Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Flat Earth

2007-09-11T18:21:48Z

Edtropolis: God hates Globes

Wait.... now you're insisting that the Bible _isn't_ to be taken literally at all times?
Who are you, and what have you done with Rschlafly? And do you need any help disposing of the evidence? --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:41, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:While the bible is literally true the passages which seem to refer to a "flat earth" have generally be the subject of "[[quote mining]]" and taken out of context.--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 17:53, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::Man, those evolutionists seriously shouldn't be trusted. *putting it on watch for potential article improvement drive later next week (if it stays this way for a few days)* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::I dunno about that. Satan taking Jesus up where he can see ALL the countries of the world seems pretty straightforward to me. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:57, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::: I recall a story that prior to the explorations, there was an official church position on this matter: That the earth was round, and its size known approximately, but that the other side could be nothing but water. This position was based in part upon that 'all nations' verse, but mostly on something in revelation which says that ''all'' men will see Christ on ths Second Coming. Clearly, that couldn't happen if there were people on the wrong side of the earth (This problem since solved by the invention of television). Its just a rumor though, I dont know if there is any fact at all hidden in it. - BornAgainBrit
:::The article would certainly benefit from being structured in a more Christian format Sid. I trust that you will sincerely try to improve it in this manner. --[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 17:59, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Yeah, we need equal treatment for the [[Scientific Geo-terrapinism]] theory and the so-called "Round Earth Theory" that the Secular Humanists are trying to foist upon us and shout down any dissenters about. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 18:01, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Terrapinism is an ''excellent'' idea. I'm surprised it doesn't have an article yet. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:10, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::I can't imagine why we should want a frivolous article on something like "Terrapinism". Perhaps a mention under "discworld" might be appropriate, but a full article would be nothing other than a grotesque parody of sincerely held Christian beliefs. I have doubts about whether some contributors are taking this issue with the necessary seriousness.--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 03:30, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree, Bill. People are parroting skeptical arguments, which do have good answers from Christian apologists, just to make Christians look stupid. Just look at which articles some of these people are editing and what they're saying. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:31, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, the door was pretty much opened when the [[Loch Ness Monster]] was cited as a possible proof that dinosaurs may still exist today. Conservative opened the door, we just walked through it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:34, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::I'm an old earth creationist. Can you see me banging my head against my keyboard? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:43, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I thought I heard something but I figured it was a tree banging against my window. Storm outside. Wow, OECs are really kinda caught in the middle on this site. How do you handle it? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:46, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:My support of the site's goals and reverting vandalism allows for some cognitive dissonance. I cringe at a lot of the stuff here, like the Kangaroo, Unicorn, and Nessie. I tend to avoid science-based articles, as I admittedly do not have a strong science background, and I came here more to write about history. Truth be told, I haven't completely made up my mind between OEC and theistic evolution. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:48, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, do yourself a favor and don't read anything about evolution on this site. You'll just give yourself a headache. I'm not even Christian and I still believe in Theistic Evolution. Unless and until science can come up with definitive answers for abiogenesis and what initiated the big bang, "God did it" is a perfectly good reason for me. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:53, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Myk, you need to let your faith lead you little further. If you can accept that "God did it" is a good explanation for the creation of the universe, why should a global flood cause Him problems?--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 04:42, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==Flagrant propaganda==

This article is flagrantly anti-evolutionist: "The Flat Earth theory was mostly invented and promoted by evolutionists for the purpose of slandering Christians". 1) Very very few people actually thought the Earth was flat, especially not christians '''OR''' evolutionists. About 30 seconds of background reading will tell you that much. 2)The sources for this information are '''ALL''' from christian websites. 3) Evolutionists need not promote fake theory to slander christians, YEC's do that quite admirably themselves.

This page is a joke, and I made my edits to it in that light. Perhaps you would care to discuss the reversion RSchlafly. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:22, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, glad to discuss it. It is an evolutionist myth that medieval Europeans thought that the Earth was flat. It is disproved in the references provided. Please don't insert disproved myths. Your version has no sources at all, and is certainly not "encyclopedic".
: I never hear anyone except evolutionists talk about the Flat Earth. The evolutionist don't believe that the Earth itself is flat, but they propagate myths about the Flat Earth. Read the references. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:37, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, I've never heard anybody at all talk about Flat Earth theory that doesn't make me right and you wrong the same way your dismissal does not make you right.

::It wasn't even a popular belief. It was brought to light in a fictitious novel based loosely around Columbus's journey and thereafter blown out of all proportion with regards historical significance. The article as it stands does not portray these facts and what is more, it appears to slander evolutionists. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:48, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Two quotes from MatteeNeutra:
:::*''Evolutionists need not promote fake theory to slander christians, YEC's do that quite admirably themselves.''
:::*''The article ... appears to slander evolutionists.''
:::Ever heard, "if the cap fits..."? You accuse YECs of being self-slandering, but seem to overlook that perhaps this is a case where the evolutionists are self-slandering, with the article simply documenting that.
:::*''The sources for this information are '''ALL''' from christian websites''
:::True, but does that automatically make them wrong? Of course not, unless you have an anti-Christian bias. Note that the link I added was to an article written by a "Professor of History, Emeritus, at the University of California, Santa Barbara"[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/russell/home.html] Does that count for nothing simply because the article was republished on a Christian web-site?
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I'm not saying that just because its from a Christian source its wrong. However, if its exclusive to Christian websites then it does cast a shadow of doubt onto the facts portrayed there. And if it is a fact, then other websites that are not Christian should also be cited. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 13:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::So being from Christian sources doesn't make it wrong, just suspect? Why? Because you can't trust scholars if they are Christians? Is that much better? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:51, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, the Flat Earth story was blown out of all proportion, and it continues to be blown out of all proportion to this day by evolutionists. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:06, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Do you actually have '''any''' statistics to back that up? If not, then it is slander. Hell, I'm surprised this site hasn't already been sued for its bigoted, hate-filled, slanderous pages! [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::That was an ''opinion'' of RSchlafly's (and it is my opinion as well), so doesn't need citation. The ''article'' doesn't say that. What the article ''does'' say, is cited. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:17, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Try asking people on the street whether Columbus discovered that the Earth was round. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:19, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::The page says that "evolutionists" peddled the lie. Actually the source does not mention evolutionists once. It briefly mentions evolution at the bottom but its not related to the issue. To say evlutionists were the only people to propogate the myth is a lie.

