Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservapedia:Contact Us

2009-12-01T12:58:07Z

Navy Nuke: /* Username change */

== Taking AP Biology ==
Hello, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but... I am a student in public high school, and am taking AP Biology. I have just learned that Evolution is an entire '''chapter''' in the course. Would it be moral for me to learn evolution without believeing it just to pass the test? Or should I drop the course? (This would be very time consuming and difficult)- David {{unsigned|DavidKondner}}
::Nothing immoral about learning about evolution at all. Go for it and you will be pleasantly surprised to learn what evolution is actually like. After all, the majority of people have major misconceptions on what it is which leads to their denial of it. Learning about something from those who support it is always best for learning the truth about the subject, don't limit your understanding of things to just those against it. [[User:Riddles|Riddles]] 23:30, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

I think Riddle is a very smart man and you should listen to what he has to say. No, you don't need to believe in evolutionism, but how are we suppose to become one peaceful humanity without learning about one another. [[user:horenvalle]] 14:01, October 16 2009 (EDT)

:::Learn a falsehood and pretend it's true, and more falsehoods, confusion, depression and errors will follow. Realize that atheists must believe in evolution despite its falsehood and you'll immediately see why they push, and push, and push it in public schools.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

::::"Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never peril. [[Sun Tzu]]"
::::If there's ''only'' a chapter on evolution in your course, I'd be amazed. Any non-creationist course on [[biology]] is likely to be [[evolution]]-centric. After all, if one won't accept special [[creation]], it's the only game in town! Just keep in mind the difference between science (testable, repeatable) and just-so stories ("This feature arose because ..."). Here are a couple of links you might find useful and encouraging:
::::*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0920classroom.asp ‘Creation evangelism’ in the public school classroom]
::::*[http://creation.com/how-do-i-do-my-assignment-about-evolution How do I do my assignment about evolution?]
::::You also might want to invest in a copy of Evolution Exposed, a book that breaks down the evolutionary assumptions and explanations, explicit and implicit, and provides both brief answers and directions to finding more information on line.
::::In short, you need to know what the evolutionists teach, even if you know it's wrong. ~ ''[[User:Mdotley|Webster]]'' ([[User talk:Mdotley|talk]]) 15:53, 24 October 2009 (EDT)

::better learn the material. College consists of a lot of required courses you have to take but don't have to believe. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 01:05, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

:::All the examples of such requirements consist of learning and reciting anti-Christian beliefs. I'm not aware of any colleges or AP tests that require learning a Christian belief to obtain basic credits.

:::Try homeschooling David, or try a college that does not require recitation of evolutionary beliefs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:12, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

== Unable to edit? ==

I would like to post the following to the Jesse Helms article after "Foreign Policy" but am locked out. I don't know why. {{unsigned|BertSchlossberg}}
: Editing is often turned off overnight (U.S. time), which may have been your problem, although that means that you shouldn't have been able to post here, so unless it was turned back on in the meantime, I can't explain it. Would you like to try it again? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:47, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:: Right. The [[Jesse Helms]] entry is not locked.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:06, 19 December 2007 (EST)

==When only part of an article is accepted==
I recently posted an entry, [[F-105 Thunderchief]], and included a references section and a category, but in the final article, neither section shows up, although they are clearly present when the "Edit" button is clicked. Just now, this happened again with another entry I tried to make. What gives? Does the site only accept so much information in a new entry? --[[User:Frey|Frey]] 17:58, 27 February 2008 (EST)
:You had a bad <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tag which I have fixed. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 18:02, 27 February 2008 (EST)
::I did? Oopsie. And thanks.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 18:09, 27 February 2008 (EST)

==KAL 007 article on Main page==
I would like to propose having the article [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] as a featured article on the Main page. Thanks.[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 15:32, 1 March 2008 (EST)
(finally got it right!)

: I'd like to review it in detail and hear what others think about it. On its surface, without yet studying it, it appears to be a major work. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:58, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:: There's a [[Conservapedia:Featured articles|page]] for listing proposed featured articles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:52, 1 March 2008 (EST)

==To Kill The Child/Leaving Beirut==

I just wrote an exteremly long and extensive artical about these two songs. Then, when I went to save the page, it said that it did not save it because there was a quote in their to explain about the song that contained a profanity. What gives? I thought that this website was supposed to educate people, yet people cannot be educated if they cannot know what the artical is talking about and what the proof is. {{unsigned|Std}}
: We have a profanity filter for good reason, but sometimes exceptions need to be made. You haven't supplied enough information for us to judge if this warrants an exception. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:47, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

What exactly are the exeptions that would get me the warrent?

How do you upload an image?

{{unsigned|Std}}
:You have to ask an administrator. There was a problem with people uploading obscene materials. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 00:42, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
: An exception would be warranted if, for example, the word caught by the filter was not objectionable in the context. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:57, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Can anyone do an article on Cong. Larry McDonald, a passenger aboard KAL 007?[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 07:01, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

==Proposal==
I wrote some time ago about making plans to build Conservapedia into a force to be reckoned with. This site has the potential to become a powerful tool, but still has a ways to go, I think. As an example, I just did a search on [http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI= ACORN], a group funded by leftist billionaire [[George Soros]] that is becoming a very serious threat to the integrity of local elections. All I found was a one-line page about the oak tree. Of course the solution to this is to simply create the page myself. But I don't think this solves the larger issue; to my knowledge, there isn't a program of incentives inviting conservatives to contribute high-quality information and research articles on our opposition. How do we do this?

For one, I take it that Conservapedia gets some heavy traffic. Heavy traffic = $$$ in potential advertising revenue. Use that money to attract the right people to help build Conservapedia into a powerhouse of information. This could include rewards for college students, or hired admins (background checked with references and resume, of course). Perhaps contact county or state Republican/conservative groups, show what you've done, and propose a team effort to get more people to contribute articles to the web site.

In short, there's a million ways that this project can grow, and it is more important to me that the conservative cause succeeds than to keep these ideas to myself. My hope is that someone reading this will take hold of them... [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 17:35, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

My IP address at home appears to have been blocked. Could someone please unblock me? [[User:FOIA|FOIA]] 15:16, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

==Bobby R. Himes==
I have a photo for the new article [[Bobby R. Himes]]. Can I get permission to upload it?[[User: Bhathorn|Bhathorn]] 18:24, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
: If the picture is on-line (and available for Conservapedia to use, of course), post the address here or click [[Special:Emailuser/Philip_J._Rayment|here]] to e-mail me the link and I can upload it to Conservapedia for you. If it's on your computer, e-mail me via that link anyway and I will reply with my e-mail address for you to e-mail me the picture, so I can then upload it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:59, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

==Banning policy?==
Hello, I represent a website interested in your work. However recently a member of ours, JMcClane used your website and edited a page on Obama because it stated he was a Muslim, which it has been proven he isn't, he has been banned for 5 years, care to comment? It was a JPatt who did the banning, would he like to comment too?
:JMcClane removed a large amount of material in that article and replaced it with this:
::''"Obama is regularly mistaken as Islamic due to his second name, in fact he is not Muslim though stands for equality between religions. He is in fact Christian, though rumours were spread by Conservative spin Doctors hoping to turn the public against him."''
:And who is JMcClane to you? Care to comment on that? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:16, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

:Beyond the fact that you didn't answer my question mate, we're part of the same website who are interested in the current election in America, you might have heard of it. He became involved in this site and this happened, so I reiterate, gonna answer the question properly?
::I did answer your question, "mate", and you're not going to act like you run ''this place''; you will answer mine now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:33, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

:As I said, we're part of the same website. I'm sorry about the mate comments, I'm just friendly like that. You've said you banned him cause of the edit, but isn't it kind of harsh as it is proven he's not Muslim so the entire article was pointless. That's all I'd like to know. And 5 years does seem steep.

Which website do you represent? Why are you interested in Conservapedia? Our banning policy is carefully calibrated and appropriate to the demands of the various situations. And sign your posts with four tildes, please; we are not interested in anonymous 'contributions'. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:10, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

==Google misdirection==
In Google Search, the entry for ""Alger Hiss - Conservapedia" was changed today from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Alger_Hiss" to misdirect to the nonexistent Web page "http://www.conservativeencyclopedia.com/wiki/Alger_Hiss." Is there a way to ask Google to restore the correct link? [[User:FOIA|FOIA]] 13:19, 4 February 2009 (EST)

*Thanks for noticing and reporting this, FOIA, but nothing needs to be done. When we had the hard drive failure, and temporarily re-directed, the search engine bots picked that up. Now that things are restored, the bots will report back to all the search engines, and in due time will be directing properly. The Google (and all other engines) are smart enough to compare and repair. Or so they say. Administrator Conservative might have more insight into this, and I have linked him to this page. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:23, 4 February 2009 (EST)
** For what its worth, Google is pretty much 100% automated. They almost never manually intervene in their search results, and that's generally due to a court or otherwise governmental order. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 14:38, 4 February 2009 (EST)
*** You mean that they generally ''only'' intervene due to court or governmental orders, correct? [[User:Npov2|Npov2]] 00:56, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

== Copyright? ==
I'd like to comment that [[:File:Kathleen Sebelius.jpg]] should probably be tagged as “fair use” rather than as “public domain.” Also, I think the description of the {{tl|commons}} template, both in [[Help:List of Templates]] and in the template body itself, is slightly misleading: items in Wikimedia Commons are not necessarily in the public domain. Thank you. [[User:Npov2|Npov2]] 00:56, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

== In the News ==
I'm not sure how to submit suggestions, so I'll post this here: Timothy Larsen, "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124355313058264477.html Look Who's a Believer Now]," ''The Wall Street Journal'', May 29, 2009, p. W13. [[User:FOIA|FOIA]] 10:40, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

