Talk:Main Page/archive29

Why does this matter? Ed Poor was unblocked as soon as someone noticed the block, and the blocking administrator hasn't logged on since then to explain what happened (check the Ed's block log versus the admin's contributions). Not only is it a bit petty, but for a site that aims to avoid gossip, this is certainly hypocritical.ConserveATory 19:17, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I've had my fifteen minutes of fame. Can we move on now? --Ed Poor ^Talk 19:26, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia never seems to apologize, and that is a reason to keep it up there. By the way, ConserveATory, ever notice how liberals don't seem to understand what the term gossip means?--Aschlafly 19:42, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Dalton McGuintyisms aside, I was unaware of such a fact- I'm sure some reliable third party publications could convince me otherwise. Since you haven't informed readers that the blocking administrator hasn't logged on, it may technically just be misinformation.ConserveATory 20:39, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Just a comment. I am no fan of Wikipedia, and enjoy this site enough to make it my homepage. So, I have noticed that most of Wikipedia's errors and missteps are quickly reported in the news items. It seems unnecessary to waste the space bashing Wikipedia. Doesn't your good quality speak for itself so you do not need to put 'the other guys' down?--Historymom 19:28, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

We believe in accountability, and often we report on internet news not easy to find elsewhere. As the amoral or even immoral Wikipedia predictably declines, we will report on that periodically. After all, many of us here were early contributors to Wikipedia, and it remains an important part of the internet, so its intellectual and moral decline is newsworthy here.--Aschlafly 20:03, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

The reporting here about Wikipedia's errors is not out of glee, but out of frustration. Wikipedia makes it supremely difficult to correct errors. It's easy for a determined person or group of people to undo corrections; and there's a rule against any one person "edit warring" to get a correction back in. The victory goes not to the person who has the truth on his side, but to the person who "games the system" with greater finesse. --Ed Poor ^Talk 17:15, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Judge Rejects State Internet Porn Law - Activist judges block a law intended to protect children from harmful pornography. Can someone put this on the front page?--JonathanDrain 20:43, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Great catch, and I've passed it on, but I'd rather not post stories about pornography on our front page unless there is a particularly compelling reason to do so. This one was a close call and I almost posted it, but decided against it. Thanks.--Aschlafly 21:13, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

P.S. Please alert us to future stories like this here on the talk page. Thanks.--Aschlafly 21:21, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Re Wikipedia and suppression of article North American Union. They really didn't; they subsumed the material under INDEPENDENT TASK FORCE ON NORTH AMERICA. Check for yourself. Tapping into NORTH AMERICAN UNION gets you to that page.Alloco1 00:04, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

• Speak English! What in the world does all that mean? "INDEPENDENT TASK FORCE ON NORTH AMERICA" sounds like just another name for suppression. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 00:18, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Democrats criticize Rush Limbaugh for the phrases phony soldiers and fake soldier during broadcast with caller.

Limbaugh also said:

• Jesse MacBeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse MacBeth was in the Army, folks, briefly. Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse MacBeth isn't an Army Ranger, never was. He isn't a corporal, never was. He never won the Purple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen. [1]

If I have time, I'll write more about this. Or someone can take the ball and run with it. Might make a good main page item. --Ed Poor ^Talk 07:14, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Nothing in that article mentioned that the scientists were atheists or materialists. Or is that just taken for granted here? Maestro 13:10, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

I won't touch Maestro's comment, but there's another issue here: the source doesn't seem to support the news claim. The headline states that scientists are trying in vain when no explanation exists, but the source clearly states at the end of the article that the given evidence strongly supports the hypothesis that birds detect the earth's magnetic field. I suggest a different source or a headline that aligns with its cited material. ENelson 13:59, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Both of you seem to misunderstand a wiki. The headline links to several entries, not simply an external article that ENelson calls "the source." We are far more than a news referral service.

Also, note how liberals dispute something that is plainly true, like atheists and materialists searching for materialist explanations. No one seriously disputes that, but perhaps in doubting it one hopes to hide the fact. See liberal style.--Aschlafly 15:22, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

The fact that the headline links to several entries is not relevant to ENelson's point. Nobody is disputing that atheists and materialists are searching for materialist explanations. The only issue is that you are using as a reference an article that does not support your statement. Masterbratac 15:26, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Masterbratac is right. I never disputed that atheists and materialists search for materialistic explanations. What I dispute is the news article saying no explanation exists. Compounding this is the fact that the citation is an article that DOES provide an explanation.

I still strongly suggest that either an appropriate citation be found and linked, or the heading modified to coincide more with its source. ENelson 15:36, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Excellent point, Andy. One can only speculate why a source called ScienceDaily carried a news item recently entitled, Bush apologizes to Wiccan widow. Must be of interest to enlightened scientific researchers. Rob Smith 15:43, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Rob, one could go as far to say that Conservapedia shouldn't make comments about any scientific topics, as (speculatively) very few people here have an education in the sciences. I agree with you that hypocrisy is wrong and people should stay in their fields, though. ENelson 15:47, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

By "education in the sciences," are you referring to Wicca and other occult subjects scientific advancement has replaced God with? Rob Smith 15:54, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Science replaced God with Wicca? When did that happen? Maestro 16:17, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

To answer your question, no. I'm not even fully sure what Wicca is, so I will not comment on it. And why does science replace God, as you say? Why can it not expand on our understanding of the universe He set up?