::::::RSchlafly, you criticize Wikipedia for being mob rule, then say that I should go into the street and ask random people whether a historical discovery happened or not. What planet are you from? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:27, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

(Big unindent) At Wikipedia, '''every''' discussion I've been a part of since 2001 has used "flat earth" as an example of a belief having so few adherents that it's not even worth mentioning. My own suggestion that maybe some sailors believed it, on the grounds that they were especially uneducated, was met was stern disbelief. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:38, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

: Really? It seems to me that the Flat Earth is usually an example of how Bible believers are unscientific and wrong. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:00, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:: <grin> My ignorance of that contention stems from my only hanging around with the intellectual elite at Wikipedia. The prejudiced ones avoided me, I guess. I'll look into that aspect next. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:07, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Google==

All this chatter! It has taken me only a few minutes to look up the basic facts, using Google.

The Greeks knew the Earth was round by the 3rd century B.C., and so did the Christians in Columbus's time. Only primitive people have ever thought the earth was flat. I'm still digging into the suggestion that "superstitious sailors" may have believed in a flat earth in the 1400s, unlikely as that may seem. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:36, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:Ed, I'm surprised it took you even that long to find those facts! The article still has some huge flaws and lies in it that need ironing out though. Especially so, is the lie that evolutionists invented the lie. It simply isn't true! [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:42, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::I did not 'find' these facts. I only used Google to get the details. I've know about [[Eratosthenes]] since I was a wee lad. My parents used the story to stimulate my love for math and science. I'm keen on the [[history of science]], because it shows how hard it is for people to learn and accept new ideas. Galileo, for example, had a hard time navigating the rocky shoals of church politics and managed to alienate his most powerful supporter, a high-ranking Catholic who later became [[pope]]. [[Dava Sobel]]'s book, ''[[Galileo's Daughter]]'' gives a fascinating account of this, based largely on letters from his daughter [[Maria Celeste]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:57, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Sorry, I did not mean to offend your obviously well developed passion for the subject! I was merely pointing out that the facts are not difficult to find and that perhaps people should read up fully on subjects before simply charging in head first! [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 13:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I agree with your general idea, and that is part of my attraction to online encyclopedia projects. But to be fair, it requires a sound basic education for a person to learn new things. This relates to the [[race and intelligence]] issue, as well as the [[Dihydrogen monoxide]] 'petition' project.

::::When you know enough, no propaganda can sway you. When you don't know enough, you can be fooled. A good encyclopedia makes it even easier for people to "get a leg up" on the competition, i.e., partisans peddling nonsense. --[[User:Ed Poor|"Eddie Neutral"]] 13:34, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Rewriting History==

#Washington Irving (1783-1859), History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (1837). Historical fiction that perpetuated the Columbus part of the "Flat Error." Many took this work to be real history, even though it was clearly a novel with just enough historical basis to look authentic to many people.
#John W. Draper (1811-1882), History of the Conflict between Religion and Science. Proponent of the "warfare thesis" of science and religion, within which the "Flat Error" grew considerably.
#Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918), History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, 2 Volumes of Nonsense. Another major proponent of the "warfare thesis" of science and religion.

The bibliography above was cribbed from The Flat Earth Pre-Lab. [http://www2.okbu.edu/academics/natsci/hp/keas/papers/flat_overhead/flat_prelab.htm] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:27, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:This is all well and good, but nowhere does it say that the theory was put forward by evolutionists. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 13:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Have you ever heard anyone else recite the story? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, Irving, who is the first one to promote the myth, and who I'd imagine is the reason that most people think that people in Columbus's time thought the earth was flat, clearly wasn't an evolutionist. I don't think you can really argue that either Draper or White were more influential in promoting the myth than Irving was. It's true that Irving uses the myth to make the Spanish scholars look bad, but that's probably more anti-Catholic bias. He does point out that Columbus was a deeply religious man, and at the time he wrote the book, there was the definate prejudice in the United States of "See how evil and intolerant the Catholics are and look at all the nasty stuff the Inquisition did to Protestants, scientists, and other people who challenged Catholic religious dogma."--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 15:41, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I predict it's going to be very hard to find anything on the web, with an Evolution supporter accusing Christian opponents of evolution of being Flat-earthers. Not unless we want to count blogs. NCSE is circumspect:

*Eugenie Scott "presents a continuum with creationism at one end and evolution at the other. The strictest creationists are the Flat Earthers.... The International Flat Earth Society has only about 200 members (Schadewald, 1980) and is insignificant in the antievolution movement." [http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/1593_the_creationevolution_continu_12_7_2000.asp]

Could this be verbal hype used more in conversation than in serious discussion? Like saying "Bush is an idiot", which is obviously a figure of speech. He'd have to have at least an IQ of 100 just to become a governor (!), and if he actually earned his graduate degrees possibly as high as 120 or 130. See my definition of [[idiot]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:58, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

: It is very common for evolutionists to make fun of Christians as Flat Earthers. That E. Scott quote is one example. For another, one of them just inserted such a section into this CP page today! [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gravitation&curid=8247&diff=85564&oldid=79802&rcid=88608] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:48, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

: Here are a couple of more examples. "Dr. Gould resorted to the hackneyed argument that if creation is allowed to be taught in public schools, then the flat earth theory should also." [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4243news3-13-2000.asp] From S. Weinberg reviewing Dawkins: "A friend at the University of Kansas has formed a Flat Earth Society to demand – in mockery of the demand by Kansas creationists that schools present 'Intelligent Design” as an 'alternative' to evolution – that Kansas public schools teach flat-Earth theory as an 'alternative' to spherical-Earth theory." [http://tls.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25349-2552017,00.html] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:12, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