== Google Gadget? ==
I understand that [[google]] has problems, but has there ever been thought to developing a "Google Gadget" with a conservapedia news feed?[[User:Mrguido45|Mrguido45]] 20:59, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

== Evolution Feature on the Main Page ==
The section of the main page devoted to the Evolution article states that, "In 2006, the prestigious science journal Science reported concerning the United States: "The percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005. Meanwhile the fraction of Americans unsure about evolution has soared from 7 per cent in 1985 to 21 per cent last year." The study was conducted with 2000 Americans (approximately), selected by pseudo-random digit dialing over the telephone. the study found that the portion of people unsure about evolution has increased in a statistically significant manner. The second finding of the study was that the proportion of people who believe in evolution and creationism have not changed in any statistically significant way (i.e.: That the p-value of the 1985 and 2005 data sets is greater than 0.05 - simply put, that there is not enough detectable difference between the respondents in 1985 and 2005 to make any kind of statement about it). Essentially, the study cited on the main page didn't actually prove that the public belief in evolution is declining. I would request a change to that article to remove the irrelevant citation about a decrease in evolutionary thinking among Americans. [[User: Praboud|Praboud]] 19:52, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

== Referred to as a Methodist ==

Hi, I am not sure if this is the right location to ask this, but at the bottom of my user page there is a category section that says "Category: Methodist Conservapedians". I didn't place that there and it isn't available for editing out when I look at the editable content for my user page. I only bring this up because I am not a Methodist and I do not wish to mislead anyone into thinking I am. I do not know who added me to this category or why, or somehow if I accidentally did this myself. If possible, may I be added to the "Agnostic conservapedians" category instead? Thank you. -- [[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 8:42, 20 June 2009 [EDT]

:It appears to be because of your userbox "This user believes in the United States Constitution." When I tried putting it on my user page, the Methodist category automatically appeared there as well. --[[User:OscarJ|OscarJ]] 09:02, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

::Fixed. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 11:20, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

== I might be wrong... ==

But I do see quite a bit of bias on Conservapedia. If this is supposed to be "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" then shouldn't bias be removed? I think that some of the articles are great and others are blatantly biased based upon the authors moral views. I know that some of the topics go against the beliefs of the people who run this site but it isn't a great way to run things. Tolerance of others and their beliefs, no matter what we think of them, is what Conservapedia should be about. Just my opinion and nothing more.

:Just your '''unsupported''' opinion and nothing more, you might have said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:35, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

::I could have, but I figured that people would pick that up from "'''I might be wrong...'''". I never had any beliefs that my opinions were supported here, as I had to make an effort to "vocalize" them. Generally people on and off of the internet don't support my opinions.

:::What I meant was that you made a claim of bias without providing any examples to support your claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:02, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

::::Ah. [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Che_Guevara]] "Ernesto "Che" Guevara" "became a cultural icon for" "'''dumb white teenagers'''." [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Communism]] "Communism is an atheistic political system" Although extremely hilarious, I think that those articles are somewhat biased and detract from Conservapedia's accountability. I have not seen Wikipedia style hijackings yet though.

==Tau ceti to Tau Ceti==

I created an article called [[Tau ceti]], but it should be Tau Ceti, is there anyway the name can be reset as the latter? Thank you. -- [[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 16:00, 24 June 2009 [EDT]

:Yes, there [[Tau Ceti|'''is''']]. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:17, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

:: Thanks! -- [[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 16:22, 24 June 2009 [EDT]

==Alger Hiss==
I just tried to link to The Encyclopedia of Ukraine at and got this message:

::Spam protection filter

::The page you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to a blacklisted external site.

The spam filter apparently mistook part of the URL for an obscenity.

Is there any way to fix this? Thanks![[User:FOIA|FOIA]] 21:40, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

*You can give the URL without making it a link, so that people can copy and paste the link into their own browser, but I am not inclined to unblock any part of that corner of the world, for pretty obvious reasons. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:44, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

==Kapteyn's star to Kapteyn's Star==

The article I created called [[Kapteyn's star]] was created with a lower case s for star, it should be upper case, could someone with the rights change the title to Kapteyn's Star? Thank you. -- [[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 15:00, 8 July 2009 [EDT]

== Double Redirects ==
All three of the current [[Special:doubleredirects|double redirects]] are protected. Could a Sysop fix them, please? Thanks. ~ ''[[User:Mdotley|Webster]]'' ([[User talk:Mdotley|talk]]) 22:18, 17 September 2009 (EDT)

=I'm having a bit of trouble with some linking=

I'm trying to get the "Weather Report" and "Return to Forever" articles to link to jazz fusion. Instead, it's linking me to another jazz fusion article that I accidentally created and was recently deleted. Any help is much appreciated. [[User:Jdelong11|Jdelong11]]

==Username change==
Is it possible to change one's username? I haven't decided what I want the new one to be but will let you know when I have.--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 13:30, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
If this is possible, I would also be interested in doing so, since I have been recently denuked, and it would be disingenuous to continue with this username. [[User:Navy Nuke|Navy Nuke]]

Electricity

2009-11-28T14:30:22Z

Navy Nuke:

[[Image:Htryt5.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Lightning strikes during a night-time thunderstorm. Energy is radiated as light when powerful electric currents flow through the Earth's atmosphere.]]
'''Electricity''' is [[energy]] that can be converted to heat, light, motion and many other physical effects through the force produced in the attraction or repulsion between charged particles. It is measured in terms of [[electrical charge]], [[current]], [[voltage]], and [[resistance]]. A basic element of electricity is the electric circuit. A circuit is a closed path that allows for movement of charges. Current is the name given to the movement of charges. The study of electricity involves the behavior of charges, current and voltage with the components that make up the electrical circuit. Electrical engineering has allowed many practical advances to be made, such as replacing [[steam power]]ed trains with more efficient electric trains.

==Polarity==

All materials that are known contain two basic components of electric charge: the [[proton]] and the [[electron]]. The proton is a particle with a single positive charge, and the electron has a single negative charge.

It is the arrangement of electrons and protons as basic particles of electricity that determines the electrical characteristics of substances. Although all matter has protons and electrons, most materials do not exhibit any evidence of electrical activity, because the protons and electrons arranged in balanced ways. In order to use electricity to do work, the material must contain electrons that are free to move from atom to atom. A battery can do electrical work because a chemical process takes place when it is part of a completed circuit moves electrons towards its negative terminal and conversely, creates a lack of them at its positive terminal. Electrons then flow through the circuit to keep balancing out this chemical process.

Some molecules are said to be "polarized" because their atomic arrangement and electron sharing causes a net charge to develop on opposite sides. Water is a classic example of this, with the electrons from the [[hydrogen]] atoms "spending more time" in proximity to the [[oxygen]] atoms. Since the hydrogen atoms are "attached" to the oxygen asymmetrically (instead of being at opposite sides of the oxygen, the angle between their "attachment points" is 108 degrees), one end of the water molecule carries a positive charge and the other a negative one. This polarization results in water's ability to dissolve [[salt]]s, and display acidic or basic characteristics.

==The Structure of an Atom Determines its Electrical Characteristics==

Although there are many possible ways protons and electrons could group themselves, they assemble in specific combinations that usually result in stable arrangement. Each stable arrangement of protons, electrons, and often [[neutron]]s makes one particular kind of atom, an [[element]]. Electrons orbit the nucleus of protons and neutrons at specific intervals, called "shells" or "energy levels." Each shell has a maximum number of electrons for stability.
It is the structure of the outermost shell of electrons in an element that determines how well it conducts electricity and its magnetic properties. If an element has fewer than eight electrons in its outermost shell, for example helium which has only two electrons, then it can conduct electricity to some degree; the elements that have one electron in their outermost shell conduct electricity best. [[Gold]], [[silver]], and [[copper]] are the best conductors of electricity because their outermost electron shell has only one electron, and this allows the freest flow of electrical current because the opposition of an atom of these elements from taking on or loosing electrons is low.
Materials with electrons that tend to stay in their own orbits are called insulators, because they do not conduct electricity very well. However, these materials (except for the inert gases) can also take up extra electrons to complete their outer shells, and become negatively charged; they hold on to and store electrical charge, unlike conductors. Insulating materials like glass, plastic, rubber, paper, air, and mica are called dielectrics, meaning that they can take on and hold electrical charge. Insulators are useful when it is necessary to prevent current flow. They are also used in applications for storing electrical charge, as in capacitors, since a good conductor of electricity cannot store any charge.
Materials that can conduct more electrical charge than insulators, but less than conductors are called semiconductors. [[Carbon]], [[silicon]], and [[germanium]] are commonly used for transistors and other semiconductor components, with silicon being the most widely used.

==Resources==
Grob, Bertand ''Basic Electronics'' Fifth edition, 1984

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Electricity]]

Debate:Women in the Military?

2007-03-20T21:52:34Z

Navy Nuke: I put it in the wrong section, gur.

