Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:Iduan

2008-02-13T22:10:49Z

CarolineMilton: Lackey

{{User talk:Iduan/header}}
{| style="background:navy;text-align:center" width="100%"
|-
|style="background:white; border: 2px solid maroon; font-weight:bold; font-variant:small-caps"|<div class="horizontal">
*[[/Archive1|(August)]]
*[[/Archive2|(September)]]
*[[/Archive3|(October)]]
*[[/Archive4|(November)]]
*[[/Archive5|(December)]] 
*[[/Archive6|(January)]]
*[[/Archive7|(February)]]
</div>
|}

==NFL Templates==
Thanks for making those NFL Templates. I noticed some of them weren't being used in the articles, so I inserted them. I hope you continue making those templates. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 16:29, 8 February 2008 (EST)
:Ahh, thank you, yeah there was a question of what namespace they should go in for a while - but I think it's pretty much been resolved that the template namespace is adequate; and I certainly do plan on continuing soon! Thanks for putting them in consistently (I like the fact that you put it in its own section - that makes it a lot more clear and it also makes the pages nicer)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:31, 8 February 2008 (EST)
:: Those templates were originally in template namespace, and I suggested (months ago) that they shouldn't be. My reasons were as follows:
::* If they are only used on one page, there's little point in making templates for them.
::* Current policy is for templates to be locked, so if the roster changes (as I expect would happen reasonably often) then a sysop needs to change (or at least unlock) them.
::* If you don't want complex tables cluttering up the article, then they could be put into a sub-page and linked into the article as a template.
:: Now, if something has changed, such as them now being used on multiple pages, then that changes things, but otherwise I think they should not be in template namespace. I've not seen any other discussion on this, so if there is one somewhere, and particularly if it mentions factors that I haven't considered, could you point me to it please? I'm not laying this down as law, but I think it's pertinent to consider.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:58, 8 February 2008 (EST)
:::The only reason I said I thought they should be in the template namespace is because when I started transferring them to the mainspace others started telling me to stop ... I mean frankly I'm fine with you moving them, I'll even go back and fix all the links - because I actually believe that they should be in the mainspace (since they're only being used on one page) - but ultimately it's your call - just give me the heads up whatever you decide and I'll go in and change the links.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 10:20, 9 February 2008 (EST)
:::: Where were those "others [who] started telling [you] to stop" doing so? I'd like to see that conversation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:31, 11 February 2008 (EST)
:::::Re by email[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:55, 11 February 2008 (EST)
The comment was sometime back - another sysop ultimately stopped my attempt to move the tables from the templatespace to the mainspace for that very reason; but again if you delete those templates (or move them depending on what's necessary), then I can fix all the links--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:32, 11 February 2008 (EST)
: (Iduan advised by e-mail that the sysop is no longer with us, and the conversation was off Conservapedia). The only references to where templates should be that I can find are:
:* [[Help:Creating templates]] says that " templates are ''normally'' created in the "Template" namespace" (my emphasis). I would consider this to be the nearest thing to a directive on the matter, and it clearly allows for exceptions.
:* [[Help:How to create a new article#Templates]] says to "Precede the name with the word "template" and a colon." However, I consider this to be a "how to" rather than a "must do", so it doesn't count.
:* For what it's worth, [[User talk:Philip J. Rayment/Archive 4#Templates]] is a brief conversation I had some time back with Tash on this very subject.
: So I'm not making policy here, but I'm saying that there's apparently no policy preventing a template being in a sub-page, and whilst we might not like that idea normally, this seems to me a pretty clear case of it being appropriate.
: Please list the templates to be moved on [[User:Philip J. Rayment/Article renaming project|this page]], and you can also mark there when the links are fixed up.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 February 2008 (EST)

== Guard dog ==

What's the deal with that? --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 17:27, 8 February 2008 (EST)
:From what I've heard, and I'm not going to give away everything because I don't know what's final and what's not, it's an experimental program meant to more easily block vandals without the presence of admins - I was mistakenly blocked by it; but luckily Philip was there to explain.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:30, 8 February 2008 (EST)

::Sweet! That will be awesome...except then we don't get to block them ourselves. :/ [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 17:34, 8 February 2008 (EST)
:::: It won't pick up all types of vandalism, so there will still be plenty of opportunities for you to block editors! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:07, 8 February 2008 (EST)
:Ah...Okay...still it's really awesome(genius). :P [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 18:16, 8 February 2008 (EST)
:::Haha - it does sound pretty awesome - Philip = amazingness--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:36, 8 February 2008 (EST)
Very true![[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 17:37, 8 February 2008 (EST)
:Wow, sounds like a very useful system. --[[User:Liam Spencer|''' L.S. ''']] 17:44, 8 February 2008 (EST)

Looks pretty lame to me, but that may have just been the beta… --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 10:30, 9 February 2008 (EST)

: Sorry about that latest block. Rather than it needing a bit more fine tuning, in this case it appears to be a bug. I've turned it right off for now, until I can find and fix the bug. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 16:59, 9 February 2008 (EST)

::It's fine, don't worry about it. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 23:13, 9 February 2008 (EST)
:::Uhmm - well I think he was actually referring to my block (since I was the latest), but regardless - it's fine philip, lol--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:18, 9 February 2008 (EST)
:::: I ''was'' referring to you, Iduan. I've got no sympathy for MakeTomorrow who deliberately put it to the test. :-) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:26, 11 February 2008 (EST)

== [[Template:USState]] ==

Congratulations. Looks good.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:28, 9 February 2008 (EST)
:Thanks - I'm actually kind of nervous about the looks ... but I appreciate your support (oh and by the way - good thinking to use switch!)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:31, 9 February 2008 (EST)

== Singular/plural ==

Sorry if i missed this in the [[Conservapedia:Manual of Style|MOS]], but is there a preference to have singular or plural article names? I found the [[Optic lobes]] article (plural title) and created [[Optic lobe]] with a redirect to it. I wasn't sure if what I did was ok, or if the singular title should redirect to the plural title, or if both are acceptable.--[[User:Recorder|Recorder]] 11:49, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:I changed the redirect to the singular. Redirecting to the plural makes linking more difficult. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 14:24, 11 February 2008 (EST)
::Thanks.--[[User_talk:Recorder|Recorder]] 22:36, 11 February 2008 (EST)

== Good boy! ==

Thanks.
--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 23:06, 12 February 2008 (EST)

== Lackey ==

Next time Schlafly wants me blocked why don't you tell him to do it himself. Otherwise people might start thinking you are just his lackey. I wouldn't like to see that happen. --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 17:10, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Liberal denial

