Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Wolfram

2008-09-02T01:11:45Z

Wandering:

'''Wolfram MathwWorld''' describes itself as "the Web's Most Extensive Mathematics Resource". All its content is approved by an chief editor (Eric Weissman). They accept contributions from the general public, but they don't have a free-wheeling wiki as do other online projects such as Conservapedia and Wikipedia.

Their anti-spam question was:

1+1 =

==External links==
*[http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ Wolfram MathWorld]

Talk:Mystery:Did George Orwell Become a Conservative?

2008-09-02T00:54:41Z

Wandering:

Wasn't Orwell, in general, just against totalitarianism, whether from the left or the right? And, especially, he showed how it could come about from either "side"? [[User:Human|Human]] 03:37, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:*The viewpoint of leftists is that totalitarianism can come about from either side, but they give no examples (except maybe Hitler, whose attempt failed). Leftists will do anything to justify socialism and communism, but taking away people's freedom will not bring about peace, lasting prosperity or any kind of ideal world. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:58, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

::Suharto. - [[User:EAB|EAB]] 19:08, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::[[Suharto]]'s [[Indonesia]] is another good example of an [[Authoritarian]] regime which permitted [[emigration]] and [[religious freedom]]. If you want to start a debate about what form of government is best, that's what the [[Conservapedia:Debate Topics]] are for. You won't fool any conservatives here with that one. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:45, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

: No such things as conservative totalitarianism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:56, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

::Surely Augusto Pinochet of Chile leaned to the conservative side of things? In fact, the Independent Democrat Union, a party founded under his direct influence, is the largest conservative party in Chile today. - [[User:EAB|EAB]] 17:01, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Thatcher is a big fan of Pinochet. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/304516.stm] --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 17:08, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::EAB, are you saying that Pinochet, who established democracy and voluntarily stepped down, was a "totalitarian"???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

::::He did have one heck of a "disappearing" act... - [[User:EAB|EAB]] 18:30, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::Aschlafly, did you just praise Pinochet? Democracy didn't come to Chile until the 80's, Pinochet was in power from the 70's. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 18:34, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Pinochet is the poster boy (or whipping boy) for Western leftists. Supposedly he is the great example of being "right wing" and "anti-democratic". Others say that his anti-socialist coup (of 1973) ultimately preserved democracy.

He's only hated because he prevented Communism from taking over. They only criticize the "disappearances" he allegedly perpetrated, but not the murders carried out by Che Guevara or Fidel Castro, so it's actually an outstanding example of the leftist [[double standard]].

Leftists pretend praise democracy, but they really want to take away other people's power. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:55, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

: Right, Ed. I'd add that [[leftists]] have hated Pinochet for decades because he defeated them. It's analogous to how the [[leftists]] hate other people who beat them, such as [[Nixon]] (who exposed [[Alger Hiss]]) and [[Joe McCarthy]]. [[Leftists]] do hold grudges, big time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
:: The two of you would do well to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet%27s_arrest_and_trial [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 19:18, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

So, I'm a communist 'cause I think Pinochet was a brute. I guess my ancestors ''escaping'' from Russia was just to ''bring'' communism to the US. I dislike Pinochet because of the:
*Leftists who would "disappear" and never be heard from again.
*Torture
*Arbitrary detention etc.
These anger me as a ''human'' not as a leftist. And since we're using cheap shots. Back in the 30's, people on the right admired Mussolini and Hitler for their "efficient" systems of government. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:32, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:So far, the only time I've heard you express anger over human rights abuses is with respect to a few cases in a government which (1) had US support and (2) transitioned peacefully to [[democracy]]. I wonder how you feel about [[Communist]] countries which have done 100's and 1,000s of times more . . . --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:52, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
:: 1) and 2) don't make the human rights abuses go away. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:54, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mental Ossification Curve

2008-09-01T23:57:27Z

Wandering: New page: Where do these terms come from? By all appearances, you make them up on the spot. ~~~~

Where do these terms come from? By all appearances, you make them up on the spot. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 19:57, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

2008-08-07T03:00:17Z

Wandering:

I wanted to fix the formatting here, but it has already been locked. So I guess maybe you could do it, Conservative? I was going to change the final sentence from being a single huge link, to only having one word linked, or possibly made a reference.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 20:21, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks but I prefer it be the way it is as the [[CreationWiki]] article is the best article on the internet on the subject in my estimation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: Is that the reason for the redundant link? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:34, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

==Counter-argument==
RE: The bible prohibits homosexuality because of diseases. One, if God did not want homosexuality, then it seems more probable that the diseases would be the result of His dislike, rather than vice versa. More likely reasons for why God would prohibit homosexuality would be either, one, that He designed men and women to copulate together, therefore to copulate in an unintended way is abhorrent, or two, two men who are homosexual and are not married are two less people who could have contributed to increasing the overall size of the population of the Ancient Hebrews, at a time where their survival was a daily worry, and a large population would have helped many of their problems (that was a run-on sentence, and I do apologize). Either way, it seems unlikely that the ban on homosexuality is because of the diseases associated with it. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 16:58, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

== Examples? ==

Where are the examples of the Christian Bible detailing scientific knowledge? Is the prohibition of homosexuality the lone example? {{unsigned|Zeitgeisted}}

Yeah, you're forgetting how many times it was wrong, like how it said that the earth was flat, that the sun went around the earth, and that the moon was unreachable, and that you could make a tower to physically reach heaven, just to name a few.
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 16:00, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

It is not simply the bible that is full of inspired scientific foresight. Divinely inspired authors such as Jules Verne or scientists such as Konstantin Tsiolkovsky saw technological glimpses centuries ahead of their time. Given the abundance of science fiction and scientific papers, one cannot help but see God's hand in the revelation of technological advances. God's ability to reveal technological glimpses of the future is only distantly rivaled by Satan's ability to pervert God's teachings with concepts like homosexuality, atheism, and evolution, which are clearly not divinely inspired concepts.
Other great scientists, like Albert Einstein, were clearly divinely inspired, seeing details of the universe that defied intuition of other scientists of his day, and could not have been known without the direct intervention of god. The mathematical techniques that Einstein built upon were developed by God for centuries under the guise of Lorentz, Gauss, Riemann, and others. The fact that the Bible did not specifically foresee the development of the computer revolution, the standard model of particle physics, the automobile, airplanes, or high oil prices is simply a function of its limited text, with verbosity suppressed in order to provide a more accessible text for mankind.