== No ==

It is estimated that it takes eight people in supply to keep one man out in combat. Also, there are some jobs that by their nature are better suited to the female's mind, such as Air Traffic Controlman. I suppose it's pretty obvious where I come down on this issue. [[User:Navy Nuke|Navy Nuke]] 20:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:I'd like to see some support for that fairly sweeping generalization. I know some gents who do a bang-up job of being ATCs, and likewise some ladies who are as gung-ho crazy combat types as would make any drill sergeant's heart swell with pride - probably after cussing them out for being filthy little maggots, etc. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:34, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't really see where you are going with this. Are you for women in the military doing jobs that they are already doing? or is there something more? Please be more specific. Thanks --[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 13:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==
(YES) If Deborah and Jael could fight for Israel and win God's favor then I'm all for any woman willing to serve her country to be allowed to do so without resistance or unnecessary sexism, provided she is physically able to serve. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 03:46, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply:''' Actually... Jael certainly did not fight for israel and I don't get the impression that Deborah did either. (it is't quite clear: she accompanied Barak to Kedesh but seemingly did not follow him to the battle) At any rate, Jael killed Sisera while he slept in her tent-- not exactly fighting. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 22:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm female myself, and I have just this side of nothing bad to say about my experiences in the Navy.
It's rather difficult to find information about how many people are in a given Military Occupation Specialty (MOS); even for the sake of argument saying that every MOS has the same number of people would skew the numbers wildly. However, most MOSes are in support of one kind or another; I've counted 12 out of easily 100+ MOSes for the US Army (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/enlistedjobs/a/arjobs.htm) that are closed to women -- that is to say, these are the jobs that if you're deployed, you'll almost certainly see some kind of action.
I'm personally not for seeing women in combat situations, not because I don't think they can do it, but because there's quite a bit of anecdotal evidence that male service members are reluctant to both pull the trigger on a woman or leave a wounded woman behind. I would not want a mission compromised because the men felt more obligated to save a woman than to complete the mission.
I feel I've babbled enough for now. [[User:Navy Nuke|Navy Nuke]] 17:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
== I don't care, but... ==
Sorry to be quoting from a suspect source, but this part of their article is actually referencing a Department of Defense report (and I'm too lazy to go straight to the source):

A 2003 report financed by the Department of Defense revealed that nearly one-third of a nationwide sample of female veterans seeking health care through the V.A. said they experienced rape or attempted rape during their service. Of that group, 37 percent said they were raped multiple times, and 14 percent reported they were gang-raped. Perhaps even more tellingly, a small study financed by the V.A. following the gulf war suggests that rates of both sexual harassment and assault rise during wartime. The researchers who carried out this study also looked at the prevalence of PTSD symptoms - including flashbacks, nightmares, emotional numbing and round-the-clock anxiety - and found that women who endured sexual assault were more likely to develop PTSD than those who were exposed to combat.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/18/magazine/18cover.html?pagewanted=5&ei=5087%0A&em&en=dc68bc2f1dbc9825&ex=1174449600

A woman could end up a in a unit where everyone's a gentleman and they look after her, or they could have experiences like those described in the article. I wouldn't make any blanket statements that women aren't suited for military jobs, there's always exceptions (I've got a friend who's bigger and stronger than most men and she could handily beat up most anyone. Although she's a lesbian so I guess don't ask don't tell would apply), but I think in most cases people are better off steering clear of serving. You've got to be a really tough, dedicated person to be in there.
[[User:Barnetto|Barnetto]] 12:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Women in the Military?

2007-03-20T21:51:17Z

Navy Nuke: /* I don't care, but... */

== No ==

It is estimated that it takes eight people in supply to keep one man out in combat. Also, there are some jobs that by their nature are better suited to the female's mind, such as Air Traffic Controlman. I suppose it's pretty obvious where I come down on this issue. [[User:Navy Nuke|Navy Nuke]] 20:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:I'd like to see some support for that fairly sweeping generalization. I know some gents who do a bang-up job of being ATCs, and likewise some ladies who are as gung-ho crazy combat types as would make any drill sergeant's heart swell with pride - probably after cussing them out for being filthy little maggots, etc. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:34, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't really see where you are going with this. Are you for women in the military doing jobs that they are already doing? or is there something more? Please be more specific. Thanks --[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 13:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==
(YES) If Deborah and Jael could fight for Israel and win God's favor then I'm all for any woman willing to serve her country to be allowed to do so without resistance or unnecessary sexism, provided she is physically able to serve. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 03:46, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply:''' Actually... Jael certainly did not fight for israel and I don't get the impression that Deborah did either. (it is't quite clear: she accompanied Barak to Kedesh but seemingly did not follow him to the battle) At any rate, Jael killed Sisera while he slept in her tent-- not exactly fighting. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 22:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== I don't care, but... ==
Sorry to be quoting from a suspect source, but this part of their article is actually referencing a Department of Defense report (and I'm too lazy to go straight to the source):

A 2003 report financed by the Department of Defense revealed that nearly one-third of a nationwide sample of female veterans seeking health care through the V.A. said they experienced rape or attempted rape during their service. Of that group, 37 percent said they were raped multiple times, and 14 percent reported they were gang-raped. Perhaps even more tellingly, a small study financed by the V.A. following the gulf war suggests that rates of both sexual harassment and assault rise during wartime. The researchers who carried out this study also looked at the prevalence of PTSD symptoms - including flashbacks, nightmares, emotional numbing and round-the-clock anxiety - and found that women who endured sexual assault were more likely to develop PTSD than those who were exposed to combat.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/18/magazine/18cover.html?pagewanted=5&ei=5087%0A&em&en=dc68bc2f1dbc9825&ex=1174449600

A woman could end up a in a unit where everyone's a gentleman and they look after her, or they could have experiences like those described in the article. I wouldn't make any blanket statements that women aren't suited for military jobs, there's always exceptions (I've got a friend who's bigger and stronger than most men and she could handily beat up most anyone. Although she's a lesbian so I guess don't ask don't tell would apply), but I think in most cases people are better off steering clear of serving. You've got to be a really tough, dedicated person to be in there.
[[User:Barnetto|Barnetto]] 12:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm female myself, and I have just this side of nothing bad to say about my experiences in the Navy.
It's rather difficult to find information about how many people are in a given Military Occupation Specialty (MOS); even for the sake of argument saying that every MOS has the same number of people would skew the numbers wildly. However, most MOSes are in support of one kind or another; I've counted 12 out of easily 100+ MOSes for the US Army (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/enlistedjobs/a/arjobs.htm) that are closed to women -- that is to say, these are the jobs that if you're deployed, you'll almost certainly see some kind of action.
I'm personally not for seeing women in combat situations, not because I don't think they can do it, but because there's quite a bit of anecdotal evidence that male service members are reluctant to both pull the trigger on a woman or leave a wounded woman behind. I would not want a mission compromised because the men felt more obligated to save a woman than to complete the mission.
I feel I've babbled enough for now. [[User:Navy Nuke|Navy Nuke]] 17:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?

2007-03-18T19:52:24Z

Navy Nuke:

Definitely; we're the only world power, after all; it's our job to go in and stop communism there. If we don't, it'll only come here! [[User:CraigK|CraigK]] 22:37, 7 March 2007 (EST)

How can the US claim to be in favour of democracy if they intervene if they try to overthrow democratically elected communist governments?

Don't worry CraigK, you're lucky enough to live in a democracy - communists won't be winning any elections in the US in our lifetimes

We have a limited amount of political capital worldwide at this point in time, and right now, I think it's more prudent for us to concentrate on stopping terrorism and protecting Israel. This is unfortunate because of the trend toward liberalization of Latin America. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:25, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Just how many small countries are really communist anymore? Cuba and Vietnam seem the only candidates, and since the current regimes in both of those countries appear honestly popular an American intervention could become dangerous. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 22:35, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Communism isn't some sort of virus. It will not spread to us. We (as in the US) have no reason to defeat communism. It's an ideology, and when it fails, something else will come along. If someone came into your household and murdered your family, and then tell you to believe in communism, you just won't. Leave it alone, and it'll die out on it's own. --[[User:Cpryd001|Cpryd001]] 19:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

This debate is highly reminiscent of 1967. Communism, obviously, is no longer expanding because it failed as a realistic ideology. That's that. US military intervention did not stop Communism; Communism was efficient enough at doing that.

If there's a movement or rebellion in a Communist country, ''if they ask us to help'' and if they haven't employed detestable practices like, say, suicide bombings, then, by all means, we should help. Not many groups meet those criteria, however... [[User:Navy Nuke|Navy Nuke]] 15:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

USS Constitution

2007-03-17T18:14:16Z

Navy Nuke: /* Early Service */

The USS ''Constitution'' is the oldest commissioned ship in the [[United States Navy]], having served for more than 208 years.

==Construction==
The USS ''Constitution'' was one of six frigates whose construction was authorized by [[George Washington]] in 1794 to protect the growing American merchant fleet both from the "Barbary Pirate" states of [[Morocco]], [[Tunis]], and [[Tripoli]] and the still-powerful British [[Royal Navy]]. These six ships were each built in different cities; the contract to build the USS ''Constitution'' was given to Edumund Hartt's shipyard in [[Boston]].

It took three years to finish building the USS ''Constitution.'' Though her initial apportion was $115,000, her final cost was more than $300,000. It took some 2,000 trees to build her, including specialty woods cut from [[Maine]] and [[Georgia]]; her cannons were cast in [[Rhode Island]] and were fitted with copper fastenings from the prominent and prosperous craftsman, [[Paul Revere]]. She was finished on 10 October 1797, but it took a few attempts to launch her before she was commissioned, on 21 October 1797.

==Early Service==
After being put to sea, she saw her first service patrolling the southeast coast of the United States and the West Indies, protecting merchant ships from French Privateers. In 1801, [[President Thomas Jefferson|Thomas Jefferson]] sends the ''Constitution'' to be the flagship of the Mediterranean Squadron whose mission is to protect US merchant ships from renewed aggression of the Barbery Pirates, who were demanding tribute in exchange for access to Mediterranean ports.

==Present Day==
The USS ''Constitution'' is now berthed at Pier 1 of the former Charlston Navy Yard at one end of Boston's Freedom Trail, as is open to the public year-round. She is still a commissioned Navy ship, however, and visitors are subject to Navy provisions and the fact that she puts out to sea occasionally.

