Talk:Main Page/archive10

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Blacks recruited for terror by al-Qaida

Islamic terrorism analysts point out that al-Qaida's racial history lessons conveniently leave out the fact that Arab Muslim slave traders sold Africans into bondage. Blacks recruited for terror by al-Qaida Crocoite Talk Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA) 11:48, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

First and foremost, the Nation of Islam |= Islam in general. The Nation of Islam is its own religious politcal movement, and isn't representative of mainstream Islam. Secondly, the bit about Arab slave traders selling Africans into bondage is a nice little jab, though an extremely hypocritical one. Compared to the Triangle trade, Arab slave trading was practically non existent. JohnSmith 12:27, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Al Qaeda torture methods

Let's see if the MSM has a problem with the Al Qaeda torture methods‘How-to’ Manual Found in Al Qaeda Safe House Shows Disturbing Torture Methods Crocoite Talk Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA) 19:06, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

If you can stand to see the actual torture manual WARNING: This material contains graphic and disturbing images the last pages show rescued Iraqi Torture victims and evidence of their torture.

Wow, thanks. I don't think I'll put that on our front page, however. It's informative enough here.--Aschlafly 19:52, 24 May 2007 (EDT)


The 25th started the Battle of Dunkirk in 1940. Should it be included?Богдан Talk 23:15, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Superb idea. I'll post it now.--Aschlafly 23:54, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
I actually meant in the "Today in History" section, but this is even better.Богдан Talk 00:06, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
It currently says the battle was between British and French soldiers, this needs to be corrected please. :-) Ferret 06:11, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
Altered the sentence to clarify Fox 06:15, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
Hmmm, maybe I'm doing something wrong. It still says "On May 25, 1940, the Battle of Dunkirk continued between British and French soldiers during World War II." Ferret 07:43, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
Ah, I see. The main page doesn't call its text directly from the relevant article, which is what I had altered :/ Fox 08:02, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Only Sysops can edit the Main Page, is why. ;-) --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 08:06, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
    • Understandable. May I suggest simply removing "between British and French soldiers"? Ferret 08:09, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
Better, thanks. Ferret 08:28, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Article of the day

How about a little section for "Suggested Article of the day"?

It is a way to show the best we have.

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 23:49, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Great idea. Actually, Joaquin, as a Sysop you can post directly on the main page an article that you find noteworthy. Simply go to Editing main page and pick the second entry for breaking news. Thanks and Godspeed to you.--Aschlafly 23:54, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Do this site's sysops have an anti-Iraq War bias?

I just wanted to express newfound concern on what I believe to be another attempt by the sysops at criticizing the Iraq War. The earlier reference to an "endless troop commitment in Iraq" (see my above section) coupled with the current Breaking News story referring to a "war cabal" appear to me to constitute a subtle but deliberate anti-war message, even though at first glance the two stories are critical of democrats. I would like to know who all the sysops are and what their backgrounds are, so we can determine if perhaps there is a mole.
The only other possibility is that the terms "endless troop commitment in Iraq" and "war cabal" are being used sarcastically to bring attention to the democrats who have voted for a bill that funds the war they are publically opposed to. If this is the case, then I have to question whether this encyclopedia can call itself "trustworthy", since I don't believe the use of sarcasm is appropriate for a learning resource.--Conservateur 16:59, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

The front page news section will continue to be provocative, in a way that Wikipedia will never be. Sarcasm on the front page in the news section, used in moderation as it has been, will not be censored.--Aschlafly 15:39, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
It is provocative indeed. The link to the Olberman comment brings you to a page titled The entire government has failed us on Iraq, and is sub-titled For the president, and the majority leaders and candidates and rank-and-file Congressmen and Senators of either party—there is only blame for this shameful, and bi-partisan, betrayal. If you hadn't assured us that it is not the case, I'd assume that one of the sysops wants to push an anti-war view. User:Order May 27, 13:32 (AEST)
  • Well you have heard, no doubt, Order, what assuming does, right?  :p --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:59, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Sure, but I am certainly not the only one who had this thought. An alternative explanation would be that Conservapedia doesn't mind if an article hammers the president, the GOP, its base, and the rest of the administration, and long as it also hits some Democrats. In that spirit we can link the entire work of Michael Moore on the front-page. In color. I didn't know that the position of conservatives in the US was so bad, that conservatives don't care anymore if they get blamed for all ills, as long as some blame also goes to democrats. If all conviction is gone, and only Schadenfreude left, it. must be more miserable for the American right, than I expected. User:Order 15:30 (AEST)

  • Iraq traps alQaeda. Where are the USA disasters it threatened - before President Bush pulled it's attention to Iraq?

Keep it there! Conservatives and Liberals should be happy with the protection for USA that the Iraq war gives us.(userHowardLong]

Amen, Howard. After all, why object to a volunteer army continuing to keep order there?--Aschlafly 09:40, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
Here's a reason

Minimum wage and school dropouts

Thanks for posting the link to the article that reports on a positive correlation between a raise of the minumum wage for teenagers, and a rise in high school drop-outs. However, the front page fails to mention that the positive correlation occurs only in states in which student can drop-out before they are 18. Additional policies that make education until 18 mandatory can effectively counterbalance this undesired effect of a minimum wage increase. User:Order May 27 13:50 (AEST)

That exception is political spin. It simply means that if dropping out is prohibited by law, then the kids won't drop out until it is allowed. In no way does that spin detract from the basic point: raising the minimum wage increases the drop-outs from school. Funny how liberals never mention that effect. Godspeed to those victims of the minimum wage later in life.--Aschlafly 00:02, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
It's not that simple. A much more telling study would be to know the difference in income of the subset of the population for which this is a problem. In other words, the students that would drop out and get jobs due to a minimum wage increase might be the same sample of students that eventually graduate from high school but still end up in minimum wage jobs. In that case, these dropouts may be positively affected by the increase. Of course, neither I nor anyone else has performed this study, and the possible conclusion stated here might be an unlikely one. Nevertheless, it is true that a substantial number of post-secondary aged minimum wage earners have high school diplomas.
It is that simple. You describe a nearly impossible study, and even if it were possible the correlation you suggest (early drop-outs versus late drop-outs) would not be 100%. And even if it were 100%, the additional schooling would help, according to all studies of correlations of increased wages versus years in school.
Unfortunately, you're expressing the same type of liberal denial that hurts people fooled by it time and time again. Of course increasing the attractiveness of a substitute (a minimum wage job) for schooling is going to pull people away from schooling. This is basic Economics 101, and yet liberals deny it. Well, what else is new?! God help those victimized by this liberal deception.--Aschlafly 00:40, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Who was talking about liberals? We were discussing how a scientific paper is presented on the front page. Your interpretation of 'spin' is not shared by the authors, instead the agree to some extend with User:Kopacetic. They conclude in their paper, and this is a rather long quote:
The costs and benefits of changing the minimum wage through its effect on school enrollment depend in part on the benefits of working during high school. Chaplin and Hannaway (1999) show that high school employment may be beneficial in the long run, even if it increases the risk of dropping out, especially for at-risk youth. On the other hand, most students are probably much better off staying in high school even if they are working. For these reasons we believe that our results suggest that employment policies be adjusted to better ensure that teenagers remain in high school. Increasing the drop out age would be one means of accomplishing this goal. Indeed, this result is also supported by the work of Neumark and Washer (2003).
According to the authors, an alternative to restricting the drop out age would be to restrict teenagers ability to work outside school. If you follow the link provided on the front page of Conservapedia, people will soon notice that the editor of Conservapedia didn't read the quoted article carefully. And fixing this would just require a minor change on the front page. Otherwise it might seem sloppy work by Conservapedia. User:Order May 27 14:40 (AEST)
Exactly, who was talking about liberals? It seems that nearly every place I look on Conservapedia (and I'll grant that this is a highly biased sample of pages) where rational thought is employed, it is shouted down with accusations of liberalism (that is, when the rational arguments don't seem to agree with people's rigid conservative views). But User:Order actually makes two good arguments. The second is that Economics 101 just doesn't cut it. A more critical look at how things play out is required, and that's why one line statements on the front of Conservapedia are not 'news' in any sense of the term, but instead are simply 'spin.' And I'll also invoke the Creator. May God grant all people on this Earth a liveable wage. Kopacetic
  • I notice here [[1]] , Kopacetic, you say that communism and democracy are compatible. That example of your "reasoning" has given me a headache. Please, I beg of you, no more! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:57, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

The citation is that a communist economic system, not Communism, is compatible with Democracy. That is absolutely true, and I'm sorry if the truth gives you a headache. Does that explain why you are a Conservapedia Sysop? With regards to your plea for 'no more,' I wish I could pull myself away from watching the trainwreck that is Conservapedia. Matthew 8:29.

If you want to discuss Kopacetic's credentials, can't you better do it on his talk page. This is just distracting from the problem. And the problem is that on the main page, not just any page, there is a link to an scientific article, accompanied by a statement that shows that who ever made the statement did read neither the introduction nor the conclusion of the said scientific article. And that is sloppy, especially on the main page. User:Order May 27 3:15 (AEST)
  • Order, when typing the above, did you wag your finger as well? Please give the unctuous portent a rest okay? If you look above, you will see another way a user handled pointing out something similair. It's late, and I know the mistake bothers you, but....gosh...the comments seem a bit harsh. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 02:13, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

If you mean the "train wreck" analogy with harsh statement, I didn't make this statement, although I get why it was made. If you mean that I am harsh for observing that the front page news is inaccurate, then I have to disagree with you. There is nothing harsh about my observation that the front page quotes a scientific article inaccurately. If I say that it is sloppy, I don't mean that wrong, say morally wrong. As long as we are willing to correct those mistakes. However, it becomes questionable behavior, when somebody makes a mistake, and then puts more effort into defending his sloppiness and coming up with excuses, than it would take to fix it. User:Order May 28

"Talking Points"

I've been gone for two days, so I'll post a few "talking points";

  • Regarding the HPV vaccine (two girls died): how many people have died from Cervical cancer? And compared to other vaccines, how effective is this one?
  • Evolutionist museum: Nice populist argument, though I doubt the 99.84% populist statistic would be allowed.
  • Tell me, all: does anybody condone this?

--Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 13:01, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

  • I like this. Does anyone condone these attacks on innocent Jews?Богдан Talk 13:22, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
  • I know that this article is old, but does anyone condone it?Богдан Talk 13:27, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Does anybody condone the Israeli Apartheid of Palestinians? Or the indiscriminate bombing of Lebanese cities during the 2006 conflict? --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 13:30, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Ah, yes, Jimmy. That "Apartheid" of the peace-loving Palestinians.Богдан Talk 13:31, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Great points by Bohdan.
In response to Hoji's (other) first point, there is no proof that the HPV vaccine will prevent a single death from cervical cancer. Moreover, its promoters did not disclose the deaths from the vaccine itself. Don't patients have a right to informed consent, and shouldn't politicians have checked that out before trying to make the vaccine mandatory?
As to Hoji's 99.84% statistic, I don't know where that came from. What does that number represent?
But Lord bless you Hoji, because I just learned that you are #3 in our ranking of the overall top editors in terms of volume of edits here. We'll be posting the top ten soon.--Aschlafly 13:32, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
In response to condoning your 3rd point, no violence is not good.Богдан Talk 13:34, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks Bohdan, that is very true.
And as for #3, Andy, that is certainly something for me to be proud of! The 99.84% statistic is the most commonly used statistic when referring to the number of biologists who support the theory of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 13:36, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Oops, I just learned that you (Hoji) are in the top ten, but a few others nose you out for #3. Still tremendous, Hoji, so thank you!
I bet the 99.84% number is another example of liberal deceit. Can you give me a source and I'll track it down? Remember, some liberals don't mind being deceitful, and all of us end up relying on things that are not true because of it. :-) --Aschlafly 13:40, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Andy, can you provide some statistics that demonstrate that liberals are more deceitful that the general population? Otherwise, a statement like "some liberals don't mind being deceitful" has as much value as "some days, the sky is cloudy." JohnSmith 14:15, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Re the HPV vaccine: One not even ask what the corresponding mortality/morbidity would be from Cervical cancer, just compare the HPV vaccine to other vaccines. Take a look at Contraindications for smallpox vaccination. As many as 1 in 1000 may suffer severe reactions up to and including death, and vaccinia is considered the most successful vaccination in history. []
Your statement is false. The death rate from the smallpox vaccine is not 1 in 1000, but is only 1 in 1 million, based on your own citation. I'm going to bother reading anything else you said unless you apologize for that misleading statement and demonstrate a willingness to be objective and competent in discussing this. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 13:57, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
My statement is not false, I said that the rate of severe complications is 1 in 1000, up to and including death. You're reading that as "1 in 1000 people will die." which is incorrect. Of course the death rate is going to be necessarily lower, but keep in mind that the last time that smallpox was present on the earth, AIDS was not widespread. If smallpox were to reemerge (though this would only be possible through bioterrorism at this point) then the death rate from vaccination would be considerably higher since the vaccine causes the most severe reactions in the immune compromised. Keep in mind, that the 1 in 1 million number is deaths that are known to be caused by the vaccine, not deaths that are coincidental to vaccination.
Compare this to Gardasil's numbers [2] from page 12. "Across the clinical studies, 17 deaths were reported in 21,464 male and female subjects. The events reported were consistent with events expected in healthy adolescent and adult populations. The most common cause of death was motor vehicle accident (4 subjects who received GARDASIL and 3 placebo subjects), followed by overdose/suicide (1 subject who received GARDASIL and 2 subjects who received placebo), and pulmonary embolus/deep vein thrombosis (1 subject who received GARDASIL and 1 placebo subject). In addition, there were 2 cases of sepsis, 1 case of pancreatic cancer, and 1 case of arrhythmia in the group that received GARDASIL, and 1 case of asphyxia in the placebo group." In other words, deaths in the Gardasil group were not statistically higher than deaths in the placebo group. Certainly, HPV vaccine may contribute to a rare death, but probably on the same scale as Smallpox vaccination, and again, though it sounds cold, this is an acceptable rate when compared to the benefit. JohnSmith 14:12, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
John, you said about the smallpox vaccine, "As many as 1 in 1000 may suffer severe reactions up to and including death." That statement is false. The "1 in 1000" figure is NOT up to and including death. 1 million subjects are needed for that in the case of the smallpox vaccine.
I'm not going to spend my afternoon debating falsehoods. If you won't admit that your statement was false or misleading, then my time is better spent discussing issues with other people who would admit that. Many liberals don't mind being deceitful and I don't waste time debating them. When I make a false or misleading statement, then I apologize and correct it. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 14:24, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Brave Sir Robin ran away. Bravely ran away away. I love that statistics are now "liberal falsehoods." Andy, the fact is that if you did a trial of 1000 people and one person died, this would not mean that the death rate was 1 per 1000, you would have to do larger scale trials to see if the rate held. It is possible for a single person in a 1000 person trial to die, but the statistic is that this will happen on average 1 time per million. The term "severe reaction" includes "death" as a possible reaction, so although 1 in 1000 will not necessarily die, 1 in 1000 will suffer a severe reaction. This severe reaction could include death. Stick to law and economics, Andy. Statistics are complex things. JohnSmith 14:33, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
John, you're not fooling anyone here. Your statement was false, but you won't correct it. I doubt anyone else here would be foolish enough to waste time with you. Thanks, but I'll be debating others here who don't embrace falsehoods. Godspeed in your efforts to find someone else to debate you.--Aschlafly 14:40, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Andy, for someone who runs a wiki site, you need to learn some basic formatting. When I put in 1 colon mark, then you follow with 2. When I put in 3, you follow with 4. It makes the conversation difficult to follow when your responses jump back an indent or two. But on to the matter at hand. You've failed to address any of the points I've actually made. You've latched onto what you consider to be a falsehood and then refuse to consider any other part of my argument until I satisfy your claim. This is called the fallacy of many questions. It's as if I've asked you "do you still beat your wife" which assumes that you have a wife and you beat her, though neither fact is in evidence, and then I refuse to debate until you answer the question. Now, you've asserted that I falsely stated the death rate of the smallpox vaccine as 1 per 1000. I pointed out that this was the rate of severe reaction, and that severe reactions can include death, although death is statistically less likely, on the order of 1 per million. Even though I pointed out that your initial accusation of falsehood was unfounded, you move the goalposts and continue to ask when I plan to stop beating my wife. You continue to demand I admit lying when in fact it's your own trouble with statistics that is at issue here. You don't want to debate and that's fine. I know it's tough when someone presents those pesky facts that put a dent in your ideology. JohnSmith 14:55, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
While I certainly agree that it would be best if noone ever had a severe reaction to a vaccine, we need to accept it as a fact of life. We have two girls who have died, but consider the number that will not suffer from cervical cancer and die as a result. If my statement seems cold-hearted, consider the number of construction workers that died on the job building the highway that takes you from your home to your work. We accept that some construction workers may die or be severely injured every time we commission a highway construction project, yet noone suggests that we have to halt highway construction until it can be made perfectly safe.
Also, Andy, to say that there's no proof that HPV vaccine will prevent any cases of cervical cancer is to call into question the validity of vaccination in general. The practice of vaccination has been proven in theory and in practice. Here we have a disease that is known to be caused by a virus against which a vaccine can and has been produced. The vaccine has been effective in human models, and although there haven't been challenge trials in humans (which would be unethical), antibody resistance to HPV has gone up post-vaccination which is a marker of efficacy. There's some sort of twisted logic coming out of the far right that suggests that if young girls are protected from getting cervical cancer that they will turn into amoral sex machines, and it's just the threat of cervical cancer and other diseases that keeps them as pure as the driven snow. What garbage! JohnSmith 13:39, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
  • I, for one, love this talking point system!Богдан Talk 13:42, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
I think I should make Conservapedia;Talking Points, where the 90/10 rule wouldn't apply, and people could argue all day long!
Andy, as reported by a Newsweek poll of some 480,000 scientists involved in earth/life sciences, "By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly". --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 13:59, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Hoji, you're asserting the number, so it is really your burden to give a citation to support your claim, which you have not done. Nevertheless, I did some internet searching and it appears that your figure is based on a response to 700 credentialed biologists identifying themselves as creationists.[3] The evolutionists simply claimed that everyone not on the particular list must be a Darwinist!
Remember, liberals don't mind being deceitful. We all get fooled by that, and that is why it is essential to track down the basis for a liberal claim before repeating it. God help all of us.  :-) --Aschlafly 14:07, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
This is what you're teaching your students, Ashlafley? To assume that every liberal is a liar? --PF Fox 14:16, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
How many Steves[4] are on that list, Andy? JohnSmith 14:33, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Why don't you count them for us, John, and make your point regarding the "steves" Karajou 15:26, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
You must have never heard of "Project Steve." Essentially, it's a list of scientists whose names are or stem from "Steve" such as Stephan or Stephanie. Currently, there are 807 Steves with proper academic credentials that endorse evolution, which JohnSmith is hinting is more than the number of scientists with proper academic credentials who support creationism. Bascially, There are more scientists named Steve who support evolution than there are scientists who support creationism. Stereophile 15:49, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Your statement is a series of non-sequiturs, and have no connection with the liberal falsehood that 99.84% of biologists embrace evolution. Unless someone supports that claim as made above, that liberal falsehood is going to be added to the growing list of liberal deceit.--Aschlafly 15:52, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
And added to that statement I suppose there are more trombone players named Frank who support the notion that Napoleon was a girl; whatever the majority chooses to believe still doesn't make it a fact. If they want the rest of us to believe and promote evolution here, then they need to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God doesn't exist first. Karajou 15:55, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
There are two problems with what you just said Karajou. First, the metaphor is incomplete as trombone players, in deciding Napoleon's gender, do not compare in terms of authority to scientists who decide whether or not evolution occurs. (EDIT) Aside from that, while a majority doesn't necessarailly indicate fact, it does typically go to show what the best theories are at the time in relation to the qualities of the theory we have observed both directly and indirectly. That said, evolution isn't really a complete theory yet. Imagine it as so: the atom. The atom, while it has gone through many revisions throughout history, was from the beginning viable as a general concept. Evolution, while not complete, is stil the best most people have come up with regarding how it is that organisms seem to have changed over time. (<-- I'm not really sure where I was going with that)(EDIT). Secondly, to say that in order to make you believe in evolution that we would first need to prove that God doesn't exist would fairly well remove most of its scientific creedence. God, after all, is not a being hypothesized by scientists, who's concept is over and over revamped to fit our observations, but rather a theological being who's existence isn't dependent upon evidence as much as faith. Scientifically, there is no way to falsify his existence so without a scientific way to do that, nobody could logically and scientifically falsify creationism either. Either way, creationism shouldn't have to rely on the existence of a higher power, as there is no concensus as to who's god is real, or whether one even exist's, no matter what your personal belief may be. I guess, in short, God cannot be evidence for a scientific theory because he's not something you can observe; he's only something people can have faith in.--Stereophile 16:33, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Oh, no, Andy! Not the dreaded list of liberal falsehoods! Come off it, man. Again, it's simple statistics. The Discovery Institute, and a number of their predecessor creationist organizations have trotted out the list of scientists that "dissent from Darwinism" as if it had some factual importance. The point of the Steve's list is two-fold: First, it points out the absurdity of suggesting that such a list (such as the dissent from Darwinism) has any effect on the actual validity of the Theory of Evolution. Secondly, if one still believes that such a list does have validity, then one must likewise accept the Steve's list as valid, meaning that since the name Steve (and it's derivations) comprise about 1% of the names in the US, then the 807 Steves on the list must correspond to 100 times as many scientists that support the ToE, or around 807,000, which really puts those ridiculous creationist lists into perspective.
Also, Karajou, one need not prove that God doesn't exist in order to say that the ToE is valid. As I'm sure you're aware, there are a great many theistic evolutionists, and acceptance of the ToE is not incompatible with belief in God. JohnSmith 16:37, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
519 words in response above, not one of which supports the liberal claim that 99.84% of biologists embrace evolution. It's another liberal falsehood. I don't expect that falsehood to bother liberals, but it will matter to everyone else. It's going into the growing list of liberal deceit.--Aschlafly 16:53, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
I see the source of this falsehood is Wikipedia. No surprise there. I'll put this in Bias in Wikipedia instead.--Aschlafly 16:57, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Have you stopped beating your wife yet, Andy? My response had nothing to do with the 99.84% number, instead I was addressing the question of the "Steves" list. And the number doesn't come from Wikipedia, it comes from a 1987 Newsweek article. Perhaps you should start a new article: Bias in Newsweek.
But I'm afraid that this time you are hoisted by your own petard. The link you posted above: [5] shows an actual poll conducted of scientists in 1997 showing that 5% held to some form of young earth creationism, whereas 95% held to either theistic or naturalistic evolution. Now, this is a general poll of scientists, and one would imagine that if the field were restricted to biologists only, the numbers would probably go up since "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution." Now, that being said, I'll stick to the 95% figure so that I'm not accused of being some sort of lying liberal. JohnSmith 17:08, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
"John", which I don't think is even your real name, I'm not interesting in debating people who won't admit to and correct falsehoods. We saw an example earlier today concerning the smallpox vaccine above. Now we see it here: you won't admit the 99.84% claim is a liberal falsehood. Instead, you blame Newsweek, which is another falsehood because Newsweek didn't make the 99.84% claim. The claim does come from Wikipedia. See Bias in Wikipedia.
Don't post to my talk page and don't try to engage me in debate unless you abide by simple rules that avoid falsehoods, and that correct them promptly when made. Thank you.--Aschlafly 17:16, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Andy, as I've explained above, you're failure to understand statistics does not equate to me lying. I resent the implication, and it's clear you're going to continue to call me a liar to avoid having to address any of my points. How cowardly!
Now, as far as the source of the 99.84% number, you do cite a Wikipedia article which repeats the number, but the Wiki article cites a Newsweek article from 1987 where the original statement can be found. Wiki didn't just make up the number out of whole cloth, they repeat the statement from Newsweek.
Lastly, I've admitted that the 99.84% number is at best an estimate, and not an actual valid statistic. The valid statistic comes from the poll conducted in 1997 which shows that 95% of scientists accept the evidence for evolution. I speculated that if one were to restrict the poll to biologists only, then the number might rise and approach the 99.84% number, but absent an actual poll that demonstrates this, I will stick with the 95% number.
And I see you're on the "not your real name" wagon again. I guess you had better chastise "Conservative" and "Wikiinterpreter" and "Ferret" and "TK" for not using their real names either. What a limp accusation, Andy. Why don't you accuse me of violating the 90/10 rule next, then I'll really feel like a real CP editor. JohnSmith 17:29, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Two things, John: 1. you're not going to push liberal beliefs here, and that includes a ToE belief; and 2. you're getting pretty close to starting a fight with your blatent statements of "cowardice" directed at Aschlafly. It stops now. Karajou 17:51, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Funny, how the panel mentions "not censoring legitimate criticism" of the ToE, yet stands by silently when editors purge every factual iota of information about ToE, in favor of half-truths and lies. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 17:56, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Ok, there, Internet Tough Guy. First of all, the ToE isn't a liberal belief, it's science. Your particular theology doesn't allow it, that's fine. You want to present your theology for what it is, that's fine. My frustration comes up when people try to push their theology as a legitimate scientific alternative to the ToE, or they misrepresent the ToE for the purpose of denigrating it. Incidentally, I'm not actually pushing the ToE in any of the above repartee. Andy is upset that Hoji used the 99.84% number, and decided it was a liberal falsehood. I've been pointing out that although the methodology used to arrive at that number is not valid, that the fundamental concept that Hoji is presenting (that the overwhelming majority of scientists accept the ToE) is correct. And 2) Andy and I are engaged in an argument. I've made a number of points which Andy refuses to address. Instead he calls me a liar or a liberal and pretends that this allows his to dismiss my criticism in toto. If he wants to surround himself with sycophants and suppress all discourse that doesn't agree with him, that's his prerogative, but that is cowardice and I will continue to call it like I see it. If you can't stand the heat... JohnSmith 18:04, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
No John, the point is that you are going to respect this website one way or the other. This site was founded on Judeo-Christian, conservative values, and it is you who is pushing otherwise. If you don't like it, you will leave. Karajou 18:07, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
  • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN TEMP. LOCKED. John Smith, Karajou, other Sysops, take this argument to TOE!. Now. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:14, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