Anyways, we're both way off topic. If you want to continue this, take it up in my talk page and I'll happily oblige. The issue here is that this news piece has a source that does not adequately reinforce its subject. Considering that at Conservapedia all things must be true and verifiable, I suggest that unless a proper source can be found, that news item either be removed or modified to coincide more with its source. ENelson 16:03, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Ok, so I'm a bird brain (no pun intended). The source says, "Thus, the only two parts of the central nervous system shown to be highly active during magnetic compass orientation are linked to each other." To quote the immortal Rumsfeld, "There are things that we know, there are things that we don't know, and there are things that we don't know we don't know." The article continues, "These findings strongly support the hypothesis..."; what hypothesis? So this "strong support" for something that is below a theory (hypo = below), a theory by definition is not a fact, is based upon visual stimuli, i.e. what is "shown." Is there the remotest possibility that other, unknown, unseen, unanticipated factors may be at work, before we elevate this grandiose research to the premature conclusion that it lends "strong support" to what is not even formulated yet as a hypo-theory to either prove, or disprove, that human observation is the deciding factor to establish truth, at least momentarily until someone else observes some new phenomenon, which then disproves all our previous understanding? Rob Smith 16:30, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm not entirely certain what that meant, but I think you mean that, because this is a "hypothesis," it should not be elevated to the level of a theory. This is true, but irrelevant. The fact is, the article states that there is strong support for this hypothesis. Whether it is a hypothesis or a theory, this contradicts what the main page here says - that atheists and materialists search for the answer in vain, because the answer does not exist. The article does not say anything about atheists and materialists - it's a reasonable assumption, but not something the article says. The article does not say that there is no answer to this. On the contrary, is states that there is strong support for a potential answer. Either the headline or the article needs to be changed. Please be aware that, if you change the reference to something that actually does support the headline, I will gladly drop this. Masterbratac 18:11, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Right, Rob, the "Science" news article is a mixture of circular reasoning and unsupported conclusions, typical for that liberal rag. The "reasoning" in the article is, of course, good enough for atheists and materialists who assume that there must be a material explanation. For the rest of us who, like Isaac Newton, look beyond materialism, the Science article is referenced for only one purpose: to demonstrate that atheists and materialists are still searching in vain for their material explanation. Do tell us, please, if anyone really thinks magnetism guides butterfly migration also. Don't duck that one.--Aschlafly 18:16, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

If that's why this article is being used, the headline should really be reworded. As it stands, it appears that the article is being used to support the lack of an explanation for bird migration, not the fact that the search for an explanation has not revealed any definitive answers. Masterbratac 18:21, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Masterbratac, your discomfort is with the lack of a material explanation for migration, not our headline. Note how you did duck the question of whether you really think that magnetism guides butterfly migration.

I can't resolve your discomfort with the failure of materialism to explain migration. I urge you to let go of your insistence on materialism. The headline is appropriate and the "Science" article, which has the title of a question ("Do Migratory Birds 'See' The Magnetic Field?"), is just one of several sources used to support our headline. I'll add this issue to our Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness, so our discussion has not been wasted.--Aschlafly 18:40, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

My discomfort is not with the lack of material explanation, nor is it with the headline itself. My discomfort is with the way the headline seems to read. As it stands, the headline appears to state that this article shows that there is no materialistic explanation for migration. Whether I have a problem with this concept is irrelevant. The article does not support the headline as it is written now. Personally, I think that it might work better if the link were on the word "search," but that's just my opinion. I freely admit that I am not an expert in journalism, nor in any other relevant field. Feel free to ignore this. I'll probably continue to object; from this point forward, however, I will object to this, at least, silently (Unless something really ridiculous happens).

As for the butterflies, I have not the slightest idea what guides their migration. I have no problem with believing that it is magnetism, nor with believing that it is based on the sun, the moon, God as presented in the Bible, Zeus, Thor, some all-powerful butterfly deity, or anything else - as long as there is some evidence for it. However, this is irrelevant; the article is not about butterflies. Masterbratac 19:05, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Masterbratac, I obviously have not ignored your criticism, but I do urge you to accept the strong likelihood that there is no material explanation for homing and migration. I urge you to accept that not for my good, but for yours. Once you reject materialism, as Isaac Newton did with action-at-a-distance, as Adam Smith did with the invisible hand, as Louis Pasteur and Bernhard Riemann did for their inspiration, the truth shall set you free. In the past some people, including strangers, urged me to open my mind beyond what I learned in school and I'm glad I did. I hope you do too.--Aschlafly 19:53, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