: Here is another: "I recently discovered that some Baylor biology professors were having their students read papers and articles where evolutionists put forth the analogy between the flat earth theory and intelligent design. The idea is that flat earth theory is not scientific--even though Christians once believed it for theological reasons, just like intelligent design is not scientific--even though Christians believe it for theological reasons." [http://doubtingdarwin.blogspot.com/2007/01/flat-earth-myth.html] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:17, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't think I understand your point. It looks to me as though there was merely a contrast drawn between the two theories to show that neither is scientific. Also, I believe that (in your example) Intelligent Design was going to be taught in a biology lesson instead of evolution (i.e. a non-scientific theory being taught in a science lesson), and the Flat Earth Society was only made to show how ludicrous that idea is. How is that poking fun at Christians? Let's face it, if somebody today walked up to you and tried to convince you the Earth was flat you would laugh at them, regardless of whther they were Christian or of any other faith! [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 14:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::: You comments don't make any sense. Drawing a contrast between two theories does not show that neither is scientific. I did not give an example of Intelligent Design being taught in a biology lesson instead of evolution. Nobody tries to convince anyone that the Earth is flat. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I agree that it (MatteeNeutra's post) doesn't make sense. You show them to both be the same (non-scientific) by showing their similarities, not contrasting them. But more to the point, the two are rarely if ever shown to be similar. Rather, they are lumped together as though they are both non-scientific, but with no attempt to actually demonstrate that. And that is the very issue being objected to here. Indeed, your argument itself is based on the idea that ID is not scientific, which of course creationists and ID people don't agree with, so you are basing your argument on your presumptions. Of course I would laugh at someone trying to convince me that the Earth was flat (actually, I probably wouldn't laugh, I would patiently try and show them they were wrong), because that the Earth is round is readily demonstrable, unlike ideas from the past about how things came to be. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:52, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The point I was making is that the continual readiness to say that it is evolutionists who are making fun of Christians is wrong. The term "evolutionist" itself is such a huge umbrella term on this site that it is hard to know exactly what people mean by it. I think a clarification in this article and perhaps elsewhere on this site is in order.

::::Your other point about "creationists and ID people" not agreeing that ID is not a science is fairly irrelevant. If we go by general consensus (which, given that both mine and your countries are Democracy's, seems like a good idea) we can determine that ID is not a scientific theory. I'm not disrespecting ID by saying that! Hell, its a neat theory and if people want to believe it then kudos to them; it just isn't science. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 20:06, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Not agreeing that ID is not a science is not irrelevant at all, when the claim that ID is not science is used as the basis of an argument. You can't expect a conclusion based on a disputed proposition to be accepted. You should start from accepted propositions and build from there. As for being democracies, I see two problems with that. First, what is correct and what is not is not based on majority opinion. Second, at least in your country, ID might even be seen as scientific by the majority (I'm not sure, so I may be wrong on that). ID opponents don't usually quote the majority, but the majority ''of scientists''. Of course using the latter argument is a rejection of the "democracy" argument in favour of an "experts" argument. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:24, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Say I agree with you that ID is not scientific because it is not testable. How does that relate to the Flat Earth? At least the hypothesis that the Earth is flat can be tested. The analogy is just nonsense. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:18, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::It was you who brought up Intelligent Design in the examples you gave, but yes, that discussion is probably one for a debate page! I am merely trying to point out that it is (or was) not so called "evolutionists" who "mostly invented and promoted" Flat Earth theory to slander Christians! I feel that that sentence should be removed or rewritten to more accurately represent what actually happened. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 06:31, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

(big unindent) Actually, I just read the sources and had a brief trawl on the www. It '''was''' supporters of Darwinism who promoted Flat Earth! My bad! Peace out y'all [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 06:35, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:I was about to point that out, having realised that it apparently hadn't been mentioned on this talk page. I was also going to respond to an earlier point of yours (that I omitted to do earlier) about the term evolutionist. Surely the meaning is obvious and doesn't need spelling out; it is someone who believes evolution to be true. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:45, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::That is the meaning that most people would use. However, on this site it seems to mean "anyone who doesn't believe in God" and has even been used by some users, as a sort of insult, for anyone who doesn't agree with them. (On an unrelated note, what time is it in Australia atm?) [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 06:52, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Which part of Australia? That's like asking what time it is in America. In the eastern states where I am, it is currently 9:11 p.m. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:11, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

==Columbus==
When Columbus presented his theory of sailing around the world, he was laughed out of the room. This was NOT because people thought the world was flat. Most educated people (that includes scholars, kings, clergy and academia) '''knew''' the world was round. In fact, they knew the circumference of the globe. Columbus' tried to mathematically show that China was located at the point where he expected to find make landfall in the West Indies. This was regarded as preposterous by well-educated people because he had vastly underestimated the size of the world.

This is well-documented in a book (who's title I don't remember) as part of a theory that Columbus had a map of the new world. I don't remember the book's name, but it's probably [http://www.marcopolovoyages.com/Articles/NewFoundLandBase.html one of these references].

== God hates Globes ==

I found one website called [[God Hates Globes]] claims that the earth being round is a myth. I'm going to debunk that myth.--[[User:Edtropolis|Edtropolis]] 14:21, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Edtropolis

2007-09-11T18:04:44Z

Edtropolis: /* Anagram of your name */

{{Welcome|sig=[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:42, 22 June 2007 (EDT)}}

If you want to ask me why Wikipedia Sucks or other things. Please click the '''+''' tab and let your voice be heard.

== Anagram of your name ==

An anagram of your name is "spoiled rot." [[User:Anagramer|Anagramer]] 16:44, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

And you are blocked indefinately for harassment.--[[User:Edtropolis|Edtropolis]] 14:04, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is Scientology a false religion?

2007-06-22T20:21:43Z

Edtropolis: /* Definite YES. */

{{debate}}

[[Scientology]] has recently become a hot spot of debate at this site, its one of the more [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics popular] articles and has been getting a lot of attention on the talk page and subject to revert wars. So I was curious what the community actually thinks. Is scientology a false religion? Is it a threat to Christianity?