==references==
http://www.ussconstitution.navy.mil/

USS Constitution

2007-03-17T17:51:53Z

Navy Nuke:

USS Constitution

2007-03-17T17:45:43Z

Navy Nuke:

The USS Constitution is the oldest commissioned ship in the [[United States Navy]], having served for more than 208 years.

==Construction==
The USS Constitution was one of six frigates whose construction was authorized by [[George Washington]] in 1794 to protect the growing American merchant fleet both from the "Barbary Pirate" states of [[Morocco]], [[Tunis]], and [[Tripoli]] and the still-powerful British [[Royal Navy]]. These six ships were each built in different cities; the contract to build the USS Constitution was given to Edumund Hartt's shipyard in [[Boston]].

It took three years to finish building the USS Constitution. Though her initial apportion was $115,000, her final cost was more than $300,000. It took some 2,000 trees to build her, including specialty woods cut from [[Maine]] and [[Georgia]]; her cannons were cast in [[Rhode Island]] and were fitted with copper fastenings from the prominent and prosperous craftsman, [[Paul Revere]]. She was finished on 10 October 1797, but it took a few attempts to launch her before she was commissioned, on 21 October 1797.

==references==
http://www.ussconstitution.navy.mil/

USS Constitution

2007-03-17T17:27:04Z

Navy Nuke:

Electricity

2007-03-16T19:35:22Z

Navy Nuke:

Electricity is an invisible force that can produce heat, light, motion and many other physical effects. The force is an attraction or repulsion between electrical charges. More specifically, electricity can be explained in terms of electrical charge, current, voltage, and resistance. the corresponding electrical units are the coulomb for measuring electrical charge, the ampere for measuring current, the volt for potential difference, and the ohm for resistance. A basic element of electricity is the electric circuit. A circuit is a closed path that allows for movement of charges. Current is the name given to the movement of charges. The study of electricity involves the behavior of charges, current and voltage with the components that make up the electrical circuit.

==Polarity==
All materials that are known contain two basic components of electric charge: the [[proton]] and the [[electron]]. The proton is a basic particle with positive polarity, and the electron is the smallest amount of electric charge having negative polarity.
It is an arrangement of electrons and protons as basic particles of electricity that determines the electrical characteristics of substances. Although all matter has protons and electrons, most materials do not exhibit any evidence of electricity, because the number of protons and electrons are equal. The opposite electrical forces cancel each other out, and render materials like paper electrically neutral. In order to use electricity to do work, the protons and electrons must be separated. A battery can do electrical work because a chemical process separates electric charges to create an excess of of electrons at its negative terminal and conversely, an excess of protons at its positive terminal. With separate and opposite charges at two terminals, electric energy can be supplied to a circuit connected to the battery.

==The Structure of an Atom Determines its Electrical Characteristics==
Although there are many possible ways protons and electrons could group themselves, they assemble in specific combinations that result in stable arrangement. Each stable arrangement of protons, electrons, and often [[neutron]]s makes one particular kind of atom, an [[element]]. Electrons orbit the nucleus of protons and neutrons at specific intervals, called "shells" or "energy levels." Each shell has a maximum number of electrons for stability.
It is the structure of the outermost shell of electrons in an element that determines how well it conducts electricity and its magnetic properties. If an element has fewer than eight electrons in its outermost shell, it can conduct electricity to some degree; the elements that have one electron in their outermost shell conduct electricity best. [[Gold]], [[silver]], and [[copper]] are the best conductors of electricity because their outermost electron shell has only one electron, and this allows the freest flow of electrical current because the opposition of an atom of these elements from taking on or loosing electrons is low.
Materials with electrons that tend to stay in their own orbits are called insulators, because they do not conduct electricity very well. However, these materials (except for the inert gases) can also take up extra electrons to complete their outer shells, and become negatively charged; they hold on to and store electrical charge, unlike conductors. Insulating materials like glass, plastic, rubber, paper, air, and mica are called dielectrics, meaning that they can take on and hold electrical charge. Insulators are useful when it is necessary to prevent current flow. They are also used in applications for storing electrical charge, as in capacitors, since a good conductor of electricity cannot store any charge.
Materials that can conduct more electrical charge than insulators, but less than conductors are called semiconductors. [[Carbon]], [[silicon]], and [[germanium]] are commonly used for transistors and other semiconductor components, with silicon being the most widely used.

==resources==
Grob, Bertand ''Basic Electronics'' Fifth edition, 1984

Electricity

2007-03-16T17:27:40Z

Navy Nuke:

Conservapedia:Women in the Military

2007-03-16T17:10:13Z

Navy Nuke:

It takes something like eight people in supply to keep one man out in combat. Also, the best Air Traffic Controlmen on my ship are women; I think certian jobs are better suited to women than men, and vice versa. I suppose you can see where I come down on this issue. [[User:Navy Nuke|Navy Nuke]] 13:10, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Electricity

2007-03-16T16:56:45Z

Navy Nuke:

Electricity is an invisible force that can produce heat, light, motion and many other physical effects. The force is an attraction or repulsion between electrical charges. More specifically, electricity can be explained in terms of electrical charge, current, voltage, and resistance. the corresponding electrical units are the coulomb for measuring electrical charge, the ampere for measuring current, the volt for potential difference, and the ohm for resistance. A basic element of electricity is the electric circuit. A circuit is a closed path that allows for movement of charges. Current is the name given to the movement of charges. The study of electricity involves the behavior of charges, current and voltage with the components that make up the electrical circuit.

==Polarity==
All materials that are known contain two basic components of electric charge: the [[proton]] and the [[electron]]. The proton is a basic particle with positive polarity, and the electron is the smallest amount of electric charge having negative polarity.
It is an arrangement of electrons and protons as basic particles of electricity that determines the electrical characteristics of substances. Although all matter has protons and electrons, most materials do not exhibit any evidence of electricity, because the number of protons and electrons are equal. The opposite electrical forces cancel each other out, and render materials like paper electrically neutral. In order to use electricity to do work, the protons and electrons must be separated. A battery can do electrical work because a chemical process separates electric charges to create an excess of of electrons at its negative terminal and conversely, an excess of protons at its positive terminal. With separate and opposite charges at two terminals, electric energy can be supplied to a circuit connected to the battery.

==The Structure of an Atom Determines its Electrical Characteristics==
Although there are many possible ways protons and electrons could group themselves, they assemble in specific combinations that result in stable arrangement. Each stable arrangement of protons, electrons, and often [[neutron]]s makes one particular kind of atom, an [[element]]. Electrons orbit the nucleus of protons and neutrons at specific intervals, called "shells" or "energy levels." Each shell has a maximum number of electrons for stability.
It is the structure of the outermost shell of electrons in an element that determines how well it conducts electricity. If an element has fewer than eight electrons in its outermost shell, it can conduct electricity to some degree; the elements that have one electron in their outermost shell conduct electricity best. [[Gold]], [[silver]], and [[copper]] are the best conductors of electricity because their outermost electron shell has only one electron, and this allows the freest flow of electrical current because the opposition of an atom of these elements from taking on or loosing electrons is low.
Materials with electrons that tend to stay in their own orbits are called insulators, because they do not conduct electricity very well. However, these materials (except for the inert gases) can also take up extra electrons to complete their outer shells, and become negatively charged; they hold on to and store electrical charge, unlike conductors. Insulating materials like glass, plastic, rubber, paper, air, and mica are called dielectrics, meaning that they can take on and hold electrical charge. Insulators are useful when it is necessary to prevent current flow. They are also used in applications for storing electrical charge, as in capacitors, since a good conductor of electricity cannot store any charge.
Materials that can conduct more electrical charge than insulators, but less than conductors are called semiconductors. [[Carbon]], [[silicon]], and [[germanium]] are commonly used for transistors and other semiconductor components, with silicon being the most widely used.

United States Navy

2007-03-16T14:32:21Z

Navy Nuke: /* War of 1812 */

The United States Navy, or USN, has the mission "to maintain, train and equip combat-ready Naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression and maintaining freedom of the seas." With some 343,000 active duty personnel, 129,000 reservists, 256 ships and more than 4,000 aircraft, they are a formidable force.

==Birth of the USN==
On 13 October 1775, the Continental Congress drafted what is considered by many to be the birth certificate of the USN:

"Resolved, that a swift sailing vessel, to carry ten carriage guns, and a proportional number of swivels, with eighty men, be fitted, with all possible dispatch for a cruise of three months, and that the commander be instructed to cruise eastward, for intercepting such transports as may be laden with warlike stores and other supplies for our enemies, and for such other purposes as the Congress shall direct... Resolved, that another vessel be fitted out for the same purposes..."

Within a few days of voting to establish a Navy, Congress established a Naval Committee, which directed the purchasing, outfitting, manning and operations of the first ships of the new Navy, drafted naval legislation, and prepared rules and regulations to govern the Navy's conduct and internal administration.

There are numerous men who played prominent roles in founding the USN, including [[George Washington]], Continental Navy officers [[Esek Hopkins]], [[John Barry]], and [[John Paul Jones]] as well as civilian representatives at the Continental Congress who argued for the establishing of a Navy, such as [[John Adams]], [[Benjamin Franklin]], [[Robert Morris]], [[Joseph Hewes]], and [[Silias Deane]]. Since so many men colluded in the establishing of a Navy, the USN doesn't recognize one person, at the exclusion of others, to be the "Father of the Navy."