• strong support for a potential answer

• It doesn't even say this. It says there is strong support (based upon human observation) for an unformulated sub-theory which cannot, by definition, be a fact (A theory, by definition, is not a fact; if it were a fact, it would not be a theory. And the reponse, "theories are unproven facts," is so ludicrous on its face, please consider it first before following this logical fallacy). Rob Smith 18:46, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

The Merriam-Webster definition of "theory" (at least, the one relevant here) is "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena."[2] There is no reason that a theory cannot be true. Also, if the statement that "theories are unproven facts" is a logical fallacy, which fallacy is it? Masterbratac 18:56, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

• If scientists, or "atheists" and "materialists" as you call them, gave up searching for material explanations and chose to explain everything through religion we would never achieve another technological breakthrough. Image if they had given up, say, 70-80 years ago. We would not have computers. Without computers we surely would not have the Internet, and without the Internet we wouldn't have sites like Conservapedia. Are you sure you want them to give up? --BillOhannity 19:33, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, you find solace in religious enlightenment. That's perfectly fine. I enjoy investigating life. You have every right to think the way you do, and so do I. But this is not what's at stake here. Conservapedia entries must be "true and verifiable", and the news item is not. It says there is no material explanation, nor will there be one. The article that supposedly backs this up says that peope are in the process of formulating an explanation for said phenomenon. They just don't match up! ENelson 20:00, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

No, ENelson, you misstate my views and what's on the main page. Atheists waste my taxpayer money searching in vain for a material answer that they assume must exist due to their lack of faith. This isn't a matter of "solace"; this is factual.--Aschlafly 20:03, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Mr. schlafly, (call me Mr. Nelson, or Ed if you like) are you suggesting that research into nuclear physics was a waste of taxpayer money? If you do, then you'd probably be a subject of either German or Russian dictatorship. What about research into thermodynamics? Or electromagnetism? Nobody had any idea what these things were until someone thought "why does this happen?" If you'd rather live purely on faith alone and reject all technology as arcane work of the faithless, then you best cancel your ISP account and go live like the Amish, because right now you're using the fruit of your opponents' labour. America is a world leader in scientific research, and try as some might, that isn't about to change. ENelson 20:09, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for restating my point above Ed. As for the issue of wasting your tax dollars Mr. schlafly, the study discussed in this particular article is taking place in Oldenburg, Germany. On top of that, it makes no mention of any government funding, be it the German government or the American government. If your tax dollars are really the reason that this research upsets you so much then hopefully you can rest a little easier tonight. --BillOhannity 20:27, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

• After this long diversion in to the politics of science, I still wonder where the quoted article states that the researchers search in vain? Can someone point to paragraph and line number? The front-page gives the impression that the editor who put it there either didn't read the quoted article, or didn't understand it. Order 21:29, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
• Assuming the unproven suggestion that the homing capabilities cannot be explained by material science, how do non-materialist approaches explain the homing capabilities of birds? Order 21:25, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

<--

• There is no reason that a theory cannot be true.

• Possibly; but this requires assumption.

• research into nuclear physics was a waste of taxpayer money?

• I would precisely say it was. And for all this glorious research, look at all the problems it brought. And more specifically, it was awfully cute the way the KGB got the U.S. taxpayer to pay for it, only to carry on an insane nuclear arms race at what cost for half a century. We don't have to worry about godless commies nuking us anymore, we progressed to non-state jihadists nobody can even locate to negotiate with, if it were possible.

Thank you very much, to both the rational scientists and the commie scum who made it all possible. (Oh, you don't believe the KGB did it? read J. Robert Oppenheimer's bio. Yes indeed the Rosenberg's were scapegoats--Oppenheimer's the guy who should've fried in the chair). Rob Smith 21:26, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

How about computer technology Rob? Or medical technology? Or any of the countless other technologies we all use everyday? --BillOhannity 21:31, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

How about the wheel? Or the discovery of fire? Where any of these invented or discovered by people whose primary aim was, not the betterment of the human condition, but to prove they were smarter than God? Rob Smith 12:56, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Well I'm not sure that anyone can know their motives since the wheel and fire were both discovered/invented long before records were kept, and also before organized religion came about. I'm also not entirely sure what your point is. Are you saying that invention and ingenuity are only ok when someone is trying to prove that they are smarter than god? It does not really matter what the person's motive was, the point is that in order to actually come up with the discovery the person would have to conduct research. Also, you didn't answer my question. Your point seems to be that scientists and researchers shouldn't "waste their time" trying to come up with physical explanations for everything. If this is your opinion, would you have had the scientists and researchers of previous generations stop their research before the modern technologies used today were developed? I must say that I expect your answer will be no, considering that you are using a computer to express your opinion on the internet. If I have missed point or misunderstood your question please let me know.--BillOhannity 17:00, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Suggestion for the news section:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/dutch-petition.html

It's rather frightening to see than anybody can be corrupt once they're at the top. ENelson 15:41, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

The link references the article "BBC Documentaries Censored by Dutch Evangelicals". Looks like a good article for Wikipedia, not here. --Crocoite 17:05, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Why not? Is the news area purely for slashing at Liberals? Isn't it a form of censorship to block out all criticisms but greatly encourage others?? I thought that was what you hated about the mainstream media. Oh well, guess it's always easier to rationalize censorship when you're not the side suffering it. ENelson 19:40, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