I have made an extensive response to JohnSmith and Stereophile here. Philip J. Rayment 23:48, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Top Wanted Article and Number of Members on Main Page

I suggest we list the #1 Wanted Article To Be Created on the top of the main page. Even above Breaking News. It will stimulate users to create and edit it, helping this encyclopedia exand and lowering the long wanted list. Also, I suggest we list the number of users in the paragraph with number of articles and page visits.--Mcpannier 23:23, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Atheist writers

Militant, atheist writers are making an all-out assault on religious faith Atheist Books Reveal New Intensity To Public Angst Crocoite Talk Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA) 04:20, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Let's all improve these top entries here:

Let's all improve these top entries here:

Um, yeah. Lets. Oh, wait. Three of the top five are LOCKED. WAY TO GO, Conservapedia. You never let me down. Sevenstring 14:33, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

And which are locked so you may edit? Karajou 15:09, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

No link to Creation Museum article

The news story on the homepage doesn't have a link to the Conservapedia article.

Fixed. Karajou 18:05, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks--Tash 18:19, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Democrats and The War

I think it's disengenuous at best that we put the "Democrats are for long stay in Iraq" comment on the main page - that seemed like a cheap shot given that it's Democrats trying to get the troops out.Iduan 22:47, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Hey Iduan - Democrats in Congress may be vocal about a desire to withdraw troops, but it can't be denied that they're initial "tough" stance of demanding a time-table for withdrawal got gutted in favor of some vaguely-defined benchmarks. Opponents of the Democrats' earlier stand can see it as a victory, and if you were in favor of the Democrats' earlier position then this was definitely Bad News(tm). Aziraphale 00:28, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
Yeah I'm aware of that - and I tend to disagree with most democrats - but still, it just seems like we're saying that republicans don't support the war and democrats do.Iduan 18:30, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm...70% in public opinion polls oppose the war, the Democrats get elected to do the will of the people, and yet by a vote of 280-142 in the House, and 80-14 in the Senate, the people & the anti-war movement can take a hike. I guess GW Bush isn't the only stupid, lying, ignorant, self-righteous, stubborn idiot in DC, huh? RobS 22:59, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Per Andy's style, "thank you for conceding that President Bush is a stupid, lying, ignorant, self-righteous, stubborn idiot." I will happily concede that he is not the only one, in response. This is much better than arguing! Aziraphale 23:34, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
So we can conclude in the spirit of bipartisanship (a) "stupid, lying, ignorant, self-righteous, stubborn idiot" knows no party, and (b) the electorate consists of stupid, lying, ignorant, self-righteous, stubborn idiots who vote for stupid, lying, ignorant, self-righteous, stubborn idiots after being brainwashed by stupid, lying, ignorant, self-righteous, stubborn idiots in the media. At least we got that cleared up. RobS 23:43, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
And we wonder why things are so messed up. Aziraphale 11:48, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Davy Crockett Story

I found a really good story about Davy Crockett while in Congress. It is a great motivation for conservatives. The story is at [[6]]. In case anyone's interested in the story. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Additioner (talk)

Corrected link for him. (Period was inside brackets) Boomcoach 08:05, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

School dropouts again

Apparently the story about the school dropouts made it back on the front page. While I said before that there is nothing morally wrong to not read the article that you quote - it is just sloppy - I'd say that it is morally wrong to repeat this mistake. Unless whoever did put it back can make believable that he did it by mistake, again. Why is it morally wrong? The scientists who wrote this paper, crafted introduction and conclusion carefully; they describe the problem, when it occurs, what it means, and suggested an approach to solve the problem. Presenting only half or less of their findings is extremely disrespectful, especially if it is done to score cheaply. In the end it reflects badly on who ever did this, because it shows that did not only not read or understand the article, it shows that he (or she) doesn't care. User:Order May 30 23:30 (AEST)

The Breaking News section is done by Template:Tfa. User:Aschlafly is the one who initially added the article (higher min. wage causes more dropouts). Perhaps he can clear up this issue. Crocoite Talk Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA) 10:10, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
Order's criticism is baseless. Order, have you ever studied economics? Raising the minimum wage increases school dropouts. It's as obvious as saying that 2+2=4. Feel free to take your denials to the Wikipedia crowd. You're not going to fool anyone here by denying logic.--Aschlafly 12:09, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

My critic is not baseless. Where did I say that raising the minimum wage wouldn't increase the drop-out rate? What I criticize is your sloppy way of quoting material. If you disagree with the findings of the paper, you still have to quote it correctly, and for that you should at least read the introduction. And then you can tell us what is wrong with it. My understanding of economics has nothing to do with your failure to read the introduction of the paper. And anyway, if you disagree with the papers findings, why did you quote it in the first place?

If you want to discuss the findings of the paper, feel free to do it. Their findings are: Increasing minimum wages increase school-drop-outs in states without mandatory schooling until 18. And you dropped the second half. What is wrong about your behavior, Aschlafly, is that you disagree with the authors, but still present their work as if they agree with you. And that is unfair to them. Imagine how you would feel if they went around and claim on their front page that the son of Phillis Schlalfy, advocate of homeschooling, embraced their paper, and now supports their suggestion to introduce mandatory schooling until 18, to counter school-drop outs? They could point to you quoting them on Conservapedia's main page as an obvious endorsement. Wouldn't you think that this unfair? And this is just as unfair how you treat them.

Something else is wrong with your remark? Your response to sloppiness is to make an ad hominem attack. Maybe I didn't study economics, but I wrote my fair share of academic papers. And the way you take work with academic papers is sloppy, to say the least. And that is quite independent of my academic career. Since you chose to change the subject and question my credentials instead of responding to the matter, I assume that you have no real argument in the matter, and I take it as an admission that you didn't read or understand their paper. And that you don't care either. User:Order June 1 14:02

Order, your rant seems pointless. The paper is cited for its data, not its political recommendation. Increasing the minimum wage increases school dropouts. Even you seem to accept that obvious fact, which is as basic as saying 2+2=4. Since you can't complain about that, you do complain that I don't support the absurd political solution of forcing people to stay in school. No one supports that in a free society, and it need not waste our time.--Aschlafly 18:17, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, were did I rant? The data says, school drop out raises in states without mandatory schooling until 18. Since you support the data, I see that you agree with the statement, it does not increase in states with mandatory schooling.