2008-02-13T22:07:50Z

CarolineMilton: /* Abortions and breast cancer */

One might say there's a such thing as conservative denial as well. One just might. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:13, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
:Surely the collapse of the Soviet Bloc due to its utter inability to manage a moder economy had a bigger impact that Reagan's words? Come on, this is facile at best. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 18:59, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:: See? You help illustrate our point!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:05, 24 January 2008 (EST)

::: Uh? What he's saying sounds far more logical. With the Soviet Union in pieces, there was no reason for them to be controlling half of Germany. Thus, Germany was reunited,and the wall dismantled. Claiming it was simply Reagen's command that did it is... Well, bloody stupid at best. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:14, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:::: Um, Reagan called on Gorbachev to tear the Berlin Wall down in 1987. The Wall fell in November 1989. When George HW Bush was President. And when the Soviet Union had realised that its hold on Eastern Europe was no longer possible, due to its economic collapse. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 19:18, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::::: Really??? You mean that the Wall didn't fall the very next day after Reagan's speech??? Thanks for demonstrating how this point is an example of [[liberal denial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:::::: ... Either you never learned proper English, or you really need to crack open a textbook, man. I strongly advise rewriting that so it doesn't look like you're accusing him of denying the Berlin Wall (I assume that's what you meant, and not the Pink Floyd movie) fell the day after Reagan's speech, as if that was what happened. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:20, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::::::: Quite correct, the wall did not fall the next day - or the next week, or the next month. It fell almost two and a half years later. You might as well credit President Kennedy for its fall by objecting to it in 1963 with his "Ich Bin Ein Berliner" speech. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:45, 1 February 2008 (EST)

I know this seems a silly, liberal question to ask...but where is all the reference material for these points? I thought this was an informative encyclopedia, not a tabloid. The truth shall set you free, after all.[[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 07:56 13 February 2008 (CST)

:Yes, the second Conservapedia commandment says "Always cite and give credit to your sources" - yet in this article there is hardly any source given for any of the asssertions. I find the examples in the article very informative, but I'd sure like to see some sources. I'd be very interested, for example, to see evidence of a liberal denial of the foundation of democracy in Protestant Christianity. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 09:53, 13 February 2008 (EST)

:: Wow, this entry really gets under the skin of [[liberal]]s, doesn't it? Citations are easy to find for each point and will be filled in. Instead of complaining with talk, talk, talk, how about filling in some citations yourself?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:05, 13 February 2008 (EST)

:::OK - sorry - good point - will do! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 10:07, 13 February 2008 (EST)

== Not Fair! ==

Come on people, this is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a summary of an [[Ann Coulter]] book [[User:DLerner|DLerner]]

:Oh come on, we all know democracy had nothing to do with the Greeks or the Iroquois. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:24, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:Aside from that, the entire concept is a catch-22: Anyone who denies any of those things is automatically a liberal, and if they deny that, well, that's only further proof they're liberals. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:26, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:Barikada, how do the Greeks fit here?
[[User:DLerner|DLerner]]

::The first democractic system resembling current democracy was implemented by the Greeks, if evil public schooling hasn't lied to me. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:30, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Abortions and breast cancer ==

Is it ''plainly true'' that abortion increases the likelihood of breast cancer?

My understanding is that such a claim is not supported by the medical literature. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:02, 1 February 2008 (EST)

: Your understanding is from [[liberal denial]]s. Yes, it is "plainly true" and undeniable, just as no one denies that childbirth reduces the incidence of breast cancer. Don't be fooled by liberal denials - the truth shall set you free.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:17, 1 February 2008 (EST)

::See? Catch-22. Do you have a reputable medical source for this, Mr. Schlafly? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:19, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::I was thinking of this: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage for example (although I note that it is a few years old). It concludes that there is no increase in risk. It seems to me that if the National Cancer Institute says there is no increase in the risk then it is a bit of a stretch to say that it is ''plainly true'' that the risk increase exists. Surely you can't really call something plainly true when it goes against wht the experts are saying. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:29, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::So, should we remove the abortion/breast cancer comment from the article? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 20:20, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::: Folks, go somewhere else to engage in [[liberal denial]]s. Nobody honest denies that childbirth reduces the risk of breast cancer, and thus having an abortion must increase the relative risk of the mother for breast cancer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:24, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::"Nobody honest denies that childbirth reduces the risk of breast cancer, and thus having an abortion must increase the relative risk of the mother for breast cancer." --Aschlafly Andy, that's like saying that eating too much sodium is bad for you (Something no honest person disagrees with), so therefore, eating absolutely no sodium is good for you(Something which would prove fatal). [[User:Absentismens|Absentismens]] 21:53, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: You statement has no logic. Nothing in my statement had anything to do with quantity or frequency, and your analogy has no basis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::My statement has as much logic as your's. This is good, therefore, this is bad (Or vice-versa). [[User:Absentismens|Absentismens]] 22:08, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Your analogy is nonsensical, and I'm not going to allow [[last wordism]] for such nonsense. No one sincerely and knowingly denies that childbirth reduces the risk of breast cancer, and of course the inverse is also true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:12, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::Last wordism? Really? That's the best you can do? [[User:Absentismens|Absentismens]] 22:14, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::You refuse to allow last wordism? Doesn't that mean that you're demanding the last word? And isn't that a trait of liberals, according to you? Doesn't that make you a closet liberal, Andy? Don't you see how the accusation of last wordism is in and of itself last wordism? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 11:01, 3 February 2008 (EST)

If childbirth decreases the risk of [[breast cancer]], than conversely [[abstinence]] increases the risk of breast cancer. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:46, 2 February 2008 (EST)

: Curses! That's exactly what I was going to say. Aschlafly's argument is utterly misguided. The woman concerned has the same cancer risk as if she was never pregnant. Is that an increased risk??? Do we now go and edit the [[abstinence]] page to say that abstinence increases the risk of cancer? [[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 17:20, 2 February 2008 (EST)

:: Nice try folks, but you just continue to prove the point about [[liberal denial]]. Abortion does plainly increase the risk of breast cancer. The more abortions now, the more cases of breast cancer in the future. Continue to deny it and thereby continue to demonstrate liberal denial. As to abstinence, for the unmarried it is the best way to avoid cervical and breast cancer and far better than cancer-causing birth control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 2 February 2008 (EST)

:::I'm sorry Andy. That was rude of me, and I apologize. But I am genuinely confused at this point. How is abstinence the "best way to avoid cervival and breast cancer"??? With respect to [[breast cancer]] risk, what is the difference between [[abortion|aborting]] several babies or simply remaining [[abstinence|abstinent]] throughout the same time period? Actually I do think that there is a reason here and I've missed it, at least it certainly seems like that. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:25, 3 February 2008 (EST)

:::: Feebasfactor, thanks for your apology. The decision that a pregnant mother faces is whether to allow childbirth or have an abortion. Abstinence is irrelevant to that decision. Having the abortion increases her risk of breast cancer. There's no denying it, much as [[liberal]]s try. Study our [[abortion]] entry if you really want further explanation. There's no need for me to repeat that entry here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:54, 3 February 2008 (EST)

::::: I have been watching this discussion with increasing dismay. Perhaps it would be easier, Andy, if I put it in story form for you.