This isn't censorship. Calling it censorship is another example of deceit and liberal style. This is simply not repeating factually incorrect information. First the liberals want to promote evolution on their own channels like the BBC and now they are complaining when more sensible people don't parrot them. CalebRookwood 19:50, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

What? Of course it's censorship. They refuse to air things unless they meet their exacting specifications. That is exactly the problem most conservapedians have with the liberal media. It is hypocritical to suggest that now that Conservative media outlets do it, it's suddenly OK. ENelson 19:57, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

If you type Conservapedia into Google you get over 600,000 Google hits. I think that is considerably more than a few months ago. Can anyone better inform me on this matter in regards to how many you would get in the past? By the way, if you type in "Conservapedia" and "atheism" into Google you get 309,000 Google hits.  :) Conservative 00:02, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Wow! Note also that if you type in "liberal" in Google, we're number 2 ... and number 1 in accuracy.--Aschlafly 00:06, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Andy, I have just one question: How are you so sure that these Google hits aren't from people laughing at this site? --_transResident Transfan^form! 11:05, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

...when I said that you could censor my talk page post, I didn't really mean "revert the entire thing", but okay, I got the message. --Jenkins 09:56, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

See this ridiculous story. SkipJohnson 14:08, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Ten bucks says that this "person", after all is said and done, after he gets a home and a guardian, will just do a little monkeying around as any chimp would. And when he gets mad, he'll rip the arms off the nearest human being, which just might be the idiot who thinks he should be declared a human in a courtroom. It's another example of who's just plain nuts in the world. Karajou 16:49, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

I cringe at the VERY misleading/confusing quote at the end of that entry. The "You have to like Mike" comment comes from Newt Gingrich and should either be properly attributed or left out of a news summary that focuses on Clinton. --Jenkins 14:35, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

You also might want to add Newt Gingrich and the Value Voters to the list of Huckabee supporters :). Just because Bill Clinton says "you just got to like Mike" does not put them anywhere near each other on issues. Seeing that Clinton voted against a partial birth abortion ban twice; I'm sure he hated Huckabee's pro-life and conservative legislation that he passed as govenor.

Just because Huckabee is a likable candidate doesn't mean he agrees with everyone who likes him. I'm encouraged by Clinton's comments because it shows that a true conservative, that does not step down from his beliefs, can come across as a likable guy; even to people who are trying to destroy all that he stands for. As Huckabee has said, Clinton might have turned out better if he had lived in Hope, Arkansas (hometown of both Huck and Clinton) longer.--Tash 14:44, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the correcting update :) --Jenkins 15:18, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Isn't it time for a new article of the month:)?--Tash 17:08, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Thaddeus McCotter offers a beautiful comparison of the Republicans vs. Democrats:

At its core, then, the S-CHIP debate provides the following stark contrasts between the two parties' guiding principles:

1. Republicans believe Americans are sovereign citizens. Democrats believe Americans are hapless victims.
2. Republicans believe the federal government must serve sovereign Americans. Democrats believe Americans must serve a sovereign federal government.
3. Republicans believe in reducing people's taxes. Democrats believe in raising people's taxes.
4. Republicans believe social programs exist to make poor people self-reliant. Democrats believe social programs exist to make all people state dependents.
5. Republicans want poor people to escape the welfare state. Democrats want all people inside the welfare state.
6. Republicans believe America needs a fiscally sound social safety net that temporarily helps poor people and respects taxpayers. Democrats believe America needs a big government trampoline that permanently traps poor people and impoverishes taxpayers.
7. Republicans believe a social program's success is measured by how many people have escaped from it. Democrats believe a social program's success is measured by how many people have been added to it.
8. Republicans believe government should not use taxpayers' money to unfairly compete against taxpaying businesses. Democrats believe government should use taxpayers' money to unfairly compete against taxpaying businesses.
9. Republicans believe in free enterprise and our citizenry. Democrats believe in the welfare state and its bureaucracy.

Enjoy. --Crocoite 19:26, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

According to NPR, the $80,000 income was no longer in the bill he struck down, and that Bush's proposed increase wouldn't even cover the kids currently covered. Food for thought. Maestro 14:10, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

• Maestro, I love the way you select one of the least credible sources in the World, "NPR"! You are invited to make positive contributions here, instead of endlessly debating, by adding to or creating new articles and actively help build one of the fastest growing educational sites on the Net! --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 15:59, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

And yet according to the CP article, NPR is 'the most trusted name in news'.Maestro 00:20, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

• Such Deceit! The article mentions some poll results! Reading the article, it shows NPR to be within the statistical margin for error, so essentially even with the Wall Street Journal. I am certain you know that all poll results are skewed to give the answers a client is wanting, right? --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 00:31, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Andy:

Your talk page might have been a more natural place for this, but there is already an ongoing discussion of the topic on Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia. However, that is locked, so I'm putting it here.