Where, Andy, did I reject the finding that an increase in minimum wage does not increase school dropout? Where did I state that it is not true? So, why do you make up this argument that I say that their data is not accurate? Probably, because you find it difficult to admit that you were sloppy when citing the article, and now you make stuff up, that I disagree with their data. User:Order June 2, 12:00 pm.

What is Conservapedias stance on the war?

In the recent days Conservapedia editors write on the frontpage over a "sellout", "war cabal", and "endless troop commitment" and they cite articles with the heading "The entire government has failed us on Iraq". It makes me wonder what their stance on this war is. Apparently, the editors in question do not care a bit about the war in Iraq. They don't care that it was a difficult decision for the president to commit troops, nor that it is a difficult decision for people in congress of how to best support the troops, nor that troops and civilians die in this war, and that other return heavily injured. It seems to be all unimportant to these editors as long as they can score points against Democrats. I makes me wonder if these editors actually ever supported the war, or if they were in favor of it just to upset a few democrats. User:Order May 30 23:45 (AEST)

What's your stance on the war? Karajou 12:35, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
So you first need to know what I think about it to determine your own. Thanks for proving the point that you don't really have a stance, but that you determine it only in response to the position of an imagined opponent. User:Order June 1, 9:10 (AEST)
I'm just asking the individual who caused this debate in the first place. Karajou 20:33, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
Sure, you are just asking, upon being asked yourself. There is nothing wrong with asking, and I am happy to tell me you mine. But, I wonder why you need to know mine. Don't take it personal, but my guess is because you can't give your own opinion; all you can do is attack people on their opinion, and that is why you need to know mine. If you'd had an opinion, you would be able to give it regardless of mine. User:Order June 1, 14:10 (AEST)
In the immortal words of Keith Olbermann,
  • After six months of preparation and execution—half a year gathering the strands of public support...nearly 70 percent of Americans who reject this War of Lies..."
What was all that "preparation" about, other than "scoring points" on GW Bush & the War effort, as the political realities expressed by 280 members of the House & 80 Senators have declared it so. RobS 15:19, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

In my short time on this site I have noticed this trend. Whenever a sysop is asked a question, or challegned, the repsonse is to pose (a sometimes unrelated) question to the person that orignally asked. What gives?--Franklin 08:31, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Franklin, oh really? Where have I heard that criticism before...was it as RW?

index.php?title=Conservapedia_Talk:Concepts&diff=prev&oldid=6024 RobS 15:14, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

Homosexual/Transgender Bills in Congress

Two bills being promoted by the homosexual/transgender lobby in Washington, DC, are working their way through Congress. The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, H.R. 1592 was passed by liberals in the U.S. House on the National Day of Prayer. It is now in the Senate for consideration.S.1105 Any sermon or article critical of homosexuality construed to have “induced” a person to engage in violent behavior against a homosexual/transgender would be considered an accessory to violence.

This bill makes sense, as it is similar to many other bills that are oriented around curbing hate speech that promotes violence. Its perfectly fine to say that homosexuality is a sin in the bible and that you don't like homosexuals. However, it is not fine to run around like Fred Phelps and try to incite violence against homosexuals (Hell, I hate to say this, but even Phelps TECHNICALLY doesn't incite violence against homosexuals). I think that I'd like to see exactly how they use the term "induced" in the bill, as leaving it broad might allow people to use it to scapegoat their own crimes, but other than that, I see no real issue here.--Elamdri 18:40, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

The second bill is the *Employment Non-Discrimination Act, H.R. 2015 (ENDA)* Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 promoted by homosexual activist Barney Frank (D-MA) and his homosexual/transgender allies. We have dubbed this bill, the She-Male Shower Bill because it will force employers of more than 15 employees to provide restroom and shower facilities for individuals who wish to cross-dress, who identify as another sex even though no sex change has taken place; individuals who are undergoing so-called sex change operations and even she-males. *“Gender Identity” includes individuals who simply “think” they are the opposite sex but do not want a sex change operation. Crocoite Talk Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA) 13:55, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Now THIS bill is bat**** retarded. Different bathrooms? There is way too much room being left open here for lawyers to have too much fun. This bill should be scraped. Seriously. And people wonder what is wrong with the US government. BTW, Croncoite, the link to the second bill is broken.--Elamdri 18:40, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
Fixed Crocoite Talk Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA) 19:17, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

On a related note, the (Democrat, of course) governor of New Hampshire has just signed a "civil unions" bill into law, to take effect next year.--JoeP 19:59, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

That doesn't hurt your ability to marry, if you are straight. Marl Karx 17:41, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

As of 2008, nine states allow gay marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc. Hawaii also offers limited benifits. Ten years ago this would not have been possible. So I ask you, what will the state of marriage be like ten years from now? I predict gay marriage will be legal in most states. Maestro 02:35, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Article count

I am still dumbfounded as to how the number of entries is reached; the Statistics page gives a specific number of 9,298. That is over 1,000 away from the claimed 10,400 on the front page. So... how is this number decided? --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 20:40, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

The Wiki statistics are just an estimate on the number of entries, an estimate that has a bias towards verbosity. Our count is precise. You can verify by counting the entries yourself in the list for "Oldest Pages" under the "Special Pages."--Aschlafly 00:00, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
I just followed Andy's instructions and the count was 10,456. This coincides with the Main Page count of over 10,450. Crocoite Talk Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA) 00:18, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
Indeed, Andy is right. The Statistics page probably doesn't count the following pages that do occur on odlest pages special page: Great_Artists, Great_Artists_F, Nirvana_(Disambiguation), 2000_BC, 1000_BC, Anderson_County,_Tennessee or Union_County,_Tennessee. User:Order 31 May, 14:35 (AEST)
The quality of our entries is higher than on Wikipedia. Try sampling "Random page" on Wikipedia and comparing it to "Random page" here. This has been done and there is a higher percentage of quality pages here than on Wikipedia. But unlike Wikipedia, we do not think that more words is better. The preference for more words on Wikipedia, and in the Wiki statistics count, is almost childish, I'm afraid. It's like Beaver on "Leave It to Beaver" trying to satisfy a word count in an essay requirement of his grade school teacher.--Aschlafly 00:49, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
I have heard this repeated several times and I wonder what your definition of "quality page" is. I use the random feature on a number of Wiki's, when I am not looking for something specific, but just want to learn a little something. I rarely hit a page on this site that I would consider a page of high quality. On Wikipedia, on the other hand, within a few clicks of the random page button I have usually found an interesting article with depth and detail that gets me interested in something that I had no idea could be so interesting. Rarely has a page on Conservapedia made me go "Hmm" and make me want to find out more. Boomcoach 09:03, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
I am not sure what you mean by quality page, but it could very well be the case that there are fewer entries on obscure subjects and fewer stubs on Conservapedia. But the quality of entries wasn't the matter, the matter was to explain the difference in counts. But the list of entries that I posted, shows examples of pages that may account for the 1000 pages difference between your official count and the statistics count. User:Order June 1, 17:45 (AEST)
  • Sounds only natural to me. Someone who is a Liberal, reading here, would have your reaction. The same one I have at WP and Liberal blogs.--Sysop-TK /MyTalk 09:10, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
I really don't think that it is a liberal/conservative thing. Take the article of the day from a day or so ago. It was about Rus invasions of the Baltic. I have a decent knowledge of history and an interest in it. That article gave me a lot of information that I knew about only vaguely. It also let me find out that there are different theories about the nature of the Rus, whether they remained primarily of Viking stock, or became more dominated by Slavic blood. It led me en article about the Rus, which led me to an article about the Varangians, etc. I had a very interesting half an hour of reading, while I ate my lunch.
This sort of thing happens with any number of articles on WP, whether they are about Rugby football, Gustave Adolph of Sweden, Italian Morality plays, or advances in the understanding of the atom. I had not realized that any of these things were liberal articles, as opposed to conservative ones.
Let's look at it another way. I often use WP as a way of getting a quick overview of a subject, often a fairly specific subject that comes up at home or at work. Off the top of my head, I have recently used WP to find out the difference between Rugby Union and Rugby league; to find out whether the song "Black Night" was by Deep Purple or by Rainbow; to find out how proxy.pac files work. WP was very helpful on all of these topics, and often interested me enough to want to learn more, or to follow a related link. Would Conservapedia have helped me with any of these?
I am amused by your comparison of WP to liberal blogs, as I think this shows much about your way of thinking. The vast majority of articles on WP have nothing to do with conservatism or liberalism. They are simply informational. If you take the time to look at the talk pages (which IMHO is one of the strengths of wikis) you can find out which areas of a subject are still controversial, or have distinct differences in opinion. You appear to think that unless an article has a specific pro-US, pro-Christian fundamentalist spin, it is "liberal". I am more interested in information than in spin, so, for the time being, WP fulfills the purpose of an encyclopedia, conservapedia serves as a place for a specific group to take out their frustrations, not as a place to get information (unless I was simply looking for YEC explanations of something.) Boomcoach 10:15, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
I am amused that you spend so much of your time here giving us the benefit of your... "wisdom"... on talk pages. Given that you don't like the ethos here, think the article quality stinks, and felt strongly enough about the project that you registered as an editor (unless, of course, that was just to enable "sniping") and yet have never contributed positively to a single article, I'm surprised you deign to spare any of your lunchbreak here at all. What do trolls eat for lunch, incidentally? File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 10:27, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
LOL, I am impressed. I have been called a number of things, but never a troll. I come here because it is amusing. I have not taken the time to edit much, or even to comment very much. I think that the majority of my comments are contructive, although this page seems to be aimed at more wide open discussion. It is actually a bit ironic that I was actually making my first edit to a page while you were calling me a troll, but you were accurate about my postings being aimed at talk pages. I don't make many edits on WP, either. I respect the work others have put into pages, and prefer to make my suggestions on talk pages, except for simply vandalism reverts and typo correction. I realize that I am not the target group for this site, but I enjoy watching things grow and evolve, so I will continue to come. If I get blocked because my edits are mainly talk page edits, then I will be blocked. Life goes on. I have enough of an ego to think that my comments are largely useful. (BTW, it varies, depending on what the cafeteria has, but yesterday it was a grilled tenderloin, since you care.) Boomcoach 10:45, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
Boomcoach, you say that you are both "impressed" and "amus[ed]". Well, that's a great contradiction. We do have a rule against editors spending 90% of their time in silly banter because it clutters up the pages for those who are actually learning and improving the site. We welcome substantive edits, and weed out those who are just here to distract. Hope you can add something useful here. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 12:12, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia scandal in Chile