==No==
Not false as its own religion. False as a Christian religion. It's not a threat to Christians. Christians already have their Bible of Old and New Testaments. Maybe this is why some consider themselves Christians and yet aren't following anything taught by Christ's original Disciples. But I wouldn't count that as a threat.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:08, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
::—Matthew 7:16-20
Apart from a litigious attitude toward public criticism of Scientology, I'm not personally aware of Scientologists as having done anything terrible. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:58, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Really? Operation Snow White? Lisa McPherson? There are many others. Scientology kills. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:21, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::Huh? I've never heard of these ... could you explain what these are? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:42, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Operation Freakout: Paullet Cooper wrote a critical book on Scientology, the church attempts to plant false evidence to get her convicted of federal crimes. Operation Snowhite: Scientologist infiltrate the IRS to destroy documents about the church and find information on critics, Hubbards wife and 17 others are convicted and sent to jail. Hubbard himself has been convicted of fraud at a Federal level. The Lisa McPherson story is complicated and told elsewhere if you google it, essentially the church was at the VERY least complicit in her death, if not the out and out cause of it. There are MANY more examples. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:49, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Check out their [http://www.xenu.net/fairgame-e.html fair game] policy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:51, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Yes, but..==
I certainly believe their beliefs to be false, but what is important is that others see the facts and decide for themselves. As the Scientologists say, we should chose to believe or not. Why do they feel a need to obscure their beliefs with law suits?--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, but all religions are false in that they attempt to have you believe in something that does not exist. Scientology does have a sinister element that other religions lack. Other faiths have their elements (TV preachers for example) that seek to bilk the faithful out of their money. Scientology does this, and they do target their enemies--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 14:58, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

The misdeeds of a few should not condemn the faith of the many. In Scientology, it seems the whole idea is corrupt, unlike Christianity.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 15:15, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Christianity teaches that all animals that weren't in a big boat died when it rained a lot. People take this literally. Can you really say this indicates a lack of corruption? --[[User:JeffersonDarcy|JeffersonDarcy]] 15:17, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

The fact that some Christians take the story of the flood literally does not indicate that they are corrupt. It does indicate an appaling lack of intellect.--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 15:23, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Just because you can't see doesn't mean there is no God. Atheists are fools with their own holiday, fools day. Do you believe that we live in a world that has wind? Where is it, I can't see it, must not be there, it is false. Nothing brings itself from non-being into being. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:00, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, scientology is a false religion because it was just a religion created by a sci-fi writer to make money. I think that scientology is harmful to Christianity because it can confuse would be Christians into believing the teachings of scientology. [[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 00:55, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

How can one religion ever be a threat to another religion short of physically forcing conversion? If the teachings of your religion are sound, and they bring hope and peace to the followers another religion won't tempt them. Its like a man thinking that every other man out there constitutes a threat to his marriage because he might lure his wife away. If the marriage is strong, she won't leave. -gasmonkey

Yes, no buts.. Scientology is a bunch of rubbish unless you believe in outerspace aliens, that live in our bodies and control our minds. The tyranny of the galactic God Xenu and his evil body thetans.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:41, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:How is that no buts? You just said that if you believe in that stuff then it's not rubbish. Just because you find it silly, doesn't mean that your neighbor does too. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:48, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, Scientology is a false religion, no buts about it. Unless of course, your neighbor believes in it, then it is an actual religion, praise Xenu. Just playing with words, do you not find it cute?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:39, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Any religion appears weird if you weren't raised with it. - [[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]
: Uh... then how do you explain conversions (Muslim to Christian, for example)? - [[User:JCasto]]
::Or the other way round for that matter, I think that more Christians convert to Muslims than vice versa. No data, just the impression from certain high profile conversions like Muhammed Ali or Yusuf Islam. The problem is that religion is not based on logic but on emotion. If someone is brought up in a certain faith and they are not getting what they need from it then they will look for something else. Sometimes it is a wholesale conversion, othertimes it is supplementing with other beliefs; such as Nancy Reagan with astrology. Being a psychological thing it is very difficult to explain any of it. How does one explain the Mormon church or Islam? They only exist through the word an individual (no offence intended). Sufficiently charismatic people can persuade others to do things, or believe things that they might not otherwise do. Some of it can be explained but charlatans prefer that it is not so they can dupe the gullible. Anyone want to buy a bridge in London? [[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]] 19:26, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

That's different, Islam and Christianity have the same roots and share a number of basic beliefs, furthermore their followers are aware of each other's existence from a very young age, while many people only hear about scientology in their teens.

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

There is a verified quote by Hubbard who said "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion."

As the story goes, Heinlein and Hubbard were sitting in a bar one night with a bunch of other SF authors. The bet theory goes that RAH and LRH made a bet as to who could start a religion. According to this theory [[Stranger in a Strange Land]] was Heinlein's entry to the bet, and Dianetics was Hubbard's. One of those authors was [[Harlan Ellison]] - a transcript of his interview in the '70s adds some background to the bet theory [http://www.islets.net/faq.html#Anchor-Was-47857 Harlan Ellison website (warning, contains foul language)]. This may well be [[urban legend]], but I'm inclined to believe it to have more truth than fiction.

That said, the idea behind Scientology is one that closely mirrors Gnostic beliefs - Hubbard drew from history for his material. An interesting book to read on the subject is ''The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew''[http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Christianities-Battles-Scripture-Faiths/dp/0195141830] which goes into some of the gnostic beliefs of some sects of early Christianity. The parallels between Scientology and early gnostic Christianity are very strong.

Within Scientology, you have the full range of people who practice - as you do in any religion. You have those who are trying to find meaning in their life. You have those trying to make money. You have those who are trying to convert/save others.

While the origins of Scientology are debateably monetarily inclined, there are people for whom it gives a direction in life. To that extent, Scientology is an institutionalized system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices and it is an honest religion for some people. I don't believe it was conceived as such originally. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:31, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:: What ever you say Mtur, I love your parallels connection, says much about you. Maybe you can start some Conservapedia entries then. You know what else is an honest religion? Waking up at the same time everyday. Taking a whiz and a shower. Getting dressed for the day ahead. I believe it will start this way. I adjust my attitude and put into practice. Scientology, A religion? Cult --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:55, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Let see... claims to be a religion. Demands money from its followers. Viciously attacks all who speak negatively of it, including some high-profile journalists. Absolutly rediculous core doctrine (Xenu the galactic ruler?). Shadey origins. Clearly for-profit. Secretive internal workings. Frequent accusations of illegal activities, some of which have resulted in convictions. Sounds like a cult to me. And a quite dangerous one, by some accounts - remember, Scientologists are required to reject the use of conventional medications. There was even one case where an epileptic joined the church and was told he didn't really need his anti-seisure medication. He died not long after, as a direct result of his refusal to take said medication. - BornAgainBrit

BornAgainBrit all your accusations against scientologist also are mirrored in christianity especially in the south. Clearly for profit-pick a TV preacher
Secretive Internal workings-come on do i really even have to address this matter? Frequent accusations of illegal activities- priests. Many christian sects are required to reject modern medicine. If scientology is a cult that so is every religion on the face of the earth.

