomyopathy before: Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is one of the cardiac conditions associated with sudden death in young athletes. In fact, it is one of the more common genetic cardiac disorders. In the United States, it accounts for 36% of sudden deaths in young athletes. Here are two articles about athletes where their heart condition wasn't caught, leading to sudden death. An info page about a kind of cardiomyopathy includes a list of sports to avoid: Basketball, Soccer, Football, Hockey, Racquetball, Skiing, Tennis.

This death was a tragedy, so why are you trying so hard to twist the variables to push your agenda? This is the kinda stuff that gives Conservapedia a bad reputation. --Sid 3050 11:56, 27 November 2011 (EST)

You wrote, "includes a list of sports to avoid: Basketball, Soccer, Football, Hockey, Racquetball, Skiing, Tennis." Based on the news reports and discussion here, it appears that video games should be added to that list.--Andy Schlafly 12:16, 27 November 2011 (EST)

I should have known better than to expect an answer that actually addresses the important points. --Sid 3050 12:23, 27 November 2011 (EST)

Schafly, do you actually read the articles you post for us? Here is part of the summary from the one you just posted:

"Results showed that video game violence exposure was related to aggressive cognitions and state of hostility. Video game technology did not moderate this relationship. Finally, immersion, as an individual difference variable, did not moderate or mediate this relationship. This suggests that aggressive cognitions and feelings occur independent of how technologically advanced the graphics are and the extent to which one feels as though they are immersed in a violent video game."

How exactly is this supposed to support your claims? The article clearly states that technological advances do not increase aggression or stress. Maninahat 13:01, 27 November, 2011 (EST)

From what I've been reading here, the liberal element is deciding what constitutes "guilt" as far as violent video games are concerned. A game contributing to a football player's death just didn't happen, but they were very fast to condemn the Columbine killers and their connection to "Doom". It's all about morals here, what constitutes good and what constitutes bad. Certainly, this site is going to push good morality on the public, and if that means condemning the violence in something as benign as a video game, then so be it. I'd rather teach the kids how to race cars (NASCAR games) rather than steal them (Grand Theft Auto). Karajou 12:27, 27 November 2011 (EST)

That dosn't change the fact that you are exploiting someone's death to support your own, inherently flawed conclusions about morality and society. Is that "good"? Is that really your idea of morality? The face you have decided to present to the public is one where the death of another human is a tool for advancing ideals. For some reason, that doesn't seem very Christian or Conservative to me. FCapra 12:38, 27 November 2011 (EST)

What video game was he playing? BrianMcpherson 11:33, 27 November, 2011 (CST)

No report I've seen says so. Andy simply assumed that it's a violent game because that would fit his carefully constructed narrative. --Sid 3050 12:44, 27 November 2011 (EST)

No, a video game does not have to be "violent" to cause a heart attack: "Teen has heart attack playing Dance Dance Revolution." [6]--Andy Schlafly 12:57, 27 November 2011 (EST)

That's fantastic. Now please explain how you are morally justified in exploiting someone's death to support logically compromised conclusions? FCapra 13:02, 27 November 2011 (EST)

"Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) blocked FCapra (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 2 hours" Superb reply, Andy! --Sid 3050 13:07, 27 November 2011 (EST)

If they want a small analogy related to it, then here's one: about 1997-1998 I had to quit playing "Duke Nukem 3D" due to motion sickness, believe it or not, and this was caused by the game's graphics system. If such a problem can happen to me, it can happen to anyone else as well. Karajou 13:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

Another example: "Parents should know that every time they buy their child a game, there is the potential for an epileptic fit,” observed one mother after a tragic result. [7]--Andy Schlafly 13:37, 27 November 2011 (EST)

I see from the Recent Changes that you have also blocked Sid3050. What sort of behavior is that? At least announce the blocks here, so that readers of this debate don't get the impression that your opponents have just chickened out. --FrederickT3 14:53, 27 November 2011 (EST)

It would be contrary to the legitimate purpose of a "90/10 rule" block if it required posting additional messages on talk pages about it. The 90/10 rule has been in place since nearly the very beginning of this site and it does not (and should not) generate additional talk.--Andy Schlafly 14:58, 27 November 2011 (EST)

It would indeed be contrary to the legitimate purpose of the 90/10 rule, however, not even you can pretend that this is enforcement is for a legitimate purpose. Rather, you cannot answer their objections, so you censor them. Pretty shabby stuff. --DamianJohn 13:22, 28 November 2011 (EST)

This isn't a chat site, and the 90/10 rule ensures that it won't become one. Last wordism is disfavored also. Additional off-topic postings to this thread will likely be reverted. There are many other websites that welcome talk, talk, talk that is generally unproductive. This site is for content.--Andy Schlafly 16:11, 28 November 2011 (EST)

A lot of you may be missing the point, which is that in general video games do more harm than good. Kids should be out getting fresh air and exercise, not to mention playing team sports and learning about fair play and team spirit and the Value of Hard Work.

Yes, I'll say it again: playing sports is not only for the immediate fun of it, but also for the life lessons it provides. The Duke of Wellington is often quoted as saying that "The Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing-fields of Eton" for a reason, you know. --Ed Poor ^Talk 15:43, 29 November 2011 (EST)

With respect Ed, that is not the point that Andy is attempting to make. I don't think you have read the above section carefully enough. --DamianJohn 00:27, 30 November 2011 (EST)

I remember that years ago, less than ten seconds of a Japanese cartoon caused epileptic seizures in numerous children, many of which required hospitalization. One should not find it surprising that a video game could cause a similarly negative result; both televisions shows (obviously) and video games are high-intensity visual media used through a TV screen, so viewing distance, mental engagement, stress levels, etc. should be about the same, but probably higher for a video game than a television show. If less than ten seconds of a television show can cause seizures, it should not be surprising that a video game could cause a negative health outcome as well. Kevin Davis ^Talk 20:45, 30 November 2011 (EST)

Unfortunately, Mr. Poor seems to imply that video games cannot do "good". I'm afraid he is quite incorrect, as video games are a powerful social force, like all art is. Child's Play, a charity founded by the gaming community, raises funds so hospitals can provide toys and games to children around the world. Gaming itself has contributed directly to society itself too. For example, collaborative protein folding games have provided invaluable answers to protein structure, which are vital to many aspects of molecular biology and medical research. Many games promote team work, critical thinking, collaboration, and strategy. You can't compare sports and video games because video games are art, they serve different societal purposes. The marginalization of video games as an art form only encourages game developers to appeal to the lowest common denominator, rather than embrace the philosophical potentials of the medium. It's a very unfortunate, but cyclical process. Just as comic books, Rock music, and the printing press were scapegoats for societal ills, video games must pay their dues as they "grow the beard" and gain recognition by society as an art form, and not just legal government protection and recognition as art. FRodgers 21:18, 30 November 2011 (EST)

Hi FRodgers. I was not making a statement on video games as a social force. Also, I think we should all keep in mind that gaming is not the same concept as video games. You said that "gaming itself has contributed directly to society itself too." I, for one, and skeptical. In addition, your comparisons between art, philosphophy, etc. and video games is flawed based on the original premise of this entire discussion. We are talking about the negative health effects of video games; therefore, the hypothetical contribution they supposedly make to society pales in comparison to that of the other discussed mediums, for the latter are not known to cause health problems. Kevin Davis ^Talk 10:47, 2 December 2011 (EST)

Congratulations! But this raises a question: For October and September, no such record was announced, so did the mainstream media do especially well during these two months? AugustO 08:39, 27 November 2011 (EST)

No, I think the results in October and September were similar to November. I'll check later. The focus on this site is to learn and to teach, so I don't spend much time marveling at the traffic growth.--Andy Schlafly 12:23, 27 November 2011 (EST)

At User talk:JimmyRa#Off-topic postings you wrote:

Unique visitor traffic continues to increase at Conservapedia because of its substantive content, and that is where the focus of editing should be.

How can you draw such conclusions if you haven't even checked the whole history of unique visitor traffic here at Conservapedia? And even after at least some time of marveling at the traffic growth and looking at Special:RecentChanges, don't you think that quite a few of these unique visitors are just vandals?

Frankly, at least show the actual numbers when making such a grandiloquent claim to give some corroboration!

I don't doubt that these carefully chosen records are correct, though I would appreciate if you made it clear whether the numbers of unique visitors were taken from the very beginning of Conservapadia or from a later point - a server update or something like that.

AugustO 02:11, 28 November 2011 (EST)

AugustO, the information is posted occasionally merely to show that the trend here is higher, while the lamestream media are trending lower. I did check September and October for you and in both cases the traffic this September and October was likewise substantially higher compared with a year ago.--Andy Schlafly 22:41, 28 November 2011 (EST)

The Onion is also receiving excellent traffic. I would argue for a somewhat more nuanced evaluation of the data. The success of Conservapedia is not directly proportional to the size of your server bill. JimmyRa 23:03, 28 November 2011 (EST)

I did check September and October for you and in both cases the traffic this September and October was likewise substantially higher compared with a year ago Interesting wording - so September and October weren't record-shattering months? AugustO 01:08, 29 November 2011 (EST)

Google insight does not seem to notice any increase of research for conservapedia: See here--PhilipN 23:19, 6 December 2011 (EST)

Counting the number of searches for "Conservapedia" on the google search engine would be an imperfect indicator of traffic. November unique visitor traffic here was another substantial increase.--Andy Schlafly 23:31, 6 December 2011 (EST)

I understand that the reference to liberal media is meant as a joke, but I don't see how this news story deserves Conservapedia's attention. A Russian news organisation fires someone for displaying offensive behaviour on a professional news channel. What has this got to do with the American liberal media? maninahat 10:53, 27 November 2011 (EST)

The headline is not a joke; the popular Russian anchor was really fired. Liberals don't tolerate criticism if they are in control, and it's shocking to learn that the Russian media behaves like the liberal media in the U.S.--Andy Schlafly 12:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

He wasn't fired for criticizing Obama. He was fired for giving the finger during broadcast. Apparently, he was giving the finger to the production crew.--CamilleT 14:31, 27 November 2011 (EST)

@CamilleT Er ... she (watch the video). @Andy No really, this must be a joke. You cannot with a straight face be claiming that the Russian media is liberal. (Well, maybe a little bit liberal in that they employ female news anchors.) --QPR 16:28, 27 November 2011 (EST)

I don't think firing that popular anchor can be called "conservative"!--Andy Schlafly 18:43, 27 November 2011 (EST)

I'm pretty sure any news anchor would be fired for doing something that we generally consider "obscene" on the air. I don't see why that is a matter of political ideology. Ayzmo :) 18:49, 27 November 2011 (EST)

I don't think firing that popular anchor can be called "conservative" But pulling offensive gestures during a life TV broadcast is Conservative? MaxFletcher 20:01, 27 November 2011 (EST)

'I don't think firing that popular anchor can be called "conservative".' Absolutely - which is why no one has called it conservative. On the other hand, I don't think that firing a popular anchor can be called "liberal", and yet that seems to be the message of the original post. Andy, wake up and smell the coffee: not everything that happens on this planet is a liberal versus conservative issue. --QPR 12:15, 28 November 2011 (EST)