"Oh noes! A resource exists, and somebody misuses it, so it is therefore the fault of the resource." The same could be said about guns (Man kills person, gun to blame), water (Girl drowns; water criminalized), and pretty much everything else. I fail to see the logic in how it is the fault of Wikipedia, and not the senator. Perhaps someone more enlightened could point it out to me. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 23:51, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm not saying this was Wikipedia's fault. I am saying that Wikipedia is liberal, and this is an example of a liberal (socialist) copying from it. Not even his fellow socialists were impressed, apparently.--Aschlafly 23:59, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

So why is it on the main page? As for misuse, a conservative could just as easily plagarize from conservapedia. Such an instance would not be the fault of conservapedia, nor would it produce a ripple at wikipedia--Franklin 07:07, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

It's on the main page because it's further proof that liberals (and especially socialists) are dishonest plagiarizers.--Conservateur 14:14, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
... and that liberals (and especially socialists) tend to copy Wikipedia for their information. :-) --Aschlafly 14:16, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
Does anybody know what he copied and whether there is a better version on Conservapedia? DollarsAndSense 14:27, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
Don't know what he copied but I can say this: a socialist is not going to copy from Conservapedia! Godspeed to you.--Aschlafly 18:27, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

NASA Chief Questions Whether Global Warming Is a Problem

The head of the U.S. space program went on national radio and questioned whether global warming really is a problem NASA Chief Questions Whether Global Warming Is a Problem Crocoite Talk Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA) 15:44, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Great. I've just posted this. Thanks much your superb suggestion, again!--Aschlafly 16:04, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
How dare these NASA clowns disagree with Al Gore and hollywood.Богдан Talk 17:10, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
Don't they know Al Gore won an Academy Award for his view??!! It's not allowed to disagree with that!!!--Aschlafly 18:26, 31 May 2007 (EDT)


Hi, I'm an psychology student from Bristol university and I'm doing a study on religious fundamentalism. I was wandering if anybody here would be happy to answer a few questions? Thanks --MikeG 18:04, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Sure, I'd be happy to help. If I can't answer the questions, then I'll pass them on to someone who can. Just post your questions here. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:25, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
MikeG is also KelpanБогдан Talk 18:30, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
It seems de rigeur to have at least 3 or 4 sock puppets these days. Very infantile. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 18:39, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
Block 'em, Bohdan. I've observed that some liberals delight in deceit. The rest of us got over that delight at what, age 6?--Aschlafly 18:57, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. OK here goes. If any of the questions offend you, or you simply don't wish to answer, just ignore it go straight on to the next one.

  1. Were you brought up in a religious family, or did you find Christianity later in life?
  2. Do you believe that individuals who do not believe in the Christian God will go to hell no matter whether they are otherwise a "good" person?
  3. If the answer to this question is "yes", do you feel comfortable with this?
  4. Do you believe that some other religions such as Islam worship essentially the same God and may achieve the same rewards in the afterlife as yourself?
  5. Do you ever have doubts about your faith for any reason?
  6. Do you feel that God communicates with you directly?
  7. Do you believe that all of the bible is a) God's own words? and b) Intended to be taken literally?
  8. Many people in Britain associate the refusal to acknowledge the possiblity of human-caused global warming with the (largely American) Christian right movement. Do you feel that such a correlation exists, and if so, why does it?
  9. Do you believe that Armageddon will occur in the relatively near future and if so does this have any bearing on decisions and plans you make about life?
  10. Do you think that homosexuality may one day be completely accepted by all major branches of the church?

That's enough for now. Thanks again. --MikeG 18:59, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

I have no idea what a "sock puppet" is but can assure you that this is the first time I have visited this site. I do however work from a university, so if you are tracking me via my IP address it is quite possible that other people on the same network use this site. --MikeG 19:01, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Funny how they all claim not to know what a sock puppet is :/ File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 19:03, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Well this has been very constructive. I had hoped to be able to gain some insight into the thought processes behind the religious right movement and perhaps even reduce some of the prejudice against this group that is so widespread throughout the United Kingdom. Anyway, if anybody still wishes to help me out I will be checking back in a couple of days. Thank you for your time. --MikeG 19:07, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

It's already "very constructive"? Karajou 19:56, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
Fess up about why you seem to be a sockpuppet, and read our entry on deceit. Then this will be constructive.--Aschlafly 19:12, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
If Богдан is revealing information based on IP numbers of other users, then he is in breach of the Conservapedia:privacy policy and should be immediately blocked. --Scott 19:08, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
Isn't it amazing how liberals defend deceit??? Not only do some people delight in deceit, but then some people get indignant when deceit is exposed. Really, this is too much.--Aschlafly 19:12, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
How exactly did I break the privacy policy?Богдан Talk 19:15, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
To Bohdan: You appear to have used privileged information about the IP numbers that users are logging in from to identify that two users were editing from the same IP address. Since one of these has identified what university they are from, you have connected the other username to the same university, breaching that user's privacy. --Scott 11:25, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
To Aschlafly: What makes me a liberal, and since when has an expectation of privacy been deceit? --Scott 11:25, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
Scott, I think you've been deceived by a fellow liberal here. I don't see any connection between the IP address and a university. I think you've been duped by your comrade.
In response to your question of me, I'm not interested in playing yet another "prove I'm a liberal!!!" game. You tell me your views on classroom prayer in public school, and I'll tell you how liberal you are. Why are so many people embarrassed to admit they are liberals???--Aschlafly 11:46, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
Huh. Just by that one question you can tell? Amazing. I guess my parents, long-term Republicans, lifelong evangelical Christians (albeit of the somewhat more academic type than the majority here), young earth creationists, and generally conservative in the Conservapedia sense (anti-union, economics that assume 'perfect consumers' and don't take anything else into account but supply/demand, etc. ad nauseum) are liberals, because they do NOT believe in prayer in public schools. Funny, how I could learn something so shocking here at Conservapedia. MyaR 15:02, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
I'm not persuaded that your parents oppose prayer in public schools. Why would they? Perhaps you mean to say that they don't believe in public school, or sending their own children to public school. But that's not a demand for censorship of prayer in public school. If you are going to persuade me, then you are going to have give reasons, and you haven't yet.--Aschlafly 23:46, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
They believe in separation of church and state, for religion's protection as much as the state's. If you are a member of a minority Christian sect, whatever that sect is (Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Lutheran, Baptist, Pentecostal), not even taking other religions into account, what would be taught in the religious education classes that you're a proponent of would be what, exactly? Anything other than the Lord's Prayer (and which version do you use? some sects/people are adamant that theirs is more correct) is problematic, and your children will be learning something you do not approve of. Which is why my parents sent us to parochial school, although they have regrets there, too. But they believe that prayer does not belong in public schools precisely because of the question of who gets to decide which versions of 'the truth' their children learn. And because they believe that it is their responsibility, not the state's, to provide religious education. They are fine with a moment of silence, providing time for prayer for students, but not in state-led prayer, because there is no way, with the diversity of sects even within Christianity, to avoid teaching something contrary to one of the sects' beliefs.
And not having state-led prayer is not censorship. Preventing a child from praying on their own is censorship, but preventing a child from praying out loud, disrupting classroom activity is not censorship. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MyaR (talk)
You can't keep religion out of the schools. What is purported to be keeping religion out of schools is replacing one religion (Christianity) with another (Humanism). So you have state-endorsed religion masquerading as no-religion.
If preventing a child from praying out loud is merely to prevent disruption, rules against disruption would be sufficient; if you have a rule specifically against praying then the purpose is not to prevent disruption, but to favour Humanism over Christianity.
And by the way, those "sects" within Christianity are, outside of technical discussions, for the most part known as "denominations", except by those trying to subtly denigrate it.
Philip J. Rayment 12:16, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
You have a rule against prayer because a state employee leading a prayer is state sanctioning of religion. I included the reference to disruption was to forestall a silly response that would've come. And 'sect' is merely more generic than 'denomination' -- it can apply to all religions. Your perception of denigration was just that. And calling Humanism (as if there is anything called that that is in any way monolithic) a religion does not make it so. What qualifies it as such? (And seriously Andy, the ludicrous claim that you can know my parents better than I do is INSANE. You don't even know who they are, much less what they think.) MyaR 12:52, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, but your opposition to classroom prayer is probably not limited to prayers by a "state employee." You're not fooling anyone. You probably oppose student-led classroom prayer also, or athlete-led prayer prior to a school sporting event. Moreover, you distorted my comment concerning your parents' views. I said, "I'm not persuaded that your parents oppose prayer in public schools." And I'm still not persuaded that parents, assuming they are Christians as you say, oppose classroom prayer. Your use of the word "sect" rather than "denomination" suggests that you may have hostility to Christianity. Do you? Godspeed.--Aschlafly 13:40, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
Heh. I got an Andy "Godspeed". In normal language, that would be "see ya!", probably with an epithet. And YES, they oppose classroom prayer. Because they realize that separation of church and state protects religion as much as it does the state. How is that not giving a reason? IT IS A REASON, and a damn good one. But hey, Andy hears only what agrees with him. And gee, isn't it great how, no matter how many times I say my parents oppose school prayer, which I've had many conversations with them on, you can not believe me. And no, i do not oppose Christianity. Nor do I oppose Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, or any other religion, per se. What I oppose are people who feel they have a lock on what it means to be a perfect Christian, Buddhist, Taoist, Muslim, or any other member of a religion. People who feel that they have more rights than anyone else, because they have some sort of enlightenment. As I was taught Christianity, a prime tenet is humility, and see none of that here. MyaR 13:51, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
If the "rule against prayer" was merely to stop state employees, why would it cover children also? You specifically mentioned children disrupting, which was the point I was answering.
Yes, sect is more generic, and you can apply it to all religions, but you were applying it specifically to Christianity, so you justification is disingenuous. I have no doubt that what I said about people denigrating Christianity using the term "sect" is true. I did not say that it definitely applies in your case, although I was wondering if that's the case.
Calling Humanism religion does not make it so, and pointing that out does not make it not so. Humanism is a worldview, which is a synonym for religion. Additionally, Humanism has been declared to be a religion by American courts. I don't know that you are getting at with the reference to "monolithic"; Christianity is not "monolithic" either in the sense that it is just one organisation, if that's what you are suggesting.
If Humanism qualifies as religion, and if Humanism is what is effectively being taught in American government schools, then the claim that they are keeping religion out of schools is false.
Philip J. Rayment 22:41, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