==Atheism==

What does that have to do with bible scientific foreknowledge? I assume it's a mistake and I'll be removing it shortly. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 00:04, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
:I was ''going'' to remove it, since it's quite inappropriate, but I failed to notice that the article has been locked, for no apparent reason except that it falls under Conservative's atheism pet project. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

2008-08-03T19:49:44Z

Wandering: indent

Talk:Leif Erikson

2008-08-03T19:49:30Z

Wandering:

Coelacanth

2008-08-03T19:46:43Z

Wandering: added word

'''Coelacanth''' is an order of [[fish]] related to lungfishes. These are lobe-finned fishes and adult females are larger in size than males. The largest recorded specimen of Coelacanth was 178 centimeters in length and weighed 98 kilograms. It is considered to be a critically endangered species and an estimated 1,000 fishes are alive today.<ref name=BBCFFHW>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1331848.stm 'Fossil fish' hits the web] ''BBC News''</ref>

[[Evolutionist]] scientists incorrectly claimed that the coelacanth existed on earth before 65 million years and became [[extinct]]. This view held by the evolutionists has been criticized by scholars. Critics pointed that after a coelacanth was found in 1938 off [[Africa]]’s coast,<ref name=CYAN>[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5192 Correcting the headline: ‘Coelacanth’ yes; ‘Ancient’ no] ''Creationontheweb.com''</ref> evolutionists have been unable to provide any explanation how these species survived for so long time.<ref>[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/326/ Mokele-mbembe: a living dinosaur?] ''Creationontheweb.com''</ref> Since 1938, many coelacanths have been caught. Scholars, citing the evidences obtained from numerous [[fossil]]s, explained many fossils were buried under water-borne sediment after the [[Great Flood]]. This prevented decay and created an exquisite degree of preservation. This is why coelacanths are not extinct today.<ref name=CYAN/>

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Marine]]

Coelacanth

2008-08-03T19:45:55Z

Wandering: "false" implies knowingly misleading

'''Coelacanth''' is an order of [[fish]] related to lungfishes. These are lobe-finned fishes and adult females are larger in size than males. The largest recorded specimen of Coelacanth was 178 centimeters in length and weighed 98 kilograms. It is considered to be a critically endangered species and an estimated 1,000 fishes are alive today.<ref name=BBCFFHW>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1331848.stm 'Fossil fish' hits the web] ''BBC News''</ref>

[[Evolutionist]] scientists incorrectly claimed that the coelacanth existed on earth before 65 million years and [[extinct]] since then. This view held by the evolutionists has been criticized by scholars. Critics pointed that after a coelacanth was found in 1938 off [[Africa]]’s coast,<ref name=CYAN>[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5192 Correcting the headline: ‘Coelacanth’ yes; ‘Ancient’ no] ''Creationontheweb.com''</ref> evolutionists have been unable to provide any explanation how these species survived for so long time.<ref>[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/326/ Mokele-mbembe: a living dinosaur?] ''Creationontheweb.com''</ref> Since 1938, many coelacanths have been caught. Scholars, citing the evidences obtained from numerous [[fossil]]s, explained many fossils were buried under water-borne sediment after the [[Great Flood]]. This prevented decay and created an exquisite degree of preservation. This is why coelacanths are not extinct today.<ref name=CYAN/>

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Marine]]

Wandering:

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center> </noinclude>
=Abuse Complaints=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive1|1]]

== Wrongly block from Conservapedia ==

I tried to transfer five Wikipedia political articles to Conservapedia Sunday evening but was blocked at my home computer. I have been able to log in at the office computer. Once one is blocked, he cannot make any contact from that particular computer. Apparently, the one who blocked me, I cannot remember the moniker, but it started with a "J", thought that I had just scooped up some articles from Wikipedia. I have written 100 percent of those articles. Four are about conservatives.

The articles were:

*Billy J. Guin
*Allison R. Kolb
*Hall M. Lyons
*Ben C. Toledano, all Louisiana Republicans

*and Roy R. Theriot, a Democrat.

Wikipedia does not want the articles after 12 to 18 months on the site.

Conservapedia allows a transfer if the author wrote the article on Wikipedia.

I should be unblocked and have these five articles reverted to the screen, particularly the four on conservatives.

Please unblock me,

Billy Hathorn

bhathorn

I can also get you several dozen Wikipedia articles still on the screen about conservatives if you would like them.

:You were unblocked six hours after being blocked[http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Blockip/Bhathorn]. Are you sure that you are still getting a block, or is it just that you've encountered the [[Conservapedia:Editor's guide#Restrictions|night-editing restrictions]]?
: If you ''are'' still getting a block, perhaps you should write to a sysop (see the "Email this user" link in the left column of a sysop's user page; but you must have your own e-mail set to do this), particularly if it's your IP address that is the problem.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:59, 19 December 2007 (EST)
::bhathorn, I deleted your pages because they were copied straight from Wikipedia. This site does not allow that unless it is your own work. You've been unblocked because the articles you copied have been verified by another administrator. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 07:02, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== Unblocking User:LardoBolger? ==

I've been trying to get my account unblocked ([[User:LardoBolger|Lardo Bolger]]) For nearly two months now and have mailed several sysops, including Ed Poor and Aschlafly.

I have received no response from either but dead silence, but I was fortunate enough to get at least ONE reply from Iduan, so my thanks to him. Another thanks to Learn Together for possibly inquring my block, as TK emailed me with boastful words amounting to having more power than everyone else except Schlafly himself.

Due to the nature that the block message reads "Atheistic Deceit" by TK, when I had made inquiry of his blocking to AtheistKathryn as deceitful, and the fact that sysops neither reply or act to my emails, I feel a bit discriminated against. Not only that, but the insults TK said to me just shows the lack of accountability here. Seeing as he also banned another user with the statement that atheists aren't welcome on CP, it would seem but obvious to consider discrimination of religion, even though ''I'm not Atheist.''

Among all this, not one reason I was blocked, just wild accusations and insults. I'm hoping this doesn't truly define how Conservapedia works. I never saw in the rules that being accused of Atheist, reporting/inquiring sysop abuse, or having a promiscuous mother (as was said by TK, among many other things) justifies a block here. Perhaps the rules should be changed so future editors can keep their mothers, religion, and thoughts of equality in check. Also, when signing up, it says "Real name (Optional)", so my username obviously didn't reflect my real name. However, that was also used to define why I was blocked by TK, and I feel I should say everything in one go.

I ''apologize'' for not ''understanding'' what I did wrong, and I apologize for using a different account to get a response (if any) since email seems to be only an option to read here. [[User:PhilB|PhilB]] 14:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:I can't see exactly why you were blocked, so I am just offering the benefit of the doubt and unblocking you. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:58, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Thank you VERY much, mister Fox! By all means, watch my edits if you have any suspicions! :) [[User:LardoBolger|LardoBolger]] 15:01, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== [[User:GoObama]] ==

POV pusher. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 22:41, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:Began vandalizing after I warned him. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 22:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::Andy's dealt with him. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Aschlafly's Removal of Legitimate Information ==

After repeated edits of the Barack Obama article to include the following fully cited, unbiased, and completely factual information:

Both [[Democrats]] and [[Republicans]] have accused him of avoiding controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. The prime example being, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" 129 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> However, this is not unusual given the nature of the Illinois Senate as each senator votes through the use of three buttons, green for yes, red for no, and yellow for present. As Illinois political writer and blogger Rich Miller has said, "not all 'present' votes are cowardly, including those cast by then-state Sen. Obama."<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437</ref> Chris Mooney, a professor of [[political science]] at the University of Illinois, Springfield, sheds further light on the situation: "Mooney and other state capitol watchers and players say Illinois lawmakers often vote 'present' as part of a larger party or issue bloc strategy."<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then successfully for [[U.S. Senate]], in which he defeated Republican candidate [[Alan Keyes]], also an [[African American]].<ref>http://www.ilsenate.com/default.asp</ref>

Aschlafly, has threatened to ban me if I am to edit it again. However my edits were completely neutral in nature and only served to remove opinionated and accusative language and to elaborate upon the voting "present" controversy so that people will have a better understanding of both the Illinois Senate and why Sen. Obama voted in such a way.