Camille, Andy was pointing out one similarity between US liberals and Russia (which for 70 years was Communist and which is barely more democratic these days). --Ed Poor ^Talk 15:38, 29 November 2011 (EST)

Hang on, so it is liberal to fire a newscaster who makes obscene finger gestures on live television? MaxFletcher 15:45, 29 November 2011 (EST)

The referenced story states that Cain is "assessing" his campaign. That does not automatically mean he's considering pulling out from the race - it could mean he is considering different approaches to combat the accusations, or different ways to run his campaign. The headline here is misleading, given the provided cite. --SharonW 14:23, 29 November 2011 (EST)

Completely agree Sharon. Also, if he is guilty of the accused affairs, it's not clear to me how a liberal media assault on him since he's been a GOP Presidential candidate has anything to do with whether or not he's been a faithful husband for the past 13 years? --JanW 17:03, 29 November 2011 (EST)

My personal feeling is that as a GOP presidential contender then these claims are definitely in the public interest and, if merely smears, then Cain will be able to defend himself easily against them. As an aside this very website isn't above smearing its opponents in all manner of bizarre ways so its fairly hypocritical to accuse the media of reporting newsworthy items about a public figure while smearing liberals as people who like to "enjoy the company" of animals. MaxFletcher 17:22, 29 November 2011 (EST)

In response to the first two comments, the Daily Caller link carries the headline, "Herman Cain considering dropping out of GOP race." The FoxNews link is more equivocal, but the same implication exists. An "assessment" of a campaign means consideration of pulling out.--Andy Schlafly 18:15, 29 November 2011 (EST)

With due respect do you care to respond to User:Max Fletcher's comment? Aortuso 18:29, 29 November 2011 (EST)

I guess not Aortuso 23:23, 29 November 2011 (EST)

Herman Cain formerly worked for the Federal Reserve which many conservatives, economic libertarians (such as Ron Paul) and capitalists oppose. Over the years, the Federal Reserve has devalued the US dollar. Ron Paul's website declares "Since the Fed’s creation in 1913 the dollar has lost more than 96% of its value, and by recklessly inflating the money supply the Fed continues to distort interest rates and intentionally erodes the value of the dollar."[8] Personally, it doesn't surprise me that an ex- Federal Reserve bankster had an affair or affairs and has multiple charges of sexual harassment. I definitely wouldn't vote for Ben Bernanke if he ran for president. Conservative 13:22, 30 November 2011 (EST)

I'm confused by the item about the Canadian author whose book is so highly praised by evolutionists. What is the "surprise" and who are "them" in the following comment?

A Canadian book designed to teach evolution to children (ages 8–13) may come as a surprise to them. [9]

The article goes on to give a rebuttal to the evolutionist view of Genesis, but are we to think this is a quote from the book, undermining evolutionist talking points? --Ed Poor ^Talk 15:34, 29 November 2011 (EST)

In the headline about American Airlines, it might be important to point out that a major reason why they could not successfully compete with other airlines is the strong influence unions have in their workplace. That problem can mostly be explained by Marshall's Rules, a set of simple principles that are commonplace in labor economics. Would someone be able to add more information about unions to the headline? Thank you! Kevin Davis ^Talk 15:29, 30 November 2011 (EST)

I'd be happy to add that problem caused by unions at American Airlines. I'll also create a link to Marshall's Rules (perhaps you can create an entry on that if we don't have one yet.--Andy Schlafly 18:43, 30 November 2011 (EST)

Hi Mr. Schlafly. Thank you very much; I may not have time in the next day or so to create an article on Marshall's rules (technically, Marshall's Rules of Derived Demand) but I will make it a priority when I have a chance over the coming week. Thank you! Kevin Davis ^Talk 20:37, 30 November 2011 (EST)

Is a practicing Jew and a member of the Conservative Party. Granted, in Europe a conservative is not quite as conservative as in the States, but the point the headline tried to make is rather dampened by the fact that he aligns himself on the right and is not an atheist.--CamilleT 00:37, 1 December 2011 (EST)

Bercow is very much on the left of the Conservative Party, and has been a bit of a thorn in Cameron's side as Speaker. His wife is actually a (fairly ineffectual) activist for the Labour Party. I didn't know he was Jewish; people don't tend to make as much of that in the UK.--CPalmer 08:49, 1 December 2011 (EST)

Interesting comments. It's worth adding that the headline is about what is done in an increasingly atheistic country. The personal beliefs of politicians have doubtful relevance to their actions as public officials. Nancy Pelosi is a personally Catholic, but that is not relevant to her voting record.--Andy Schlafly 00:46, 2 December 2011 (EST)

Bercow is something of a conundrum. He is on the left of the Conservative Party (having moved there from the right) and his wife is actually now a Labour MP. On the other hand he's a practising Jew and a Zionist (which in the UK is generally associated with the right). It's worth pointing out that the pink triangles etc. are not on his portrait (that would be just silly); he also had a coat of arms prepared, which is where the symbols are featured. I think the moral is that whether you're secular or religious, liberal or conservative, power tends to corrupt. --QPR 08:07, 2 December 2011 (EST)

Sorry to correct you, Mr Queens Park Rangers, but Sally Bercow isn't an MP. She has stood for election for Labour in a fairly safe Tory seat, which might be the first step towards selection for a better seat and eventual election in the future. I'm afraid her antics aren't much of a credit to the Labour Party, though.--CPalmer 08:20, 2 December 2011 (EST)

Sorry, you're absolutely right CPalmer. Don't know where I got that idea from. --QPR 08:31, 2 December 2011 (EST)

So, the comment on which you based your headline (and a whole article) seems to be erased from Question Evolution!. And here at Conservapedia, all what is left from this little episode are entries in the deletion log. There you can still read my question: "How is the anonymous comment of an user to an article at Question Evolution! verifiable?"

I hope that you will in future show more respect for legitimate concerns like mine!

But there is one disturbing thought: if an organ of the MSM had based a headline on flimsy evidence, and after realizing that the statement was untenable decided to just erase everything (including the letters to the editor written by concerned readers) instead of fessing up and retracting the story officially, then I have no doubt that Conservapedia would be the first to call such a behavior dishonest - and rightfully so.

AugustO 23:14, 1 December 2011 (EST)

If you think the world cares about what a bunch of childish and dishonest atheist babies with filthy mouths engages in, think again! According to Alexa, their traffic has flatlined over the last 6 months. If you want to recruit a few babysitters to help their website out, the world might appreciate it. In the meantime, don't look for much free PR here. Creationists are going to keep moving forward up the beach and then the creationist soldiers are going to "flamethrow" the pillboxes of evolutionary indoctrination. Creationists are certainly not going to get distracted by a bunch of childish and dishonest atheist crybabies or give them the spotlight. Have a good day! :) Conservative 03:30, 2 December 2011 (EST)

I have to say, nothing in August's comment demonstrated a need for such a rude response. Ayzmo :) 08:15, 2 December 2011 (EST)

Was the response, in fact, directed at August? It doesn't seem to follow terribly well from his post. Perhaps it is alluding to some other conversation that I haven't been party to?--CPalmer 08:22, 2 December 2011 (EST)

@Ayzmo, CPalmer: I don't think that I acted childishly, dishonestly, filthy-mouthed, atheistically etc. Often I'm criticizing User:Conservative's articles and methods, but this times he seems indeed to be alluding to some other conversation, which I haven't been party to, neither.

@Conservative: By all means, let creationists move forward! But when you describe their progress, you should use verifiable sources only.

AugustO 09:39, 2 December 2011 (EST)

AugustO, are you an atheist? If so, do you have any proof and evidence that atheism is true? Second, why didn't you mention that a fellow editor of yours at a atheist website was dishonest? If you want full disclosure, what is good for the goose is certainly good for the gander. Is it not? Third, I still think I made a good decision not to give a bunch of immature babies the attention they crave. According to Alexa, there web traffic has flatlined for the last 6 months. The market for immature atheist babies' content is not very large they have found out. If you want to continue to to be an editor at that website, be my guest, but you are a voice crying out in the internet wilderness there as few people care about what they have to say. Fourth, the gospel writer Luke was a careful historian,[10] and while certainly Christian organizations can make good faith mistakes, they also have the capability to learn from their mistakes. Conservative 10:44, 2 December 2011 (EST)

@Conservative Clearly there is something more going on here than directly evident on this page. By going on about things of which the general reader is unaware, you risk making yourself appear foolish and intemperate. I think most readers would find it helpful if you could clarify your comments and explain the issues you are writing about. --QPR 10:53, 2 December 2011 (EST)

@Conservative:

1. I'm not an atheist.
2. I'm not aware of any other fellow editors than Conservapedians.
3. Now, you resort to unfounded claims about my person - the very tactic I hoped you would avoid in the first place!
4. Do you think of yourself as Luke?

AugustO 11:01, 2 December 2011 (EST)

AugustO, I recently had a bit of sleeplessness due to temporary medical condition I am in the process of overcoming. I thought I recalled you posting about the matter above at another website. My apologies. Second, AugustO what is your worldview? Most so called atheists today are actually agnostics. For example, Richard Dawkins the so called atheist said a serious case for the god of Deism could be made [11] plus the atheist bus campaign which Dawkins contributed to claimed that God probably does not exist. Plus, Dawkins clearly was squishy and vague during the Ben Stein interview about the existence of God and Dawkins did not do a very good job at explaining his probabilistic figures thrown out for the existence of God.[12] I would also point out that Huxley was an agnostic and Darwin's bulldog. Are you an agnostic, do you have a good case for agnosticism? If so, what is it? Please read this article before replying. Lastly, the gospel writer Luke lived about 2,000 years ago. Last time I checked, I was born more recently. :) Conservative 11:53, 2 December 2011 (EST)

Sorry to hear about your condition: Get well soon! Obviously, this explains your more rambling edits in this section, and your lack of attention while archiving articles. No worries, I took care of that. One question remains: How should Christian organizations like Conservapedia act when they have made good faith mistakes? IMO just covering up the problem isn't the right way, such matters have to be dealt with in the open.

Can we now stop the charade of you being many or one? As you are yourself so secretive, I'm not willing to lay down my whole weltanschaung, but will only state that I'm a Protestant (as in mainline) Christian.

AugustO 12:45, 2 December 2011 (EST)

AugustO, given the shamefulness of belonging to a heretical mainline liberal Protestant denomination, I can understand your reluctance in specifying that your are a part of a heretical denomination that ordains homosexual "pastors" and denies biblical authority - despite the abundant evidence for the historicity of the Bible. Of course, while I disagree with the Conservative Bible Project, this would make your biblical translation disputes with Mr. Schlafly rather pointless since you have no respect for biblical authority. Secondly, I see no compelling reason to elaborate on whether or not I/we are many or one. "Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate." - Sun Tzu.  :) Lastly, I am looking forward to a swarm of creationist students peppering evolutionists biology teachers with questions that they cannot satisfactorily answer. By the way, have you seen this video? Conservative 16:22, 2 December 2011 (EST)

By the way AugustO, if you do belong to a heretical, liberal, mainline, Protestant denomination that ordains homosexual male pastors, you can can tell all the homosexual male "pastors" in your denomination that whether User:Conservative (the main author of the Conservapedia homosexuality article) is a man or woman or a number of men and women, he/she/they can beat all the homosexual male pastors in your denomination in arm wrestling because limp-wristed homosexuals are certainly not known for their arm wrestling prowess! :) Conservative 17:03, 2 December 2011 (EST)

AugustO, given the shamefulness of belonging to a heretical mainline liberal Protestant denomination, I can understand your reluctance in specifying that your are a part of a heretical denomination that ordains homosexual "pastors" and denies biblical authority - despite the abundant evidence for the historicity of the Bible. I don't know whether I should admire the casual way in which you are declaring quite a big chunk of the Protestant world as heretical. I just assume that it is still your sleep deprivation speaking.