I support prayer in classrooms, workplaces, hospitals, on public transport, at home, in churches and everywhere else. Reciting Christian poetry is not "prayer" if you don't believe what you are are saying, or believe in who you are talking to. Have I proven I'm a liberal? --Scott 22:44, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
Really, Scott? So you'll public schoolchildren pray the Lord's Prayer at the beginning class? You haven't persuaded me either. I'm confident you insist on censoring that.--Aschlafly 23:46, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
I don't "insist on censoring that". I don't see it as an issue, as it's not something I experienced in my public school education, and I'm not aware of current school practices, but would be very surprised if it's done here. I'd rather have a serious religious education class available in schools, and the students have ready access to school chaplains. This is more important to me than forcing all the class to recite the Lord's Prayer, with half of them not understanding what they're saying. It's possible we agree on the principles but our local situation leads us having different ways of getting there. We both want to make sure the young people in our community have exposure to Christianity so they can choose to invite Jesus into their lives. --Scott 03:55, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
Without wishing to upset anyone, I wouldn't have thought he is a sock puppet - seemed pretty genuine and polite to me and now people are being rude to him due to a possibly false assumption. I'm more of an interested bystander than a religious fundamentalist, so I can't answer the questions but presumably others could. Ferret 23:55, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
Ferret, your reaction is understandable, but perhaps you do not appreciate the full nature and extent of liberal deceit. Some liberals delight both in deception and in wasting conservatives time. What you and I grew out of after age six is pursued in great self-amusement by liberals on the verge of adulthood, and beyond. We've seen worse examples, believe it or not. Stick around and you'll be amazed at what occurs here.--Aschlafly 00:35, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
I appreciate that, and it happens a lot on this site to be sure. I'm just not convinced it's the case this time and I'm worried you will appear to be a little paranoid. By the way, my six-year-old is still deceitful when he feels like it... does this mean what I think it means! :-) Ferret 01:48, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
Do intend on answering the questions or not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NothingVentured (talk)
I don't think it's appropriate to fill this page with answers, so I will answer on his page. Philip J. Rayment 10:05, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
Ferret, the user was using the exact same IP address as another user, without a plausible explanation. That is known as a "sock puppet", and it is expressly prohibited by our rules. Enough said.--Aschlafly 10:42, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
He provided a very plausible explanation - he is editing from a university. It is quite likely that all users at that university appear to make all web requests from the same proxy server in their internet firewall. --Scott 11:25, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
  • Please provide proof that scenario actually still happens anywhere, Scott. I'd be interested in knowing...... --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 11:53, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
We had socks and vandals before from single or shared IP addys, including those who tried it from universities. Karajou 11:55, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
Scott, as I said above, I think you've been duped by a fellow comrade with the claim to be posting from a university. His IP address had no apparent connection with a university. Please check out deceit and don't allow yourself to be fooled as much by liberals.--Aschlafly 12:16, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
Okay, this is something I'm having trouble dealing with. Let's say, he or she is infact a sockpuppet trying in some way to decieve you. There's no evidence to say he's a liberal. You are just associating deceit with liberalism. I personally don't see why. Conservatives practice deceit occasionally too. Who is to say this person isn't, say, a center-right conservative who just enjoys poking fun at what he or she sees as "evangelical hysteria"? Not all liberals are inherintly evil, as not all conservatives are inherintly good. GofG ||| Talk 16:14, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

TK - the company I work for has exactly such a setup, as do my computers at home. All of the few thousand computers on desks make http requests through one set of machines, and all of my machines at home proxy through the router that sits next to my dsl modem. For the external corporate website that I administer, I see a large number of users from single ip addresses also - indicating that their companies use the same setup of a small number of proxies facing the world. You could think of it somewhat like a phone system with extensions - if someone calls you, your caller ID shows the phone number, not the extension (individual person). You could get 10 calls from 10 different people at that company, each using a different phone (extension) and your caller ID would have the same information for each of them. Most comapnies today do not have quite the address space as those lucky enough to get in on the early days[7] - they can't afford a class B, or even a full class C for themselves (compare UW Madison which has 3x class B networks (each class B network has 65,534 ip addresses in it... but thats nothing compared to MIT which owns 18.* which has 16,277,214 IP addresses). --Mtur 19:19, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
My wife and I use separate computers at home, but would both appear to be accessing the internet from the IP number of our border router due to network address translation. My work enforces using a web proxy for network security purposes. Conservapedia does not sell or share any information about users, except as necessary to report obscenity or vandalism to authorities leaves me with the right to choose what to publicly reveal about myself. This conversation shows that Conservapedia sysops will use information collected by the system in any way they wish. I will never log in to Conservapedia from work because of this. --Scott 22:44, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
No offense, but perhaps you shouldn't log in period. Its only a matter of time before you reveal something confidential about yourself.Богдан Talk 19:47, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
That's witty, Bohdan. Thank you. As to Scott, your defense of a violation of our rules does not inspire confidence. How about improving the site instead???? In Christ, --Aschlafly 19:57, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

yes, but you could tell from the nature of his questions that he is an enemy of conservapedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NothingVentured (talk)

Updated Article improvement drive, New Articles added

Based on improvements which occurred during our past article improvement drive which is listed on the main page and based on the 1000 most popular serious articles at Wikipedia (I realize there are a lot of fluff articles at Wikipedia), I updated our article improvement drive on our main page by removing some entries and adding others. Conservative 17:21, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

That's great. I hope to aid in the improvement of the articles you added. ~ SharonTalk 17:35, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

City Restricts Number of Flags

An ordinance restricting the number of flags allowed up for display has some North Carolina business owners seeing a lot of red, and not as much white and blue. Raleigh Rule Restricts Number of Flags Allowed for Display to Three Crocoite Talk 17:44, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Non withstanding whether this gets blown out of proportion with respect to the flag, this ordinance makes no sense. A limit to 3 flags/banners/flyer? Why? This will really hurt dealerships and smaller businesses.--Elamdri 19:46, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

ACLU helps Gay and Lesbian Prisoners

New regulations will allow gay and lesbian prisoners in California to have overnight conjugal visits with their partners, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. Surprise - the ACLU is involved Gay and Lesbian Prisoners in California Allowed Conjugal Visits Crocoite Talk 17:44, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Technically the right of conjugal visit is a right of the partner, not the inmate. The principle is that just because the person is incarcerated, that doesn't mean that the government has the right of the incarcerated party's partner to enjoy physical relations. Any benefits the inmate receives from a conjugal visit is merely a byproduct of the partner exercising their right. What this is really doing is putting Gays and Lesbians on more equal footing with conventional couples, laying the foundation for an increase in the number of states that allow Gay and Lesbian marriages.--Elamdri 19:50, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Sounds like as good of a "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness free of government interference" argument as a true conservative could ask for. Sevenstring 20:01, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Except for this part "... laying the foundation for an increase in the number of states that allow Gay and Lesbian marriages". More benefits for inmates isn't a conservative position either. Crocoite Talk 20:15, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

You're right, gay marriage isn't a consrvative value. But as I read conservatism, it SHOULD be - elected officials shouldn't be in the business of making decisions that people are capable of making for themselves, including who and how legal adults want to marry. Liberals are the ones who are always clamouring for more government regulations and restrictions (environmental laws, minimum wage, equal pay for equal work, etc.). Why should this issue be different? Sevenstring 20:30, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Your talking more about libertarians. A libertarian believes in minimizing or entirely eliminating government interventionism in all aspects of life; including economic, personal and in foreign policy matters. Remember that the Religious Right is part of Conservatism. Conservatives oppose same-sex marriage licenses. Gay marriage and homosexuality are not condoned by the Religious Right. Crocoite Talk 20:53, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
The Religious Right doesn't necessarily speak for conservatism as a whole. Religion merely found conservatism more applicable to its goals, and the conservatives happily accepted the large voting bloc. I suppose I should clarify a little. This legislation is not so much going to increase the number of states that accept gay marriage. States that are going to oppose gay marriage are still going to oppose gay marriage. What this will do is help build a stronger case for courts to strike down marriage protection acts as unconstitutional. This doesn't really change the threat it posses to conservative interests, but rather, clarifies it's impact.--Elamdri 20:58, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

It's a typical tactics of extreme liberals to tell Conservatives or Christians what values or policies they should support. It's the old guilt trip tactic: "if you were a real good person, you would grant me the freedom to this bad thing I want to do; you're so bad to limit my "right to sin" by condemning me."

The proper retort is that God hates the sin, not the sinner. And "knock it off, it's bad for you!" --Ed Poor Talk 22:11, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Guillermo Gonzalez

I just created an article on Guillermo Gonzalez, the professor at ISU who was just denied tenure because he supports Intelligent Design. [8] It's another possible front page idea. DanH 19:08, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Fantastic idea, Dan! Would you like to put it up? Anything older than a day on the front page can be replaced. Just go to Editing main page and pick the second link for Breaking News. I look forward to reviewing the article. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 19:11, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

The article that is cited is hardly unbiased. I have been on the Iowa State website and there is still a page on Gonzalez. Has anyone seen his C.V. posted on the web? (many, but not all academics do this). I would like to look it over before I weigh in. --McIntyre 11:18, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

Why South Africa Sucks

Could some sysop type please remove this article - it links to a hateful blog and has no place in Conservapedia. Many thanks. Sevenstring 20:34, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

I don't even think that blogs are generally notable enough to have their own articles, unless it's like the Daily Kos or something. DanH 22:08, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Homeschooled spelling champ

I don't think it's fair to say the media concealed that he was homeschooled...they mentioned it on CNN, Fox, ESPN (where the spelling championship aired), and other venues. But none of them mentioned the second place kid was not homeschooled. Maestro 08:23, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

fairness is not a conservapedian value.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by NothingVentured (talk)
Pardon?? Philip J. Rayment 09:06, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
I've modified the main page. Better? Philip J. Rayment 09:09, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

The liberal bias is always greater in newspapers than on television. Maestro did not rebut the proof of bias in the newspaper coverage.--Aschlafly 09:49, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

The bias being greater in the press is not necessarily the case where I come from, but that's incidental. I'm not so familiar with the American media organisations to have noticed that point, but the main page didn't specify either way. No, Maestro didn't rebut any of the examples you gave; he simply gave other examples to show that it wasn't all the media. I wasn't sure whether to change it to "most of the media" or "some of the media", so opted for the latter as the safest bet. Philip J. Rayment 11:18, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

I would agree with liberal bias if the newspapers that are listed had mentioned the schools of the other children and just not mentioned that the winner ,Evan O'Dorney, is homeschooled. The papers list the towns where the children are from, but not the schools of any of them. Which as I understand, is normal for major reports about the National Spelling Bee. I would imagine that if the winner or a runner-up was a local kid(to that newspaper), then they might mention his school..--Tordenvaer

Not mentioning something is not the same as concealing it. I assume that if it was not mentioned that a hypothetical Nobel prize winner attended MIT, that would not be concealment. --1984 12:21, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