==Definite YES.==

Basically, all their babbling about Xenu and similar, utter nonsense makes my head hurt. The founder had a great idea about how to make money: he realized this idea, made a huge load of money, and died a rich man. Is there a lot more to say? Oh, yes, he DID leave a huge mess of a cult behind to trouble our already-more-than-troubled world some more. Gee, thanks.
So, I´ll just say YES, with no "But" attached.

It's not true creation because dinosaurs are myths, our earth is flat, and heaven is the clouds.--[[User:Edtropolis|Edtropolis]] 16:21, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

User:Edtropolis

2007-06-22T20:19:15Z

Edtropolis:

{{userboxtop|Edtropolis, Edbox}}
{{user American}}
{{userboxbottom}}

Hi, I'm Edtropolis and I'm Anti-Wikipedian.

Why Wikipedia Sucks?

* They accused me for ''Disruption, Single purpose account created for AFD purposes.''
* accused for me calling AFD article ''Appears to be a consiracy theory''.

Bah.

Wikipedia Sucks.

User:Edtropolis

2007-06-22T20:18:49Z

Edtropolis:

userboxtop|Your Name, Title}}
{{user American}}
{{userboxbottom}}

Hi, I'm Edtropolis and I'm Anti-Wikipedian.

Why Wikipedia Sucks?

* They accused me for ''Disruption, Single purpose account created for AFD purposes.''
* accused for me calling AFD article ''Appears to be a consiracy theory''.

Bah.

Wikipedia Sucks.

User talk:Edtropolis

2007-06-22T20:11:23Z

Edtropolis:

If you want to ask me why Wikipedia Sucks or other things. Please click the '''+''' tab and let your voice be heard.

User talk:Edtropolis

2007-06-22T20:11:04Z

Edtropolis: New page: If you want to ask me why Wikipedia Sucks or other things. Please click the + tab and let your voice be heard.

If you want to ask me why Wikipedia Sucks or other things. Please click the + tab and let your voice be heard.

Essay:Stem Cells

2007-06-22T20:04:50Z

Edtropolis:

I noticed on the main page the news item about adult stem cells and the byline indicating how (in the opinion of the author(s)) the "abortion" industry ''"continues to insist on unsuccessful embryonic stem cell research in the United States"'' and it continues to say how ''"In the case of a recently successful adult stem cell project for diabetics, "the research was done in Brazil because U.S. doctors were not interested in the approach."'' Nonsense. I am not a researcher in that area, but know enough to understand that scientists go where the data leads them. If adult stem cells will work like other stem cells, people will try them and such efforts continue. It is utter nonsense to say that doctors in the US are not interested in that approach - perhaps they know a few things the author(s) do not know.

: It amazes me how much the media sings the tune for embryonic stem cells when zero has been accomplished. Probally has to do more with the Bush bashers (his veto), than any logical reason for promoting a big big maybe. John Kerry claims embryonic stem cells saved a little old mouse. Is that not the most pathetic augument ever--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 16:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)?
:: Research in medicine is slow and the medications and treatments we enjoy today are the result of years of painstaking efforts by people all around the world. When we examine history, we realize that there was horror at scientists/medical doctors interested in dissection of cadavers, experimentation on animals - certain religious groups do not believe anything other than their faith can cure all illl - and oppose all modern medical interventions. There is slow progress being made on understanding how stem cells (adult and embryonic) can be programmed/taught to develop along particular lines for transplantation/therapy/ and yes, initial progress is usually demonstrated in small animals, particular mice. So, NO, it is NOT a pathetic argument whatsoever, it indicates we are making progress. [[User:Seekcommon]]
:::I heard ''PETA'' is one of the biggest organizations against animal testing.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:42, 18 April 2007 (EDT):::: Yes, I have heard report of their atrocities also. To many who belong to PETA/ human life is far less (or not important) than any/all animal life - they would take human life to protect animals, what I understand. Despicable for sure. [[User:Seekcommon]]
Stem cell research is a vital part of a growing scientific and medic commune that hopes to eraticate such diseases as Alzheimers. The unfortunate thing is that FETAL stem cells are incapable of providing such results. However, ADULT stem cells have already cured 60 some odd diseases and cured parallysis in several test subjects. The thought of farming children like livestock is barbaric. To really just grow children for spare parts is inhumane. Besides, trials involving FETAL stem cells have had side effects similar to being jolted with lightning include spaztic convulsions that does not dissipate. Its harmful to both the humans who were involved in clinical trials and the humans they were harvested from. My responce does not come as a Republican, or a Bushie, but as a concerned citizen of Earth who feels more can be accomplished whithout sacrificing the next generation. P.S. Aztecs sacrificed children and we called them barbaric. [[User; Dfairlyxed13|Dairlyxed13]]
: It IS barbaric to "grow" children for spare parts, that is not the intention, as fas as I know, of the people who pursue embryonic stem cell research. It is not true that ALL stem cells are equivalent, from what I understand. While attempts are being made to reprogram stem cells from any source, the current state of the art/science seems to be that only embryonic stem cells seem capable of differentiating into any tissue/organs. Again, from what I understand, the clamor is to be able to use cells which were going to be destroyed - or use cells that were discarded naturally - e.g. when there is a miscarriage ... again, my limited understanding. Nature/God is far more "cruel" if you can say that when it comes to terminating pregnancies - it happens at far higher rates than deliberately induced abortions, again, what I gather. Humans are always pushing the envelope - we are always seeking means to improve and yes, protect lives - starting with drugs to kill bacteria/viruses, to deliberate surgical interventions to transplantation and so on. We should ALWAYS be careful in what we pursue, yet, where the lines we must NOT cross are not clear to all and hence the controversies. I do not for a minute believe that the right to choose people are simply waiting to kill babies/unborns - OR that the right to life people are not sympathetic to the victim of rape or incest or unwanted pregnancies. I just wish that each side would understand what it is that they seek and work towards the common goal of reducing living, human suffering and not add to the sufferings. [[User:Seekcommon]]