On the talk page I have repeatedly defended the position as well as asked Aschlafly to refrain from removing the edits and at the very least, give some sort of justification for removal, something which he has yet to do. His only responses have been that what he said is right, giving no justification or information to support his claims, and to threaten me with banning if I am to edit the article again.

It is my personal belief on the matter, that he is using his administrative powers to enforce his opinion as fact and to limit attempts by others like myself, from trying to improve Conservapedia to be more neutral and factual.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 16:23, 17 February 2008 (EST)

== Karajou's block of Jimmy is unwarranted ==

I believe Karajou has abused his position as a sysop and blocked [[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] simply for disagreeing with him. Now, I could understand if Jimmy had been vulgar or insulting, but it's plain from reading the discussion at [[Talk: Obama on rifles]] that this was not the case. Jimmy was blocked for suggesting that a significant number of active and retired military members are Democrats and/or liberals. Karajou claimed in his [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jimmy block notice] that Jimmy was insulting and denigrating service members. This clearly isn't the case. I believe Jimmy should be unblocked at the very least. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:37, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:How do you know that "Jimmy was blocked for suggesting that a significant number of active and retired military members are Democrats and/or liberals" rather than for something else? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:09, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::That's the only thing I saw in the discussion that could remotely be considered insulting and what's more is that it was the last statement Jimmy made immediately prior to being blocked. Do me a favor and read the page and tell me where you think Jimmy insults or denigrates service members? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:59, 27 February 2008 (EST)
:::Is there no response? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 16:47, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Regarding the lack of response, I think I saw your response when checking my watchlist whilst at work on Thursday, but didn't have time then to respond. Once home, I overlooked it because it was no longer highlighted on my watchlist. Sorry about that.
:::: It's often the case that a block is imposed not for a specific comment or edit, but for a pattern of edits or a bad attitude. Based on comments that Karajou has made to me, I gather that this is the case with Jimmy. Regardless, Jimmy has written to me and I will be passing his concerns on to Karajou for review (Karajou's "e-mail this user" link doesn't work).
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:59, 1 March 2008 (EST)

== Block of SSchultz ==

It seems to me that Karajou has blocked SSchultz for very little cause. As far as I can tell, SSchultz wasn't lying about anything; he just made the mistaken factual assumption that sections of the ''O'Bannon'' article were copied from Wikipedia. Naming the primary source when the accusation was made would have alleviated any confusion and the matter would have been closed. --Jimmy 20:32, 5 March 2008 (EST)
: I guess you should be careful about making an accusation based on an assumption. But in any case, SSchultz has indicated elsewhere that he is not wanting to return. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:39, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Index item - Bible is for C**ts ==

I think you should remove this item from the index. It redirects to the "Bible" page. The word used carries a sexual meaning that is not appropriate for this site.

== Censored words ==
When I first heard about conservapedia I thought, "Excellent, a place to talk to like minded individuals", however I am shocked at the fact that this 'family friendly' encyclopedia allows obscenity. No matter what the subject, the term Ed Poor used (and the complaint that was deleted) is NEVER ok. As you say many times yourself, there are children reading this. Also if your sysops can use this term without any warning or blocking then you have opened the floodgates and now everyone can feel as though the can use such terms. Again I stress that such terms are obscene no matter what the context. If nothing is done about this I can only assume that conservapedia is not willing to adhere to its own rules, that the sysops are above the law and I will not consider contributing to what I once thought was clean educational resource.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
: In at least partial defence of Ed Poor, I would point out or remind you (and others) that although there are some words that almost everyone considers unacceptable, there are others that are more borderline, that some consider unacceptable and others consider acceptable. Furthermore (and I don't know if this applies in your case), there are words that some societies (e.g. America) considers acceptable or unacceptable but which other consider the opposite. Personally, this Aussie agrees with you regarding the word that Ed Poor used in an uncensored way. He, however, clearly considers that word to be acceptable. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:10, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the rational reply Phillip. I will drop this matter now, having got a well thought out answer such as yours but before I do my I just say that I dont believe there is an english speaking country (I have been all over the world) where the word f*** is acceptable. There is nothing borderline about it and as Andy harps on about this being a clean, high quality resource I thought more would be done about it. You sysops need to set the example. I will settle the matter now but I do not wish to see anymore swearing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 14:06, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

:Don't be a d***. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:33, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

== Severe abuse of power by Karajou ==

I was looking at the Recent Changes, when I saw an exchange was occurring on Karajou's talk page. I went over to look at it. You can [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Karajou#It_Was_FLAVOR-AID.2C_Not_Kool-Aid find it here], if it is still there. You will note there is a dispute about whether it was Kool-Aid or Flavor-Aid used in the Jonestown massacres. I had recently listened to the PBS radio special on the matter, so I decided to provide that evidence to support the fact that it was Flavor-Aid being used by providing that evidence. I therefore [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKarajou&diff=462746&oldid=462705 put this message there], supplying that. I didn't bother to leave a message, since I thought I was just providing a few links for the discussion, and linked each with the word "Flavor-Aid" to indicate the content and which I thought was correct.

Immediately thereafter, Karajou posted a message on my user talk, headed "you're stuck":
<blockquote>
Since you decided to leave a sarcastic entry on my talk page regarding Flavoraid, you're now stuck looking for real references which are going to be used to create and improve the Jonestown article I am writing. You are going to get newspaper, newsmagazine, or video references which state explicitly references to Flavoraide at Jonestown; these references will be dated within two months of November 18, 1978 and not later; and you've got until 10:30 pm central time tonight to dig them up. If what you've implied is true, they will be posted in the article, you will get the credit, and I will eat my words to that effect. If not, then I will block you for a week for the sarcasm as well as assisting in a lie. Get to work. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:42, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
</blockquote>

As you can see, he is demanding that within a span of eight hours I have to find newspaper, newsmgazine, or video references with explicit documentation of a single fact from a two-month span dating almost an even thirty years ago. Since most online archives don't go back that far for free, he is essentially demanding I drive to the library '''today''' and spend some time in the stacks with microfilm, trying to meet his demand for proof, or else he says he will block me for a week.

I'm not sure this requires much more explanation, but it should be obvious I was not being "sarcastic" with my three links - it beggars the imagination to think of how much sarcasm I could fit into the repetition of a single, entirely topical word three times. It should also be obvious that even if he was allowed to make such demands of me, his demand is so unreasonable as to be difficult-to-impossible to meet. There is nothing in the rules (that state explicitly "these are the only rules") that says I have to go do research for sysops if they demand it or I will be blocked.