Of course, while I disagree with the Conservative Bible Project, this would make your biblical translation disputes with Mr. Schlafly rather pointless since you have no respect for biblical authority. A personal insult: out of thin air you constructed my disrespect for Biblical authority! Here I think I can expect another apology. BTW: As I stated before, I don't think that the CBP will result in some brilliant new translation. But I think that it can help all contributors to understand the Bible better, by looking at the originals and discussing the text.

Secondly, I see no compelling reason to elaborate on whether or not I/we are many or one. "Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate." - Sun Tzu.  :) But you should try neither to look like a single idiot - or couple of those :-) You can't expect me to except your explanation above that you (singular) have a medical condition, while OTOH you pretend to be a couple of editors: Sun Tzu speaks about soundlessness, not the lack of soundness!

By the way, have you seen this video? No, I try to avoid videos.

AugustO 17:11, 2 December 2011 (EST)

August, I see we cross posted and you missed the arm wresting post. That is most unfortunate. Secondly, while I do not agree with everything Sun Tzu wrote, as far as the I or I/we posts, Sun Tzu also spoke of being unpredictable. :) Conservative 17:21, 2 December 2011 (EST)

User:Conservative, I'm pretty sure there are a number of homosexual men who could do far more than beat you in arm wrestling. Do you intend to require them to donate $20,000 to try? Ayzmo :) 17:44, 2 December 2011 (EST)

• I just read the arm wrestling post. I'm glad I missed it and I'll ignore it further on.
• Being unpredictable is not a value in itself: there are many lies to chose from, but if you stick to the one truth, then you tend to be predictable! AugustO 17:44, 2 December 2011 (EST)

Ayzmo, I am sorry to hear that you seem to think that many obscure atheists didn't have enough machismo to able to come up with $20,000 in order to donate to a Christian relief organization so they could have the opportunity to debate me. :) And of course, it would not be my debating prowess which enabled me/us to speedily win a debate, but rather the utter weakness of the atheist position. Conservative 18:00, 2 December 2011 (EST)

I am not surprised to see more incivility from "Conservative". He is driving editors from this site, Mr. Schlafly. Please please please admonish him to stop attacking people for their faith! Nate 21:26, 2 December 2011 (EST)

I see that, as is often the case, Conservative ignores the question, and replies with ad hominem attacks. I would be interested if someone would respond to the original question. - JamesCA 20:42, 2 December 2011 (EST)

While I'm sure there are a fair number of "obscure atheists" who could shell out $20k to debate you I'm sure that 99%(random guess and probably understated) have never heard of you or Conservapedia. I know a lot of people, myself included, couldn't spare $20k even if we had that kind of money just lying around. Nor can I say that I believe "machismo" and being able/willing to donate $20k have anything to do with each other. By that account Bill Gates and Warren Buffet(both atheists) have more machismo than anybody else on the planet. Of course we could go into your obesity theories but the reality is you tend to have it backwards. Ayzmo :) 22:53, 2 December 2011 (EST)

Nate, given your embarrassing rant on your user page which you took down, you are hardly the one to talk about civility. Also, being a liberal I could see how liberal homosexual clergy and their embarrassing behavior could be a sensitive topic for you. Especially since Bill Donohue has pointed out that it was male children who were primarily molested within the religious body that you are a part of by male homosexual clergy (see: Homosexuality and pederasty).

You should be ashamed of yourself for all this nasty behavior. The was nothing embarrassing about my homepage and it wasn't a rant. So so many people were disgusted by the awful things you plastered all over this website. I took nearly everything on my homepage down because I took a break to take care of my wife who has Hodgkins lymphoma. I really appreciate you noticing the message on my homepage and wishing her a speedy recovery. It is nice of you to treat me with Christian charity while my family is having a hard time. Since you asked, my wife is getting better every day and we thank God for His blessings. Sir, you are truly a disgusting person to continually attack my Church and me with all this nonsense that has nothing to do with how how penitent sinner are blessed with an infinite ocean of mercy in the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ. And don't you dare call me "liberal" in my faith or any other way. You do not know the first thing about me. Stop attacking me and my Church. I've never said anything about your faith to deserve that. It is just vile. Nate 15:13, 3 December 2011 (EST)

Nate, I don't recall reading much of your rant. I just heard about it. So I didn't read about your wife's illness. I do not wish you or your family ill will and hope your wife has a speedy recovery. As far as Roman Catholicism, as a Protestant I still disagree with it. Also, it seems to irk you that unlike you I do not espouse ideology promoted by some liberal Roman Catholics such as evolutionary pseudoscience, but you need to get over this. And last time I checked, a Pope still has not spoken ex-cathedra on the evolution issue. By the way, there is a Roman Catholic who has promoted some of my anti-evolution material to his fairly sizable internet audience. He has no problem with me. Conservative 15:50, 3 December 2011 (EST)

Rant my foot. Calling a spade a spade isn't a rant. Some of your essays are meanspirited or even obscene and you seem to enjoy that. I do not let my children look at this website when it is littered with your more offensive stuff you plaster all over the place. Thanks to God that Mr. Schlafly or someone else removes it from time to time. I wouldn't have a problem with you if you didn't spitefully attack others you disagree with, especially me and my Church. As it stands I am certain you are not mindful of inviting Christ to walk with you when you say such terrible things. As far as the theory of evolution goes, I have no idea where in the world you get that I am irked by something some uncivilized brute like you believes. I believe what I believe based on learning, even my faith is based on learning the glory of Christ's love and sacrifice. I have no idea why you believe some of the nonsense you say because you definitely never make any kind of good stepwise argument to justify your beliefs. It is the ad hominem attacks and character attacks like you keep making that irk me. I will never get over or let you continue with your disgusting attacks without speaking up. I asked you to stop it. Now stop it. Nate 17:02, 3 December 2011 (EST)

Nate, one the reason you are given to rants directed my way is that I occasionally point out deficiencies in your rants and in your false beliefs. Second, you wrote: "Thanks to God that Mr. Schlafly or someone else removes it from time to time." What specifically are you referring to? Lastly, and most importantly, we both know that you are unable to answer the 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer. Conservative 18:15, 3 December 2011 (EST)

My false beliefs. Rants. Once again. Creepy. Why do you have such a huge problem keeping on topic? What of anything you just responded with is a response to how disgusting your comments about others' faith are? You debate really poorly and honestly I don't see any point in anyone speaking with you. It's just a torrent of attacks and weird irrelevant nonsense. I'd block you for what you've said about others' faith if you weren't a "senior admin". Anyone else saying what you say wouldn't last a minute here. Nate 18:28, 3 December 2011 (EST)

NKeaton, I see you were not able to elaborate on this statement of yours: "Thanks to God that Mr. Schlafly or someone else removes it from time to time." Very telling. Very telling. Nor were you able to answer the 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer. Of course, this was also very telling. Your rants are filled with sound and fury, but when challenged they are quickly shown to be empty bluster. Conservative 19:07, 3 December 2011 (EST)

You seem incapable of responding to a single point I made about your awful behavior. Instead you throw up this irrelevant clownish nonsense. Defend your behavior or say nothing. Stop messing around like a kid. Nate 20:11, 3 December 2011 (EST)

NKeaton, please let me know when you clear the bar of providing sufficient evidence concerning my alleged "awful behavior". Second, I realize that you like to: take issue with biblical creation, make evolutionist claims which are quickly shot down and then throw a temper tantrum. If you aren't prepared to have spirited debate due to the insufficiency of your beliefs, then I suggest not entering into the public square with your contentions and errant beliefs. Conservative 22:37, 3 December 2011 (EST)

Now you're just playing dumb about slandering the Catholic Church, questioning others' faith, and smearing people you disagree with. When called to account for your behavior you point the finger at your accuser and call it a "temper tantrum". I don't take issue with creationism. I just don't accept it. I also haven't made any "evolutionist claims" here, especially ones you have "quickly shot down". I've never seen you quickly shoot anything down as the worst debater on Conservapedia. It's nothing but personal insults and jumping around from irrelevant nonsense to irrelevant nonsense like you did in this discussion as an obvious distraction from your inability to take responsibility for your own self. If it is too much to ask of a grown man that you stop attacking others for their faith and especially to stop slandering my Church then I can only pray that you find your way in this life. I'm tired of seeing your childish responses in this discussion. Let's pick up somewhere else. If you want to have a "spirited debate" on any subject at all feel free to leave me a message so we can schedule doing something over the speakerphone with our mens groups or church groups to witness and judge. Mr. Schlafly has my email address. Nate 23:09, 3 December 2011 (EST)

Nate, the reason I say that you rant is you trot out these vague accusations with no real evidence. For example, you allege that I supposedly engage in "slandering the Catholic church". Yet, you give me no specific examples where I clearly say something that is false about the Roman Catholic Church. Surely I had done this you would have given specific examples. But you don't do this and instead you rant. That is why I do not take you seriously. That is why your fellow Roman Catholic Andy Schlafly does not take you seriously and you get silence at his talk page when you whine and rant about me. You accuse me of acting clownish, yet you fail to notice the big floppy shoes and red nose that you are wearing. As long as you continue to rant, you are not going to be taken seriously. Please do not be surprised if you get the total brush off from me in the future (as in being ignored). Conservative 02:17, 4 December 2011 (EST)

You started sneering at me and insulting my Church this summer when I and others you banned or ran off started pointing out the flaws of your obesity nonsense. Since you want to keep it up and send me on a fool's errand, I went and found the first remaining instance of you snearingly referring to my Church with your usual smiley faces where you intend to be offensive. You said "Nate, I see you are still smarting from our Conservative Protestantism vs. Liberal Catholicism exchanges. Conservative 19:23, 2 August 2011 (EDT)" You have a habit of intentionally misdescribing things to take the focus off your failings and misbehavior in order to give the false impression you scored some win that never occurred. In this case, there never were any such exchanges and in general nobody smarts from your nonexistent genius. They are offended by you. You are an offensive person. That isn't the real problem for you here. The real problem for you here is that you referred to exchanges you deleted in which you did say offensive things about my Church. I know you know you deleted them because Rob Smith told you to stop it and I remember even saying the same thing when you deleted a section I just commented in. The real problem for you here is that I just showed you to be a dishonest person. I can't force you to act like a decent grown up adult but I will keep demanding you stop ruining this website with your hateful personal jabs at people you disagree with. Stop it. Nate 10:09, 4 December 2011 (EST)

