Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Axolotl

2008-01-29T23:44:39Z

Horace28:

The '''Axolotl''' (also known as the Mexican Walking Fish) is an unusual [[neoteny|neotenous]] variety of [[salamander]]. Occurring naturally only in two lakes near [[Mexico City]] (one of which no longer exists), axolotls remain aquatic, with the form of a larval salamander, throughout their entire lifespan.

Injections of [[iodine]], stimulating its [[thyroid gland]], can stimulate the axolotl's [[metamorphosis]] into a adult form, which is similar, but not identical, to that of the tiger salamander.
Axolotls are capable regenerating entire lost limbs if necessary, and sometimes develop extra appendages in the process. These interesting phenomena have made axolotls the subjects of intensive study, and they are also commonly kept as pets.

The axolotl is carnivorous upon small fish and invertebrates.

[[Category:Amphibians]]
[[Category:Mexico]]

Absolute monarchy

2008-01-29T23:38:54Z

Horace28:

An '''absolute monarchy''' is a [[country]] that is ruled by a hereditary [[monarch]], with little or no [[democratic]] or other forms of limitation to his powers. Quite rare in the modern world, examples include [[Nepal]], [[Saudi Arabia]] and, until recently, [[Kuwait]].

Contrary to popular opinion, absolute monarchies were never the norm in [[Medieval]] [[Europe]], where some form of representative bodies always tended to exist. What happened was that ''after'' the end of the medieval period, some monarchies sought to increase their power, the prime example being [[France]], which had indeed become an absolute monarchy by the 17th century. In [[Kingdom of Great Britain|Great Britain]] (from 1801 the [[United Kingdom]]), on the other hand, went in totally the opposite direction, and the monarchs were gradually stripped of their powers until very few remain today (notable reserve powers of the British monarch include the right to declare [[war]] and conclude [[peace]], but these are never exercised by the monarch independently these days).

The [[Roman Empire]], though it started out as a democracy, evolved into an absolute [[military]] [[dictatorship]]. Whether it was ever a hereditary monarchy, however, is debatable at best. While certain families did manage to found dynasties that lasted for two or three generations, the vast majority of [[emperor]]s either came to power by a military [[coup]], or in a few cases were appointed on merit by their predecessor.

==See also==
*[[Constitutional monarchy]]

[[Category:Forms of Government]]

Kyles v. Whitley

2008-01-29T23:35:27Z

Horace28: Grammar

In ''Kyles v. Whitley'', 514 U.S. 419, 437 (1995), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that a prosecutor has a constitutional obligation to learn of, to preserve, and to communicate with the defense any exculpatory and impeachment evidence in the government's possession.
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]

USS South Carolina

2008-01-29T23:32:35Z

Horace28: Grammar

[[Image:USS South Carolina..jpg|left|140px]]
[[Image:USS South Carolina.jpg|right]]
'''USS South Carolina''' (CGN 37) was the second ship in the CALIFORNIA class of
nuclear powered guided missile cruisers and the fifth ship in the Navy to bear the name of the state. USS SOUTH CAROLINA was homeported in [[Norfolk]], [[Virginia]]. The USS South Carolina and her sister ship the [[USS California]] were equipped with two Mk-13 launchers.

The [[South Carolina]] was launched in July 1, 1972.

From combat operations off the coast of Bosnia to rescuing refugees in the Caribbean, SOUTH CAROLINA was always prepared to answer the call to duty. Be it power or peace SOUTH CAROLINA served the Navy and country with pride for over 23 years.

The ship conducted its final port visit in [[Charleston]], [[South Carolina]] 10-14 August 1998. SOUTH CAROLINA ended its proud Naval service during a Deactivation ceremony at Naval Station Norfolk Friday the 4th of September 1998.

== See also ==

*[[USS Nimitz]]
*[[USS Nautilus]]
*[[USS Liberty]]
*[[USS Constitution]]
*[[Ship]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.navybuddies.com/cg/cgn37.htm USS South Carolina (CGN 37)]
*[http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/1137/040137.htm USS SOUTH CAROLINA (DLGN/CGN-37)] NavSource Online: Cruiser Photo Archive.