This is an absolutely clear and obvious abuse of Karajou's power.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 16:04, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

:Just want to draw attention to this again, since there has been no action taken or response to this abuse complaint here.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:34, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

:Karajou has stated that he went to the library himself yesterday, and he didn't block me, saying it was a "lesson learned." Since he is big enough to admit that, I withdraw my complaint of abuse, out of hope we can all get back to work.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:41, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

== Separate Section ==

Jareddr has delted my work on John McCains section titled abortion. It did not violate any CP commandments.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:46, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:I think this is the wrong section for your "complaint", and second, I can show evidence in the form of the document you took the section from and the ''minor'' changes you made, which didn't bring it into compliance. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:53, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

== TerryH threats and blocking. ==

The actions of sysop TerryH over the past couple of days have been completely unprofessional, damaging to the reputation of this project, and so far unchecked by the administration. The core issue is that a statement made by TerryH on the main Talk page was shown by others, beginning with Aggrieved, to be incorrect. Instead of simply accepting the correction when supporting evidence was presented, he threatened Aggrieved and eventually blocked him. He then went on to block others who stepped in to support Aggrieved, invoking arbitrary rules like MYOB to silence them. His arrogance and abusive use of his sysop privileges to threaten and punish others who were abiding by CP principles reflects poorly on the project, and sets a bad example for the students who use it. The threads can be found on the main Talk page under the headings " Supreme Court decision re: Habeas Corpus" and " Outlandish Gitmo assertions and the unfortunate consequences", as well as the user talk page for Aggrieved and other users he's blocked. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:09, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Bugler ==

Bugler, IMO, inappropriately blocked Dannyredful for "complicity" in the fake signatures added to the Lenski letter. When asked to explain, Bugler stated the "complicity" was for not deleting the names off the list. Of course, not only had Danny added his name BEFORE most of these names were listed, but there were a number of other users who either added their name or posted AFTER fake names were added without any punishment. This is not the first time Bugler has been reported for abuse in his short time as a user and sysop. He has been singled out for his heavy-handed approach and seeming "power trip". Are we now all responsible to the point of being blocked if we don't correct information that we may not know isn't true? Is NOT editing something now a blockable offense?--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:If one examines the history of the Lenski talk page it will be clear that DannyRedful was watching and adding sarcastic remarks every time I blocked a parodist account. DannyRedful's claims that he did not know the names were of footballers and football managers in not credible. Had the email been sent with these names appended, it would have caused embnarrassment to Andy and legitimate signatories, and caused great damage to the reputation of Conservapedia. DannyRedful's further claim that he was in a Catch 22 situation because edits on talk pages are inviolate - the changes required were on an article talk page, not a personal 'castle' - s also inadequate and Jesuitical. The serious consequences of sending an email with spoof messages outweighs any considerations of rules about editing, which hardly applied in this case anyway. Therefore not removing the names was akin to sabotage, and a three day block is merciful in the extreme. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps you'll post a message here and on his talk page apologizing to Danny for blocking him when you were the one mistaken? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:54, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I have apologised to Danny and have blocked Jareddr as the true culprit. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:55, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

== Joaquin Martinez ==

Are any of the admins going to confront Joaquin over his refusal to discuss editing with Tom Moore? It's becoming increasingly petty n the part of the former, and a real good reason not to edit at Conservapedia. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2008-06-17T18:15:19Z

Wandering:

Talk:Greek influence on Western Culture

2008-06-17T00:01:29Z

Wandering:

This is an ''encyclopedia'' entry? "I would like to thank classical Greek civilization for the invention of man-boy love affairs." This is a ''conservative'' entry?

I suggest that this whole entry be moved to "talk" and the "Greek empire" page be left empty if there is no qualified material for it.{{Unsigned|Anitra}}

I am going to clear out all this nonsense pretty soon, and make it into something resembling an article. I notice Joaquin has edited it a lot, and he has said stuff to me twice already about not removing items before saying something, so here I am: I am going to remove at least half of the junk in it, and rewrite it almost entirely.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 22:58, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
:Please improve the article. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:07, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
:Okay, this has probably been up long enough now.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 01:15, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks. Good work. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 01:31, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

As should be obvious to anyone now, Joaquin has decided he doesn't want to discuss his edits, he just wants to keep making them over and over. Seven, eight times now. I have brought this to his attention almost as many times on his user talk, but he ignores me.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 14:01, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:Tom you may want to just let it go. It would appear that Joaquin believes you are nitpicking and that any "debate" on it is a waste of his time. He would rather create. Perhaps he feels the blockquote indentation simply gives it a better layout. Is it that important? You've expressed your concerns and been true to your own beliefs. Now it may be best to just move on. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:29, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::That is in no way fair. Blockquoting like that may make it look better on his screen, but because people have a varying size of screen or windows to view the page, it makes it look awful in other resolutions. This is one of the basic principles for web pages and the way HTML and by extension wiki markup was designed.
::The issue here is not that I am right and he is wrong, although I do obviously think I am correct. It's that he has reverted continually, ignoring my pleas to discuss it and perhaps compromise on a solution. I don't think it is best to move on, because the next time he edits an article we both happen to work on, and we disagree, I will have set a precedent that he can just refuse to cooperate or collaborate.
::It is not unreasonable to ask him to at least acknowledge the discussion and perhaps even explain himself.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 14:39, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
Joaquin, it would probably be best to explain the reversions, because some clean up could be useful. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:31, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, I am sure the article could be better. What we need to have clear is the procedure. It is not acceptable to delete important information or images without the opinion of other editors. You can not ask for explanations when you dont give explanations or wait for a reply. The image of Pericles is necessary. It is infront of his name and represent an important time of Greek development. Images do what words can not do. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:34, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm sorry, Joaquin... are you seriously suggesting I didn't want to discuss it with you?
From your talk page:
<div style="background:#eee">::Joaquin, I am curious as to why you think the Pericles image (the only thing I removed) should be on that page, since he isn't mentioned at all except for a link to his page (where the image ''would'' belong). I didn't think it should be there, so I removed it and suggested a change you could make if you wanted to re-add it: namely, talking about Pericles somehow on the page. If you think Pericles is important to greek influence on western culture, it would seem reasonable to say why, instead of insisting on just including his image, regardless of how important you personally might think it is. If you spent a long time looking for it, I'm sorry, but that's not really grounds for including it on a page to which it has no relation at the current time. Thank you and I hope you understand my position.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 23:07, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
::Please respond, Joaquin, so we can resolve this.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 15:15, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
::Well, I know you've read this by now, Joaquin, since a little message appears at the top reminding you that you have new messages, and you have been on and editing over the past days this has been up here. So presumably you are just ignoring it. That's not very reasonable when I am trying to resolve the issue with this page, so I think if you are on again and editing without responding, it is reasonable for me to re-make my changes. It's not fair you just refuse to discuss it--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:55, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
::I am reverting back to my last good version, Joaquin. I still encourage you to discuss it, if you are still interested.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 12:46, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Hey Joaquin, I noticed that despite my many messages here asking for explanation, you have reverted my edit today some days after I made it, without explanation here or on my talk page or on the article's talk page. I would refer you to Conservapedia's Guidelines, which suggest, ''"Let others know what you are doing, and respond quickly to queries."''
:::Please do me the courtesy of replying, not just reverting without explanation.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 23:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::I see you have reverted again. You know a little box pops up when you have a new message, so Im pretty confident you have seen this by now, especially since you have replied to other people here. This is incredibly rude.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 11:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::I'm not sure what I have to do to get you to give me some basic respect as an editor. You won't discuss your edit, you just keep reverting. You just did it again. Why are you so insistent on putting paragraphs in blockquotes when it is needless, rewriting the page to poorer English, and inserting a picture of an Athenian general who is not mentioned in the article?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 14:01, 16 June 2008 (EDT)</div>

You have exhibited nothing but disrespect for me, not even deigning to apologize for blocking me unfairly over this issue, and afterwards simply ignoring me and my requests to discuss it!