NKeaton, if you feel you have legitimate complaints, take them to your fellow Roman Catholic Andy Schlafly who owns the website. My guess is that he will continue to ignore you due to your unreasonableness. As for me, I want you to attempt to answer these 15 questions satisfactorily or admit it is impossible before I would want to have an extended discussion with you. Conservative 12:15, 4 December 2011 (EST)

It's obviously impossible to answer the 15 questions satisfactorily if the person who must be satisfied has the unflinching belief that the questions are unanswerable. --QPR 13:32, 4 December 2011 (EST)

Nate, you should take a break for a little bit and cool down. Conservative may have legitimate points, and you can't just strike them down as "offensive". QPR, please elaborate. Yes, evolutionists have claimed to have answers to some of the questions, but flaws in their answers have been repeatedly pointed out. NickP 15:44, 4 December 2011 (EST)

Flaws in the answers may have been pointed out, but not to any degree that is accepted by both sides in the debate. But that's beside the point. The questions are asked in anticipation that they cannot be satisfactorily answered, therefore it is unlikely that any answers will be acceptable to those who asked them. The questions are, essentially, rhetorical. If it were possible to appoint an independent arbiter to decide whether any particular answer is satisfactory, then there might be some hope, but I would venture that neither side would risk agreeing on an arbiter who might judge against their preconceived certainties. --QPR 15:50, 4 December 2011 (EST)

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. If the questions are unanswerable, then that means the theory of evolution does not have the answers. NickP 16:02, 4 December 2011 (EST)

It's not difficult, Nick. The point is that the questioned have to be answered satisfactorily. "Satisfactorily" is an entirely subjective concept. Many people think the questions have been answered satisfactorily - many others do not. How useful, therefore, are they?--QPR 17:00, 4 December 2011 (EST)

I see that, as is often the case involving discussions including Conservative, the discussion moves off topic, whilst avoiding the initial topic. I would be interested if someone would respond to the original question. - JamesCA 01:16, 5 December 2011 (EST)

Many times Conservapedia does not consider the antics of childish atheists to be newsworthy. That is why Conservapedia did not make a big deal about the demise of Encyclopedia Dramatica. If childish atheists feel they need more attention, they should take this up with their parents, nannys and babysitters. Conservative 03:23, 5 December 2011 (EST)

"AugustO, I recently had a bit of sleeplessness due to temporary medical condition I am in the process of overcoming" ( Conservative): Oh oh, Conservative, you just let the world know that you are only one person... Mystery is fading !--PhilipN 22:47, 6 December 2011 (EST)

User:Conservative, above you mentioned the unwillingness of atheists/evolutionists/whomever to debate you, despite numerous offers to do so. There are several reasons why such a debate will never happen. The required money you insist on is obviously nothing more than a ploy to prevent such a debate from occurring, as no one is going to put down such money for an opportunity to debate an nameless random guy on the internet such as yourself. But the crux of the matter is that you've insisted on a written debate, and no one is going to pay to debate you in writing for the simple reason that many do so all the time for free. This entire post is an example of a free debate, and you can't sell what you give away for free. Which brings me to my main point: no one will pay for engage in a written debate with you because you suck at debating. You are just really, really terrible at it. Rather than actually respond to what someone's said, you go off topic, link to irrelevant articles, make ad hominems, give the same non-responses over and over and over again, and engage in all manners of behavior (and in the end you often ban your debate opponents). Now you can sort of get away with that in a written debate, but in an oral debate in which you actually have to engage with another person this is not so easy, especially not in the presence of a neutral moderator (even a sympathetic moderator would be unlikely to put up with these antics). So we all know what a written debate with you looks like, and we all want no part in such a masochistic endeavor. Now, if you were to agree to a live debate with a neutral moderator, there is a chance (a slim one) that a wealthy person who can spare $20,000 (or however much) to a worthy charity make take up the offer to debate you (I am not such a person). So what, is anything, would it take to have you agree to a live debate, rather than having someone pay exorbitant amounts for what is basically a Conservapedia talk page discussion with you?

Before I conclude here, I would like to give you an opportunity to prove you can actually engage in a debate, so please briefly answer the following simple and striaghtforward question: "What is the evidence for Christianity you claim is so apparent and abundant?" Please answer how you like, but without your response consisting of a link (especially not to your Christian apologetics article, which really has no prof or evidence, but is a basic article on the topic of apologetics), without an ad hominem or a question about my beliefs (which aren't relevant to answering a simple question such as this), while staying on topic without bringing up you Question Evolution! campaign or other topics du jour, and while actually addressing the question asked. Can you do this? I don't think you can. Prove me wrong. BobK 09:33, 8 December 2011 (EST)

I agree with your assessment of this person's shortcomings but don't leave it at that. If you're actually curious istead of just pointing out the obvious then find people who actually can and are willing to discuss this with you. I would like to provide you with evidence for Christ's divinity and sacrifice, His virgin birth, the triune person of God, God's mercy and the freedom sanctify Him and celebrate the sacraments, the gift of grace that is and stirs faith and knowledge of God. All of these are "evidence for Christianity" but I'm not sure what you're looking for. Whatever you're interested in is interesting to me. Contact me if you like so we can have not so much a debate as discuss and learn together. Nate 09:11, 13 December 2011 (EST)

Bob, I challenged atheist Penn Jillette to debate and subsequently other Christians did as well, but he wimped out as far as debating Christians. Also, to my knowledge, the atheist Penn Jillette has yet to publicly debate a prominent Christian. Next, if you didn't like my other debate offer for debating obscure atheists, I can live with that. Lastly, you don't seem the type of person at this season in your life who open to hearing the evidence for Christianity and I have better things to do with my time that bash my head against a brick wall. Conservative 09:45, 13 December 2011 (EST)

Did he wimp out of debating you or wimp out of handing over $20,000 for the privilege of talking to some random blogger? --HarryPagett 09:50, 13 December 2011 (EST)

My debate offer to Penn Jillette did not require the $20,000 and Penn Jillette is not an obscure atheist. See: Essay: Conservapedia's challenge to atheist Penn Jillette Conservative 09:56, 13 December 2011 (EST)

Penn Jillette's not obscure. You, however, are. Why don't you offer to debate someone nearer your own level of prominence, such as the YouTube atheist Voiceoftruth2006? --HarryPagett 10:11, 13 December 2011 (EST)

Am I/we obscure? Have several major newspapers quoted my work or alluded to my work? Has one of the largest Christian organizations in Chistendom linked to my work? Have Christian apologists and various ministries and conservative organizations linked to my work? Next, if I am so obscure why did Penn Jillette do two videos which mentioned my work and why has PZ Myers twice linked to my work? Did Ireland's most famous atheist cite my work (or at least one of Ireland's most famous atheist cite my work)? By the way, this very recent article features a picture of Penn Jillette and he appears to still be overweight. Atheists purport to love science. Don't the scientific fields of exercise science, nutritional science and medical science have a multitude of ways to prevent people from becoming overweight and to assist people in losing weight? Are the sins of sloth and gluttony greater in Penn Jillette than his purported love of science and reason? According to Jesus (who is more well known and respected than Penn Jillette and PZ Myers), "He who sins is the slave of sin" and "...you will know the truth and he truth shall set you free". Conservative 13:51, 13 December 2011 (EST)

Yes, you're obscure. You're just an "anonymous" poster on a blog that most of the internet is, and I know you'll excuse me for saying this, laughing at.

As for your repeated childish ad hominems about atheism and obesity, do I really need to remind you about the strong correlation between CHRISTIANITY[13] and obesity in the USA? That's right: eight of the ten most religious states are also in the ten fattest (with Mississippi being top in both and Alabama second in both) while four of the states with the least obesity are in the top 10 least religious states. If you're going to throw insults to avoid debating people, at least throw ACCURATE insults. --HarryPagett 19:42, 13 December 2011 (EST)

Conservative never hesitates to play the weight card. It would be interesting to see how much he weighs. He spends, on average, something like 15 hours/day editing this website [14]. He obviously doesn't have a job, and I really doubt he's hitting the gym during those small breaks in his editing schedule. In fact, his editing schedule is pretty consistent with someone who goes to bed at around 5 each morning, wakes up past noon, and writes articles all day about how atheists don't have social lives.--PZhang 19:22, 13 December 2011 (EST)

I am a catholic from Krakow, Poland. When I debate with my friends in university, I find it difficult to argue that Bible gives us guidance regarding morality. They point out to the following passages,

• Exodus 21:20-21 God orders that an owner can kill a slave and is not punished if he survives a couple of days after the punishment.
• Deuteronomy 22:13-21 Where a girl who cannot prove that she was a virgin when she married has to be stoned to death
• Deuteronomy 22:28-29 Where a girl has to marry her rapist
• Numbers 31:17-18 Killing all the men, boys and women who have known a man after war and taking all the virgins as the spoils of the war
• Judges 1:12-13 Giving woman as a present
• Deuteronomy 13: 6 Killing unbelievers
• I Samuel 15:2-3 Killing woman and infants
• Deuteronomy 22:24 Stoning for adultery
• Hosea 13:16 God ordering to rip up pregnant women
• 2 Peter 2:8 Giving daughters as a suitable alternative to homosexual rapists

I used to counter them saying that it was old testament, but Christ himself says that (Matthew 5:7) " Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" and "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail” (Luke 16:17).

I have a debate scheduled early next week and our team are preparing well. A similarly themed debate was conducted a few months ago and we lost it.

There are many biblical scholars on this website. Can someone help me? My parents don't know much about these and also I am not obviously comfortable discussing some of these with my mom or dad.

Please help and wish us luck. And give tips please. Also can anyone help us with a mock debate?