::::: Let’s contemplate a story of two young women. We shall call one Mary and the other Jezebel. Now Mary has evil atheist parents and has been brought up in the absence of the Ten Commandments and without clear moral guidelines. Jezebel, on the other hand, is the daughter of committed Christians and knows right from wrong. In particular she practices abstinence and, accordingly is saving herself for her future husband. Mary, however, is wanton and, with no moral guidance, becomes pregnant to her slacker boyfriend Cory. Upon learning the news Cory immediately decamps for Canada. Due to her total lack of knowledge of God’s wishes, Mary has an abortion.

::::: Which of the two young women has a greater risk of getting breast cancer?

::::: P.S. Could you please unlock the Conservative Denial page. I’ve just had an idea about what to put in it. .--[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 16:53, 3 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: Not able to respond? Doesn't surprise me. The answer is neither.

:::::: Which leads me to an observation. See in the article how you accuse liberals of concealing, denying or censoring the way in which their ideology is pushed on unsuspecting others, particularly youngsters?

:::::: In light of this discussion I guess that's what you might call ironic, isn't it? --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 00:04, 8 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: Your hypothetical has no bearing with respect to a woman choosing between having an abortion or carrying the pregnancy to birth. Factually, by the way, the woman who has the abortion has greater risk of breast cancer. As to "conservative denial," just suggest it here. No need for a special page for just one not-yet-made suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:10, 8 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: On the contrary, my hypothetical was exactly on point. All you have been saying is, in effect, that child birth protects you against breast cancer. It was pointed out to you that the logical result of that was that abstinence causes breast cancer in the same way that abortion causes breast cancer (i.e. both prevent one from having a child). You seem determined to just ignore the logic. Fine. No doubt those reading this page will have no difficulty seeing that for what it is.

:::::::: You now appear to be making a new claim to the effect that the woman having the abortion has a higher risk than the abstinent woman.

:::::::: Do you have a '''reputable''' medical citation for that claim? --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 18:17, 10 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::: Caroline, the woman who chooses abortion over childbirth thereby increases her risk of breast cancer. She should be told that before taking that risk. Yes, our entry on [[abortion]] has many citations for this. It is not even seriously disputed, except to advance the pro-abortion agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:14, 10 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: OK then. Let's recap.

:::::::::: 1. You agree (although you seem utterly incapable of actually typing it) that in my example both Mary and Jezebel have the same breast cancer risk at the conclusion of the story.

:::::::::: 2. Any increased risk that you are claiming is related to whether or not a woman has a child rather than whether or not a woman has an abortion. A woman could, for example, have an abortion at the age of 20 and a child at the age of 21 and enjoy the very same risk level that she would have had if she had never had the abortion.

:::::::::: 3. Presumably you are of the view that any woman who is contemplating a life of abstinence should be warned of the breast cancer risk associated with that lifestyle.

:::::::::: I'm glad we seem to have sorted all of that out. --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 20:29, 10 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::::: The only thing you've "sorted" out is your clinging to [[liberal denial]]. [[Abortion]] increases the risk of breast cancer for more than one reason, and abstinence is irrelevant to that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:03, 13 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::: This is the second time recently that you have resorted to an ad hominem attack. I usually take it as a sign that my interlocutor has a weak argument. That certainly appears to be the case here.

:::::::::::: You have stated that, in your view, "abortion increases the risk of breast cancer ''for more than one reason''". Our discussion to date was largely premised on your somewhat bizzare interpretation of a connection between childbirth and breast cancer. You now seem to be changing that by referring to "more than one reason". What does that mean? Could you please identify those reasons. And, I ask again, do you have a '''reputable''' medical citation for your claims. I posted the URL of the National Cancer Institute on the subject. That page states, in part:

::::::::::::: ''"In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. Workshop participants reviewed existing population-based, clinical, and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer".''

:::::::::::: Do you have some higher or better authority? --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 17:07, 13 February 2008 (EST)

==Suggestion for Item 11==
That denying any above is intrinsic proof of this list's accuracy, unquestionability, and the need not to offer proof for anything. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 09:52, 4 February 2008 (EST)

==#9 Reversion?==
So, I'm wondering why my [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal_denial&diff=385690&oldid=385544 change] to #9 was reverted. Seems to me that liberals don't deny that the media is biased, they just deny that it is biased in ''their'' favor. I don't have a huge problem with the difference, I'm just wondering as to the rationale.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:16, 9 February 2008 (EST)

: It's a close call, but I agree with the reversion though I didn't do it. Liberals generally do deny media bias, period. They only make arguments of conservative bias in response to observations of liberal bias.

: Moreover, "liberal media bias" is a bit redundant, as virtually all of the media has a liberal bias, It's intrinsic to that profession, with the media's reliance on deception (to exaggerate and sell the news), constant travel (which is the antithesis of family life), dependence on obscenity and allusions to obscenity, its political correctness, and its obsession with racial imagery.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 9 February 2008 (EST)
::Fair enough...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:27, 10 February 2008 (EST)

== 'Hollywood Values' ==

The part about Wikipedia 'not having an entry on Hollywood Values', should really be removed, for the very simple reason that this phrase means different things to different people. Simply Googling the phrase gives many different meanings. To some, 'Hollywood values' means exactly what Conservapedia says it means. To others, it is summarised as, 'Save a tree, kill a baby. Ban cigarettes, legalize pot. Screw the Iraqi’s, save Darfur. McCarthy is bad, Castro is good. Bush is Hitler, Che is a hero. Save the planet, live in a mansion.' To still others, it means being very egotistical, not very well grounded in reality, and not having a lot of common sense. To yet others, it's all about doing anything at all, as long as you're paid enough. And, by far, that is not a complete list of the various different things this phrase actually means to various different people. As such, I would not be too surprised if the reason Wikipedia doesn't have an entry is simply because it is far too difficult to accurately define.
Oh, and, yes, I will also make this point on the talk page of the 'Hollywood Values' article. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:44, 13 February 2008 (EST)

: Wikipedia has entries about terms have more than one meaning all the time. In fact, that simply argues ''in favor of'' having an entry. But put up an entry on "Hollywood Values" on Wikipedia and watch how quickly a liberal insists that it be deleted (censored).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:37, 13 February 2008 (EST)
::That is true, WP wouldn't have a page called '''Hollywood Values''' because in posting one it would be (quickly) recognized as "original research", something the WP guidelines consider ''verbotten.'' [[User:JoeManga|JoeManga]] 16:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)

In personam

2008-02-13T21:48:52Z

CarolineMilton:

The legal term '''''in personam''''' means directed toward a particular person rather than a particular piece of property. Most lawsuits are '''''in personam'''''. The primary exceptions are lawsuits directed specifically at titles to land. A decision in personam will only bind those who were parties to the proceeding (as opposed to the world at large).