The image of Pericles would be entirely relevant, but there is ''nothing about Pericles on the page.'' There is a ''link'' to ''his'' article, but his name is not otherwise mentioned. And I urge you to please back up your claim that I "deleted important information." Inasmuch as I can see, I ''incorporated'' your edits concisely and better except for your penchant for blockquoting and the image.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 16:41, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

----

I understand that CP needs a lot of help. There are thousands of articles to be done and thousands to improve. I have no time to loose in useless discussions. But for this time I will spend some minutes.

This was your first foul:

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&diff=prev&oldid=466865

You lost among other things:

''Traditional Western Culture is said to have been created by three main historical factors: ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, and Christianity. As such, it is also known by the terms "Greco-Roman culture", " Judeo-Christian culture", or "Judeo-Hellenic-Christian culture". ''

All with '''an insult''': ''Rewrote the whole mess''.

This whole mess was started by SharonS and she follow a system that I found very Greek, based in questions.

Your second disgrace:

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&diff=prev&oldid=467338

Loosing among other things:

''history, in Greek, means "investigations". ''

and

''The Greeks also invented tragedy, the basis of modern plays, skits, and movies. Comedy made its appearance with [[Aristophanes]]. [[Ibidem]]''

and the image of Pericles.

YOU DID THIS WITHOUT WAITING AS YOU WERE ASKED TO.

But that was not all.

Now in:

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&diff=next&oldid=475455

You lost another image as well a valuable information:

Image:Greece Delphi Oracle.jpg

You have been 2 times asked not to delete before using the talk page and as expected waiting for the reply. See http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Europa&direction=next&oldid=466116

But you think you are along here. What you need is a good lesson that sooner or later will come, because, I am sure, you don't want to work in this team. You have questioned even Andy. What else may we expect from you?

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:16, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

----

''All with an insult.''

When you started writing on the page, Joaquin, it was already roughly in the shape it is in now. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=237665 You can see here]. Contrary to what you appear to believe, this is not ''your'' article. It was a collaborative work. And it was a mess. It had vandalism go unnoticed for your dozen edits, blockquotes to no purpose, and was written like a collection of children's answers to the opening rhetorical question. I'm sorry we have to get into this, but it only vaguely resembled an encyclopedia article. I'm sorry you object to that characterization, but the only thing I was insulting was the article itself. You don't own it.

''You lost among other things''

The first example you chose is in my version, actually. Did you read it?

"Traditional western culture is said to have been created by three main historical factors: ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, and Christianity. As such, it is also known by the terms "Greco-Roman culture", "Judeo-Christian culture", or "Judeo-Hellenic-Christian culture"."

''This whole mess was started by SharonS and she follow a system that I found very Greek, based in questions.''

And that's fine, if encyclopedias like this one were written using the Socratic method. But they're not, because it looks... well, because it winds up looking like that. Encyclopedias are intended to be concise reference works.

''Loosing among other things: history, in Greek, means "investigations".''

I actually have a section about history and Herodotus in there, again if you read it. It's true I lost that anecdote about the mean of the word. It seemed superfluous. But that one is arguable. You could have easily re-added it. Instead you reverted all my edits as a whole, repeatedly.

''The Greeks also invented tragedy, the basis of modern plays, skits, and movies. Comedy made its appearance with [[Aristophanes]]. [[Ibidem]]''

You're right that I fixed the reference that you tried to put in. That's not how you do it. In wiki markup, it is generally advisable to use the <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tag. But you're wrong that the other information is not in there. "such as the whole of the initial development of dramatic and comedic plays by such figures as Aristophanes"

''and the image of Pericles.''

Which I have exhaustively reminded you is irrelevant to a page that doesn't even mention him. You should probably add something about him before you add a picture of him. There are no pictures of busts of Plato on the page... why don't you add one of him, since he was infinitely more influential and actually is in the article?

''YOU DID THIS WITHOUT WAITING AS YOU WERE ASKED TO.''

You asked me to wait? I'm sorry, I must have missed where you replied to me. Would you do me a favor and link me to that? I do see on this page how I said well before my edits on this page began that I was going to do them, and I see how in the description of my later edits to your new material that I explained what I was doing and made a suggestion. And I see how on your talk page I posted more than a half-dozen messages asking you if you would please mind discussing this rather than just reverting. Could you help me out and show me where you told me to wait?

''You lost another image as well a valuable information: Image:Greece Delphi Oracle.jpg''

You're right, I deleted that image. Not only is the oracle not mentioned on the page, it isn't even on the links. It has even less excuse to be on the page, even in comparison with the Pericles image that didn't belong there.

''But you think you are along here. What you need is a good lesson that sooner or later will come, because, I am sure, you don't want to work in this team. You have questioned even Andy. What else may we expect from you? ''

You may expect enormous improvements to articles, like I did to this one. If I might ask, would you prefer we change it back to what it looked like before me?

So, Joaquin, I will sum up. You assert I deleted a section on descriptors for civilization, which I didn't delete (although I probably should have). You assert I deleted a four word blurb about the meaning of "history," which is somewhat less than tragic and which you could have added back easily. You assert I deleted a section about tragedy and comedy and Aristophanes, which I didn't delete. You assert I deleted a picture of a general who is not mentioned in the article but only the links, and you assert I deleted a picture of an oracle which isn't even in the links. You assert I began with an insult by calling an article that was a mess by its rightful label, apparently because you think any criticism of the article is a criticism of yourself. And lastly, you assert I didn't try to talk about these edits ''even though'' I gave lengthy comments in the edit summary and, as soon as I got back from being blocked by you and unblocked by another, I went to your talk page and proceeded to leave a very long series of messages in the one place you couldn't have failed to see because MediaWiki informs you when you have new messages there?

I trust the other people reading this can reach the obvious conclusion that I have done nothing wrong. I take exception to the manner in which I have been treated by this sysop, and have acted only with the utmost reasonableness at every turn, begging him to contact me so we could discuss it and compromise. ''Finis.''--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:39, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

: Greeks had a name for your philosophy: Sophists!