Ah, but by mentioning only the hometowns of the kids, the reader would likely assume that they went to (public) schools, unless told otherwise. Therefore, not mentioning is concealment, is bias. Kinda like the common practice of quoting an "expert" without mentioning that said expert works for a liberal activist group.--JoeP 19:19, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

(of course, to be fair, when dealing with the media, one can never discount the possibility of laziness and ignorance...)--JoeP 20:33, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

I saw an interview (on 'liberal' CNN) with the boy's mother. She's obviously a very well educated woman, with multiple degrees, and the family is wealthy enough to allow for her to stay home and teach him. But as a public school teacher in a poor district, I know that is rare. Many of my students have parents who did not graduate from high school, do not have a father present in the house (I live near a prison and many of my students have an incarcerated parent), and live well below the poverty line. These are the kids in trouble and homeschooling is not an option for them. It's not a panacea for the high dropout rate. The Catch-22 situation is many kids who have trouble at school also have trouble at home, and homeschooling won't work. A mother who pulled her kids out of my district to homeschool them was sighted in a bar in the middle of the day. You can't just assume a parent will be a good teacher. Maestro 22:34, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

On average, across all demographics, homeschooling is significantly better for the student and much cheaper. You don't say how much your "poor district" spends per child, but $15,000 per child per year is typical. Homeschooling costs maybe $1000 per child per year.
I'm not saying that learning at home is better in every single case. I am saying that it is better on average, it is better for most people, it is better for many high or low achievers, and less time spent is public school is probably better for nearly everyone. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 11:05, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

Parents who make choices which wind them up in prison tend to hold liberal ideologies, so it's not surprising that their kids suffer for it. Most homeschoolers are conservative christians which explains their success later in life (and the afterlife!!!). it's a question of scope and focus. Everyone is NOT equal. Those kids just need to work harder and stop looking to their jailbird parents as examples. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NothingVentured (talk)

Work harder. Great advice for the KINDERGARTENERS I teach, NV. And can you back up that 'most prisoners are liberals' opinion? Most homeschooled kids are successful because their parents are capable teachers. I have parents in my district...right and left wingers, Christians and atheists, who cannot read (I know because they ask me to fill out permisson slips for them). 80% of our students eat breakfast and lunch here for free because their parents can't afford the 80 cents per meal. It's now summer, but the cafeteria stays open because if we don't feed these kids THEY WON'T EAT. We're the ones who report the kids being sexual abused, then get threatened by the parents. We're the ones who provide, sometimes out of our own pockets, clothes for them to wear. We provide showers for kids who don't have running water. We buy supplies for kids who don't have them. We care when no one else does. So please don't act like these kids would be better off with their parents (or whoever is 'watching' them) teaching them at home. I've been told more than ten times 'Mr. X, I wish you were my father.' Homeschooling works for the educated and wealthy. I dont' teach in that district. Maestro 01:24, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

From my understanding of talking to homeschoolers, you don't need to be all that well educated to homeschool, because the curriculum material provides all you need. Your point about parents that are basically illiterate is probably valid; they would need to be able to understand the curriculum well enough to know what they children need to learn, and to be able to check their work against the curriculum material, but comments that you have to be well educated to homeschool is probably going too far the other way. Philip J. Rayment 02:15, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Great point. But let me use myself as an example. I've taught lower elementary for ten years, and have a masters degree in information technology. But I'd be sunk if I had to teach my daughter plast the fifth grade, and absolutely lost with a high school curriculum. I know nothing of chemistry, physics, German, French, higher math, etc. And just parroting the curriculum won't do me any good. With math, science, and foreign languages, you have to really know and understand the subject. It's not enough to know the answer to a math problem, you have to know why. Of course, education does not end at home. I'd do carts if parents would read to their children, help them with homework, and teach them things on their own. Most do. Many do not. Maestro 02:33, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

The point that I was trying to make is that (some of?) the curriculum materials used by homeschoolers are apparently designed to be sufficient without the parents having to know much (although I'm guessing that the curriculum material comes with notes for the parent-teachers to help them answer questions, etc.). Now how true all that is, I don't know from personal experience; it's just what I've learnt from people who do homeschool. Philip J. Rayment 04:01, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Colleges veer left for '07 speakers

Left-leaning speakers outnumbered conservatives by a ratio of 8-to-1 Colleges veer left for '07 speakers Crocoite Talk 22:28, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

No offense, but thats really not something new. Colleges are bastions of leftist thought.--Elamdri 01:27, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
The 8-to-1 ratio is shocking. Liberals often deny bias, and even when they admit it bias they often claim it is slight. An 8:1 bias is astounding, and it wouldn't surprise me if liberals try to deny it.
Crocoite, can you post this on the main page also? Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 01:37, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
Done. Crocoite Talk 01:48, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

Palestinian Kindergarten Graduates Vow to Die for Allah

The kindergarten is run by the Islamic Association in Gaza, which is the group that gave rise to Hamas. Palestinian Kindergarten Graduates Vow to Die for Allah Crocoite Talk 22:28, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

I love how liberals call Christians "fundy loons", and seem to ignore this. This is reality, albeit frightening.Богдан Talk 22:33, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm a left leaner and I'm a proud Christian. No one should be telling kids they need to die for religion. Maestro 22:36, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

Crocoite and/or Bohdan, please go ahead and post news like this yourself by going to Editing main page and entering it either in the first link or the second. Anything that has been up for 24 hours can be replaced. The homeschool spelling bee picture and comment, for example, is due to be replaced and your story would be an excellent replacement. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 00:10, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
Done. Crocoite Talk 00:20, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
I would do that, but I'm always afraid of messing up and somehow accidently causing horrible damage. bd Talk 01:06, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
Looks great. Terrific! Feel free to do other stories like that in the future.--Aschlafly 01:13, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

Anti-war educators exploit The Children in the name of peace

Three-year-old toddlers are used as props for an anti-war protest at a local politician's officeAnti-war educators exploit The Children in the name of peace Crocoite Talk 02:24, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

I've seen a few toddlers in anti-gay rights marches. This door swings both ways. Maestro 01:25, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Targeting girls' schools in Pakistan

Islamic extremists have bombed at least four girls' schools and circulated violent threats warning girls to stay at home Targeting girls' schools in Pakistan Crocoite Talk 02:31, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

Abortion clinic employee guilty of sexual abuse

The employee of an abortion facility in Connecticut has issued a guilty plea in a case involving the sexual abuse of three teenage girls Connecticut Abortion Facility Employee Pleads Guilty to Sexual Abuse Crocoite Talk 02:50, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

What happens when you read past a NYTimes headline

The NYT headline read Doubts Grow as G.I.’s in Iraq Find Allies in Enemy Ranks. Here's part of the real story - Still, Captain Rogers says their mission in Kadhimiya has been “an amazing success.”“We’ve captured 4 of the top 10 most-wanted guys in this area,” he said. And the streets of Kadhimiya are filled with shoppers and the stores are open What happens when you read past a NYTimes headline Crocoite Talk 03:00, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

Obviously you get the truth! But then again, I don't read the NYT because their tradition of excellent journalism got tossed in the trashcan some 20-30 years ago. Karajou 03:03, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
I don't read it either - I rely on Michelle Malkin to pass on useful info. Crocoite Talk 03:10, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

Iraqi Civilians Revolt against Al Qaeda

Many Sunni tribes in the province have banded together to fight Al Qaeda, claiming the terrorist group is more dangerous than American forces. Baghdad Residents Call for U.S. Help to Battle Al Qaeda Crocoite Talk 03:42, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

Giuliani Blasts Clinton's Tax Increase Plan

Hillary Clinton said the tax increase would help balance the federal budget and provide health care for uninsured Americans - Anyone remember HillaryCare? Giuliani Blasts Hillary's Tax Increase Plan Crocoite Talk 03:47, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

Terror Plot on New York City's JFK Airport

Federal authorities announced they had broken up a suspected Muslim terrorist cell planning a "chilling" attack to destroy John F. Kennedy International Airport, kill thousands of people and trigger an economic catastrophe by blowing up a jet fuel artery that runs through populous residential neighborhoods. Three Arrested, 1 Sought in Terror Plot on New York City's JFK Airport Crocoite Talk 04:01, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

Connecticut Lawmakers Vote to Limit Use of Eminent Domain

The state at the center of a national property rights battle moved Saturday night to limit the use of eminent domain, two years after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that homes can be taken for private development projects. Connecticut Lawmakers Vote to Limit Use of Eminent Domain Crocoite Talk 04:05, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

  • My own family is currently in litigation (protracted) over a city's taking our property. They want to "give" it to a private developer to build retail at street level, condos above, and a hotel. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 04:35, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

House Democrats Sidestep Own Rules

After promising unprecedented openness regarding Congress' pork barrel practices, House Democrats are moving in the opposite direction as they draw up spending bills for the upcoming budget yearHouse Democrats Sidestep Own Rules to Shield Lawmakers' Pork Barrel Projects Crocoite Talk 11:10, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

From the article: "...36,000 earmark requests...have flooded the committee." 36,000?!! They really have no shame, do they?--JoeP 16:04, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

Ahmadinejad: Israel's Destruction Getting Close

The writing is on the wall... Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday said the world would witness the destruction of Israel soon Ahmadinejad: Israel's Destruction Getting Close Crocoite Talk 11:17, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

Great catch, Crocoite! I've replaced the Jimmy Wales story with yours.
When you have something good, then feel free to replace any item that may have only been up for 12 hours. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:14, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

Bryan Hathaway

I shouldn't have to work too hard to convince a wise and benevolent sysop that this page is hardly encyclopedic. Sevenstring 00:17, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Amen. Jaques should know better, and I've commented on his talk page. Thanks for deleting the contents of the entry. I'll delete the entry itself now.--Aschlafly 00:32, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Thad Cochran

As of 5 June 2007 at 12:52 AM (EST), Wikipedia has removed the section in the article about Thad Cochran which attempted to portray him as a racist by very, very loose association. --Tordenvaer

That deletion is certainly welcome. Thank you. But how about:
(a) an apology by Wikipedia to Thad Cochran
(b) discipline of the editors/admins responsible for that sophisticated smear
(c) cleaning out similar smears like it on Wikipedia
(d) all of the above

--Aschlafly 01:11, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

The smear falsely portraying Thad Cochran as a racist was in his entry since 01:18, 15 April 2007, remaining there for nearly two months and numerous subsequent edits to that entry. More than one Wikipedian admin and editor approved that baseless smear and it was only removed based on the complaint here.--Aschlafly 01:31, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

The irony is that Wikipedia's attempt at a smear actually backfired, since the alleged racist quote came from a democrat.--Conservateur 10:30, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Unlike Conservapedia, Wikipedia does not require every change to be approved by an admin...there's just too many articles. It's possible some idiot put that change in, and, as it was an article about a somewhat obscure congressman, it's possible no one noticed. People sometimes edit parts of articles without reading the whole thing. And if administrators apologized for every jerk who vandalized their site, that's all they'd do. Do conservapedia admins apologize for the vandalism here? Maestro 11:20, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