Contrast '''''in personam''''' with ''[[in rem]]''.
[[category:legal terms]]

Cotton Gin

2008-02-13T21:44:29Z

CarolineMilton:

The '''Cotton Gin''' is a machine for separating cotton fiber from sticky cotton seeds<ref>http://www.eliwhitney.org/cotton.htm</ref>. It was invented by [[Eli Whitney]] in 1793. It increased the profitability of growing cotton inland (where the viable cotton varieties had sticky seeds) and thus increased the value of cotton fields. The cotton gin is notable because it is considered to have increased the need for slaves in the [[south]], and further entrenched [[slavery]] in that part of the United States.

== References ==
<div class="references-small">
<references />

[[Category:Inventions]]
[[Category:Industrial Revolution]]

Emily Carr

2008-02-13T21:37:48Z

CarolineMilton:

'''Emilit Carr''' (1871 – 1945.) was a [[Canadian]] artist and writer. Carr studied in [[San Francisco]] in 1889-95, and in 1899 she travelled to [[England]], where she was involved with the St. Ives group and with [[Hubert von Herkomer]]'s private school.

She lived in [[France]] in 1910 where the work of the [[Fauvists]] influenced the colourism of her work and she came into contact with Frances Hodgkins. Discouraged by her lack of artistic success, she returned to [[Victoria, British Columbia|Victoria]], [[British Columbia]] where she came close to giving up art altogether.

However, her contact with the [[Group of Seven]] in 1930 resurrected her interest in art, and throughout the 1930s she specialized in scenes from the lives and rituals of [[Native Americans]]. She also showed her awareness of Canadian native culture through a number of works representing the British Columbian rainforest. She lived among the native Americans to research her subjects. Many of her Expressionistic paintings represent totem poles and other artefacts of Indian culture.

==Links==
*[http://www.arthistoryarchive.com/arthistory/canadian/Emily-Carr.html Emily Carr Art History Archive]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Carr, Emily}}
[[Category:Artists]]
[[Category:Women]]

18 U.S.C. § 922

2008-02-13T21:36:07Z

CarolineMilton:

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is a [[federal]] law that states that it is unlawful for "any person who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year ... to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce".

This law is often used to obtain convictions in [[federal]] court. In ''[[United States v. Daugherty]]'', the [[Fifth Circuit]] held that it is constitutional.
[[category:Criminal Law]]

Liberal denial

2008-02-13T01:26:14Z

CarolineMilton: Why do you think it is appropriate to insult me in the summary box?

'''Liberal denial''' is the tendency of [[liberals]] to conceal, deny or censor:

*examples of how the [[liberal]] ideology harms people
*admitting that that they are [[liberals]] themselves
*how the [[liberal]] ideology is pushed on unsuspecting others, particularly youngsters

[[Hillary Clinton]], for example, refused to admit in a presidential debate in 2007 that she is a [[liberal]]. [[Michael Dukakis]] refused for a while to admit that he was a [[liberal]] during the 1988 presidential campaign, until finally he declared himself to be a [[liberal]] in the sense that President [[Harry Truman]], who served 40 years earlier, was a [[liberal]].

There are also specific examples of [[liberals]] denying, for ideological reasons, facts that are plainly true:

# that the numerous premature deaths of Hollywood stars are the result of [[Hollywood Values]]
# that culture affects politics, and people's views and lifestyles
# that successful [[democracy]], both historically and logically, is the result of [[Protestantism|Protestant]] [[Christianity]]
# that [[Lawrence Summers]] was fired as President of [[Harvard]] for making a politically incorrect suggestion about women and [[math]] aptitude
# that [[Ronald Reagan]]'s public exhortation, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," helped cause the nearly 30-year-old wall to be torn down later
# that [[gun control]] may increase crime
# that group prayer is censored from [[public school]]
# that reducing taxes stimulates the economy
# that choosing [[abortion]] or [[celibacy]] over childbirth increases the risk of breast cancer
# that the mainstream media is biased
# that privately-run transport is more efficient than government-run transport
# that public health care is inferior medical care
# that unions interfere with employment opportunities
# that Islamic extremism is a threat to the Western civilization<ref>Leftist Sam Harris admitted and complained about this liberal denial [http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061009/REPOSITORY/610090301/1028/OPINION02 here].</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

(add more examples)

[[category:politics]]

Liberal denial

2008-02-13T01:06:06Z

CarolineMilton: More accurate

'''Liberal denial''' is the tendency of [[liberals]] to conceal, deny or censor:

*examples of how the [[liberal]] ideology harms people
*admitting that that they are [[liberals]] themselves
*how the [[liberal]] ideology is pushed on unsuspecting others, particularly youngsters

[[Hillary Clinton]], for example, refused to admit in a presidential debate in 2007 that she is a [[liberal]]. [[Michael Dukakis]] refused for a while to admit that he was a [[liberal]] during the 1988 presidential campaign, until finally he declared himself to be a [[liberal]] in the sense that President [[Harry Truman]], who served 40 years earlier, was a [[liberal]].

There are also specific examples of [[liberals]] denying, for ideological reasons, facts that are plainly true:

# that the numerous premature deaths of Hollywood stars are the result of [[Hollywood Values]]
# that culture affects politics, and people's views and lifestyles
# that successful [[democracy]], both historically and logically, is the result of [[Protestantism|Protestant]] [[Christianity]]
# that [[Lawrence Summers]] was fired as President of [[Harvard]] for making a politically incorrect suggestion about women and [[math]] aptitude
# that [[Ronald Reagan]]'s public exhortation, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," helped cause the nearly 30-year-old wall to be torn down later
# that [[gun control]] may increase crime
# that group prayer is censored from [[public school]]
# that reducing taxes stimulates the economy
# that childbirth reduces the likelihood of breast cancer
# that the mainstream media is biased
# that privately-run transport is more efficient than government-run transport
# that public health care is inferior medical care
# that unions interfere with employment opportunities

(add more examples)

[[category:politics]]

User:CarolineMilton

2008-02-13T00:57:07Z

CarolineMilton:

<div style="float: left; border: solid #000 1px; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; color: #99FF66; background: #CCCC00"
| style="width: 60px; height: 60px; background: #FFFFFF; text-align: center;" |[[Image:AZ_RockArtDino1a.jpg‎|60px]]
| style="font-size: 10pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em;" |<center>'''This user saw one of these the other day. Does anyone know what it is?'''</center>
|}
{{User political compass|1.88|-2.97}}

Talk:MRSA

2008-02-12T23:50:29Z

CarolineMilton:

== Oops! ==

"New gay plague" huh?