About half a dozen places make claims to being the "birthplace of the Navy," such as Machais, ME for the seizure of the Royal Navy schooner Margaretta by a small sloop armed with woodsmen on 12 June 1775. Whitehall, NY makes the claim that the army's fleet on Lake Champlain under [[Benedict Arnold]] was the United States' first Navy. George Washington employed a small fleet of schooners out of Beverly and Marblehead, MA. The first call for the establishment of a Navy was in Providence RI. However, if the Continental Congress had not passed the first national naval legislation in Philidelphia, there would be small argument about where the USN was born, anyway.

==The Revolutionary War==
During the United States' fight for independence, the Navy's squadrons and cruisers seized enemy supplies and carried correspondence and diplomats to Europe, returning with needed munitions. They took nearly 200 British vessels as prizes, some off the British Isles themselves, contributing to the demoralization of the enemy.
One notable triumph during this war was the capture of the British sloops of war Drake by Captain John Paul Jones' Ranger in April of 1778. Jones gained international notoriety for this incident, and for his operations in the North Sea and the Raids against the the coast of Great Britain itself.
After the American Revolution had ended, the Continental Navy was disbanded.

==War of 1812==
On 18 June 1812, the United States declared war on Great Britain for impressment of sailors and interference with commerce. The Royal Navy responded by blockading the American coast, although a number of United States warships were able to slip through the blockaders. These warships took aim at enemy naval and merchant ships, winning several courageuos victories in ship-to-ship actions. A particularly notable one would be the victory by Captain [[Isaac Hull]] in the [[USS Constitution]] (often called "Old Ironsides") over the HMS Guerriere.

United States Navy

2007-03-16T14:32:02Z

Navy Nuke: /* War of 1812 */

The United States Navy, or USN, has the mission "to maintain, train and equip combat-ready Naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression and maintaining freedom of the seas." With some 343,000 active duty personnel, 129,000 reservists, 256 ships and more than 4,000 aircraft, they are a formidable force.

==Birth of the USN==
On 13 October 1775, the Continental Congress drafted what is considered by many to be the birth certificate of the USN:

"Resolved, that a swift sailing vessel, to carry ten carriage guns, and a proportional number of swivels, with eighty men, be fitted, with all possible dispatch for a cruise of three months, and that the commander be instructed to cruise eastward, for intercepting such transports as may be laden with warlike stores and other supplies for our enemies, and for such other purposes as the Congress shall direct... Resolved, that another vessel be fitted out for the same purposes..."

Within a few days of voting to establish a Navy, Congress established a Naval Committee, which directed the purchasing, outfitting, manning and operations of the first ships of the new Navy, drafted naval legislation, and prepared rules and regulations to govern the Navy's conduct and internal administration.

There are numerous men who played prominent roles in founding the USN, including [[George Washington]], Continental Navy officers [[Esek Hopkins]], [[John Barry]], and [[John Paul Jones]] as well as civilian representatives at the Continental Congress who argued for the establishing of a Navy, such as [[John Adams]], [[Benjamin Franklin]], [[Robert Morris]], [[Joseph Hewes]], and [[Silias Deane]]. Since so many men colluded in the establishing of a Navy, the USN doesn't recognize one person, at the exclusion of others, to be the "Father of the Navy."

About half a dozen places make claims to being the "birthplace of the Navy," such as Machais, ME for the seizure of the Royal Navy schooner Margaretta by a small sloop armed with woodsmen on 12 June 1775. Whitehall, NY makes the claim that the army's fleet on Lake Champlain under [[Benedict Arnold]] was the United States' first Navy. George Washington employed a small fleet of schooners out of Beverly and Marblehead, MA. The first call for the establishment of a Navy was in Providence RI. However, if the Continental Congress had not passed the first national naval legislation in Philidelphia, there would be small argument about where the USN was born, anyway.

==The Revolutionary War==
During the United States' fight for independence, the Navy's squadrons and cruisers seized enemy supplies and carried correspondence and diplomats to Europe, returning with needed munitions. They took nearly 200 British vessels as prizes, some off the British Isles themselves, contributing to the demoralization of the enemy.
One notable triumph during this war was the capture of the British sloops of war Drake by Captain John Paul Jones' Ranger in April of 1778. Jones gained international notoriety for this incident, and for his operations in the North Sea and the Raids against the the coast of Great Britain itself.
After the American Revolution had ended, the Continental Navy was disbanded.

==War of 1812==
On 18 June 1812, the United States declared war on Great Britain for impressment of sailors and interference with commerce. The Royal Navy responded by blockading the American coast, although a number of United States warships were able to slip through the blockaders. These warships took aim at enemy naval and merchant ships, winning several courageuos victories in ship-to-ship actions. A particularly notable one would be the victory by Captain [[Isaac Hull]] in the [[USS Constitution]] 9often called "Old Ironsides") over the HMS Guerriere.

United States Navy

2007-03-16T14:15:31Z

Navy Nuke: /* The Revolutionary War */

United States Navy

2007-03-16T13:33:01Z

Navy Nuke: /* The Revolutionary War */

United States Navy

2007-03-16T13:28:41Z

Navy Nuke:

Electricity

2007-03-16T13:15:16Z

Navy Nuke:

Electricity is an invisible force that can produce heat, light, motion and many other physical effects. The force is an attraction or repulsion between electrical charges. More specifically, electricity can be explained in terms of electrical charge, current, voltage, and resistance. the corresponding electrical units are the coulomb for measuring electrical charge, the ampere for measuring current, the volt for potential difference, and the ohm for resistance. A basic element of electricity is the electric circuit. A circuit is a closed path that allows for movement of charges. Current is the name given to the movement of charges. The study of electricity involves the behavior of charges, current and voltage with the components that make up the electrical circuit.

==Polarity==
All materials that are known contain two basic components of electric charge: the [[proton]] and the [[electron]]. The proton is a basic particle with positive polarity, and the electron is the smallest amount of electric charge having negative polarity.
It is an arrangement of electrons and protons as basic particles of electricity that determines the electrical characteristics of substances. Although all matter has protons and electrons, most materials do not exhibit any evidence of electricity, because the number of protons and electrons are equal. The opposite electrical forces cancel each other out, and render materials like paper electrically neutral. In order to use electricity to do work, the protons and electrons must be separated. A battery can do electrical work because a chemical process separates electric charges to create an excess of of electrons at its negative terminal and conversely, an excess of protons at its positive terminal. With separate and opposite charges at two terminals, electric energy can be supplied to a circuit connected to the battery.

==The Structure of an Atom Determines its Electrical Characteristics==
Although there are many possible ways protons and electrons could group themselves, they assemble in specific combinations that result in stable arrangement. Each stable arrangement of protons, electrons, and often [[neutron]]s makes one particular kind of atom, an [[element]]. Electrons orbit the nucleus of protons and neutrons at specific intervals, called "shells" or "energy levels." Each shell has a maximum number of electrons for stability. If an element's outermost shell has its maximum number of electrons, it is considered chemically inactive. [[Helium]], [[neon]], [[argon]], [[krypton]], [[xenon]], and [[radon]] have this characteristic; since there are no free electrons in their outermost shell, they would, in theory, make "perfect" insulators.
It is the structure of the outermost shell of electrons in an element that determines how well it conducts electricity. If an element has fewer than eight electrons in its outermost shell, it can conduct electricity; the elements that have one electron in their outermost shell conduct electricity best. [[Gold]], [[silver]], and [[copper]] are the best conductors of electricity because their outermost electron shell has only one electron, and this allows the freest flow of electrical current because the opposition of an atom of these elements from taking on or loosing electrons is low.
Materials with electrons that tend to stay in their own orbits are called insulators, because they do not conduct electricity very well. However, these materials (except for the inert gases) can also take up extra electrons to complete their outer shells, and become negatively charged; they hold on to and store electrical charge, unlike conductors. Insulating materials like glass, plastic, rubber, paper, air, and mica are called dielectrics, meaning that they can take on and hold electrical charge. Insulators are useful when it is necessary to prevent current flow. They are also used in applications for storing electrical charge, as in capacitors, since a good conductor of electricity cannot store any charge.

Electricity

2007-03-16T13:08:38Z

Navy Nuke:

Electricity is an invisible force that can produce heat, light, motion and many other physical effects. The force is an attraction or repulsion between electrical charges. More specifically, electricity can be explained in terms of electrical charge, current, voltage, and resistance. the corresponding electrical units are the coulomb for measuring electrical charge, the ampere for measuring current, the volt for potential difference, and the ohm for resistance. A basic element of electricity is the electric circuit. A circuit is a closed path that allows for movement of charges. Current is the name given to the movement of charges. The study of electricity involves the behavior of charges, current and voltage with the components that make up the electrical circuit.

==Polarity==
All materials that are known contain two basic components of electric charge: the [[proton]] and the [[electron]]. The proton is a basic particle with positive polarity, and the electron is the smallest amount of electric charge having negative polarity.
It is an arrangement of electrons and protons as basic particles of electricity that determines the electrical characteristics of substances. Although all matter has protons and electrons, most materials do not exhibit any evidence of electricity, because the number of protons and electrons are equal. The opposite electrical forces cancel each other out, and render materials like paper electrically neutral. In order to use electricity to do work, the protons and electrons must be separated. A battery can do electrical work because a chemical process separates electric charges to create an excess of of electrons at its negative terminal and conversely, an excess of protons at its positive terminal. With separate and opposite charges at two terminals, electric energy can be supplied to a circuit connected to the battery.