{{DEFAULTSORT: South Carolina, USS}}
[[Category:Warships]]

User talk:Zmidponk

2008-01-29T23:19:10Z

Horace28: /* WARNING */

* *sigh* you are only escalating aggressions between liberals and the conservatives at this site beyond where it already is. Just really, shut up, you're not helping anything, you're only stirring things up, and it makes you look TOTALLY stupid that you refuse to argue outside of your own biased viewpoint. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 00:20, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:Really? I am 'escalating' aggressions by pointing out that deleting the factual phrase 'Christians believe that this is true', and replacing it with the opiniated one of 'this is definitely true' is in contravention of the site's own rules? [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 10:26, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:Hey, be nice now... After all, it's only a debate. Debates are a) the proper place (if any) for those sort of posts, and b) hardly ever payed attention to anyway! Zmidponk, you're not at fault here. But certainly, Puellanivis, if you see any unhelpful and biased posts in the ''article'' talk spaces, feel free to point it out to the user. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:36, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::That is true, but he is in violation of the 90/10 rule. Andy wants people to make positive contributions more than just using this site as a soapbox. It would be nice to see some edits. There are many noncontroversial topics that could be augmented or created. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:41, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:::Unfortunately, it is the 'controversial' pages that need editing to conform to the rules of this site, and, for the most part, they are locked, so they can't be edited. Which is what I'm pointing out. I can't see how it can be called 'using this site as a soapbox' to ask it to conform to it's own rules. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 10:26, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::::First, I would like to apologize, my behavior was in poor form, and reflected poorly upon CP. To address your question, again, just like Wikipedia CP has a policy of "Ignore All Rules" when it comes to ensuring that the site is kept towards its intended target, a conservative encyclopedia by wiki. Contraversial pages are prone especially to liberals coming in, and asserting their POV with a conviction that they are absolutely right, just as well conservatives go to WP, and assert their POV with a conviction that they are absolutely right. Both sides presume to be speaking the absolute truth. The difference is where that absolute proof is placed. On the primarily liberal Wikipedia, that absolute proof is with science. However, on Conservapedia, that absolute proof lies with God, and his inspired words from the Bible. If a scientific principle disagrees with the Bible, then it simply can't be true, because the Bible is infallable. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 14:19, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== WARNING ==

Your account will be blocked if you continue to delete material as you have been. Your actions have already been reverted 3 times, and if a 4th reversion is required then your account will be blocked.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:58, 29 January 2008 (EST)
:I am deleting material that, to put it bluntly HAS ZERO EVIDENCE BACKING IT UP. This is your site. If you have a problem with Commandments 1, 2 and 5, CHANGE THEM. Until you do, ABIDE BY THEM. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 18:00, 29 January 2008 (EST)
::I really don't think taking a hostile tone, especially to the site owner, is in your best interest, or the interests of anyone involved. So I'm giving you a short block to cool down. Andy, please undo my block if you feel I'm stepping on your toes... just trying to help :-) -[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 18:02, 29 January 2008 (EST)
:::I couldn't care less if you think it's in my 'best interests' to not take that tone or not, quite frankly. It is abundantly clear that Aschlafly is putting his own, personal opinion as to whether Dawkins is a 'proper professor' or not on Dawkins page and is abusing his authority in order to prevent this being corrected, despite there being abundant evidence on the talk page that he is completely, totally and utterly wrong. Apart from anything else, that is arguably libel, especially considering this website describes itself as an 'encyclopedia'. As for 'cooling down', I am, in fact, perfectly cool. The simple fact of the matter is that Aschlafly is wrong, and is breaking his own Commandments in order to enforce his wrong views as 'fact', and all I am asking Aschlafly to do is abide by his own rules, or change them to ones he WILL abide by. Not to do one of those two things shows him up to be an utter hypocrite of the highest order. [[User:Zmidponk2|Zmidponk2]] 18:17, 29 January 2008 (EST)
::::It's not arguably libelous. It is clearly libelous. --[[User:Horace28|Horace28]] 18:19, 29 January 2008 (EST)