Where did that name come from? The article that you referenced?

Here is the quote from the article in full:

: "The real story here is the way that the media have whitewashed this outbreak," Barber told Cybercast News Service. "It is amazing to see what they've done with this."

: Barber said the initial reporting of the outbreak was "pretty solid" and news accounts related the facts "as is," but the coverage began to change after conservative groups like CWA noted that this variant is primarily spread by men having anaI sex.

: "The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and other organizations began to jump up and down a bit and scream, and The New York Times and other organizations started to backpedal," Barber said.

: "The story was no longer the dangers associated with the outbreak - and the behaviors associated with it," said Barber. "The story now became about how groups like mine were supposedly misrepresenting the outbreak as some sort of 'new gay plague' or 'the new AIDS' - things we never said."

Get that? "...'''things we never said'''".

Obviously you thought it was a pretty catchy name though didn't you Ed? How about changing it to something a little more accurate and less obviously sensationalist? --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 18:48, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:MRSA

2008-02-12T23:48:32Z

CarolineMilton: Oops, my homophobia is showing...

== Oops! ==

"New gay plague" huh?

Where did that name come from? The article that you referenced?

Here is the quote from the article in full:

: "The real story here is the way that the media have whitewashed this outbreak," Barber told Cybercast News Service. "It is amazing to see what they've done with this."

: Barber said the initial reporting of the outbreak was "pretty solid" and news accounts related the facts "as is," but the coverage began to change after conservative groups like CWA noted that this variant is primarily spread by men having anaI sex.

: "The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and other organizations began to jump up and down a bit and scream, and The New York Times and other organizations started to backpedal," Barber said.

: "The story was no longer the dangers associated with the outbreak - and the behaviors associated with it," said Barber. "The story now became about how groups like mine were supposedly misrepresenting the outbreak as some sort of 'new gay plague' or 'the new AIDS' - things we never said."

Get that? "...'''things we never said'''".

Obviously you thought it was a pretty catchy name though didn't you Ed? How about changing it to something a little more accurate and less obviously sensational? --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 18:48, 12 February 2008 (EST)

User talk:CarolineMilton

2008-02-12T23:23:21Z

CarolineMilton: /* What you saw */

{{welcome|sig=[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:00, 10 December 2007 (EST)}}

== What you saw ==

Did you see a dinosaur or a cave painting? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:59, 6 February 2008 (EST)
: Philip, I might have known that you would be the first to respond.

: Dinosaur you say? Is that what that is? Then again, it's like those ink blot tests. People tend to see what they want to see, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNvikHPAyQI&feature=related don't they?] --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 23:53, 7 February 2008 (EST)

::''Or'' it could be that the image was named '''dino''' art... --[[User:David R|David R]][[User talk:David R|talk]] 00:17, 8 February 2008 (EST)

:: It's not like an ink blot test, and the scientist who found it most definitely did ''not'' see what he wanted to see, as he didn't believe in dinosaurs and men living together, yet recognised it as a dinosaur[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_hava_supai_dinosaur_carving]. Rather, people tend to excuse and dismiss what they don't want to believe. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:49, 8 February 2008 (EST)

::: I see. And did you see Allah's name written in arabic script in the clouds when you watched the YouTube clip linked above? --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 18:19, 10 February 2008 (EST)

:::: I was unable to carry out that test, as I wouldn't know what Allah's name written in Arabic script looks like. But that's irrelevant. You are comparing three different things here: 1) something ''designed'' to be ambiguous (the ink blots); 2) something that normally occurs naturally combined with the ability of people to "see" recognisable shapes (the clouds); and 3) something ''designed'' to be recognisable (the cave painting). That people "see" recognisable shapes in things that are not ''designed'' to be recognised has no bearing on whether something ''designed'' to be recognised is being correctly recognised. If you want to suggest something else that it could be and explain why your suggestion is better than the dinosaur explanation, feel free. But your only attempt at directly addressing the dinosaur explanation was that people see what they want to, which I refuted (in this specific case) by pointing out that it was recognised as a dinosaur by someone who ''didn't'' want it to be a dinosaur. Therefore, you've offered no effective rebuttal of the claim at all. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:41, 10 February 2008 (EST)

::::: I am surprised that a net savvy person such as yourself could not find out what "Allah" looks like in Arabic script. Here is a [http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Middle_East/Turkey/photo387386.htm link] (rather nice photo I think). See it in those clouds now? I wasn't so sure myself. Maybe that's just me.

::::: Now, you say that I am not comparing apples with apples. I disagree. I think all three concepts you refer to are very closely related. The question in each case is: Can I see something in this picture? You can see a dinosaur in the picture on my user page. Bethany can see a kangaroo. Frankly I don't think the picture is detailed enough to make a good case for either. Where are it's front legs/arms? In fact, where is its other back leg (if indeed it is supposed to be a creature at all). That's why it's like an ink blot. Sure it may be that the cave dweller who drew it intended that it be recognised. Unfortunately however, the picture is so lacking in detail that, without more, it is a meaningless squiggle that only wishful thinking can transform into a recognisable creature/plant/object.

::::: Personally I like the dinosaur explanation. It makes it a very interesting squiggle. But I couldn't for a moment take such an explanation seriously. Good grief Philip, dinosaurs have been extinct for millions of years. --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 23:06, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::::::Actually [[young earth creationist]]s have a rather radically... [[Dinosaur#Dinosaur-like_creatures_in_history_and_modern_sightings|different]] way of seeing things. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:21, 11 February 2008 (EST)
::::::: Yes, if I'd gone to the bother, I could have found what the name of Allah looked like in Arabic script, but to recognise that in a cloud formation I'd probably have to be very familiar with it, not just have had a quick look at it, depending, of course, on how clear it was.
::::::: "''Where are it's front legs/arms?''": Too small to be worth including. As you point out, it's not a detailed picture, and small front limbs would be insignificant detail.
::::::: "''where is its other back leg''": Behind (from the point of view of the observer) the tail. Yes, in a detailed picture you'd expect to see at least the edge of the other leg, but in a simple picture like this, that would be just insignificant detail.
::::::: "''That's why it's like an ink blot.''" Ink blots are not intended to be recognised but lacking detail. So it's not like an ink blot at all.
::::::: "''Sure it may be that the cave dweller who drew it intended that it be recognised.''": ''May'' be? Most cave paintings are of recognisable objects. I don't know of too many abstract paintings by cave dwellers.
::::::: "''...it is a meaningless squiggle that only wishful thinking can transform into a recognisable creature/plant/object''": I've pointed out the error of this twice already, but you keep ignoring it. That it was representing a dinosaur was the view of the discoverer who, like you, didn't believe that men could ever have seen a dinosaur, so it was ''not'' "wishful thinking".
::::::: "''But I couldn't for a moment take such an explanation seriously. Good grief Philip, dinosaurs have been extinct for millions of years.''": Now you are letting your worldview affect your interpretation of the evidence. That they have been extinct for millions of years is merely an aspect of the atheistic origins myth, and is contradicted by quite a bit of evidence, of which this cave painting is just one minor example.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:53, 12 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: If you need some practice in recognizing the name of Allah in various naturally occurring places just click [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS2VFNpFPQU here]. I would really appreciate your view as to what is going on. Are these people deluded? Or perhaps Allah did deliberately place his name in these places. Do tell me.