: To be clear, next time you delete some valuable material I will do my best to see you out for some time. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:51, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::You're amazing, you know that? It's completely and utterly amazing how you avoid simply discussing the issue. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:01, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Marry a Conservative

2008-06-16T12:43:34Z

Wandering:

I LOVE the statement that all liberals are unfaithful. My mom and dad have been married for 27 years, and they have never cheated on each other, and have three kids, myself included. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 16:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:Your comment is ridiculous and takes literalism to a new level. Nowhere does the essay say that '''all''' Liberals are unfaithful. However, such are [[Liberal]] values by their nature that the likelihood of infidelity, violence, STDs etc is far higher among Liberals than Conservatives. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:18, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:"Transfan", you left out one detail: you seem to have trouble reading and/or thinking, as demonstrated by Bugler's response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:31, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::Wow, Andy! LOVE the personal attacks you're dishing out today! --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 16:41, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: It is good you are easily amused, Transfan, but it would be even better if you expressed an understanding of your own mistake.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

==Examples==
Will this essay be expanded to include sourced examples, or will it continue to consist of unverifiable anecdotes? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: We're not going to violate anyone's privacy, but there may be examples that are already published elsewhere that could be sourced. Ronald Reagan's first marriage comes to mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:45, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: Wandering, aren't you going to follow through and post the example of Ronald Reagan's first marriage?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:35, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm a bit concerned that such an example could be taken the wrong way, Andy. I've known some liberals to make much of Reagan's rulings as governor of California (particularly his self-admitted mistake of signing a bill that expanded abortion.) Isn't it likely that they'd take the opportunity to twist an example of his first marriage into an attack on the man? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:46, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Not once the details are set forth. I guess Wandering isn't going to follow through on his suggestion, so I suppose I'll have to do this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::Give the trouble I got in for edits on articles you seem to be focused on (such as Barack Obama), I'm not even going to think about editing your personal essays. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 21:05, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Why did you bother me with your question if you're not willing to follow through?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Follow through with what? It's '''your''' essay, I'm not going to try and fix it's shortcomings. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 08:43, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Suggestion... ==

The vagaries of life that define the contours of one's romantic life are hard to reduce to an aphorism, and I can't help but think that for every example you put up a counterexample could be found. I'll testify for myself that I'm a liberal grad student, and have been in a committed relationship for five years now (we're talking about marriage), but I would never consider marrying a conservative woman. A woman who thinks that her only goals in life revolve around family and the home would bore me to tears; I need a challenge, and my girlfriend of five years has always been great fun to debate and learn from. Her counsel is invaluable to me, and her life as a young professional the source of countless exciting conversations, and a great deal of pride for me, for whatever small credit I can claim in her accomplishments (and she mine).

But that's my choice. Others may see it the other way. I wouldn't reduce my own taste to a generic lesson for the populace, any more than I would try to foist my preference for brunettes on the world either!-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 16:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: ''I would never consider marrying a conservative woman. A woman who thinks that her only goals in life revolve around family and the home would bore me to tears'' Why think that? There are many, many examples of Conservative women who render your hoary old stereotype a... hoary old stereotype. And giving birth and raising a family at home doesn't require a brain removal, you know. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:01, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::Of course not! I know that. But the conservative women I've met - as conservative is defined on this website - seem to think that it does. Submission, and all that. [[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 17:03, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Your candid comments are appreciated, but "submission" is a stereotype rather than a conservative value. Many "grad school" relationships do not last 10, 20 and ultimately 50 years of marriage. To the extent one party to the relationship insists on [[liberal]] values, there can be lots of unhappiness that follow for ''both'' parties to the relationship down the road.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:34, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Thanks for telling me my relationship is going to fail. I didn't know "sniping at your ideological opponents" was a conservative value," but now I guess I do. And I think your aphorism is best reduced to "pe mople should make sure their life goals match, regardless of political persuasion." That seems to be much more accurate, and a lot less needlessly hurtful, no?
::::As for "submission is a stereotype," let's investigate. Can a "conservative" woman in your mind have a job?-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 18:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Wow, AShepard, you insult conservative women, to which no one takes offense, but woe to anyone who even slightly challenges your views! Perhaps you're right you're better off finding a liberal spouse, because a conservative one wouldn't be able to stand your reactions (and absurd stereotypes)!

::::: Sure, you and wife can have a job, as you obviously expect. And then a child arrives, and there is the issue of who is going to take care of the child. Often liberal women want the man to provide at least half that care, whereupon there is juggling your job with that, and juggling the wife's job with her half. The stress hits fourfold from that awkward arrangement, careers suffer, the child frequently gets sick in group care, nerves start to snap, and the marriage begins to feel the strain. And that's if all goes well! The situation can be even worse if no child arrives, as before long the spouses can grow apart.

::::: It's not a formula for success. I wish everyone the best who tries. I also do my best to let them know what's in store for them so they don't go down a road they'd rather not travel.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

I am a moderate and so is my partner (Moderate in NZ is liberal in the states) and so are many of our friends but we have a wonderful life. Same with our friends also. In fact, we have gotten happier as time goes on.
Also, small point, I dont think a liberal would want to marry a conservative.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:38, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: I'm sure there are counterexamples. I'm also sure you're not telling us the whole story about marriages by [[liberals]] among people in NZ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Hmmmmm well I am not telling you any stories about marrige in NZ, whole or otherwise. All I know is my liberal (and atheist I might add) partner and I are very happy.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: No, that's not all you said. You also claimed "so are many of [your] friends." And there is strikingly little detail about your own marriage, such as the basic number of years you've been married (and how many times). If you and your friends are as liberal as you say, then unfortunately I'm confident there is a lot of marital unhappiness there and many divorces. I'm not asking for the gory details, but I do object to the false portrayal of it here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:36, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

What? Are you serious? You are doubting what I say based on what? None of my friends have ever been divorced and neither have I. We are all very happy and, actually, I dont know why I even dignify your comment with an answer. Yes it is unfortunate that you are confident you know my life better then I. You have basically implied I am a liar based on......well, nothing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:41, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: Still no details from AdenJ, so I'll give you some: the divorce rate in New Zealand is almost as high as the marriage rate! [http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/Articles/marriage-divorce-99.htm] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

I am not going to give you details of mine or others marriages and your stats, while true, say nothing about my situation or my friends. I said I am happy and my friends are happy so what reason do you have to suggest I am lying? If your reason is "because they are liberals" then that says more about you than me.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 20:04, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:Aschlafly, I reiterate my statement that the truth in your little "essay" - if any truth there be - lies higher up the funnel of abstraction, at the simple aphorism, "people should talk about long-term plans before getting married." A couple can get through anything if they truly love about each other and appreciate the sacrifices, and a couple with different values - regardless of what values those may be - will fall apart before long, but it won't be anyone's fault, except the couple's for planning poorly. Your attempt to blame the marriage on liberals is sheer polemic, and quite insultive at that.-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 22:27, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wow ==

I don't even know what to say, this essay turns my stomach. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 20:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: That says more about you, DLerner, than it does about the essay.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:09, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Really! ==

Being a member of this site for a while (not that anyone would notice, they don't give me any extra rights cause they don't like my politics/religion), one of the things liberals get attacked for is their alleged [[Liberals and friendship|bias to people of different ideologies]], (Complete rubbish article, but I gave up arguing with Andy on the talk page once he stopped being coherent).

I've seen a lot of crazy nonsense written on this site, but this takes the cake. Why not throw in "Don't marry blacks or Jews, most of them are liberal".