Regards

L--LesiakM 13:10, 2 December 2011 (EST)

Please go HERE and HERE and look up specific passages using the Apologetics Encyclopedia. Conservative 18:10, 2 December 2011 (EST)

Thank you user Conservative for giving the links. Unfortunately it does not clearly give arguments about the specific "atrocities" mentioned. Also some of the arguments use a relative morality (it was okay to do those due to the special social circumstances) or false assumptions (slavery was not really slavery- but cannot argue when the slave can be beaten to death). Any one can help us with specific counter points rather than links? --LesiakM 00:14, 3 December 2011 (EST)

Is the Bible an immoral book or are liberals engaging in cultural imperialism and attempting to impose liberal standards on the Bible?[15] Conservative 22:54, 3 December 2011 (EST)

re: Critics of the Bible not doing their homework Conservative

Thank you user Conservative, the links were very helpful. How does one explain for e.g allowing slaves to be beaten to death? The links do not give specific answers? What is your opinion? When I am in a debate and I am asked " Your bible says if a slave is beaten to death, the owner should not be punished if he survives for 2 days. How do you explain that? Is that moral?" How do I answer that question. How would you answer the question if you were debating? --LesiakM 13:51, 4 December 2011 (EST)

Can someone with the permissions and knowledge of grammar fix that headline? It is incredibly convoluted. Ayzmo :) 23:41, 4 December 2011 (EST)

Is there anything ungrammatical about it? Improvements are always welcome, but the headline seems clear to me. Perhaps that is because I wrote it!--Andy Schlafly 20:49, 5 December 2011 (EST)

Not sure if there is anything grammatically wrong about it though it is grammatically awkward. I just read it several times and then had to go read the article to understand what the headline was trying to say. Ayzmo :) 22:33, 5 December 2011 (EST)

Dear Mr. Schlafly, the link in the MPR post about the liberal media piling on Cain just leads me to CNN.com. I kind of expected an article about Cain on CNN, maybe THIS one? Best Wishes --VPropp 12:16, 5 December 2011 (EST)

It's easy to find the headlines against Cain using the link, which was the point. Thanks for offering another example.--Andy Schlafly 20:47, 5 December 2011 (EST)

For the first time in history, scientists have discovered a planet that is right in the middle of the habitable zone (otherwise known as the "Goldilocks zone"). It's roughly 2.4 times the size of the Earth, and is expected to have an average surface temperature of 70 degrees. The planet, known as Kepler-22b, is 600 light-years away from the Earth, and revolves around its "slightly cooler and smaller than the sun" star every 290 days. For more details, please go to http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/12/potentially-habitable-planet-is-.html?ref=hp --JCorrim 2:29, 5 December 2011 (PST)

Don't mind me, just moving this into place so people who check for new stuff will see it. --Sid 3050 17:37, 5 December 2011 (EST)

It should be noted that A) the filibustering of the nominee violates the agreement made by the Gang of 14, which prevents filibustering of judicial nominees except in 'extraordinary circumstances' - whether this is reasonable or not is another matter. And B) The filibuster is most likely not because she's a woman, but because it was to the D.C. circuit, which has served as a common stepping-stone to the Supreme Court. I would like to point out that the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court was by Ronald Reagan. - JamesCA 08:31, 8 December 2011 (EST)

I'm not sure mockery is key to losing games as much as playing the Green Bay Packers (12-0), New Orleans Saints (9-3) and Chicago Bears (7-5, 7-3 before they lost Cutler) rather than the Minnesota Vikings (2-10), San Diego Chargers (5-7), and Kansas City Chiefs (5-7). Without Cutler they might well beat Chicago on Sunday, but let's see how they do against the Patriots in a couple weeks. If they can pull that off I will be impressed. Until then they remain a mediocre team who've beat a slew of other mediocre teams, and the Raiders. BobK 09:48, 8 December 2011 (EST)

But alas, you repeat yourself. The Raiders are a mediocre team. Gregkochuconn 15:14, 8 December 2011 (EST)

Sort of, but going by the most objective criteria I can, their record, they're not bad any more than Denver is. By that logic, I guess the Jets, who are also 7-5, are not mediocre either. Let me rephrase, Tebow has beaten 3 pretty lousy teams and two decent ones. Let him play the Patriots, Ravens, Steelers, Texans, Packers, 49ers, Saints, or hell, even the Giants if they play like they did last week. Then we'll see how great Tebow and the Broncos are. A narrow win against the Vikings is something any team could pull off. BobK 17:47, 8 December 2011 (EST)

FYI, someone might want to put up a news item about the recent second shooting at Virginia Tech and its connection to Obama. I don't think I have any privileges to add any news items. PS I'm getting error messages saying "Warning: preg_match() [function.preg-match]: Unknown modifier '|' in /home/cptransi/public_html/includes/EditPage.php on line 1106" while using the preview, not sure if I'm the first/only user who noticed this but might be worth mentioning. --GTac 14:48, 8 December 2011 (EST)

I'm sorry, what does the shooting have to do with Obama? Don't politicize shootings like this. Ayzmo :) 15:04, 8 December 2011 (EST)

It's already being politicized on the front page and quite frankly, it's rather disturbing. JeremyMaclin 10:45, 9 December 2011 (EST)

The atheistic, amoral culture that exists on college campuses like Virginia Tech does have harmful consequences. How long will it be before a candid examination of this culture is allowed? Do you notice how these shootings do not occur at conservative high schools and colleges?--Andy Schlafly 11:27, 9 December 2011 (EST)

Just to avoid confusion: You are aware that the shooter was not a V-Tech student, right? --Sid 3050 14:06, 9 December 2011 (EST)

I don't think you usually use the word 'sitting' for people holding non-elected positions. Perhaps a different word would be better? - JamesCA 01:02, 9 December 2011 (EST)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0PAJNntoRgA

Rick Perry's brave new ad attacked by liberal media and swarms of atheists on YouTube. We need a president who is not afraid to stand up for true conservatism - this ad paints Rick Perry as the true conservative hero that America needs. Stairmaster 8:47, 9 December 2011 (EST)

That ad was very possibly the worst ad he could have made from what it looks like. If anything it is going to alienate moderate voters who considered him a good candidate. Ayzmo :) 17:09, 9 December 2011 (EST)

what the liberal media is doing to defame Christianity and conservative rick perry http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbrI3F7p6-o

I'm not sure an obscure comedy group that makes youtube videos can fairly be described as "the media". BobK 08:59, 10 December 2011 (EST)

[16] Rob Smith 13:19, 9 December 2011 (EST)

Hello,

I'm new here, so I don't know whether this is the correct place to post this, but on the main page, there is a link labeled "Recruiting the "Wayne Gretzsky [sic] of Canadian creationism." Mr. Gretzky's name is misspelled. (I would also like to point out that it is also misspelled as "Gretsky" on the Question Evolution! blog, so this might be good for them to know). Can someone please fix this? Thanks, GregG 22:43, 10 December 2011 (EST)

Good catch. I see someone else has already fixed the misspelling.--Andy Schlafly 22:58, 10 December 2011 (EST)

I did something similar to this in 2008 (although I started later in the piece) - tracking the betting market's view of how likely each candidate is to win the 2012 election. I'll track it here: User:Ferret/2012ElectionOdds.

Current standings give the Republicans a lead by 53% to 47%, with Gingrich and Romney level pegging for the Rep nomination. In case anyone is wondering where the other candidates are, they aren't shown on the source website. Are there any key ones missing?

Let me know if this is something you're interested in seeing updates on, I'll be tracking it for personal interest reasons anyway.

-- Ferret _{Nice old chat} 03:11, 11 December 2011 (EST)

Antedote? Is this something you have to take before the antidote? ;-) AugustO 12:52, 11 December 2011 (EST)

Great catch! Thanks and I've corrected it.--Andy Schlafly 13:37, 11 December 2011 (EST)

Although I think a worsening economy will probably prevent Barack Obama from being re-elected, it is not a sure thing. I am guessing that Newt's people are probably telling him to be more cautious so he is not his own worse enemy, but he could still fumble the ball. Conservatives should not get complacent. Personally, I would like someone who is very serious about cutting the federal deficit and I don't think Newt will be, but he is probably the lesser of two evils (Maybe Newt will surprise me though and cut the deficit in a substantial way. We know Obama would not be serious about cutting the deficit based on his first term). Conservative 15:13, 11 December 2011 (EST)

Good analysis, but the recognition of Newt as the frontrunner for the nomination and someone who is likely to defeat Obama in 11 months is merely an observation of fact, like saying who will probably win the Super Bowl.--Andy Schlafly 17:36, 11 December 2011 (EST)

And do you have a prediction on that, Aschlafly? ScottDG 18:31, 11 December 2011 (EST)

An evangelical Christian is quarterbacking Green Bay, and such faith is a winning formula.--Andy Schlafly 18:57, 11 December 2011 (EST)

The title of this article is plainly incorrect. Anyone with half a brain would realise that the title should start with "who". This headline should be changed to God's original definition of the word. The Attorney General is clearly the subject of the sentence, not the object.

BenDylan 20:23, 12 December 2011 (EST)

I'm sorry. I fail to see any connection in the article listed. It appears to be a vague statement with no facts to back it up. A crazy guy with a gun killed a cop. So every time a crazy guy with a gun kills a police officer are we supposed to assume that video games were in some way related?! Two years ago, a gang member killed four cops in a coffee shop, are we to assume he learned this from video games? Also, the new GTA video game isn't even out yet. How would he have learned from it? This is hardly news and actually quite embarrassing. I also wouldn't use, "proven right" since there is no facts of any kind supporting the statement. I utilized this site for gathering current events and for some of the articles. Between this and the over saturation of the Question Evolution Campaign that is obviously going nowhere, this site is moving from respectable to a joke. Just my two cents. --DanJG 19:51, 12 December 2011 (EST)

Thanks, you just saved me a lot of time: I fully agree, the article is a joke (claiming that there was unattributed speculation), and repeating it on the main page in this way is nothing but gossip. No official word has come out on whether this guy played video games. --Sid 3050 20:09, 12 December 2011 (EST)

We report, and readers can decide. But it's amazing how much resistance there is to criticizing video games. Do you deny that violent video games can incite or inspire at least some violence?--Andy Schlafly 20:42, 12 December 2011 (EST)

I think it's a stretch. I don't know for sure. Just as no one knows, at this time, why the student murdered that officer. To jump to "proven" and to assert that video games were the cause is a reach. Video games may inspire violence, but music, home life or even peers could do the same. My resistance isn't to the criticism of video games.. but of the matter-of-factly way that Conservapedia claims that video games were the reason for the violence without any proof. --DanJG 22:16, 12 December 2011 (EST)

Mr Schlafly never said that. He said that it may have been influenced by those video games and that the the killing is similar. There has never been any claim. --PhilipN 22:29, 12 December 2011 (EST)

In addition to the 'may', the headline doesn't say that Conservapedia was 'proven right again'. That's a pretty definite statement. Admittedly it does say what claim Conservapedia was right about. That people will speculate wildly in preference to gathering the facts, perhaps?--QPR 13:14, 13 December 2011 (EST)

Trash like Grand Theft Auto can cause this stuff. It doesn't mean that it will, but it has been shown violent video games cause real life violence. Do you have any idea how many 5-8 year olds play smut like Grand Theft Auto?? 3 of my nephews do!--James Wilson 13:18, 13 December 2011 (EST)

"We report, and readers can decide." Except that repeating baseless speculation isn't reporting. It's gossip. But following your logic: The killer knew the Bible well - maybe the Bible inspired him to kill another person. Do you deny that the acts of violence and murder depicted may inspire violence in the real world? And yet I think there will be sudden resistance to criticizing the Bible... See, I can "report", too! ;) (In fact, my "reporting" at least has one leg in a source while yours is just plain speculation since no news organization I'm aware of has even mentioned video games) --Sid 3050 14:29, 13 December 2011 (EST)

Wow, I was not expecting the article I provided to make the front page, I am honored, Mr. Schlafly. CarlTM 20:44, 12 December 2011 (EST)

Although the article stating this is a little more nuanced--CamilleT 07:58, 14 December 2011 (EST)

http://www.fox2now.com/news/ktvi-baby-jesus-figure-stolen-from-south-st-louis-church-20111213,0,1001232.story -- BrianMcpherson