I have nothing against stem cell research... non-embryonic stem cell research, that is. Stem cell research using non-embryonic sources (umbilical cord blood, placenta, bone marrow, and adult skin, blood, brain, and body fat cells) is ethically fine. No human lives are destroyed. If stem cells can be obtained from living humans without harming them, then why are embryonic stem cells so sought after. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, meaning they can become almost any type of cell. Adult stem cells are multipotent, meaning they can only make cells from a closely related group of cells. For example, one type of stem cell could make RBC's, WBC's, platelets, etc., but not nervous tissue. For this reason, embryonic stem cells are more desirable. However, we must face the ethical realities. Is it right to take one person's life to save another's? Opinion changes from person to person, but I believe life begins at the moment of conception. There is no reason why that baby should be used for stem cell research. It is not ethically justifiable. However, I know that this will come up - what about aborted babies? Should we "waste" the babies that mothers do not want, or should we "harvest" their stem cells to help other people? My opinion - one wrong does not justify another. Just because a baby was aborted doesn't make it right to use it for stem cell research. Additionally, ponder this... if the government were to allow aborted babies to be used for stem cell research, the mothers might get paid... if they were paid, people would have many babies with someone on purpose so that they can destroy the life of an individual to make money. I would like to see everyon elses reaction to this, as well as the question, "Should we "waste" the babies that mothers do not want, or should we "harvest" their stem cells to help other people?" So quite simply, it is never morally or ethically justifiable to kill one human being to benefit another human being. Sooo... next topic, stem cells that have been discarded. Illegal. Why? Well, allowing discarded stem cells, as in stem cells from an aborted fetus, seems to condone abortion, because the cells are being used for a "good purpose." Basically, one wrong does not justify another. Just because the baby was already aborted does not make using the embryos for their stem cells fine. Because then you might have people willingly abort their babies knowing they will be used for science. Or even more disturbing - a mother "growing" babies that she aborts to use stem cells to heal the sickness of herself or others. Not something we want to support. Thus, by making using even discarded embryonic stem cells illegal, a line is being drawn. Under no circumstances are embryonic stem cells fine. Because when you make exceptions, more and more get made until possibly the thing itself becomes legal. I had thought the same thing you do once, but then realized that its morally wrong. One wrong does not justify another. About the jail time: if it was just a fine, rich doctors could easily continue to use the ESC's without getting hurt too bad. People who kill the life of a human to help another are criminal. Another example: euthanasiasts - they take the life of a patient to ease their suffering and make the lives of those suffering with them emotionally better.
WHY IS MURDER JUSTIFIABLE FOR SCIENCE?? IT SHOULD NOT BE SO!
- [[User:JCasto]]
: your argument obviously brings about the topic of what is defined as being human. Personally, a small clump of cells that has a large chance of not developing properly, is not what I view as a life. Besides what about embryos that are stored by couples who have successfully undergone invitro fertilization? Those embryos will never be used and they will probably be thrown away. Why not use those embryos for stem-cell research? JCasto, are you willing to save the "life" of an embryo at the cost of prolonging of the suffering of millions of people? - [[User:comatose raccoon]]
Stem cell research is bad. Embryos are living beings.--[[User:Edtropolis|Edtropolis]] 16:04, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

User:Edtropolis

2007-06-22T19:51:01Z

Edtropolis:

Hi, I'm Edtropolis and I'm Anti-Wikipedian.

Why Wikipedia Sucks?

* They accused me for ''Disruption, Single purpose account created for AFD purposes.''
* accused for me calling AFD article ''Appears to be a consiracy theory''.

Bah.

Wikipedia Sucks.

User talk:DanH

2007-06-22T19:38:04Z

Edtropolis: Hi There!

'''Archives:'''

[[User talk:MountainDew]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive1]]

==Vandalism==

Dan,

Thanks for all your help dealing with this latest vandal. Rather than deleting all the pages he creates, I have been replacing them with content or redirecting them, and then protecting them. Eventually, we can hope he will run out of inventive names for Satan! ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 16:38, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== [[deletedpage]] ==

when pages need to be deleted and protected, just protect it and replace the content with <nowiki>#REDIRECT [[deletedpage]]</nowiki>. that way it doesn't show up on searches. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 12:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Please take a look at this edit ==

You might want to have a look at this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Che_Guevara&diff=160970&oldid=160909 edit], and the associated photo that was uploaded to make the edit possible. I've already left a message with the user responsible for the photo and edit, but am not sure if it is revertable. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 18:41, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

==Allegation of Racism==

I fail to see how my comments on Sikhs are racist. Islam and Sikhism do not describe races they describe religion. Both are wrong in my opinion are to be condemed

== Thank you indeed ==

It has been an honor. Thank you indeed.

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:42, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Deceit Entry ==

Dan, please accept my apologies on the Ward Churchill edit to the [[deceit]] entry. I was confused about who he is. Feel free to reinsert something, with support like this: [http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3841949,00.html]
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
No need to apologize. I just figured that this instance was not quite conducive to the direct you had intended for this article. I'll re-add it a little later this evening. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:29, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Hovind ==

May I ask why you removed "controversial". Given that many other YECs also have issues with him, calling him controversial seems fair. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 12:59, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

I've come under attack for my edits on this article (there was even a call for me to be blocked from the site, though it's not on any CP talk pages) and I was trying to "balance" the article somehow. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:02, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

== notice ==

please read this: [[New Sysops Training Page]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:22, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

== Hello! ==

First of all, thanks for the greeting. This project is very interessting. I'm trying to build up a counter-Wikipedia in german language. The situation of the german Wikipedia is really dire. If you are dissapoited by the english language Wikipeda, take a closer look at the german one. There are not liberals (left) dominating, there are partly well known left-wing extremists (communists, socialists) serving as administrators. It's bad. --[[User:Deutscher|Deutscher]] 16:43, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