:::::::: Also, when I mentioned wishful thinking I wasn't referring to the discoverer, I was thinking of someone else. The fact that the discoverer claims to see a dinosaur is neither here nor there. If the drawing had been discovered by Erich von Däniken (remember him?) he would have claimed it as a picture of an alien visitor. Would you then see it as an alien?

:::::::: You say I am letting my world view affect my interpretation of the evidence. Well, I guess I am. Sure it looks a bit like a dinosaur. And if man and dinosaur had been around at the same time I might be attracted to the idea. However, because the picture is so thoroughly lacking in detail it is just not feasible to claim it as in any way significantly supportive of a theory that man and dinosaur co-existed. You'd really need something with a bit more detail.

:::::::: Now we come to your world view: "the atheistic origins myth"? "quite a lot of evidence"? I am intrigued. What do you find to be the most compelling piece of evidence supportive of the co-existence of man and dinosaur? --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 18:23, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Is it a...kangaroo? :P [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 20:48, 10 February 2008 (EST)

BTW...Dinosoars are non-existent! They went extinct a few thousand years ago! :P [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 20:48, 10 February 2008 (EST)

: A kangaroo's not all that bad a suggestion, but I'd reject it for several reasons:
:* A kangaroo has very large feet, which do not show here.
:* A kangaroo does put its tail on the ground for support, but does not have it both on the ground for support and at the same time turned up as shown in this picture.
:* The painting was done in North America.
:What makes you think dinosaurs went extinct a few thousand years ago?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:53, 10 February 2008 (EST)

::Alright...*Reword*: ''Most'' dinosaurs went extinct a few thousand years ago! :P [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 10:14, 11 February 2008 (EST)
::: I'm not sure what your point is. In the context of whether or not the painting could be of a dinosaur, your original comment could be read as saying that it couldn't be a dinosaur because they weren't around. You now seem to be admitting that at least ''some'' dinosaurs were around more recently, which would negate that reason for thinking that the painting couldn't be of a dinosaur. In any case, I don't believe that we have good information on exactly when each type went extinct, but there ''in'' good information on at least some types being around much more recently than a few thousand years ago. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 15:03, 11 February 2008 (EST)

==Careful==

[[Conservapedia:Commandments|Conservapedia Commandment #7]] can be a doozy. But a few non-controversial contributions show you're not just here to chat. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:43, 10 February 2008 (EST)

User talk:CarolineMilton

2008-02-12T04:14:19Z

CarolineMilton: /* What you saw */

User talk:CarolineMilton

2008-02-12T04:13:18Z

CarolineMilton: /* What you saw */

User talk:CarolineMilton

2008-02-12T04:06:36Z

CarolineMilton: /* What you saw */

Talk:Liberal denial

2008-02-11T01:29:15Z

CarolineMilton: /* Abortions and breast cancer */

One might say there's a such thing as conservative denial as well. One just might. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:13, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
:Surely the collapse of the Soviet Bloc due to its utter inability to manage a moder economy had a bigger impact that Reagan's words? Come on, this is facile at best. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 18:59, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:: See? You help illustrate our point!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:05, 24 January 2008 (EST)

::: Uh? What he's saying sounds far more logical. With the Soviet Union in pieces, there was no reason for them to be controlling half of Germany. Thus, Germany was reunited,and the wall dismantled. Claiming it was simply Reagen's command that did it is... Well, bloody stupid at best. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:14, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:::: Um, Reagan called on Gorbachev to tear the Berlin Wall down in 1987. The Wall fell in November 1989. When George HW Bush was President. And when the Soviet Union had realised that its hold on Eastern Europe was no longer possible, due to its economic collapse. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 19:18, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::::: Really??? You mean that the Wall didn't fall the very next day after Reagan's speech??? Thanks for demonstrating how this point is an example of [[liberal denial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:::::: ... Either you never learned proper English, or you really need to crack open a textbook, man. I strongly advise rewriting that so it doesn't look like you're accusing him of denying the Berlin Wall (I assume that's what you meant, and not the Pink Floyd movie) fell the day after Reagan's speech, as if that was what happened. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:20, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::::::: Quite correct, the wall did not fall the next day - or the next week, or the next month. It fell almost two and a half years later. You might as well credit President Kennedy for its fall by objecting to it in 1963 with his "Ich Bin Ein Berliner" speech. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:45, 1 February 2008 (EST)

== Not Fair! ==

Come on people, this is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a summary of an [[Ann Coulter]] book [[User:DLerner|DLerner]]

:Oh come on, we all know democracy had nothing to do with the Greeks or the Iroquois. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:24, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:Aside from that, the entire concept is a catch-22: Anyone who denies any of those things is automatically a liberal, and if they deny that, well, that's only further proof they're liberals. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:26, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:Barikada, how do the Greeks fit here?
[[User:DLerner|DLerner]]

::The first democractic system resembling current democracy was implemented by the Greeks, if evil public schooling hasn't lied to me. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:30, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Abortions and breast cancer ==

Is it ''plainly true'' that abortion increases the likelihood of breast cancer?