I am sorry to ask this on the main page talk but since Conservative page is not editable, I do not know where to ask this. Conservative, why did you block the user Sid 3050 ? I have seen your comment "(not enough content created as of late, see you in 5 years)" but wouldn't it be fair to inform the user of its misbehavior before banning him ?--PhilipN 00:25, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Sorry to correct you, Philip, but this "user" Sid has been told of his misbehavior off and on for the past several years, which consisted of causing and continuing arguments to the point of contempt, disrespect, and causing fights. If we're wrong in matters concerning content, what he or anyone else should have done is to provide evidence which proves we're wrong, and do it in a respectful manner, then drop the subject. He took a different road, and unfortunately, that road involves a website and ilk known less for content than they are for hate, vandalism, trolling, bigotry, and other trash. And the trash was taken out of here. Karajou 12:59, 15 December 2011 (EST)

I stand by my decision. If you want this decision reversed, please take it up with the owner of the website. Conservative 00:52, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Then it is nothing but fair. I wasn't aware of your multiple warnings. I surely do not want to involve any more admin in this affair. I was just surprised by the comment you made "see you in 5 years". --PhilipN 15:32, 15 December 2011 (EST)

The connection between dropout rates and atheism... well, I can't find it. If atheism is responsible for increased drop-out rates in this case, wouldn't that require there to be an initial rise of atheism as a cause? This doesn't seem likely to happen given its global decline. Or has it already been agreed upon that atheism leads to poor academic performance? It's an interesting thought but I can't find an article like that on this site that supports it.--Pencil 00:39, 15 December 2011 (EST)

I notice that quite a large number of contributions have been deleted from this page over the last few hours. I suppose that when they have been transferred to a more appropriate page and the edit summary makes this clear, then that's fair enough, but there are many deletions for which no explanation is even attempted. There is even selective deleting, not of an entire thread, but of individual posts. Thankfully the 'history' tab is no respecter of censorship. However it's still a bit of a chore to plough through each revision in order to discover precisely what it is that Conservative doesn't want us to read. So why not make life easier for all, and just leave what was written where it was written?--QPR 08:20, 15 December 2011 (EST)

User:Conservative deleted the section Christian Growth Index - where is the data? from this talk page. A a reason for this he stated in the edit-comment: 'christian [sic] post article has been corrected But none of the questions raised in the section (mainly by User:Sid3050) was answered.

To summarize: The headline Global Media Outreach's Christian Growth Index shows that online evangelism is producing real disciples for Christ quotes an article which is based on a press-release by Global Media Outreach, which itself quotes one of its studies (the Christian Growth Index, a new study by internet ministry Global Media Outreach (GMO))

The only information I can find is this:

The study itself can't be found anywhere, not even an abstract! Nothing is known about the methods, the questions, etc. No one here at Conservapedia would accept a similar study by climate scientists, but GMO's statements have to be left unquestioned! Sid 3050 called Conservapedia out on these double standards, and nothing User:Conservative wrote refuted this call.

Sid3050's critique is still valid: The correction in the article of the Christian Post doesn't address his point. As for the block of Sid3050: I think it is very unfortunate that User:Aschlafly chooses to ignore User:Conservative's treatment of his fellow editors. It seems that you can earn a right of violating the guidelines by doing what is regarded as outstanding work. For me, this is a quite alien concept, reminding me of medieval indulgences: write a couple of thousand words, and you may act as a bully.

AugustO 08:34, 15 December 2011 (EST)

AugustO, sid3050 strenuously believed that Conservapedia commandments/rules be enforced. Well, I accommodated his wish and banned him for recently breaking the 90/10 rule. Furthermore, sid3050 made 3 unsupported claims on this talk page recently. Personally, on the whole, I find the Christian Post to be more informative than some of the drivel that sid3050 engages in. Lastly, if you feel sid3050 is such an incisive commentator and analyst, perhaps you should encourage him to start his own wiki, website, syndicated column or blog if he hasn't done so already. Conservative 13:49, 15 December 2011 (EST)

• Sid 3050 criticized double standards: selective enforcement of rules is just an example for this problem.
• The Christian Post may be informative. Nevertheless it just rehashes a press release which discusses an study about which no one seems to have any information. I thought that Conservapedia looks disfavorably on such unverifiable claims.

AugustO 17:18, 15 December 2011 (EST)

AugustO, sid3050 reminds of the first video featured HERE Conservative 17:27, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Well, it seem that you are still suffering from your sleep deprivation and this explains your obvious disability to stay on topic. Perhaps we can have a meaningful exchange of arguments later, when you are recuperated? AugustO 17:50, 15 December 2011 (EST)

AugustO, I am well rested. I suggest you and Sid3050 challenge the Christian Post to a debate on the corrected article in question. I am guessing that the Christian Post will not take you and Sid very seriously and frankly I wouldn't blame them if that happened.Conservative 18:42, 15 December 2011 (EST)

It's good to hear that you think that you are O.K.! Then you should have no problem to address the central topic: Should Conservapedia rely on hearsay and cite a study to bolster a claim when no editor has access to its content or the data?

AugustO 01:00, 16 December 2011 (EST)

I fpund THIS article by Peter Hitchens about a possible connection about the shooters possesion of marijuana and his rampage. Oddly enough it seems that nobody else in the media has drawn that connection, although it is a quite obvious link. Unfortunately the actual article about this link is quite at the bottom. Maybe it is still newsworthy? --VPropp 09:38, 15 December 2011 (EST)

A 4 point plan for dealing with contentious and socially challenged internet atheists and evolutionists at wikis, forums, blogs and YouTube channels: Quarrelsome, socially challenged atheists and evolutionists Conservative 14:01, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Isn't that just going to lead to accusations of censorship and cowardice? I remember VenomFangX did something similar on YouTube and all the atheists just laughed and said he was scared to debate. --HarryPagett 14:37, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Harry, have you read the updated version of that article? So how many of those works have you read? Conservative 17:31, 15 December 2011 (EST)

How about you answer the question for once instead of changing the subject and posting yet another link to CMI? --HarryPagett 17:42, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Nice deletion of my comment - most ironic. However, if this is not a parody, then there is a real problem here. This is from the Question Evolution Campaign. The one with the fifteen questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer. If it gets out that the reason that no one has provided a satisfactory answer is that answers are being deleted without being read, then the whole campaign will become a laughing stock.--QPR 17:45, 15 December 2011 (EST)

He deleted my comment too. Funny how answering those fifteen questions isn't allowed when there are creationists around.--CamilleT 17:57, 15 December 2011 (EST)

CMI already know that any answers they get will be unsatisfactory, so why should they waste their time reading them when they could be promoting the campaign instead? --HarryPagett 18:00, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Harry, it wasn't a link to CMI. It was a link to the updated article: Quarrelsome, socially challenged atheists and evolutionists And judging from your post, it doesn't seem like you have read more than 5 Christian apologetic books. By the way, what proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true? Conservative 18:04, 15 December 2011 (EST)

I'm not talking about reading apologetics books, so stop changing the subject; I'm asking how wise it is to advocate banning people and only allowing approved comments. That's what made VenonFangX into such a laughing stock. By the way I'm not an atheist, so I have no idea why you're parrotting Shockofgod's idiotic question at me. --HarryPagett 18:09, 15 December 2011 (EST)

What's this got to do with atheism being true? This is about an article on how to deal with contentious comments from atheists and similar types.--QPR 18:10, 15 December 2011 (EST)

The best way to deal with them, quite obviously, is to give them a reasoned argument and lay out the evidence for God's existence. Banning people all over the place, or only allowing censored comments like VenomFangX and CMI do, just attracts accusations of being frightened to defend your beliefs. If the followers of a belief won't defend that belief in open and free debate, it looks like a loser. --HarryPagett 18:21, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Harry, the atheists/evolutionists were offered to debate CMI at their 2010 Global Atheist Conference, they cowardly declined. Tell you what, why don't ask Richard Dawkins, the people at the Scientific American and Michael Shermer to debate the 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer. Of course, we already know that the atheist Richard Dawkins is a coward when it comes to debating his strongest opponents (see: Atheism and cowardice). Conservative 18:34, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Why don't YOU ask Dawkins? I'm not interested in either Dawkins' ignorant opinions or CMI's failing campaign. Anyway, why won't you answer my question - isn't a policy of banning atheists and censoring comments just going to lead to accusations of cowardice, as it did with VenomFangX? --HarryPagett 18:41, 15 December 2011 (EST)

By the way, does "they cowardly declined" translate into English as "They refused to reschedule their conference events at the last minute for the convenience of a bunch of people who weren't invited"? Because if it does, I can't honestly say I blame them. --HarryPagett 18:44, 15 December 2011 (EST)

I really don't follow VenomFangX, but I do recall there being some DMCA related dispute and VenomFangX making an apology. Second, if you have some non-obscure atheists/evolutionist who want to debate the 15 questions, then make the necessary preparations. It seems as though the atheist side of the aisle is rather timid as of late (see: Atheism and cowardice). By the way, when is Penn Jillette going to debate a prominent Christian? He certainly seems rather timid when it comes to debating Bible believing Christians. Conservative 18:57, 15 December 2011 (EST)

I wasn't asking if you follow him; I was asking if behaving like him is really a good idea, when it got him so many accusations of censorship and cowardice and seriously damaged his credibility. As for your 15 questions and Penn Jillette, I'm not interested and have no idea why you're mentioning them to me. And yes, VenomFangX twice made fraudulent DMCA claims and only escaped legal action because a group of YouTube atheists took pity on him and decided to work with his family rather than sue him. Personally I'd say that's another excellent reason not to invite comparisons with him, don't you agree? --HarryPagett 18:59, 15 December 2011 (EST)

I hope internet atheists savor their little DMCA victory over VenomFangX (whom I don't follow), because the Question evolution! campaign is going grind atheism/evolutionism into a fine pulp! :) By the way, have you seen this video: 15 Questions Evolutionists STILL can't answer! It very apparent that internet evolutionists still can't answer the 15 Questions. 21:34, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Great. Fantastic. Now, can you tell me if you think it's a good idea to imitate VenomFangX by using banhammers and censorship to keep atheists off our sites, or is it just possible that doing so will leave us open to accusations of cowardice? --HarryPagett 22:24, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Harry, do you want to debate the 15 questions that evolutionist cannot answer right now? Bring it on! The Christian creationist community is ready debate you right now! Please see: 3 debates challenges to the atheist and evolutionist community Of course, if you can't satisfactorily answer the questions, I certainly would not be surprised. In the past, evolutionists have been timid little bunnies when it comes to these questions. Conservative 01:02, 16 December 2011 (EST)

Do you have some moral objection to actually answering the question you were asked? I am NOT INTERESTED in your 15 pointless questions and I'm an old Earth creationist, not a Darwinist, so stop changing the subject would you? --HarryPagett 09:06, 16 December 2011 (EST)

I'm sorry, Conservative, I'm a little confused here. Do you want someone to answer the 15 questions? Isn't the whole point of this section that you wouldn't read more than a few sentences of their response anyway? AngusT 09:11, 16 December 2011 (EST)

Angus, I don't think that can quite be it. It's "Question Evolution!", not "Rhetorically Question Evolution!", so there must be some degree of interest in the answers.