"A somewhat obscure congressman" and "it's possible no one notice"??? I doubt even liberals buy that one, Maestro. Many Wikipedians saw that vicious smear of a U.S. Senator, including a Wikipedian admin or two, and they did nothing about it.
Many liberals don't mind deceit. But many deny that. We're not fooled by the liberal "play dumb" act here.--Aschlafly 11:25, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

I guess we believe what we want. But to whom do you think Wiki should apologize to? The late senator? His family? If that's the case, are you just assuming they didn't? Are you in contact with the Cochran family? Also, the editor who put the smear in made exactly one wikipedia edit--that one: They can't discipline him, he's long gone. Maestro 11:30, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Maestro, you're clueless. The senator is alive and well and serving in the U.S. Senate. He deserves a public apology from Wikipedia. The editor who did this should be blocked - both is account and IP address. It makes no difference how many edits he's done. But don't expect the liberals controlling Wikipedia to take these actions.--Aschlafly 11:55, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
Aschlafly, perhaps you should amend your tone. Calling another editor 'clueless' doesn't seem apropriate or productive. The editing situation on Wikipedia is just as Maestro described above. Wikipedia is not the product of some monolithic liberal conspiracy as you assume. The editor who introduced the false imformation was acting alone, apparently. Thus, your demands are not reasonable given the context. NothingVentured 12:03, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
"NothingVentured", nothing has been gained by your liberal lecture. Wikipedia is overwhelmingly liberal, which of course you do not admit and may never admit. The liberal smear of Cochran was seen and approved by other liberals there, and no apology for it is forthcoming from Wikipedia. Indeed, Wikipedia has not even blocked the ID. and IP address that did the smear.--Aschlafly 12:15, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
There was nothing liberal about my 'lecture' as you label it. I simply sought to clarify your error about Wikipedia's editing process and to point out that you were not behaving in the best of all possible ways. Your remarks indicate that you lack a firm understanding of how wikipedia's editing processes work. For your critique to be effective it needs to display understanding. That is all. Everything else is, plainly put, pure flack (or spin) on your part. NothingVentured 12:32, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
Whoops, I thought he was the guy who just died of leukemia (they were both from Wyoming). So if someone came on Conservapedia, smeared a liberal politician with false though plausible sounding lies, and no one noticed for a couple of months, what would you do? Would you offer a public apology to the offended party? Or would you simply correct the mistake, ban the user, and move on? I think you're seeing a conspiracy, when it was just a lone vandal that didn't get caught. And did you post a message on the discussion page, asking for the editor to be disciplined? Did you research and correct the article yourself? Or did you realize this would be a fine opportunity to smear wikipedia, and leave the article as is? It's easy to find fault, it much more difficult to do something about it. Maestro 12:46, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
Folks, you're both in liberal denial, and Maestro you still lack a handle on the facts (Cochran's not from Wyoming). Yes, Conservapedia does block id's and IPs of smear artists, and we don't wait for someone to request it. Wikipedia should do likewise. Of course Wikipedia doesn't, because liberals there want to smear conservatives. NothingVentured, you can call that Wikipedia policy if you like. I'm not going to waste any more time explaining this here.--Aschlafly 13:22, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
Where is public apology of Conservapedia due to vandalism against articles of persons? Or what is the reason why CP does not have to apology vandalized articles and WP has to? I think common rules of behaving concerns also CP. --Aulis Eskola 12:40, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

The identical smear was used against Sen. George Allen [9] by HNN & the New Republic in an October Surprise. Problem is, there was no association in this guilt-by-association smear. And we have too long a record of WP acting in concert with these purveyors and manufacturers of lies. I can produce evidence, if you so desire, of the ArbCom Chairman wishing to clean up WP's Harry Reid article because "he might be the next Majority Leader" at a time when the Stu Rothenberg Report said Democrats had little chance of regaining the Senate. Can you say, "illegal campaign contribution", becuase WP entries on Congress people do have a discernable monetary value. RobS 14:25, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Speaking of vicious smears

Has anyone seen this? A total disgrace.--Conservateur 10:21, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure why you say it is a "vicious smear" as bad as Wikipedia's entry about Thad Cochran. If your complaint is genuine, then please improve Pat Robertson. The page is not protected.--Aschlafly 10:25, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
I've disliked the Robertson article for a long time, because all it is is quotes, most likely out of context, just to make him look bad. But what other information is there about him worthy of an encyclopedia? bd Talk 13:34, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
Here's some references The 700 Club Staff Bio -- Pat Robertson and Pat's Web Site Crocoite Talk 13:57, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
Well, I removed the smear quotes from Pat Robertson but some liberal immediately reverted them. I give up.--Conservateur 13:45, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

It's not a Cochran-type smear if the quotes are genuine. I have mentioned a few times in the past that I think that the Robertson quotes take up way too much of the article and make him look bad, but it's not disinformation per se. DanH 14:05, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

I think Conservateur is being less than straightforward here, and he can take that as a warning that his account will be blocked if I see similar examples in his other edits.
Speaking generally, I observe that while liberals delight in deceit, conservatives outgrew that amusement at age 6 and we've moved on to more productive activities.--Aschlafly 14:12, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
Do you honestly think the quotes in the article were put there for any other reason than to make Robertson look like a modern-day Cotton Mather? I can't believe I'm even having to explain this. And where did I ever say it was as bad as WP's Cochran smear? That was your assumption. What I'm saying is that the Robertson quotes are clearly taken out of context in order to try to smear the man.--Conservateur 15:55, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Boston Globe article

So, um, where exactly is the review of the Pat Robertson article in that article? There is a brief mention of his name at the beginning but it says nothing of the article on him. --Colest 09:03, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Oh, good grief. I assume that whomever put this on the main page is making some kind of subtly ironic joke... or has failed to perform due diligence and actually read the article. It is not a news item or an editorial, or even an op-ed. It's by columnist Alex Beam, a sort of humorist who takes an acerbic, opinionated view and is often ironic. In this case, however, what he says about Conservapedia is perfectly clear:
  • "...Conservapedia, the online encyclopedia for right-leaning wing nuts..."
  • "Andrew Schlafly...has created 'an encyclopedia you can trust.' And you can trust them, to give you some pretty loopy definitions."
  • "its... homosexuality entries ... do not betoken a broad-minded view of men and women at ease with their sexual identities... Conservapedia quotes the author of 'A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality' to the effect that 'there is no such thing as a homosexual, but only heterosexuals that have a homosexual problem.' Color me a heterosexual who has a Conservapedia problem."
The only thing he has to say that isn't explicitly an attack on Conservapedia is that he calls Conservapedia an instance of "modern Americans' penchant for seeking out congenial realities, known as 'cocooning,'" which he says both conservatives and liberals are prone to. "But until Leftopedia comes along... I have only Conservapedia to kick around."
If this deserves main-page mention, the Globe article should be described somewhat accurately.
"Conservapedia continues to attract mainstream press attention. Read how it gets under the skin of Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam."

Dpbsmith 10:31, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you Dpbsmith and the change is made. Excellent recap of the article and an appropriate suggestion. Crocoite Talk 11:02, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Well, the long and short of it is, this article is going to attract a lot of publicity to CP. Prepare to repel boarders. Maestro 10:57, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

During this spring in Europe there has been much publicity for Conservapedia also in main papers. Articles are describing CP which is seen first only as joke, but it is mentioned not to be a joke or a parody. Articles are noting that there are really living people who have written it seriously. (some net articles collected on my talk) --Aulis Eskola 12:01, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Liberals over-rely on mockery, and have done as long ago as their mockery of Jesus Christ. It's easy to try to mock what one does not understand. The extent to which liberals are so senselessly self-amused is itself amusing to watch. In many cases, the liberals did not even realize that what they were mocking (e.g., Northwest Octopus entry) was a parody of themselves.--Aschlafly 12:15, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
There is no idea to put such kind of joke articles in main namespace if this site is trying to be an encyclopedia. --Aulis Eskola 13:12, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
Liberals are obviously not familiar with Proverbs 9:12...
"If you are wise, your wisdom will reward you;
if you are a mocker, you alone will suffer."
--Conservateur 16:48, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

I was surprised that Conservapedia placed the link to Beam’s article on its main page. Oh well. It just proves that there is much to mock at this site. --McIntyre 12:58, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Bottom line, it does not really criticize us. It alleges Pat Robertson & the 700 wrote evertything, but apparently the author never read our entry on Robertson (written by vandals). Then it praises for our entry on Ann Coulter, again written by vandals. Talking about this only serves their purpose, diverts us from our work, and is just really another larger disruption. RobS 13:00, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
Guys just ignore the media. Thats the trick you ignore them then they wont have anything to write about because we didn'y answer them or take any comments. Just ignore them and do what we do best and thats build this place to greatness.--Will N. 14:22, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
(Replying to RobS) No, the article does criticise Conservapedia, and it does not allege that Pat Robertson and the 700 wrote everything. It says that it looks like they wrote everything, as in the way they are written is like they would write them, but it doesn't actually claim that Robertson et. al. did. Philip J. Rayment 22:04, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

RobS, you need to take a course in reading comprehension. The Boston Globe article was very critical of Conservapedia, and did a good job of making this site look stupid. On the up side, the article may drive some people to view Conservapedia, if not for information, but in the hope of some amusement. --McIntyre 09:41, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

  • McIntyre, you need a course in civility. All publicity is good publicity. Do you make most of your living working and minipulating the media? I do. The repsonse was spot-on. If you think this place a joke, just please post on my talk page saying so, and I can help you out.--Sysop-TK /MyTalk 10:02, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
He didn't indicate that he thought the site was a joke. Saying that some people might come here for amusement is offering an opinion on their motives, not on whether this site is a place for amusement. Hopefully, those who come here for amusement might end up changing their mind. Philip J. Rayment 10:32, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Today in History

Hey we need to update the colum Today in History.--Will N. 11:03, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

I've just done my bit. :-) Philip J. Rayment 11:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
Also this is the anniversiy of D-Day.--Will N. 13:03, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

I added a few things. DanH 13:08, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Building web traffic - most popular searches

I think in order to build web traffic that the search engines are going to be key. Therefore, it makes sense to create articles which have the most search engine queries as long as they are serious subjects and not merely "pop topics" (Britney Spears).

Here are some tools that will be helpful:

Most popular searches:

What people search for:

Google Keyword Tool:

Using the Google Keyword Tool above I was able to add 10 articles that need to be created to the articles that need to be created list that were related to the search engine keyword "Conservative".

Conservative 18:46, 6 June 2007 (EDT)


New York Times Buried The JFK Terror Plot Story Jaques 18:57, 6 June 2007 (EDT)