It was recently brought to my attention, by someone directing me to a Wiki that is rational, that the statements you have made, both on the Conservapedia:Critical Thinking in Math article page, and in your reply to me on the talk page, are even more bizarre than I had thought. Since then, I have been looking around at the various Conservapedia pages, and quite a number of mathematical questions have arisen:

• From your comments in the "Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" page ("bias or error" and "Mathematics", both Archived), as well as your inclusion of this as a topic for the course, you seem to attach peculiarly intense significance to the concept of "elementary proof". While this term does exist as a somewhat interesting question in number theory (with a very specialized meaning of freedom from complex analysis), you seem to attach extraordinary significance to it, as though it is important throughout mathematics. While some people define it, within algebraic geometry, as freedom from cohomology, its meaning in general seems to be nothing more than its normal, intuitive, plain English, meaning of "simple", "straightforward", and "using as little of sophisticated techniques as possible". Of course, what makes a proof "brief" or "simple" is often at odds with what makes it "free of more sophisticated techniques". For example, the proof of the interval of convergence of the power series for the arctangent function is much simpler and more concise if one knows complex analysis. What makes a proof "economical" and what makes it "elementary" are often at odds with each other. In view of this, and that the term "elementary proof" meaning freedom from complex analysis is really not used outside of number theory, do you really believe that the term is important, and has this meaning, in Measure Theory? Real Analysis? Ergodic Theory? Spectral Theory? Multilinear Algebra? Category Theory? etc.

The entry elementary proof is not locked. If you think you can improve it, then go ahead and try. But please don't be as wordy as you were above.--Aschlafly 19:35, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

• Furthermore, in your version of the elementary proof article [3], you said that elementary proofs do not "[rely] on manipulation of the imaginary square root of (-1)", and that they do not rely on the "[uniqueness of the] square root of (-1) that will yield consistent results". Is that really what you mean by Complex Analysis? Is the problem of uniqueness of the imaginary unit really the problem with non-elementary proofs? Does non-uniqueness actually make proofs fail? Can you cite such a proof?

See my comment above.--Aschlafly 19:35, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

• There has been much discussion of who did what, and when, and why, on the "elementary proof" articles, both here and at Wikipedia. Yet I note that the CP article has contained, since April 13 of this year, the additional statement that "Elementary proofs cannot be broken down into smaller proofs of the same proposition.". Since you have worked on the article, have discussed it months ago, were discussing it as recently as 23:56 on September 23, and personally made a redirect to it at 17:56 on September 26, you must be well aware of its content, and willing to endorse same. Is "not able to be broken down" the same as "not using complex numbers"? Can you cite any proof of Pythagoras' theorem that can't be broken down in this way? Any proof of any theorem at all?

See my comment above.--Aschlafly 19:35, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

• You claimed, at Talk:Richard Dawkins#Christian scientists that some mathematicians disliked Paul Erdos's emphasis on elementary proofs. As you know, the number of mathematicians who coauthored papers with Erdos was astounding, even leading to the concept of the "Erdos number", so he doesn't sound like someone who was ostracized by the mathematics community. Can you cite some published criticism of his emphasis on elementary proofs? Can you point to any textbooks deprecating elementary proofs?

Some mathematicians viewed Paul Erdos as on the fringe. Liberals at Wikipedia resisted even having an entry on elementary proof. No one has followed in Paul Erdos's footsteps, and most college math students learn nothing about his work and approach. Enough said.--Aschlafly 19:35, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

• You said in "Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia#Bias or Error.3F" (archived), that "the concept of elementary proof ... was was widely taught to top mathematics students at least until 25 years ago. Can you cite textbooks or papers or class curricula from that era that discuss this? (Misreadings of essays by G. H. Hardy don't count as textbooks.) Can you cite more modern equivalent textbooks that deprecate it?

I'm obviously criticizing the omission, not a deprecation.--Aschlafly 19:35, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

This is all that I have time for now. Why are you filling the Main page with these highly specific math questions? Put any remaining questions you have on the appropriate talk pages for easier reference. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 19:35, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

• The CP article on the Continuum hypothesis contains a quote, put in by you, from a talk for laypeople, on a radio program, that states the "equivalence" of the Axiom of Choice and the Continuum Hypothesis. The page mentions the radio program, but gives no further textual citation. Do you actually believe that the Axiom of Choice and the Continuum Hypothesis are equivalent?

• You claimed in your statement to me at Conservapedia talk:Critical Thinking in Math that "Proof by contradiction was disfavored, for obvious reasons, by many mathematicians as recently as 30 years ago." What were these obvious reasons? Can you cite textbooks or papers from that era that indicated this disfavor? Can you explain why proof by contradiction (also known as "reductio ad absurdum") was nevertheless used by such mathematicians as Euclid and Archimedes? I challenged you on September 13 to cite books on this subject, and you have not done so.