The bit about only reading a few sentences, as I understand it, applies only to worthless, hysterical screeds posted by tedious Dawkinists trotting out the same old non-arguments. Once you've seen a few of those, you can spot them quickly and you would agree that they are not worth reading after the first dozen or so.--CPalmer 09:15, 16 December 2011 (EST)

Worthless, hysterical screeds like "PZ Myers, is your wife an atheist?" In any case, whether he's interested in the answers or not, why is he asking ME to respond to his questions rather than simply answering mine? I don't even believe in evolution! Nor do I much appreciate asking a reasonable question and immediately having my faith abused. --HarryPagett 09:29, 16 December 2011 (EST)

I certainly do agree that, since you don't believe in evolution, it's unlikely to be fruitful trying to get you to answer those questions. However, my view of your original question is that it depends on the nature of the comments: respectful, constructive ones (like yours) should be given due attention, whereas repetitious, vexatious or belligerent ones can be ignored without reflecting poorly on the questionee. Indeed, if one tries to answer an overly aggressive comment on its own terms, one can end up being dragged down into the mud oneself, with little benefit for anyone.--CPalmer 09:52, 16 December 2011 (EST)

The problem is that many otherwise well-intentioned Christians, especially on YouTube, quickly fall into the trap of banning everyone who disagrees with them and censoring critical comments. That's why VenomFangX and Shockofgod are the subject of such derision from atheists; because it's well known that they censor comments on their videos. CMI are the same; it's very hard to leave a comment on their site. Atheists, on the otehr hand, generally allow any comments - including the ones from wingnuts like DavidMabus that make Christians look bad. Maybe we'd do better leaving hateful comments up, so people can see how many atheists act. --HarryPagett 10:03, 16 December 2011 (EST)

I agree that there may well be something to be said for that approach. In fact, Conservapedia does have a page along those lines - see Essay:Examples of Moronic Vandalism by the "tolerant". Note also that the Gospels record numerous instances where Jesus was criticised, and answered patiently but sternly.--CPalmer 10:16, 16 December 2011 (EST)

Conundrum

I have great difficulties to imagine Jesus saying: "Bring down the banhammer early and often" or Augustine: "Never read more than a few words or sentences"... AugustO 01:25, 16 December 2011 (EST)

The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is gay bathhouses!

First of all, you are practicing the fallacy of exclusion and merely quoting part of the sentence. Of course, that is a sign that you have an exceedingly weak leg to stand on. Second, you need to spend more time in the Book of Revelation. I know you are a so called "liberal Christianity" adherent. Face it liberal Christianity is an immoral, heretical and wimpified version of Christianity that tries to turn God into some kind of permissive Santa Clause. The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is gay bathhouses! Conservative 05:32, 16 December 2011 (EST)

I just did a quick comparison between the active and blocked users list. Of the people active in the last 91 days, approximately 48-50% of them are blocked! In fact, there have been more blocks in the last 91 days than there are active users!! You seem to enjoy yourselves though, and everyone else is wrong anyway, so may as well block one more, right?ActiveUser 18:17, 15 December 2011 (EST)

ActiveUser, this is due to the huge amount of vandals and troll who constantly attack this website. Blocks always seem to be justified here.--PhilipN 18:20, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Ask Max Fletcher if he agrees with you on that. --HarryPagett 18:25, 15 December 2011 (EST)

If you look at the latest contributions of MaxFletcher, you'll understand the reason--PhilipN 18:30, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Yes. He was blocked for pointing out that an animation looked amateurish. You think that's fair? --HarryPagett 18:32, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Oh I see, he disagreed with Andy and Ken on wisdom teeth and fish animations. Understandable? Hmmm ... Well it's consistent at least ActiveUser 18:34, 15 December 2011 (EST)

he also objected to being repeatedly abused and called an atheist. How unreasonable of him, eh? I mean, I just LOVE it when people who don't even know me insult my faith by calling me an unbeliever. --HarryPagett 18:45, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Please don't try to look more stupid than you are. On the link I provided, you may quite easily count that Max, on his last 100 edits contributed 96 times on unproductive talk and only 4 times on real articles. --PhilipN 18:47, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Yes, because he was goaded into it by a sysop who repeatedly abused him and questioned his faith. The fact is that the 90/10 rule is selectively enforced and used as a tool to suppress debate. I've seen people blocked for "90/10 violation" when they've only made three edits, one of which was adding content. No other conservative or Christian wiki seems to feel the need for this rule. --HarryPagett 18:51, 15 December 2011 (EST)

If you don't like the rules, you don't have to play the game. Nobody is asking you to stay.--PhilipN 18:53, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Philip - I don't know your history but of your contributions, more than 50% are talk, so you are five times the limit and in danger of being banned too. Of course, 100% of mine are, but I get banned all the time anyway. I've given up trying to be productive here. ActiveUser 19:02, 15 December 2011 (EST)

ActiveUser, I don't know if you have difficulties with reading or with figures but I will paste the guideline just for you: 'Unproductive activity, such as 90% talk page edits and only 10% quality edits to Conservapedia articles, may result in blocking of the account'--PhilipN 19:14, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Are Conservapedia sysops issued with crystal balls? I only ask because I've seen people with perfectly reasonable user names blocked before they've made ANY edits. Is that understandable too? --HarryPagett 19:16, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Fair enough, I seem to have had my understanding of 90/10 backwards. Must’ve been confused when I got banned and they cited that rule, even when most of my edits were … well I thought they were quality. They certainly weren’t trolling or offensive. I wonder what percentage of the 900,000 edits are actual article edits? And I wonder what percentage of those were never reverted.-ActiveUser 19:28, 15 December 2011 (EST)

The number is also inflated by certain editors who make five or six edits to one paragraph in quick succession rather than using the preview button to get it right the first time. --HarryPagett 19:30, 15 December 2011 (EST)

The truth is not a popularity contest. These statistics are provided merely to demonstrate that significant numbers are finding the truth, and elaborating on it.--Andy Schlafly 19:46, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Does "the truth" include unfounded accusations of atheism thrown at editors by one of your sysops? --HarryPagett 20:09, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Hi Andy :o) -ActiveUser 19:50, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Hello, it’s me again. Thanks for validating my concerns with your ban hammer :o) --SuperDavid 20:41, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Why don't you at least try to make some constructive edits instead of being needlessly provocative? --HarryPagett 20:45, 15 December 2011 (EST)

I hope I get time to answer this, but honestly I have tried. There’s pages on here that are mine which have been further contributed to by people who would be considered senior editors. SuperDavid 20:49, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Why not try again? This will be a better encyclopedia if it has more content and less rubbish about ponies, Penn Jillette and CMI's 15 stupid questions. Too many editors have already left and gone to aSK or AW, so those of us who're committed to Conservapedia are responsible for raising the quality of its content. It's kind of stupid to just get repeatedly banned for 90/10 when you could eaasily avoid it. --HarryPagett 20:54, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Oh well, too late. I can't say I blame Andy for blocking you; you were basically asking for it. --HarryPagett 20:57, 15 December 2011 (EST)

About those 900,000 edits

Do those include vandalism and reversing vandalism (each instance representing 2 edits that give a net increase of zero in terms of meaningful content? ScottDG 20:25, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Offhand, I don't know and also don't see any significance in whether the number includes reversions or not. Is there any educational value in finding the answer?--Andy Schlafly 20:31, 15 December 2011 (EST)

More value than there is in making the claim in the first place. Challenging claims on the basis of the logic and evidence that supports them is a key part of critical thinking, so yes. ScottDG 20:35, 15 December 2011 (EST)

At least as much as there is in photos of rabbits and pages asking if PZ Myers' wife is an atheist, I would say. You may feel that equals zero, and I'd tend to agree. --HarryPagett 20:37, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Never mind, it's only a question about arguably the most prominent thing on the most prominent page SuperDavid 20:44, 15 December 2011 (EST)

About the 300 million views

Worth noting that, according to special:PopularPages, some 70 million of those views (getting on for a quarter of them) are accounted for by pages about homosexuality. Looking down the list, their representation is rather striking. Without wanting to pass too strong a comment over whether this is good or bad, it might be nice if the internet viewership at large took more of an interest in scholarly topics than this sort of prurient material. At least the message is getting "out there".--CPalmer 07:55, 16 December 2011 (EST)

I'd like to question the wisdom in the current Conservapedia philosophy of systematically bashing atheism.

It is quite well known that Conservapedia has many articles on atheism that provoke atheists. Being so extreme deters atheists from this site, thereby preventing them from seeing the light of any God. If you only anger non-believers, they will never find God. And by doing so we are working against the will of God. These articles serve only to anger atheists, who then will leave without giving the arguments for God any proper thought. If our divine creator truly loves us, then he wants us all to be saved. Do you want to be the reason why an innocent, misguided soul must suffer for eternity?

So thus I'd suggest that Conservapedia takes a more moderate, less bombastic tone of voice. Articles relating atheism to diseases, medical conditions, and historical atrocities are not doing anyone any good. You must keep our sangfroid and remember that the most important thing there is in this world is God, and in being hateful or overly violent we could be sending people to a destruction that could have been avoided. PeterGilles 01:09, 16 December 2011 (EST)

Peter, you really can't prove the potential benefits that you are promising. Therefore, I am ApaAtheismArticlesChanging. That basically means that since the benefits of what you are promising can't be proved to necessarily happen, therefore the question of whether Conservapedia should do it is irrelevant. Since it is irrelevant, your suggestion is irrelevant to Conservapedians lives. Does this sound familiar? If it doesn't, I suggest examining your user page. After reexamining matters, I think you should reconsider your errant worldview and become a Christian - especially since the evidence for Christianity is so compelling and you have no proof or evidence that atheism or agnosticism is true. Conservative 06:34, 16 December 2011 (EST)

Peter, in addition, many purported skeptics claim to love "free thinking". Yet, at the same time, many of these same individuals champion censoring inconvenient facts/data and legitimate arguments concerning the errant worldviews of atheism/agnosticism/skepticism because deep down they know their worldview can't legitimately compete in the competitive marketplace of worldviews. You haven't shown a single factual error in some of the atheism related articles I created and instead have asked that I engage in censorship of history (Atheism and mass murder for example). I see no reason to cave into your unreasonable request. If facts trigger some atheists to become angry that is a personal problem that they need to address. There are still a lot of people who appreciate facts. Conservative 20:39, 16 December 2011 (EST)

Conservative, you speak of others censoring that which they do not like yet you do it all the time. Why do you not hold yourself to the same standards that you hold others to? - Ron

Ron, could you be more specific rather than throw out a unsupported accusation? Secondly, are you familiar with the 90/10 rule? The reason I ask is because I noticed you have not yet made any mainspace edits. Conservative 22:06, 16 December 2011 (EST)

If Ron has made no mainspace edits and at least one talk edit then it's well beyond 90/10 - it's 100/0. If this rule is an impartial one, then he should be banned. If it is an arbitrary one then admit it. Either way, don't use it as a threat to attempt to silence people who disagree with you.--QPR 09:22, 17 December 2011 (EST)

QPR, please feel free to express your concerns to the owner of this website about my interpretation and administration of the 90/10 rule. Conservative 17:13, 17 December 2011 (EST)

Peter, re: "systematically bashing atheism"

Have we merely seen the tip of the iceberg?