==The Structure of an Atom Determines its Electrical Characteristics==
Although there are many possible ways protons and electrons could group themselves, they assemble in specific combinations that result in stable arrangement. Each stable arrangement of protons, electrons, and often [[neutron]]s makes one particular kind of atom, an [[element]]. Electrons orbit the nucleus of protons and neutrons at specific intervals, called "shells" or "energy levels." Each shell has a maximum number of electrons for stability. If an element's outermost shell has its maximum number of electrons, it is considered chemically inactive. [[Helium]], [[neon]], [[argon]], [[krypton]], [[xenon]], and [[radon]] have this characteristic; since there are no free electrons in their outermost shell, they would, in theory, make the best insulators.
It is the structure of the outermost shell of electrons in an element that determines how well it conducts electricity. If an element has fewer than eight electrons in its outermost shell, it can conduct electricity; the elements that have one electron in their outermost shell conduct electricity best. [[Gold]], [[silver]], and [[copper]] are the best conductors of electricity because their outermost electron shell has only one electron, and this allows the freest flow of electrical current because the opposition of an atom of these elements from taking on or loosing electrons is low.
Materials with electrons that tend to stay in their own orbits are called insulators, because they do not conduct electricity very well. However, these materials (except for the inert gases) can also take up extra electrons to complete their outer shells, and become negatively charged; they hold on to and store electrical charge.

Conservapedia:Abuse

2007-03-16T00:52:23Z

Navy Nuke:

<center><big>''Justice never sleeps''</big></center>
{|
|This is where you can report abuse of editing privileges. Please make notes short and concise. Crossed out notes have been dealt with.
|Archives
[[/archive1|1]]
|}

I am reporting [[user: Conservative]] He was involved in a dispute with AmesG and then unilaterally decided to ban him for a week, using a power he possessed and AmesG does not. That is a blatant abuse of SysOp authority - the proper course of action would have been to bring in another SysOp as a neutral third party to decide the matter. I am asking that AmesG be re-instated and Conservative be given a warning for his abuse of authority. This kind of ham-handed banning will give this site a bad reputation that will be hard to shake.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

*[[Eric Mukherjee]]. Suspect harmless undergraduate prankster hi-jinks. No sources provided. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:'''(removed names - these people may not be involved. Unfair to publically name and shame them if they are not)'''--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 12:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT) You're right, I shouldn't have done that. Thanks for removing them. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:46, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

[[user: JC]] is a suspected vandal. Could some one revert his edits I have done some but I don't thave time right now to search through everything.

===Christianity===
The page has been blocked to prevent editing, which I would normally commend had the content been accurate, except that the existing definition of Christianity is a weak rendition of the actual Biblical revelation. It should not be defined by a Harris poll! If you are to be any better than Wikipedia, you must want truth to be objectively stated. For something as important as one's eternal relationship with God Himself, the information better be accurate!

In Wikipedia, when Christians try to edit, say to some cult's page, the cult members merely come and erase it and edit it out. Truth doesn't matter to the site, and they allow the false claims to continue. That should be different here! Truth is objective, and can be known by anyone, believer or unbeliever in Christianity. Facts are still facts. But we can only write articles to the level of our knowledge. Whoever wrote, wrote what he could, but it can be improved, and should be allowed to be improved.

I would suggest a respected editorial Board for Christian issues. All Christian denominations surprisingly agree on the basics such as are in the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds of the Church. There is one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit; Jesus is fully God and flly man; He died and rose physically from the dead; He offers salvation solely on account of His grace, His works on our behalf, as our Substitute, taking the wrath of God due us. God calls us to repent and believe, and that faith is a "gift, that no man may boast."(Eph.2:8,9). Our salvation is because of the works of Christ alone, and we have this knowledge from inspired Scripture alone, etc.

All three major branches of Christianity, Protestantism, Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy would agree that Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian denominations, but rather non-Christian cults or religions. But in order to show the truth of various claims, there must be accuracy in reporting the facts -- objectivity. As it is right now, the definition of Christianity is far too limited.

Who do we talk to in order to submit changes for its editing?
Thank you,

PD Popejoy

:''All three major branches of Christianity, Protestantism, Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy would agree that Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian denominations, but rather non-Christian cults or religions.''
:They, on the other hand would disagree. Are we going with [[Truth By Headcount]], now? If so, the Christians were Wrong(tm) back when the Roman Empire was using them for lion chow. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 06:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

------------------

I responded on your talk page. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

=Current Alerts=
[[Skeeter]] for vandalism of [[Christianity]] -- [[User:TempestHead|TempestHead]]

Donej for his "emo" article --[[User:TempestHead|TempestHead]]

If someone could ban [[Fuckyourself]], for obvious reasons.
:Banned [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Look at [[Examples of Bias in Conservapedia]]. Nuff said. --[[User:Splark|Splark]] 02:06, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Been there, deleted that, got the hat. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 02:09, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::Somebody ban the kid, please. --[[User:Splark|Splark]] 02:14, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm no kid, I'm simply telling you what you need to change before this site can be accurate. Everything.
----

[[User:JesusWasAnExtraterrestrial]] for creating the article [[anus]] [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 20:19, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

===Liebniz===
I am asking that Leibniz be warned, if not temporarily banned, for repeatedly interjecting argumentative opinion into articles.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 17:04, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

===Creationism===

[[Creationism]]

Evolutionist JoshuaZ has arbitrarily erased the correct definition of Creationism two times now.

Issue #1:

I think it is logical and plain common sense that an evolutionist should have no say in defining his scientific rival because said rendering is bound to be riddled with bias and error.

Issue #2:

At any rate, I ask that my rendering of Creationism be reviewed by Administration to be the correct rendering and that JoshuaZ be informed of the ruling if in my favor.

''Proposed Rendering''

"Creationism is the belief that physical reality plainly reflects the work of invisible Divine power (Romans 1:20) and original causation of matter and life was by supernatural agency (Genesis 1:1; chapters 1 and 2). Universally, Creationism is the belief that a Creator is responsible for producing reality (general revelation) and that this revelation is the primary way of deducing the existence of said Deity. Based on observation, Creationism asserts scientific evidence is better explained when a Creator is presupposed to have created reality."

[[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 14:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:''I think it is logical and plain common sense that an evolutionist should have no say in defining his scientific rival because said rendering is bound to be riddled with bias and error.''
:I fully agree. By that logic, [[User:Conservative]] needs to stay OUT of the [[Theory of Evolution]] article. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 20:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==*waves a hand*==
could one of the editors go smack whoever defaced [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]] please? Thanks. [[User:Navy Nuke|Navy Nuke]] 20:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

----

=Finished=

==Conservative as an Admin==
Giving [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] admin status, and protecting articles like [[Young Earth Creationism]], has resulted in absolutely abominable, biased, unrepresentative articles. Someone should look into this; possibly an unbiased admin?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:You would have to go higher up the ladder since an Admin would have equal authority as me. [[User:Aschlafly]], who has authority over the Admins, has been working with me regarding a very similar article [[Theory of Evolution]] and he has had no complaints about the article. I don't think your complaints here are going to go very far. Here is what user Aschlafly has said about the Theory of Evolution article: "By the way, Theory of Evolution ranks number 3 in our most-visited pages, after the Main Page and Bias in Wikipedia. Well done!--Aschlafly 00:17, 27 February 2007 (EST)"[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Conservative] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Conservative, could you give us your reasons as to why the page is still protected? Will it be opened again to edits? --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 23:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I believe that [[User:Aschlafly]] should make the decision whether to unlock the page. However, should the page be unlocked and the direction the article takes be changed (pro-evolution view interjecting), I think it should be re-protected given [[User:Aschlafly]] previously mentioned endorsement of the page. Also, Aschlafly has called this encyclopedia Conservapedia and the creationist position is certainly a truly conservative view. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::I'll throw in my $0.02: From what experience I have working with Conservative and reviewing his edits, he is by and large a respectful and talented editor. Of course he has strong political and religious beliefs; nobody doesn't. But he definitely pulls his weight, and causes more good than harm. I'm not saying that all of his edits are up to chalk, but they all can be welded into shape. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Hojimachong, thank you for your kind words. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:31, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::My only grievances are the two articles listed, but I believe my fears have already been addressed. Apparently the goal of this site is not a Neutral POV, but an insular pro-fundamentalist Christian regime, which Conservative is actively following. As much as I decry that goal, you are acting within it.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 01:11, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I agree with AmesG. While this is a conservative encyclopedia, there are many conservatives who are evolutionists. I am personally an Old Earth creationist, but I don't believe that the other side's view should be censored, especially when many of my respected conservative friends' beliefs clash directly with mine. --[[User:Splark|Splark]] 02:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::: Note that AmeG has now been blocked by Conservative. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:41, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Abuse

2007-03-16T00:51:50Z

Navy Nuke:

<center><big>''Justice never sleeps''</big></center>
{|
|This is where you can report abuse of editing privileges. Please make notes short and concise. Crossed out notes have been dealt with.
|Archives
[[/archive1|1]]
|}

I am reporting [[user: Conservative]] He was involved in a dispute with AmesG and then unilaterally decided to ban him for a week, using a power he possessed and AmesG does not. That is a blatant abuse of SysOp authority - the proper course of action would have been to bring in another SysOp as a neutral third party to decide the matter. I am asking that AmesG be re-instated and Conservative be given a warning for his abuse of authority. This kind of ham-handed banning will give this site a bad reputation that will be hard to shake.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

*[[Eric Mukherjee]]. Suspect harmless undergraduate prankster hi-jinks. No sources provided. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:'''(removed names - these people may not be involved. Unfair to publically name and shame them if they are not)'''--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 12:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT) You're right, I shouldn't have done that. Thanks for removing them. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:46, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

[[user: JC]] is a suspected vandal. Could some one revert his edits I have done some but I don't thave time right now to search through everything.