My understanding is that such a claim is not supported by the medical literature. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:02, 1 February 2008 (EST)

: Your understanding is from [[liberal denial]]s. Yes, it is "plainly true" and undeniable, just as no one denies that childbirth reduces the incidence of breast cancer. Don't be fooled by liberal denials - the truth shall set you free.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:17, 1 February 2008 (EST)

::See? Catch-22. Do you have a reputable medical source for this, Mr. Schlafly? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:19, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::I was thinking of this: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage for example (although I note that it is a few years old). It concludes that there is no increase in risk. It seems to me that if the National Cancer Institute says there is no increase in the risk then it is a bit of a stretch to say that it is ''plainly true'' that the risk increase exists. Surely you can't really call something plainly true when it goes against wht the experts are saying. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:29, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::So, should we remove the abortion/breast cancer comment from the article? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 20:20, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::: Folks, go somewhere else to engage in [[liberal denial]]s. Nobody honest denies that childbirth reduces the risk of breast cancer, and thus having an abortion must increase the relative risk of the mother for breast cancer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:24, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::"Nobody honest denies that childbirth reduces the risk of breast cancer, and thus having an abortion must increase the relative risk of the mother for breast cancer." --Aschlafly Andy, that's like saying that eating too much sodium is bad for you (Something no honest person disagrees with), so therefore, eating absolutely no sodium is good for you(Something which would prove fatal). [[User:Absentismens|Absentismens]] 21:53, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: You statement has no logic. Nothing in my statement had anything to do with quantity or frequency, and your analogy has no basis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::My statement has as much logic as your's. This is good, therefore, this is bad (Or vice-versa). [[User:Absentismens|Absentismens]] 22:08, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Your analogy is nonsensical, and I'm not going to allow [[last wordism]] for such nonsense. No one sincerely and knowingly denies that childbirth reduces the risk of breast cancer, and of course the inverse is also true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:12, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::Last wordism? Really? That's the best you can do? [[User:Absentismens|Absentismens]] 22:14, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::You refuse to allow last wordism? Doesn't that mean that you're demanding the last word? And isn't that a trait of liberals, according to you? Doesn't that make you a closet liberal, Andy? Don't you see how the accusation of last wordism is in and of itself last wordism? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 11:01, 3 February 2008 (EST)

If childbirth decreases the risk of [[breast cancer]], than conversely [[abstinence]] increases the risk of breast cancer. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:46, 2 February 2008 (EST)

: Curses! That's exactly what I was going to say. Aschlafly's argument is utterly misguided. The woman concerned has the same cancer risk as if she was never pregnant. Is that an increased risk??? Do we now go and edit the [[abstinence]] page to say that abstinence increases the risk of cancer? [[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 17:20, 2 February 2008 (EST)

:: Nice try folks, but you just continue to prove the point about [[liberal denial]]. Abortion does plainly increase the risk of breast cancer. The more abortions now, the more cases of breast cancer in the future. Continue to deny it and thereby continue to demonstrate liberal denial. As to abstinence, for the unmarried it is the best way to avoid cervical and breast cancer and far better than cancer-causing birth control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 2 February 2008 (EST)

:::I'm sorry Andy. That was rude of me, and I apologize. But I am genuinely confused at this point. How is abstinence the "best way to avoid cervival and breast cancer"??? With respect to [[breast cancer]] risk, what is the difference between [[abortion|aborting]] several babies or simply remaining [[abstinence|abstinent]] throughout the same time period? Actually I do think that there is a reason here and I've missed it, at least it certainly seems like that. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:25, 3 February 2008 (EST)

:::: Feebasfactor, thanks for your apology. The decision that a pregnant mother faces is whether to allow childbirth or have an abortion. Abstinence is irrelevant to that decision. Having the abortion increases her risk of breast cancer. There's no denying it, much as [[liberal]]s try. Study our [[abortion]] entry if you really want further explanation. There's no need for me to repeat that entry here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:54, 3 February 2008 (EST)

::::: I have been watching this discussion with increasing dismay. Perhaps it would be easier, Andy, if I put it in story form for you.

::::: Let’s contemplate a story of two young women. We shall call one Mary and the other Jezebel. Now Mary has evil atheist parents and has been brought up in the absence of the Ten Commandments and without clear moral guidelines. Jezebel, on the other hand, is the daughter of committed Christians and knows right from wrong. In particular she practices abstinence and, accordingly is saving herself for her future husband. Mary, however, is wanton and, with no moral guidance, becomes pregnant to her slacker boyfriend Cory. Upon learning the news Cory immediately decamps for Canada. Due to her total lack of knowledge of God’s wishes, Mary has an abortion.

::::: Which of the two young women has a greater risk of getting breast cancer?

::::: P.S. Could you please unlock the Conservative Denial page. I’ve just had an idea about what to put in it. .--[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 16:53, 3 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: Not able to respond? Doesn't surprise me. The answer is neither.

:::::: Which leads me to an observation. See in the article how you accuse liberals of concealing, denying or censoring the way in which their ideology is pushed on unsuspecting others, particularly youngsters?

:::::: In light of this discussion I guess that's what you might call ironic, isn't it? --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 00:04, 8 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: Your hypothetical has no bearing with respect to a woman choosing between having an abortion or carrying the pregnancy to birth. Factually, by the way, the woman who has the abortion has greater risk of breast cancer. As to "conservative denial," just suggest it here. No need for a special page for just one not-yet-made suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:10, 8 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: On the contrary, my hypothetical was exactly on point. All you have been saying is, in effect, that child birth protects you against breast cancer. It was pointed out to you that the logical result of that was that abstinence causes breast cancer in the same way that abortion causes breast cancer (i.e. both prevent one from having a child). You seem determined to just ignore the logic. Fine. No doubt those reading this page will have no difficulty seeing that for what it is.

:::::::: You now appear to be making a new claim to the effect that the woman having the abortion has a higher risk than the abstinent woman.

:::::::: Do you have a '''reputable''' medical citation for that claim? --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 18:17, 10 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::: Caroline, the woman who chooses abortion over childbirth thereby increases her risk of breast cancer. She should be told that before taking that risk. Yes, our entry on [[abortion]] has many citations for this. It is not even seriously disputed, except to advance the pro-abortion agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:14, 10 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: OK then. Let's recap.

:::::::::: 1. You agree (although you seem utterly incapable of actually typing it) that in my example both Mary and Jezebel have the same breast cancer risk at the conclusion of the story.

:::::::::: 2. Any increased risk that you are claiming is related to whether or not a woman has a child rather than whether or not a woman has an abortion. A woman could, for example, have an abortion at the age of 20 and a child at the age of 21 and enjoy the very same risk level that she would have had if she had never had the abortion.

:::::::::: 3. Presumably you are of the view that any woman who is contemplating a life of abstinence should be warned of the breast cancer risk associated with that lifestyle.