*''freedom from sexually transmitted diseases and their harm (including infertility)'' Right, because we all know that conservatives are never gay (Haggert, anyone) and '''never''' cheat on their wives or boyfriends...
*''fidelity in marriage and accountability'' Identical response
*''lack of hostility to faith, no censorship of prayer'' Who would '''marry''' someone that censors their beliefs? Sounds outlandish, anybody ever have their spouse "censor" them? Once again the vile lie that all liberals are anti-religion, I'll point out again that I'm probably the most religious person on this site and Andy thinks nice conservative girls shouldn't marry me because I'm a lib
*''respect for the Ten Commandments and opposition to deceit'' What, are you electing a public official? I guess conservatives lie much less then liberals. (Iraq WMD's, torture, 9/11 connection).
*''respect for a work ethic, and rejection of an entitlement mentality'' No republicans on welfare, no siree. Liberals don't work and expect to get money from the government, eh?
*''appreciates the importance of a conservative culture in raising children'' And liberals appreciate the importance of a '''liberal''' culture to raise their children in. You see Andy, that what we call an opposing point of view, but then you oppose multiculturalism, so it's my way or the high way.
*''no confusion over who is the homemaker and who is the breadwinner; recognizing the benefits of division of labor'' Women belong in the kitchen! YAY
*''recognizing that values do matter and do have serious consequences'' Only conservatives do that...
*''having values powerful enough to overcome addiction, such as drinking, gambling, pornography, obesity and smoking'' No such thing as a fat, smoking & drug addicted conservative ([[Rush Limbaugh|Well, except this guy]])
*''freedom from the liberal media and Hollywood values, and their misguided promotions and fads'' Conservatives don't have TV's? Where do they watch faux news?
*''a relationship where issues and problems can be openly discussed, free from the ideological shackles of Liberal beliefs, Liberal denial and political correctness.'' Liberals never talk, and when they do they're never open. about it.

'''True case studies''' Convenient, facts changed, they'll be just like [[conservative parables]] you'll make them up as you go along.

Case one: Right, conservatives never break up with each other over differences.

Case two: some people are infertile, it could be Joe was sterile.

Case three: John McCain did the same thing... (Now that he's the nominee he's conservative enough for you...)

Case four: Stan is a moron and got what he deserved, ("All women were that way" true conservative way of thinking).

Case five: No such thing as a gay republican, right, Senator?

'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 20:47, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

==GlenW==

GlenW, this is not like Wikipedia. We do not use {{Fact}} tags to cast doubt onto well known facts. It's well known that promiscuity and STDs go hand in hand. If you doubt this, I'm sure some simple research will enlighten you. If you feel a citation is needed, why don't you find one and thereby contribute positively to the site. [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 23:18, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:So what you're saying is that if I demand evidence, it is my responsibility to find evidence for something else? That sounds like [[liberal dodging]] to me.....[[User:GlenW|GlenW]] 23:21, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Bryon's explanation is clear. Insertion of {{Fact}} tags is not a way to argue here. Your demands for evidence for something that is proven and undisputed, such as promiscuity and STDs being closely correlated with other, are silly and will be reverted. Dispute that the earth is round somewhere else, not here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:25, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: "half of promiscuous people carry sexually transmitted diseases" is proven and undisputed?[[User:GlenW|GlenW]] 23:34, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Cite added ... which you could have found as easily as I did. It took about 5 minutes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:45, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Actually, the cite does not back up the statement. It says that 40% of teenage girls who took part in a study and admitted to having sex have a sexually transmitted disease. That is not at all the same as saying half of all promiscuous people do. 40% is not 50%, admitting having had sex does not equal promiscuity, and what is true of teenage girls is not necessarily true of the overall population. Young girls are less likely to take precaution, less likely to know symptoms, and less likely to seek treatment, especially if they have to admit to their parents that they have been sexually active. Most STDs are curable, and most do not cause infertility. the story is full of speculation. [[User:Jaguar|Jaguar]] 00:10, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Marry a Conservative

2008-06-16T01:05:54Z

Wandering:

I LOVE the statement that all liberals are unfaithful. My mom and dad have been married for 27 years, and they have never cheated on each other, and have three kids, myself included. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 16:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:Your comment is ridiculous and takes literalism to a new level. Nowhere does the essay say that '''all''' Liberals are unfaithful. However, such are [[Liberal]] values by their nature that the likelihood of infidelity, violence, STDs etc is far higher among Liberals than Conservatives. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:18, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:"Transfan", you left out one detail: you seem to have trouble reading and/or thinking, as demonstrated by Bugler's response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:31, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::Wow, Andy! LOVE the personal attacks you're dishing out today! --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 16:41, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: It is good you are easily amused, Transfan, but it would be even better if you expressed an understanding of your own mistake.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

==Examples==
Will this essay be expanded to include sourced examples, or will it continue to consist of unverifiable anecdotes? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: We're not going to violate anyone's privacy, but there may be examples that are already published elsewhere that could be sourced. Ronald Reagan's first marriage comes to mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:45, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: Wandering, aren't you going to follow through and post the example of Ronald Reagan's first marriage?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:35, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm a bit concerned that such an example could be taken the wrong way, Andy. I've known some liberals to make much of Reagan's rulings as governor of California (particularly his self-admitted mistake of signing a bill that expanded abortion.) Isn't it likely that they'd take the opportunity to twist an example of his first marriage into an attack on the man? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:46, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Not once the details are set forth. I guess Wandering isn't going to follow through on his suggestion, so I suppose I'll have to do this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::Give the trouble I got in for edits on articles you seem to be focused on (such as Barack Obama), I'm not even going to think about editing your personal essays. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 21:05, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Suggestion... ==

The vagaries of life that define the contours of one's romantic life are hard to reduce to an aphorism, and I can't help but think that for every example you put up a counterexample could be found. I'll testify for myself that I'm a liberal grad student, and have been in a committed relationship for five years now (we're talking about marriage), but I would never consider marrying a conservative woman. A woman who thinks that her only goals in life revolve around family and the home would bore me to tears; I need a challenge, and my girlfriend of five years has always been great fun to debate and learn from. Her counsel is invaluable to me, and her life as a young professional the source of countless exciting conversations, and a great deal of pride for me, for whatever small credit I can claim in her accomplishments (and she mine).

But that's my choice. Others may see it the other way. I wouldn't reduce my own taste to a generic lesson for the populace, any more than I would try to foist my preference for brunettes on the world either!-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 16:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: ''I would never consider marrying a conservative woman. A woman who thinks that her only goals in life revolve around family and the home would bore me to tears'' Why think that? There are many, many examples of Conservative women who render your hoary old stereotype a... hoary old stereotype. And giving birth and raising a family at home doesn't require a brain removal, you know. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:01, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::Of course not! I know that. But the conservative women I've met - as conservative is defined on this website - seem to think that it does. Submission, and all that. [[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 17:03, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Your candid comments are appreciated, but "submission" is a stereotype rather than a conservative value. Many "grad school" relationships do not last 10, 20 and ultimately 50 years of marriage. To the extent one party to the relationship insists on [[liberal]] values, there can be lots of unhappiness that follow for ''both'' parties to the relationship down the road.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:34, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Thanks for telling me my relationship is going to fail. I didn't know "sniping at your ideological opponents" was a conservative value," but now I guess I do. And I think your aphorism is best reduced to "pe mople should make sure their life goals match, regardless of political persuasion." That seems to be much more accurate, and a lot less needlessly hurtful, no?
::::As for "submission is a stereotype," let's investigate. Can a "conservative" woman in your mind have a job?-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 18:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Wow, AShepard, you insult conservative women, to which no one takes offense, but woe to anyone who even slightly challenges your views! Perhaps you're right you're better off finding a liberal spouse, because a conservative one wouldn't be able to stand your reactions (and absurd stereotypes)!