===Christianity===
The page has been blocked to prevent editing, which I would normally commend had the content been accurate, except that the existing definition of Christianity is a weak rendition of the actual Biblical revelation. It should not be defined by a Harris poll! If you are to be any better than Wikipedia, you must want truth to be objectively stated. For something as important as one's eternal relationship with God Himself, the information better be accurate!

In Wikipedia, when Christians try to edit, say to some cult's page, the cult members merely come and erase it and edit it out. Truth doesn't matter to the site, and they allow the false claims to continue. That should be different here! Truth is objective, and can be known by anyone, believer or unbeliever in Christianity. Facts are still facts. But we can only write articles to the level of our knowledge. Whoever wrote, wrote what he could, but it can be improved, and should be allowed to be improved.

I would suggest a respected editorial Board for Christian issues. All Christian denominations surprisingly agree on the basics such as are in the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds of the Church. There is one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit; Jesus is fully God and flly man; He died and rose physically from the dead; He offers salvation solely on account of His grace, His works on our behalf, as our Substitute, taking the wrath of God due us. God calls us to repent and believe, and that faith is a "gift, that no man may boast."(Eph.2:8,9). Our salvation is because of the works of Christ alone, and we have this knowledge from inspired Scripture alone, etc.

All three major branches of Christianity, Protestantism, Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy would agree that Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian denominations, but rather non-Christian cults or religions. But in order to show the truth of various claims, there must be accuracy in reporting the facts -- objectivity. As it is right now, the definition of Christianity is far too limited.

Who do we talk to in order to submit changes for its editing?
Thank you,

PD Popejoy

:''All three major branches of Christianity, Protestantism, Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy would agree that Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian denominations, but rather non-Christian cults or religions.''
:They, on the other hand would disagree. Are we going with [[Truth By Headcount]], now? If so, the Christians were Wrong(tm) back when the Roman Empire was using them for lion chow. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 06:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

------------------

I responded on your talk page. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

=Current Alerts=
[[Skeeter]] for vandalism of [[Christianity]] -- [[User:TempestHead|TempestHead]]

Donej for his "emo" article --[[User:TempestHead|TempestHead]]

If someone could ban [[Fuckyourself]], for obvious reasons.
:Banned [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Look at [[Examples of Bias in Conservapedia]]. Nuff said. --[[User:Splark|Splark]] 02:06, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Been there, deleted that, got the hat. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 02:09, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::Somebody ban the kid, please. --[[User:Splark|Splark]] 02:14, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm no kid, I'm simply telling you what you need to change before this site can be accurate. Everything.
----

[[User:JesusWasAnExtraterrestrial]] for creating the article [[anus]] [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 20:19, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

===Liebniz===
I am asking that Leibniz be warned, if not temporarily banned, for repeatedly interjecting argumentative opinion into articles.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 17:04, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

===Creationism===

[[Creationism]]

Evolutionist JoshuaZ has arbitrarily erased the correct definition of Creationism two times now.

Issue #1:

I think it is logical and plain common sense that an evolutionist should have no say in defining his scientific rival because said rendering is bound to be riddled with bias and error.

Issue #2:

At any rate, I ask that my rendering of Creationism be reviewed by Administration to be the correct rendering and that JoshuaZ be informed of the ruling if in my favor.

''Proposed Rendering''

"Creationism is the belief that physical reality plainly reflects the work of invisible Divine power (Romans 1:20) and original causation of matter and life was by supernatural agency (Genesis 1:1; chapters 1 and 2). Universally, Creationism is the belief that a Creator is responsible for producing reality (general revelation) and that this revelation is the primary way of deducing the existence of said Deity. Based on observation, Creationism asserts scientific evidence is better explained when a Creator is presupposed to have created reality."

[[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 14:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:''I think it is logical and plain common sense that an evolutionist should have no say in defining his scientific rival because said rendering is bound to be riddled with bias and error.''
:I fully agree. By that logic, [[User:Conservative]] needs to stay OUT of the [[Theory of Evolution]] article. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 20:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

----

=Finished=

==Conservative as an Admin==
Giving [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] admin status, and protecting articles like [[Young Earth Creationism]], has resulted in absolutely abominable, biased, unrepresentative articles. Someone should look into this; possibly an unbiased admin?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:You would have to go higher up the ladder since an Admin would have equal authority as me. [[User:Aschlafly]], who has authority over the Admins, has been working with me regarding a very similar article [[Theory of Evolution]] and he has had no complaints about the article. I don't think your complaints here are going to go very far. Here is what user Aschlafly has said about the Theory of Evolution article: "By the way, Theory of Evolution ranks number 3 in our most-visited pages, after the Main Page and Bias in Wikipedia. Well done!--Aschlafly 00:17, 27 February 2007 (EST)"[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Conservative] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Conservative, could you give us your reasons as to why the page is still protected? Will it be opened again to edits? --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 23:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I believe that [[User:Aschlafly]] should make the decision whether to unlock the page. However, should the page be unlocked and the direction the article takes be changed (pro-evolution view interjecting), I think it should be re-protected given [[User:Aschlafly]] previously mentioned endorsement of the page. Also, Aschlafly has called this encyclopedia Conservapedia and the creationist position is certainly a truly conservative view. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::I'll throw in my $0.02: From what experience I have working with Conservative and reviewing his edits, he is by and large a respectful and talented editor. Of course he has strong political and religious beliefs; nobody doesn't. But he definitely pulls his weight, and causes more good than harm. I'm not saying that all of his edits are up to chalk, but they all can be welded into shape. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Hojimachong, thank you for your kind words. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:31, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::My only grievances are the two articles listed, but I believe my fears have already been addressed. Apparently the goal of this site is not a Neutral POV, but an insular pro-fundamentalist Christian regime, which Conservative is actively following. As much as I decry that goal, you are acting within it.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 01:11, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I agree with AmesG. While this is a conservative encyclopedia, there are many conservatives who are evolutionists. I am personally an Old Earth creationist, but I don't believe that the other side's view should be censored, especially when many of my respected conservative friends' beliefs clash directly with mine. --[[User:Splark|Splark]] 02:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::: Note that AmeG has now been blocked by Conservative. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:41, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==*waves a hand*==
could one of the editors go smack whoever defaced [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]] please? Thanks. [[User:Navy Nuke|Navy Nuke]] 20:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Women in the Military?

2007-03-16T00:04:52Z

Navy Nuke:

It is estimated that it takes eight people in supply to keep one man out in combat. Also, there are some jobs that by their nature are better suited to the female's mind, such as Air Traffic Controlman. I suppose it's pretty obvious where I come down on this issue. [[User:Navy Nuke|Navy Nuke]] 20:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Women in the Military?

2007-03-16T00:04:37Z

Navy Nuke:

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2007-03-16T00:00:46Z

Navy Nuke:

Debate topic suggestions:

# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea]] as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are regulations by the government to keep private businesses in check necessary?|Should government allow an unchecked economy, or are regulations necessary in private business?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did Jefferson Copy the Declaration of Independence?|Did Jefferson Copy the Declaration of Independence?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?|Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?]]
# [[Henry Ford]] said, "I don't know much about history, and I wouldn't give a nickel for all the history in the world. History is more or less bunk. It is tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker's [darn] is the history we make today." [[George Santayana]] said "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." [[Conservapedia:Which was closer to being right?|Which was closer to being right?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?|Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?|Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the third crusade successful?|Was the third crusade successful?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?|Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?|Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time?|Is it possible to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?|Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?]]
# [[Is the Pope the Antichrist?]]
# [[Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?]]
# [[Is Wal-Mart better than the mall?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?|Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?]]
# [[Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If Jesus was alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus was alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
Feel free to add additional debate topics

United States Navy

2007-03-15T23:30:41Z

Navy Nuke:

Talk:United States Navy

2007-03-15T23:21:53Z

Navy Nuke:

I'm getting this stuff from my old DEP book; it's not exactly cite-able, but there's got to be some links out there for naval history. [[User:Navy Nuke|Navy Nuke]] 19:21, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:United States Navy

2007-03-15T23:21:40Z

Navy Nuke:

I'm getting this stuff from my old DEP book; it's not exactly cite-able, but there's got to be some links out there for naval history.

United States Navy

2007-03-15T23:20:26Z

Navy Nuke: /* Birth of the USN */

United States Navy

2007-03-15T23:13:23Z

Navy Nuke: /* Birth of the USN */

United States Navy

2007-03-15T23:12:04Z

Navy Nuke:

United States Navy

2007-03-15T22:53:00Z

Navy Nuke:

Original State Constitutions

2007-03-15T21:40:27Z

Navy Nuke:

Virtually all of the original state Constitutions embraced Christianity:

CONSTITUTION OF VIRGINIA, June 29, 1776 (written by James Madison and
George Mason): BILL OF RIGHTS, SECTION 16. That religion, or the duty
which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be
directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and
therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of
religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the
mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and
charity towards each other.

CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 15, 1780
(written by John Adams): ARTICLE 3. The people of this commonwealth
have a right to invest their legislature with power to...make
suitable provision...for the institution of the public worship of
God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant
teachers of piety, religion and morality...And every denomination of
Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of
the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law:
and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall
ever be established by law.

NEW HAMPSHIRE CONSTITUTION, 1784: PART 2-THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT,
SENATE: That no person shall be capable of being elected a senator
who is not of the Protestant religion...HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES...Every member of the house of representatives...shall be of the Protestant religion.

CONSTITUTION OF VERMONT July 8, 1777, (claimed by New Hampshire and
New York at the time of the Revolution): SECTION 9...And each member,
before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following
declaration, viz. "I ____ do believe in one God, the Creator and
Governor of the Universe, the Rewarder of the good and Punisher of
the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New
Testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the
Protestant religion."