Peter, I find your use of the word "systematically" fascinating. Systematically would imply that perhaps there is a methodical step by step plan that is being employed to examine the various errors, frauds, follies and atrocities of atheism and share them with mankind that may be very thoroughgoing in its aims. Do you think there is such a plan? If so, when was it formed and why? Have we merely seen the tip of the iceberg? Conservative 07:24, 17 December 2011 (EST)

Peter, by the way, I wish the atheist/skeptic community would be more internally inconsistent. You seem to claim that I am "systematic" while other atheists/skeptics claim things like I am "crazed, muddled and ignorant". Fascinating. Are most atheists illogical nerds? See: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd

Peter, by the way, I wish the atheist/skeptic community would be more internally inconsistent. You seem to claim that I am "systematic" while other atheists/skeptics claim such things that I am "crazed, muddled and ignorant". Fascinating. Are most atheists illogical nerds? See: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd

(Graphic obtained from Flickr, see: license agreement)

This site consistently assails atheism, and this cannot be denied. If you want to be a good Christian (like I try to be), then you must try to save as many as you can. By flaming atheism you achieve absolutely nothing. You only condemn more to punishment. That's all I'm saying. And if your argument is that atheists don't play fair, then remember that you are the one with faith, and as such you must act as Jesus would-- turn the other cheek. PeterGilles 12:50, 18 December 2011 (EST)

Did Jesus "turn the other cheek" when overturning the money changer tables at the Temple? Jesus does not want a co-existence with evil, he wants us to fight evil. --Jpatt 12:56, 18 December 2011 (EST)

But would Jesus had wanted us to allow anger (or whatever motive you may have) send unguided souls to an eternal damnation? I'm not asking that we coexist, but that we take a stance more likely to convert atheists. PeterGilles 13:04, 18 December 2011 (EST)

Are you saying we can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar?--Jpatt 13:08, 18 December 2011 (EST)

You could put it that way. I'm just saying that insulting your enemy isn't a good approach to persuading him into doing something. PeterGilles 13:11, 18 December 2011 (EST)

Also, by repeatedly saying things that are blatantly untrue (such as that atheists worship Satan and promote homosexuality) you just damage the credibility of everything else you say. --HarryPagett 13:49, 18 December 2011 (EST)

Some atheists do worship Satan. And as many atheists are liberal, they promote homosexuality.--James Wilson 14:03, 18 December 2011 (EST)

I suppose it depends on your definition of 'atheist', but it seems to me that if you worship Satan then either you are treating Satan as a supreme being or you acknowledge that there is a higher being but worship Satan anyway. Either way, it's incompatible with the mainstream definitions of atheism. --QPR 14:17, 18 December 2011 (EST)

Peter, your user page indicates you are clearly not a Christian. Right now, you are condemned and unless you repent, you will spend an eternity in the lake of fire.

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?

Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. - Gospel of John 3: 3-19 Conservative 14:58, 18 December 2011 (EST)

I have to say I've never read an article on CMI that I've agreed with more (though not entirely). However, it does little to further the debate between evolution and creationism. Chimps can't learn language because they were separately created from humans or chimps can't learn language because of 5 million years (give or take) of separate evolution? Either way, it still turns out they can't learn language.

Nice, however, to hear Noam Chomsky cited in support of a CMI article. I wonder what else he has to teach us?

--QPR 13:57, 18 December 2011 (EST)

I really think this article does not prove anything. Evolutionists and creationists always agreed that there is absolutely no reason for a chimp to be able to learn a language. Am I missing the point here ? --PhilipN 21:15, 18 December 2011 (EST)

I'm not much of a sports fan--at least, not a fan of watching other people play sports when I could be out moving around myself--but I'm pretty sure the "Tebows" don't play in either of the the NFL conferences. I really don't know much about this guy, but if he's any sort of athlete at all, he probably thinks "WE won" or "WE lost," not "I." Last I checked, they list teams in the standings, not individual players. ScottDG 22:07, 18 December 2011 (EST)

ScottDG, don't strain your brain. I think the visitors won't be confused and can understand the statement just fine.--Jpatt 22:22, 18 December 2011 (EST)

Isn't global warming something to be considered globally instead of looking at local events ?--PhilipN 22:32, 19 December 2011 (EST)

Shroud of Turin story. ScottDG 00:57, 20 December 2011 (EST)

The blurb discussing the Capital Christmas Tree states that "Ornaments with the word Christmas or Christ are nowhere to be seen, if at all." Reading the linked article, it's clear what is meant, but this language is confusing, as it reads like the ornaments both are and are not there. How about "Ornaments with the word 'Christmas' or 'Christ' are nowhere to be seen, and the office responsible for the tree could not say whether any are among the decorations." Or something like that. --JustinD 09:06, 20 December 2011 (EST)

I suggest "there are few if any ornaments with the word 'Christmas' or 'Christ'." However, I would say that it isn't particularly usual to have words on Christmas tree decorations. Perhaps the Christmas story is represented by angel or star ornaments?--CPalmer 09:09, 20 December 2011 (EST)

Suggested improvements on headlines are welcome, but honestly I don't see any ambiguity or confusion in the original headline, and the suggested rewordings seem to me to dilute the essential point. For example, the original "nowhere to be seen" is a stronger wording than "few if any." But thanks for the suggestions.--Andy Schlafly 09:53, 20 December 2011 (EST)

But hang on. The phrase "Ornaments with the word Christmas or Christ are nowhere to be seen, if at all" makes no grammatical sense whatsoever. What is "if at all" qualifying? It can hardly be qualifying "nowhere", since it is saying the same thing. (The sentence then reads as: the ornaments are not visible unless they are not visible.)

I'm not even sure what it's supposed to mean. Is the author trying to say "the ornaments are not visible, if, indeed, they are there at all."? That does seem to be the sense of the article. I think another verb is required. 4/10 for grammar. See me after class. --Jdixon 11:05, 20 December 2011 (EST)

Thanks Jdixon, that was the point I was trying to make, but I couldn't figure out how to say it succinctly. (Although the tone does seem a bit counterproductive, no?) How about: "Ornaments with the word Christmas or Christ are nowhere to be seen, and may not exist at all."? --JustinD 14:42, 20 December 2011 (EST)

Hang on. Kim Jong-un is the son of Kim Jong-il, one of the foulest dictators of modern times, himself the son of the reviled Kim Il-sung. And Conservapedia decides that the aspect of his life-history to headline is the fact he plays video games????--QPR 03:05, 21 December 2011 (EST)

I added a news story to the main page for you. :) Conservative 12:10, 21 December 2011 (EST)

I have an idea for a new section of the main page. It will be titled something along the lines of "Question of the week for liberals". Every week, this will be updated with a new question that has been unanswered by liberals. For example, "Name one atheist supercentenarian", or "Name one example of conservative vandalism on Conservapedia". What do the administrators here think? NickP 22:23, 21 December 2011 (EST)

Chiyono Hasegawa, and plenty of well-intentioned conservatives have been blocked by the Admins for supposed vandalism. If you want to come up with a question of the week, you'd better make it a good one. JHunt1487 00:29, 22 December 2011 (EST)

Hi all, I know I don't post frequently but I really want to point out the picture of the ugly, crushed metal can on the main page and ask it to be removed immediately. There are several problems with it that I can immediately see:

- Posting literal rubbish on the front page makes the page look unattractive. Besides, the image is huge and should be resized at least. Do you see shopping centres putting up crushed cans as decorations for Christmas? How about some tinsel or a Christmas tree?

- Christmas is a time for family and peace, not dressing up ideological conflicts between religion and irreligion as war. We want to celebrate the birth of The Prince of Peace with a statement to literally crush an ideology? That is highly offensive and I know Jesus would not appreciate us using his birthday to preach intolerance and hate.

- There are so many Question Evolution articles and links and comments all over the main page that it looks awful. The questions from Question Evolution have been answered hundreds of times and to continue to claim they haven't is just dishonest. The project is a global laughing stock and should be just allowed to die.

I'm posting this because I value Conservapedia, not for any other reason. I want the site to continue and improve and grow, but instead in its current state it just looks tacky, tasteless and focused on politics instead of information.

I know it's hard to contribute to Conservapedia because if you are less Conservative than the senior staff you are banned for being a Liberal, while if you are more conservative you are banned for being a parodist. I just want, at this time of peace and understanding, something to show my relatives when they visit and not have to wade through the garbage (literally and figuratively) that gives the site a bad name.

Merry Christmas all, and I hope you all go in peace, reflecting on the true meaning of the season. - L. Hill

I'm not sure you realize the humor behind the picture of the crushed can. If you have a better idea for a image that accurately but humorously portrays the destruction of Evolution that will arise from the Question Evolution! campaign, please do suggest one to Mr. Conservative, who from what I've seen is open to suggestions from users who have legitimate ideas. If you are proposing censorship of legitimate content on the main page, however, you might as well give up and move on to working on mainspace content, or something else that is actually productive to Conservapedia, if you value this site as you claim. NickP 22:26, 22 December 2011 (EST)

How? How can I get in contact with Mrs Conservative (why do you assume she is male?) when she locks her user page, her talk page and every article she creates? Also, anyone can see that the Question Evolution campaign really is just bad and giving a bad name to Christianity and the conservative movement. As I said, the questions have been answered many many times before yet the proponents of the movement choose to be willfully ignorant about their effectiveness. Of course, posting the answers is a bannable offense, because this would make Conservapedia appear dishonest (instead of doing what any other reputable site would do and simply strike through any incorrect entries and post a retraction).

A piece of rubbish symbolising destruction over the Prince of Peace's birthday is not "legitimate content", it's parody and/ormockery. As I said, it's difficult to criticize anyone here but literally putting up rubbish over Christmas is offensive and should be removed and replaced with something like what I suggested.

 - L. Hill

The above is some good parody from a known vandal. He really outdid himself, fake conservative, fake Christian, fake concern. Here's how to spot a troll; first giveaway- user has contributed nothing to the project. Second, shame us for "preach intolerance and hate." Third, perceived injustice by heavy-handed Christian administrators. Fourth, fawning over Christian buzz words. The Prince of Peace should convey the seriousness of my argument. Fifth, a common liberal trick is to claim ideas to appear as an embarrassment to other conservatives. The user has been banned and his IP is Australia. --Jpatt 00:25, 23 December 2011 (EST)

At least that means there is no vandalism to revertJonM 00:30, 23 December 2011 (EST)

I think it is worth noting the irony of how Obama and his liberal adminstration, by prolonging the recession, have caused the downfall to their own "news" outlet. NickP 23:53, 22 December 2011 (EST)

That is ironic - thanks for pointing it out.--Andy Schlafly 23:56, 22 December 2011 (EST)

TO ALL...

I think it's interesting how a Politifact, a site I've seen for a while as being left-leaning, just rated its "lie of the year" as being the claim that Paul Ryan tried to destroy Medicare. I think this is notable for a news entry. Opinions? NickP 23:44, 23 December 2011 (EST)