• You seem to claim, in the "Critical Thinking in Math" page, that the Axiom of Choice was used in Andrew Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. Do you stand by this claim? You put it in yourself here, citing what turns out to be someone's personal blog. That blog, in turn, speculates on, but does not endorse, a self-published paper by a a retired H-P Laboratories employee. That paper, in turn, cites a private email from another person. Attempts to track that person down were inconclusive, but he may be a professor of Computer Engineering in Ireland. This "citation" is hardly satisfying. In fact, it could be considered internet gossip. Can you give a more authoritative source for this claim? How about citing a person clearly in a position to know about this issue? How about citing the proof itself, pointing out where that Axiom of Choice is used?

• Furthermore, the current page for Fermat's Last Theorem Fermat's Last Theorem contains a statement, put in by you on August 15, that there is criticism of the correctness of Wiles' proof on the internet. It cites another personal web site. Have you looked around at that site? Have you seen the "proof" of the Twin Primes Conjecture and Goldbach's Conjecture [4]? That, and related pages, are transparently bogus and utterly laughable. Didn't this set off your baloney detector? Do you actually believe that you have a proof of Goldbach's Conjecture and the Twin Primes Conjecture? If so, that's quite newsworthy. You should post it on the front page and make Conservapedia famous.

Are these things the standard of veracity, trustworthiness, and verifiability that you uphold for Conservapedia? Are these things appropriate for an encyclopedia that prides itself on not being the "National Enquirer of the internet"?

These questions cast serious doubt on your ability to hold a serious class on "Critical Thinking in Math". Furthermore, no lectures have yet appeared. When will you be posting lectures? Will they address the items in the presently proposed curriculum? When will the class take place?

Robert 20:38, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

• Robert, nothing on that page is locked! I invite you to make positive and substantial edits here at CP, rather than engaging in endless chatter. It is the fastest growing educational site on the Net! --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 16:16, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Actually, given that the article is the syllabus for a course that Andy (I assume) intends to teach, it would probably be inappropriate for him to just edit the page. Masterbratac 16:22, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

• Actually, Masterbratac, Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia is not now, nor has it been locked as the user above stated. So what in the world are you talking about? --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 20:30, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

I was talking about Conservapedia:Critical_Thinking_in_Math, which a few of Robert's points referenced. Masterbratac 21:53, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

• Oh, see I was confused then, because your post in this section says:

"Your talk page might have been a more natural place for this, but there is already an ongoing discussion of the topic on Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia. However, that is locked, so I'm putting it here."

--şŷŝôρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 00:36, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

No, you were not confused. I was indeed referring to Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia. I got an error when I tried to edit it. I do not know why. It may have been due to some silly "overnight editing" policy, or it may have been some transient overzealousness on the part of a sysop, or it may have been a software bug. But it did say that it was locked. Robert 12:30, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Uh, the American flag in the image for the Article of the Month is displayed contrary to proper flag etiquette. The blue field should be on the upper left to the observer. My hunch, too, is that the flag itself should be on the left, but I'm not going to swear to that...--PeteVan 15:38, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

• Sorry, PeteVan, but the image depicted came about one hundred years before such etiquette was even created. Even though some ignorant people might think retroactive application would be appropriate, they would be wrong, according to U.S. Flag etiquette. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 16:03, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

...And ignorance is a terrible thing, to be sure. Karajou says, in his notes for the image, "This image was originally created by myself, (and)...is based on a design on the program cover for the Battle of Gettysburg soldiers reunion, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, 1938." Said design would no doubt be utterly similar to the one seen here: http://www.usmint.gov/historianscorner/images/battleGettyHalf1936_rev.jpg

Note that the flag is displayed as I suggested it should be. Apparently, at some point in the creation process, the image got flipped around, and all that needs to be done is for it to be un-flipped (or re-flipped).

• Please Note: Nothing here is intended as a criticism of Karajou's work. His American Civil War pages here on Conservapedia are excellent, and I enjoy reading them. --PeteVan 20:05, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

• So your criticism was not for Karajou, even though you go on to say he created the image, and you posted it was wrong. Perhaps your criticism is intended for me? Because I don't have your large amount of idle time to go reading obscure edit notes on images? Are you disputing my information about flag etiquette and old images? I am having trouble grasping the point here. If you have the talent to fix the image, please do so. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 22:19, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

So your criticism was not for Karajou, even though you go on to say he created the image, and you posted it was wrong.

• Think of it as an observation, like pointing out a typo--Doesn't mean the whole thing is invalid, just that the creator made a simple and perfectly understandable error. If it weren't on the Main Page as the featured article, I doubt I would have bothered mentioning it.

I don't have your large amount of idle time to go reading obscure edit notes on images?

• I understand that you're a busy fellow, which is why I dug up the obscure edit note and posted it for you.

Are you disputing my information about flag etiquette and old images?

• I'm disputing that the incorrect image is an old one (the actual/original old one is correct, as seen in the link I posted for your convenience).

I am having trouble grasping the point here.

• So it would seem...

If you have the talent to fix the image, please do so

• I have the talent, certainly, as does probably anyone else here--it's a two-second image edit job (select Image / RotateCanvas / FlipImageHorizontally, done!). What I don't have, as you perfectly well know, is the permission to, A) upload the image and, B) edit the Main Page.