== Trashbat ==
Dan - I've no idea if Trashbat is blocked or otherwise in disgrace but the crude sexual reference you removed from [[Leeds]] was not posted by him but by Tony Drago. FYI. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 14:44, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
: I stand corrected. Well spotted. Tony Drago must have been a sock. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 14:49, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

*I don't see Dan online, however I did see: ''10:13, 20 May 2007 DanH blocked "Trashbat" with an expiry time of infinite ("dogging" reference to Leeds)'' So the two users being blocked are different instances. The other user's block isn't infinte. ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:51, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

:TK The "dogging" reference was put in twice but I only noticed the second edit which was done by Tony Drago. I thought that Trashbat was being unfairly blocked instead of Tony Drago but Dan pointed out that Trashbat had made the orginal edit a lot earlier, so it was fair after all. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 03:20, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Siege mentality ==

Thanks for moving that. I was trying to do it myself with a name change and redirect but being a sysop has its advantages I guess. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 03:15, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== [[Contaception]] ==

Dan, can you move this to its proper title with an '''R''' in it. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 03:26, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== [[Orthohombic]] ==

OK here's another one with a missing '''R''' - it should be orthorhombic. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 03:38, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== think i made a mistake ==

Got your message. I unblocked him I think before i got your message. Please make sure I did the unblocking right as i am not too techie here. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:58, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Question ==
I notice that some sysops protect images. Do you want me to do that to?[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 15:16, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

==Article Creations==
Your welcome Dan. I enjoy contributing to this site. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]]) 22:44, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

== ! ==
I wanted to undo the Joshua article! Your to fast.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:44, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for your kind welcome. I am glad to be here. I hope I can make a positive contribution. --[[User:ErnstR|ErnstR]] 00:06, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for protecting Joshua. Recently I have become more aware of the responsibility that we have to avoid efforts at sensationalism or inappropriate edits. I found one of our articles in an internet search engine, the first one I have seen. It was listed under atheism. There, proudly, is the link to conservapedia. What is the first line of text in the search engine for all to see what conservapedia says? George Bush states that he doesn't believe atheists should be U.S. citizens... This is what is presented as conservapedia? When we allow through junk, we sully the reputation of the site... Thanks again... [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:25, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks! (sorry not to have anything different from the above 2) ==

It's good to be back! Oh, and check out my shiny new hellenised sig!--[[User:Wikinterpreter|'''ύικι ντερπρετηρ''']] [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

== Tiny typo==

Hi, hope you don't mind but I am really really picky about punctuation. I'm not proud of the fact, I just can't help it! In the Bible article, in the King James section, second paragraph, second sentence, it says "it's vocabulary", which should be "its vocabulary". "It's" is only ever a contraction of "It is". I wouldn't say anything but I just know there are people like me out there who will see that mistake, roll their eyes, and jump to conclusions (unfairly) about the quality of the article. [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 19:09, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

* And then I went and wrote "tint typo" as the description. That's justice. [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 19:10, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
==Chrono Trigger==
This was a well known video game in the mid 90s. It is definetly noteworthy. Wikipedia and Uncyclopedia both have articles on it.

== Answers in Creation ==

So do I get brownie points for creating this one Dan? ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:05, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

You definitely do from me, but probably not from the majority of the sysops. LOL just kidding [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:12, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Hi Dan, I'm trying for sysop now to join you 'elect' guys. I know you've put a 'good job' on my page before so I thought I'd ask what you think of my overall contribution to conservapedia. If you're pleased with my work, I hope you'll drop by and add some comments. Thanks ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:25, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Weimar republic ==

Why did you remove the stub? It is more than appropriate for this article. [[User:Order]]

== Protection ==

Hi Dan,

We may be at the point where it would be wise to protect Satan (again) and Hell. I know Satan was opened again to merge in Luficer, but that's been taken care of. Thanks! [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:05, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Lions Den ==

Dan with a name like yours was it wise to enter the Lion's Den? :-) [[User:DollarsAndSense|DollarsAndSense]] 16:38, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Cumbernauld ==

DanH I see you reverted my reversion of this entry. Channel 4, is an incredibly controversial channel in the UK often broadcating sensationalist programs. It's main output is a program called Big Brother where members of the public are locked in a house together in order to be voted out by the public. Even this is fixed as the most sensational members are reinstated to boost viewing figures. It has featured coed type nude jacuzzi scenes and even live sexual acts. It also gave a prime-time slot to Richard Dawkins to attack religious belief. I would not take seriously any reference to programming from this source. [[User:Alban|Alban]] 17:58, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
:Follow the link - [http://www.channel4.com/life/microsites/D/demolition/worst2.html] Or would you prefer a BBC link? Try [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4362410.stm] I have no idea why you have suddenly appeared to defend reversion of my corrections of previous deliberately inserted inaccuracies and falsehoods, but I stand by my edits and the links above refute your opinion. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:02, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

::Your BBC link actually refers to a protest by the local council against this slur. [[User:Alban|Alban]] 18:06, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
::: A ''slur'' that has seen the town 3 times voted a "carbuncle" etc. Regardless of the news source, the national opinions remain the same. Attacking the edit by claiming it is a liberalist, pornographers' conspiracy is just peurile. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:09, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

::::If your are going to engage in ''ad hominem'' attacks and name calling then I will not continue this discussion. It is not appropriate language for Conservapedia. [[User:Dafydd|Dafydd]] 18:15, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::The word "peurile" is directed at the action, not the person. And did you forget which sock you were supposed to be using? I thought you were [[User:Alban]]...? Sock-puppetry is also a peurile action. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:20, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Thank you for your support Dafydd but as a native Scot I think I know what I'm talking about. Cumbernauld is not a monstrous carbuncle and deserves better than being derided by a sensationalist sassenach TV station. [[User:Alban|Alban]] 18:18, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Oops! Got the correct puppet on now XD [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:20, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Oh yes, very funny. Accuse me of socking. Just because someone else objects to your abusive language. If you want to continue this discussion further then I suggest you move it to one of our talk pages rather than cluttering up a sysops page. [[User:Alban|Alban]] 18:32, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Please refer back to [[User talk:Dafydd|your other talk page]] to see confirmation that you were busted via IP address. Nice try. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:37, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