CONSTITUTION OF MARYLAND, November 11, 1776: ARTICLE 35. That no
other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any
office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to
this State, and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this
Convention or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a
belief in the Christian religion.

CONSTITUTION OF NEW JERSEY, 1776: ARTICLE 19: That there shall be no
establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in
preference to another; and that no Protestant inhabitant of this
Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on
account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing
a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect, who shall demean
themselves peaceably under the government...shall be capable of being
elected into any office of profit or trust.

CONSTITUTION OF PENNSYLVANIA, September 28, 1776 (Signed by Benjamin
Franklin): PLAN OR FRAME OF GOVERNMENT, SECTION 10. And each member,
before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following
declaration, viz: I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor
of the Universe, the Rewarder of the good and the Punisher of the
wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New
Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration. And no further or other
religious test shall ever hereafter be required of any civil officer
or magistrate in this State.

CONSTITUTION OF DELAWARE, 1776 (written by George Read and Thomas
McKean, both signers of the Declaration of Independence): ARTICLE 22.
Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or
appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or
entering upon the execution of his office, shall...make and subscribe
the following declaration, to wit: "I, A B. do profess faith in God
the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost,
one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy
scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine
inspiration."

CONSTITUTION OF NORTH CAROLINA, 1776: ARTICLE 32. That no person, who
shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion,
or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who
shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and
safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place
of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.

CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, March 19, 1778: ARTICLE 12: And that
no person shall be eligible to a seat in the said senate unless he be
of the Protestant religion, and hath attained the age of thirty
years..

CONSTITUTION OF GEORGIA, 1777: ARTICLE 6: The representatives shall
be chosen out of the residents in each county...and they shall be of
the Protestant religion.

CONSTITUTION OF CONNECTICUT, 1662 till 1818: PREAMBLE. The People of
this State being by the Providence of God, free and independent, have
the sole and exclusive Right of governing themselves as a free,
sovereign, and independent State; and having from their ancestors
derived a free and excellent Constitution of Government whereby the
legislature depends on the free and annual election of the people,
they have the best security for the preservation of their civil and
religious rights and Liberties. And forasmuch as the free Fruition of
such Liberties and Privileges as Humanity, Civility and Christianity
call for, as is due to every Man in his Place and Proportion, without
impeachment and infringement, hath ever been, and will be the
Tranquillity and Stability of Churches and Commonwealths.

CONSTITUTION OF RHODE ISLAND, 1663 till 1842: That they, pursuing,
with peaceable and loyal minces, their sober, serious and religious
intentions, of godly edifying themselves, and one another, in the
holy Christian faith and worship as they were persuaded...to hold
forth a lively experiment, that a most flourishing civil state may
stand and best be maintained...with a full liberty in religious
concernements; and that true piety rightly grounded upon Gospel
principles, will give the best and greatest security to
sovereignty...Now know ye, that we being willing...to secure them in
the free exercise and enjoyment of all their civil and religious
rights...and to preserve unto them that liberty, in the true
Christian faith and worship of God...and because some of the people
and inhabitants of the same colony cannot, in their private opinions,
conforms to the public exercise of religion, according to the liturgy,
forms and ceremonies of the Church of England, or take or subscribe
the oaths and articles made and established in that behalf; and for
that the same, by reason of the remote distances of those places,
will (as we hope) be no breach of the unity and uniformity
established in this nation.

CONSTITUTION OF NEW YORK, April 20, 1777: 38. And whereas we are
required, by the benevolent principles of rational liberty, not only
to expel civil tyranny, but also to guard against that spiritual
oppression and intolerance wherewith the bigotry and ambition of weak
and wicked priests and princes have scourged mankind, this convention
doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of
this State, ordain, determine, and declare, that the free exercise
and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without
discrimination or preference, shall forever hereafter be allowed,
within this State, to all mankind: Provided, That the liberty of
conscience, hereby granted, shall not be so construed as to excuse
acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the
peace or safety of this State.

After examining the Constitutions of the original States, it becomes
clearer that the initial purpose of the First Amendment, and for that
matter the First Ten Amendments, was to limit Federal Government
jurisdiction, not the States, as Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story
wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,
1833:

"The whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to
the State governments, to be acted upon according to their sense of
justice and the State Constitutions."

___

Permission granted to forward, email or reprint, provided credit
given to William J. Federer, "THE ORIGINAL 13-A Documentary History
of Religion in America's First Thirteen States" ISBN 0977808521

Electricity

2007-03-15T21:37:32Z

Navy Nuke: /* Structure of an Atom */

Electricity is an invisible force that can produce heat, light, motion and many other physical effects. The force is an attraction or repulsion between electrical charges. More specifically, electricity can be explained in terms of electrical charge, current, voltage, and resistance. the corresponding electrical units are the coulomb for measuring electrical charge, the ampere for measuring current, the volt for potential difference, and the ohm for resistance. A basic element of electricity is the electric circuit. A circuit is a closed path that allows for movement of charges. Current is the name given to the movement of charges. The study of electricity involves the behavior of charges, current and voltage with the components that make up the electrical circuit.

==Polarity==
All materials that are known contain two basic components of electric charge: the [[proton]] and the [[electron]]. The proton is a basic particle with positive polarity, and the electron is the smallest amount of electric charge having negative polarity.
It is an arrangement of electrons and protons as basic particles of electricity that determines the electrical characteristics of substances. Although all matter has protons and electrons, most materials do not exhibit any evidence of electricity, because the number of protons and electrons are equal. The opposite electrical forces cancel each other out, and render materials like paper electrically neutral. In order to use electricity to do work, the protons and electrons must be separated. A battery can do electrical work because a chemical process separates electric charges to create an excess of of electrons at its negative terminal and conversely, an excess of protons at its positive terminal. With separate and opposite charges at two terminals, electric energy can be supplied to a circuit connected to the battery.

==Structure of an Atom==
Although there are many possible ways protons and electrons could group themselves, they assemble in specific combinations that result in stable arrangement. Each stable arrangement of protons, electrons, and often [[neutron]]s makes one particular kind of atom, an [[element]]. Electrons orbit the nucleus of protons and neutrons at specific intervals, called "shells" or "energy levels." Each shell has a maximum number of electrons for stability. If an element's outermost shell has its maximum number of electrons, it is considered chemically inactive. [[Helium]], [[neon]], [[argon]], [[krypton]], [[xenon]], and [[radon]] have this characteristic; since there are no free electrons in their outermost shell, they would, in theory, make the best insulators.
It is the structure of the outermost shell of electrons in an element that determines how well it conducts electricity. If an element has fewer than eight electrons in its outermost shell, it can conduct electricity; the elements that have one electron in their outermost shell conduct electricity best. [[Gold]], [[silver]], and [[copper]] are the best conductors of electricity because their outermost electron shell has only one electron, and this allows the freest flow of electrical current because the opposition of an atom of these elements from taking on or loosing electrons is low.

Electricity

2007-03-15T20:46:08Z

Navy Nuke:

Electricity

2007-03-15T20:08:04Z

Navy Nuke: /* Polarity */

User:Navy Nuke

2007-03-15T19:56:18Z

Navy Nuke:

Hi. I'm a female Nuclear ET for the USN. I'll probably concentrate my editing on the hard sciences, military and naval history, and hopefully filling in some of the holes here.

Talk:Electricity

2007-03-15T19:51:56Z

Navy Nuke:

I'm doing this off the cuff, without references. When I'm through describing conductors, semiconductors, and insulators, I'll go back and revise my work with references. [[User:Navy Nuke|Navy Nuke]] 15:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Electricity

2007-03-15T19:49:24Z

Navy Nuke: /* Polarity */

Electricity

2007-03-15T19:34:02Z

Navy Nuke:

Electricity

2007-03-15T19:21:55Z

Navy Nuke:

Electricity

2007-03-15T18:59:53Z

Navy Nuke:

Natural science

2007-03-15T18:44:21Z

Navy Nuke:

A branch of study dedicated to the accumulation and classification of observable facts in order to formulate general laws about the natural world.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With General Science''. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc 2000</ref> Science is based on the ontological position of [[empiricism]]- that the material realm is all that exists, that it exists [[mind-independently]], and that our senses can be trusted to perceive the material realm with reasonable and calculable accuracy. Our understanding of the universe has been increasing [[exponentially]] since Mankind discovered [[agriculture]] 5000 years ago, accellerating yet further with the notable developments of [[Scientific Method]]- the system of [[hypothesis]], [[experiment]], and [[refinement]] that must be used to meet strict peer-review procedures used today, and increasing [[computer]] power over the last 50 years.

Recent scientific discoveries appear to be in conflict with a [[literal]] interpretation of many [[holy books]], including the [[Bible]]. However, science and empiricism make no claims about the nature of any potential [[supernatural]], [[immaterial]] realm, as these are impossible to assess empirically. Many scientists use philosophical tools such as [[Ockham's Razor]] and point to phenomena such as [[The God of the Gaps]] to argue for an implicit rejection of untestable hypotheses.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Science]]

User:Navy Nuke

2007-03-15T18:43:04Z

Navy Nuke:

Hi. I"m a female Nuclear ET for the USN. I'll probably concentrate my editing on the hard sciences, military and naval history, and hopefully filling in some of the holes here.

User talk:Navy Nuke

2007-03-14T23:50:23Z

Navy Nuke:

Hmm, a few things about me. I'm female, I'm an Electronics Technician in the Nuclear field. I'll flesh out the entries related to my field first. Yes, I use a proxy. I'll just take a look around here, and see where I should start with this writing stuff business...