I don't know why you're having such a snit about this, anyway--I'm just pointing out a simple error. Sheesh...--PeteVan 08:17, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

• Overly long, tit for tat arguments like you are continuing here for no reason, are against our CP Guidelines, PeteVan. Godspeed to you! --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 08:34, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

I know some people here despise public schools, but in the interests of fairness, as well as to give credit where credit is due: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0926/p01s03-ussc.html?s=hns --BillOhannity 17:08, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

"Elementary and middle-school students are making significant improvements in math skills, while their gains in reading are more modest, according to national test results."

• Amazing the gains that can be made when the criteria is dumbed down! Try again, O'Hannity, try again. I now am officially watching you. You are invited to make positive, substantial contributions to this, the fastest growing educational site on the Net! --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 17:12, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Actually, if you compare the level of material taught today, especially in math and science courses, with what was taught 10,20, or 30 years ago, it is not even close. Calculus, for example, was a topic generally reserved for college students, but is now commonly taught to second and third year high school students. But hey, at worst you could post it as news, along with an article that talks about how they dumb down the material. Oh, and what does "officially watching you" mean, should I close my blinds and lock my windows at night? :) --BillOhannity 17:31, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

• Actually no one is talking about 20 years ago. It is an admitted fact by the DOE, that questions have been dumbed down. So aside from possible trolling, what is your point? --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 22:21, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

I simply thought that some positive news would have been a good thing. If you don't want to use it then don't, but don't accuse me of trolling just because you disagree with me. But for the record, and in case you happened to be interested, my point about the material from 20+ years ago was that even though they have dumbed it down from what has been taught in recent years, they are still teaching higher level material now than was taught back then.--BillOhannity 00:15, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

• Sorry if you thought I was accusing you of trolling because I disagree with you, OHannity. I thought you were trolling because instead of answering my point, you veered off into that two decades ago stuff, without explaining it. I would be very interested in your citations about the level of material. Feel free to get at me on AIM, Exculpatory1, or email me the information. I promise to look at it all with an open mind. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 00:21, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Apologies for not being clearer, at the time I wrote it it sounded clearer in my head. As an example of what I was talking about, here's some data on AP calculus enrollment, found through a quick google search. [5]I think the first slide shows what I was saying pretty well. According to the graph, the number of high school students taking AP calculus quadrupled from 1980-81 to 2000-01. And according to the last slide, "The top 25% of students who 20 years ago would have taken Calculus 1 in college now take it and get credit for it while in high school ." I hope this helps to clarify what I was saying earlier. --BillOhannity 08:54, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

In the breaking news section you referred retiring New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici as a "liberal Republican." But I checked out Pete Domenici at ontheissues.com and he seems to be any from a liberal Republican. In fact, they rated him as a "hard core conservative." The following are his interest group ratings.

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record

Rated 0% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record

Rated 100% by the US COC, indicating a pro-business voting record

Rated 13% by CURE, indicating anti-rehabilitation crime votes.

Rated 27% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes.

Rated 0% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes

Rated 100% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record

Rated 90% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record.

Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record.

Rated 0% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record.

Rated 0% by SANE, indicating a pro-military voting record.

Rated 0% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-union voting record.

Rated 0% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record.

Rated 71% by NTU, indicating "Satisfactory" on tax votes.

On every issue, from abortion to immigration to Iraq, he seems to be very conservative, So why would you call Domenici a liberal Republican? Chippeterson

Interesting post. Thank you. I've never heard of him speaking at, or even attending, a conservative event. Voting records alone don't tell the full story, as the example of John McCain illustrates. Also, the 90% rating by CATO suggests he's more pro-big business than conservative. But more investigation is warranted. I wonder which presidential candidates he's backed, for example.--Aschlafly 00:21, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Chippeterson, ironically, I created an article on Pete Domenici this yesterday (had no idea he was going to retire). Since you seem to be knowledgeably regarding his senate career it would be great if you could help expand it. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, --Tash 00:31, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

You probably already know this... but, Wikipedia has the term "terrorist" on their "do not use list" because it has "negative connotations."[6] --Tash 16:40, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Tash, nowhere in that page does it say "do not use" the word. It's a "word to avoid" list, also saying that "freedom fighter" is a term to avoid. And since WP has the goal of being neutral, they can't go around calling people terrorists - neutrality comes at an insanely impersonal price. --Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ^θαλκ 14:41, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

• Either way, the policy to avoid calling murderers what they actually are, is what is insane. It is part of the liberal deceit there at WP, knowing that their mainly young and MSM conditioned users will substitute what most of the media use: "Suicide Bomber" instead of "Homicide Bomber", "Freedom Fighter" instead of "Terrorist" and "Insurgents" instead of "Invading Army". --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 15:56, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Hey TK, I've heard you raise this issue before. I'm not exactly sure I follow though. Could you explain why you refer to suicide bombers as homicide bombers, and why insurgents should be referred to as the invading army? Thanks for the clarification.--Xerxes 12:16, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