==Thanks==
Thanks Dan. I appreciate your support. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 23:29, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

==Why was my edit reverted?==

What's wrong? I'm trying to improve the baraminology article by explaining what the types of people under the Human Holobaramin are. It's what's in the Bible. [[User:BillJones|BillJones]] 02:02, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

The Mongoloid entry was totally racist. For one. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 02:26, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

==Your granny==

I mean, your grammar: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Skylab&curid=28032&diff=186334&oldid=186289] Nice fix! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:30, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. My Grandmother would expect nothing less. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:31, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

== South Africa ==

Dan, there's a lot on this site I disagree with. So be it. But I am glad to see that people here find all those racist bits on South Africa as loathsome as I do. Thanks for nuking all those entries by a guy who seems to be longing for the days of Pik Botha. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 23:15, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

==Capitals==

Thanks for the info. I did search under several titles for US Capitals, etc. but no pages came up. Should I ask a sysop to delete my page, or is that unnecessary? [[User:DeborahB.|DeborahB.]] 15:20, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

I think your page looks good, and better than the other one. Maybe if all the links got fixed that would be best. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:23, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

== blocking ==

Hey how can you find the IP for the user, I dont think I have the checkuser button. lol Sorry I might sound dumb.--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 16:19, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

I sent the instructions to you through Conservapedia email. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:21, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

::I heard about the email and no one told me how to acess it!--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 16:44, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

How to access your email? It should just be sent to whatever email you signed up to the site with. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:45, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

::O thanks. Um Tk told me you also get a email through conservapedia. So I got that confused.--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 16:47, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

That may be what he meant. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:47, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, it was. Will, if your email is enabled here, users can email you, CP will forward it to your regular email account. If you reply to them via your email client, they will also have your email. If you respond to them via the CP "email this user" deal, they will not. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 06:05, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Should I block Brainslug? Brainslug created Zimbardo Cookie Experiment and has had a 2 hour block in his past. [[User:BethanyS|~Beth~]]

Yes. If he wants back, he can email you and plead his case. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

== Question ==

How was your paper on [[Putin]]? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 15:17, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
:well done. He is not a good guy. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 15:57, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

== Andorra ==
On the matter of [[Andorra]], look at who the edits before me were made by; [[So Alone]] who was blocked for being a sock of this one guy. Do you think his edits are trustworthy? [[User:UnderCurrent|UnderCurrent]] 16:35, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for pointing that out! Definitely not trustworthy. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:38, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

:P.S. Where would one find a compendium on user boxes around here? [[User:UnderCurrent|UnderCurrent]] 16:53, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Userboxes [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:56, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

== Question ==

Hello, I was looking at the user creation log and I noticed this:

15:08, 12 June 2007 HolographicMedia (Talk | contribs | block) created account for User:OpticalEthernet (Talk | contribs | block)

What happened, and is this allowed? Can users create accounts for others like this?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 17:56, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure how that works, but I think that without an explanation given, it generally isn't allowed. I know that HolographicMedia was blocked earlier today. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:58, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

== you missed ==
I think you missed [[User:MartyFillmore]]. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 18:43, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

== Image ==

Hello, Dan. I see you protected an [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Balkans.png image] I uploaded. Did you, by any chance, look at the talk page? The image is a modified version of a Wikipedia image, and I wasn't sure if it was acceptable. Thanks! [[User:GregLarson | Greg]] 00:31, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

== War Elephants ==

Hell ya it is!--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 15:25, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

I bet its true [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 17:48, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

== Request for assistence in writing Article. ==

I have noted that two rather influential Supreme Court Justices have not managed to receive articles about them, namely, Hugo L. Black and William O. Douglas. However previous attempts at writing articles have ended in deletion as the result of perhaps a bit too overt a bias, I have the [[William Orville Douglas| beginnings of an article]] but am not remotely certain as to how I should proceed from here without repeating past mistakes. If at all possible could you review the beginnings of the page and lend me some of your wisdom?
Thanks-N. i. V.[[User:Nullius in Verba|Nullius in Verba]] 08:40, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

*Don't bother, Dan. I rather think old Nullius will have a problem with soiled robes, and won't be able to participate. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:26, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

==[[Freedom]]==
Dan, have you seen the Freedom entry? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Freedom&action=history] This article probably needs some serious treatment. Any idea who we can recruit to work on it? Thanks. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:32, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:I'll ask Karajou. Thanks. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:37, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

::It's on my list, boys. This should have been emailed, to keep from crossing up. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:21, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

==script?==
do we italicize book titles? Thanks!--'''Staple[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Staple HI!]''' 15:01, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

I have before, at least. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:02, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

== Vandalism ==

Where was my signature dishonestly used? I'd like to see. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 17:50, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I looked through the history and couldn't really find anything that looked like vandalism (except for that crap by Humorless). Could you perhaps direct me to the diff? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 15:22, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

==FF Vandal==
Is there something we can do? TK was helping me but he signed off AIM.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:03, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

We can lock the database for a few seconds if it doesn't let up. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:04, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think thats going to deter him. TK has done it three times now.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:07, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

::Who goes to bed at 11?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:18, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Kids. [[User:Niandra|Niandra]] [[User talk:Niandra|talk]] 00:19, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

When I was a kid, I wasn't allowed online past 11. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:18, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::When I was a kid we didn't have internet...--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:20, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Liar! That was me! :p --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:59, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Ok, lemme rephrase, when I was a kid we couldn't AFFORD the internet.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:01, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

== Hi There! ==

I hear that you're against Wikipedia. Me too. They accused me for '''Disruption, Single purpose account created for AFD purposes'''. I like you and your site.--[[User:Edtropolis|Edtropolis]] 15:38, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

User:Edtropolis

2007-06-22T19:34:35Z

Edtropolis: New page: Hi, I'm Edtropolis and I'm Anti-Wikipedian. Why Wikipedia Sucks? * They accused me for '''Disruption, Single purpose account created for AFD purposes.''' Bah. Wikipedia Sucks.

Hi, I'm Edtropolis and I'm Anti-Wikipedian.

Why Wikipedia Sucks?

* They accused me for '''Disruption, Single purpose account created for AFD purposes.'''

Bah.

Wikipedia Sucks.