:::::::::: I'm glad we seem to have sorted all of that out. --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 20:29, 10 February 2008 (EST)

==Suggestion for Item 11==
That denying any above is intrinsic proof of this list's accuracy, unquestionability, and the need not to offer proof for anything. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 09:52, 4 February 2008 (EST)

==#9 Reversion?==
So, I'm wondering why my [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal_denial&diff=385690&oldid=385544 change] to #9 was reverted. Seems to me that liberals don't deny that the media is biased, they just deny that it is biased in ''their'' favor. I don't have a huge problem with the difference, I'm just wondering as to the rationale.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:16, 9 February 2008 (EST)

: It's a close call, but I agree with the reversion though I didn't do it. Liberals generally do deny media bias, period. They only make arguments of conservative bias in response to observations of liberal bias.

: Moreover, "liberal media bias" is a bit redundant, as virtually all of the media has a liberal bias, It's intrinsic to that profession, with the media's reliance on deception (to exaggerate and sell the news), constant travel (which is the antithesis of family life), dependence on obscenity and allusions to obscenity, its political correctness, and its obsession with racial imagery.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 9 February 2008 (EST)
::Fair enough...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:27, 10 February 2008 (EST)

User talk:CarolineMilton

2008-02-10T23:19:34Z

CarolineMilton: /* What you saw */

Talk:Liberal denial

2008-02-10T23:17:21Z

CarolineMilton: /* Abortions and breast cancer */

Talk:Liberal denial

2008-02-08T05:04:06Z

CarolineMilton: /* Abortions and breast cancer */

User talk:CarolineMilton

2008-02-08T04:53:27Z

CarolineMilton: /* What you saw */

Talk:Saddam Hussein

2008-02-06T04:26:45Z

CarolineMilton: /* First names */

== Several Problems Here ==

Aside from the Saddam-friendly flavor of this article, which makes it seem a virtual paradise, and him an "enlightened" elected official instead of the despotic dictator he was, I find it disturbing Saddam isn't shown to be the master genocide practitioner of the region. Like feeding political opponents into industrial shredders carted into the dining room for his guests amusement.--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 06:38, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:Given the nostaligia of reactionaries in the US Congress and elsewhere for the good old days under Saddam, I suggest we let them paint the picture of the fascist paradise they want to return to after timetables for US withdrawl are met. Alternatively, these reactionaries and supporters of fascism among the American left may assist a more theocratic style regime ''ala'' Iran or Saudi Arabia once funding gets cut off for any further US invovlement. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Classic Conservapedia==

This is a gem of an article. So wonderfully simplistic. [[User:Mralph72|Mralph72]] 08:56, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== So, is the truth a problem? ==

"Saddam saw himself as a social revolutionary and a modernizer, following the Nasser model. To the consternation of Islamic conservatives, his government gave women freedoms and offered them high-level government and industry jobs. Saddam also created a Western-style legal system, making Iraq the only country in the Persian Gulf region not ruled according to traditional Islamic law (Sharia). Saddam abolished the Sharia law courts, except for personal injury claims."

All of this is true, would the more ideological among us prefer it to be hidden in a deeper article? Maybe they could write one. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:30, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

==American Support of the regime during its worst atrocities==
Despite Saddam's brutal crimes, the United States supported him until the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. They even supplied him with chemical agents which may have been used to gas his own people. Human rights are only an issue if they further our own interests --[[User:DemocraticRevolution|DemocraticRevolution]] 22:25, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

==Hussein/Osama Link==

The second sentence in this section needs to go. If you intend to throw in that the Administration attempted to prove a connection between Osama and Hussein, you need to explicitly state it in that sentence; something can't be 'alleged' without someone alleging it, and it's bad journalism and bad scholarism to leave that antecedent undefined. Second, the external reference for that sentence needs to go as well, because it does not reflect upon the actual statement. That reference inconclusively tries to prove that there was a link between Hussein and Osama.

I suggest the following rewrite - change the sentence to "Leading up to the war, some members of the Bush Administration cited a link between Hussein and Osama as a rationale for the war, although critics adamantly insisted that such a link was non-existent. [reference to a quote from both administration and critics] A credible link was never proven." [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 08:24, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== First names ==

I don't think it is quite as simple as changing Saddam to Hussein. Take a look at [http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/words/saddam_hussein.html this] --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 23:00, 5 February 2008 (EST)
:I'll give you that the controversy exist, but if there is a choice we should simply treat this article as we do any other article.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:21, 5 February 2008 (EST)
::I am not trying to make your editing task any more difficult. However, I am not sure what you mean by saying that we should treat the article as we do any other. Surely we would normally use what we generally refer to as the surname. Neither Saddam nor Hussein appear to be a surname as we understand it.

::Anyway, I just thought I would mention it when I saw your edit. I leave it in your capable hands. --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 23:26, 5 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Saddam Hussein

2008-02-06T04:00:30Z

CarolineMilton: First names

Talk:Heath Ledger

2008-02-06T03:52:45Z

CarolineMilton: New page: I don't want to step on your toes Andy but the phrase "Though portrayed as a symbol of the future..." seems a bit editorial without some sort of citation. The sentence would read better w...

I don't want to step on your toes Andy but the phrase "Though portrayed as a symbol of the future..." seems a bit editorial without some sort of citation. The sentence would read better without it in my view. --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 22:52, 5 February 2008 (EST)

Heath Ledger

2008-02-06T03:49:34Z

CarolineMilton:

'''Heath Ledger''' was an award winning<ref>http://imdb.com/name/nm0005132/awards</ref> actor who was an icon to [[liberals]] for his portrayal of a [[homosexual]] man in the movie ''[[Brokeback Mountain]]''.

Though portrayed as a symbol of the future, at the age of 28 Ledger was tragically found dead, naked, by his masseur in his apartment in a fashionable area of [[Manhattan]]. Investigators found "sleeping pills and anxiety medication among six different types of drugs in the apartment."<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/people/bpeopleb-ledgers-cause-of-death-to-be-made-public-overnight/2008/02/06/1202233881451.html</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

Heath Ledger

2008-02-06T03:42:53Z

CarolineMilton:

'''Heath Ledger''' was a 28-year-old actor who was an icon to [[liberals]] for his portrayal of a [[homosexual]] man in the movie ''[[Brokeback Mountain]]''.

Though portrayed as a symbol of the future, Ledger was tragically found dead, naked, by his masseur in his apartment in a trendy area of [[Manhattan]]. Investigators found "sleeping pills and anxiety medication among six different types of drugs in the apartment."<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/people/bpeopleb-ledgers-cause-of-death-to-be-made-public-overnight/2008/02/06/1202233881451.html</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

User:CarolineMilton

2008-02-06T02:52:17Z

CarolineMilton: New page: <div style="float: left; border: solid #000 1px; margin: 1px;"> {| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; color: #99FF66; background: #CCCC00" | style="width: 60px; height: 60px; background:...

Talk:Liberal denial

2008-02-03T21:53:36Z

CarolineMilton: /* Abortions and breast cancer */