• The term "homicide bomber" refers to their primary motive. Using a term like "suicide bomber" tends to obscure the motive and focus on the consequence to themselves, not the consequences to other, innocent people.
• Furthermore, the word insurgent presupposes that those fighting against the Iraqi civil government are primarily native-born Iraqis. The overwhelming weight of the evidence shows that that is not the case. Foreigners from many different Muslim lands have poured into Iraq trying to knock out its current civil government--because terrorists know that a stable government ensuring popular support would give the lie to their habitual dismissal of democracy and cost them dearly in popular, and ultimately in monetary, support. With the result that they would no longer have enough safe havens.--TerryH^Talk 13:19, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

That's an interesting take on the use of the term homicide bomber, though I'm inclined to keep using the term suicide bomber. In essence, all bombers intend to kill others; they are, by their very definition, homicidal. What differentiates these bombers is that they take their own lives, and so we call them suicide bombers (knowing that homicide is an inherent consequence of the term "bomber"). As for insurgents, that's interesting and noteworthy. And I've read a lot of supporting evidence for your argument, as most of the insurgents come from Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria.--Xerxes 14:19, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

Which is why the word insurgent is not the proper word. They are not insurgents at all; they are foreign enemy spies, saboteurs, and agents provocateurs.--TerryH^Talk 14:35, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

Exactly. The allies during WWII were not insurgents, though the "free French" might have been considered such by the Germans. LikelySuspect 15:50, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

What exactly is the protocol when you want to edit an article that is locked? Denerick 19:20, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Raise the issue on the corresponding talk page. Often we unlock pages. Pages were only locked to combat vandalism. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 19:36, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

It's disingenuous to say, "ABC Puzzles Over 'Obsession' With U.S. Flag Pins". It was, of course, ABC's own advocacy journalist that started the whole media circus about Obama and the flag.

• An eagle-eyed reporter for the ABC affiliate in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, noticed something missing from Democratic presidential contender Sen. Barack Obama's, D-Ill., lapels. "You don't have the American flag pin on. Is that a fashion statement?" the reporter asked, at the end of a brief interview with Obama on Wednesday. "Those have been on politicians since Sept. 12, 2001." [7]

Can anyone think this wasn't orchestrated? --Ed Poor ^Talk 22:11, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

-raises hand- Aziraphale 12:27, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

Well, now, if you suppose that the ABC reporter was asking a non-scripted question, then you have to ask yourself why no reporter from a mainstream media organ has ever before asked such a to-the-point question of a liberal politician.--TerryH^Talk 13:23, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

The BBC edited a film trailer out of sequence to make it seem that the Queen stormed out of a photo shoot. Peter Fincher defended the edits (which had misrepresented the sequence of events), as "human error". [8]

Another example of liberal deceit which - when discovered - is simply excused as an "error [made by] young, untrained" television workers. The BBC claimed it had no idea it had been edited out of sequence.

I think they simply got caught. They wanted to embarrass the Queen, it when it came out that the story was a fake, they certainly weren't going to admit that it was deliberate. --Ed Poor ^Talk 22:25, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

• The flip side of that is when they want to skewer a Conservative, like asking President Clinton what he meant by saying "It depends on what the definition of the word 'is' is." that would be explained away as coming from a vast right-wing conspiracy never, not ever the possibility of it being a legitimate question! --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 03:36, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

This is just typical of the Liberal institution that is the British Broadcasting Corporation. It is known for employing a disproportionate number of homosexuals than other broadcasters, and its Liberal world view is well known. The real injustice about this is the British taxpayer has to pay these pseudo intellectuals to allow them to continue pushing the homosexual and Liberal agenda on all of us. Boru 11:40, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

• Right you are, Boru! The BBC is very much a part of the world-wide Homosexual Conspiracy, and daily presents all kinds of perversions as "normal" to the public. This is yet another ploy to "normalize" or relativize perversion. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 12:44, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Has the Burma protest spread through space to Seattle and through time to 1he 1990s? 'Cause the picture you have in the article is from a WTO protest in Seattle, not Rangoon. Trusworthy, indeed. BurmaShave 11:50, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

So, at some other place you have become so desperate, so bored that you create accounts to post about a picture? Muhahaha! Complain to the AP, part of the liberal MSM which is full of deceit, who included it with one of their dispatches! LOL! Godspeed to you TROLL!

• BurmaShave (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 15:50, 6 October 2007) (Earliest: 15:49, 6 October 2007) [2]
• PeterW (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 20:48, 4 October 2007) (Earliest: 19:55, 4 October 2007) [7]
• 74.15.225.xx -Bell Canada OrgID:LINX City: toronto StateProv: ON

--şŷŝôρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 16:02, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

Good work on unveiling this troll TK. We need more sysops like you round here. Boru 07:34, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

And in case anyone is wondering, I changed out the picture in question--something BurmaShave could have done, had he really been interested in making a positive contribution.--TerryH^Talk 22:30, 8 October 2007 (EDT)