::::: Sure, you and wife can have a job, as you obviously expect. And then a child arrives, and there is the issue of who is going to take care of the child. Often liberal women want the man to provide at least half that care, whereupon there is juggling your job with that, and juggling the wife's job with her half. The stress hits fourfold from that awkward arrangement, careers suffer, the child frequently gets sick in group care, nerves start to snap, and the marriage begins to feel the strain. And that's if all goes well! The situation can be even worse if no child arrives, as before long the spouses can grow apart.

::::: It's not a formula for success. I wish everyone the best who tries. I also do my best to let them know what's in store for them so they don't go down a road they'd rather not travel.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

I am a moderate and so is my partner (Moderate in NZ is liberal in the states) and so are many of our friends but we have a wonderful life. Same with our friends also. In fact, we have gotten happier as time goes on.
Also, small point, I dont think a liberal would want to marry a conservative.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:38, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: I'm sure there are counterexamples. I'm also sure you're not telling us the whole story about marriages by [[liberals]] among people in NZ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Hmmmmm well I am not telling you any stories about marrige in NZ, whole or otherwise. All I know is my liberal (and atheist I might add) partner and I are very happy.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: No, that's not all you said. You also claimed "so are many of [your] friends." And there is strikingly little detail about your own marriage, such as the basic number of years you've been married (and how many times). If you and your friends are as liberal as you say, then unfortunately I'm confident there is a lot of marital unhappiness there and many divorces. I'm not asking for the gory details, but I do object to the false portrayal of it here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:36, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

What? Are you serious? You are doubting what I say based on what? None of my friends have ever been divorced and neither have I. We are all very happy and, actually, I dont know why I even dignify your comment with an answer. Yes it is unfortunate that you are confident you know my life better then I. You have basically implied I am a liar based on......well, nothing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:41, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: Still no details from AdenJ, so I'll give you some: the divorce rate in New Zealand is almost as high as the marriage rate! [http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/Articles/marriage-divorce-99.htm] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

I am not going to give you details of mine or others marriages and your stats, while true, say nothing about my situation or my friends. I said I am happy and my friends are happy so what reason do you have to suggest I am lying? If your reason is "because they are liberals" then that says more about you than me.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 20:04, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wow ==

I don't even know what to say, this essay turns my stomach. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 20:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: That says more about you, DLerner, than it does about the essay.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:09, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Really! ==

Being a member of this site for a while (not that anyone would notice, they don't give me any extra rights cause they don't like my politics/religion), one of the things liberals get attacked for is their alleged [[Liberals and friendship|bias to people of different ideologies]], (Complete rubbish article, but I gave up arguing with Andy on the talk page once he stopped being coherent).

I've seen a lot of crazy nonsense written on this site, but this takes the cake. Why not throw in "Don't marry blacks or Jews, most of them are liberal".

*''freedom from sexually transmitted diseases and their harm (including infertility)'' Right, because we all know that conservatives are never gay (Haggert, anyone) and '''never''' cheat on their wives or boyfriends...
*''fidelity in marriage and accountability'' Identical response
*''lack of hostility to faith, no censorship of prayer'' Who would '''marry''' someone that censors their beliefs? Sounds outlandish, anybody ever have their spouse "censor" them? Once again the vile lie that all liberals are anti-religion, I'll point out again that I'm probably the most religious person on this site and Andy thinks nice conservative girls shouldn't marry me because I'm a lib
*''respect for the Ten Commandments and opposition to deceit'' What, are you electing a public official? I guess conservatives lie much less then liberals. (Iraq WMD's, torture, 9/11 connection).
*''respect for a work ethic, and rejection of an entitlement mentality'' No republicans on welfare, no siree. Liberals don't work and expect to get money from the government, eh?
*''appreciates the importance of a conservative culture in raising children'' And liberals appreciate the importance of a '''liberal''' culture to raise their children in. You see Andy, that what we call an opposing point of view, but then you oppose multiculturalism, so it's my way or the high way.
*''no confusion over who is the homemaker and who is the breadwinner; recognizing the benefits of division of labor'' Women belong in the kitchen! YAY
*''recognizing that values do matter and do have serious consequences'' Only conservatives do that...
*''having values powerful enough to overcome addiction, such as drinking, gambling, pornography, obesity and smoking'' No such thing as a fat, smoking & drug addicted conservative ([[Rush Limbaugh|Well, except this guy]])
*''freedom from the liberal media and Hollywood values, and their misguided promotions and fads'' Conservatives don't have TV's? Where do they watch faux news?
*''a relationship where issues and problems can be openly discussed, free from the ideological shackles of Liberal beliefs, Liberal denial and political correctness.'' Liberals never talk, and when they do they're never open. about it.

'''True case studies''' Convenient, facts changed, they'll be just like [[conservative parables]] you'll make them up as you go along.

Case one: Right, conservatives never break up with each other over differences.

Case two: some people are infertile, it could be Joe was sterile.

Case three: John McCain did the same thing... (Now that he's the nominee he's conservative enough for you...)

Case four: Stan is a moron and got what he deserved, ("All women were that way" true conservative way of thinking).

Case five: No such thing as a gay republican, right, Senator?

'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 20:47, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

User talk:TerryH

2008-06-15T20:39:32Z

Wandering:

Talk to me! Am I right? Wrong? Any suggestions? --[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:24, 5 March 2007 (EST)

*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive_1|Archive 1]]
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive2|Archive 2]]
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive_3|Archive 3]]

== Administrative Office ==
The door is always open. Please place questions, suggestions, complaints, ''et cetera'', here.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I think you're right and glad you ain't left. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Templates ==

Terry,

Instead of typing out <tt>'''<nowiki><nowiki>{{Essay}}</nowiki></nowiki>'''</tt>, you can instead type <tt>'''<nowiki>{{tl|Essay}}</nowiki>'''</tt>. This is less effort and produces a similar result, except that it includes a link to the template: {{tl|Essay}}.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== 66.212.16.194 ==

I may be wrong about this, and this may be encyclopedia policy, but I noticed you banned [[User:66.212.16.194]] for an infinite period of time. It seems somewhat illogical to ban an IP address infinitely, because somebody else may end up with that IP and be unable to create an account.--[[User:Tmcfulton|Tmcfulton]] 20:37, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:That's not how IP addresses work. A little probabilistic math ought to convince anyone that the hazard you describe is a virtual non-issue.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:46, 13 November 2007 (EST)

::You're correct, I guess. I was thinking of the way they do it on Wikipedia, but I guess Conservapedia isn't popular enough for this to be an issue.--[[User:Tmcfulton|Tmcfulton]] 20:50, 13 November 2007 (EST)

==[[Jesse MacBeth]]==
The phony soldier himself. All we need is a pic. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 06:04, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== Reply ==

Capitalism essentially becomes the practice of making the rich richer and the poor poorer. I do not see why the failure of one or two states that pretended to be communist so they could garner the support of the masses makes capitalism any less abhorrent. And Terry, spouting the occasional occasional fragment of fortune-cookie wisdom does not improve your argument, nor does it compensate for the unequivocally unamicable tone of your response. I mean no offense, I simply didn't expect to be greeted with such open hostility in response to what was intended as a partially fatuous comment. --[[User:AngryCommunist|AngryCommunist]] 23:03, 4 January 2008 (EST)
:You are too late. My opinion of Communism is obviously widely shared. And if it is "unamicable" to say that Communism is bad, then you will see in me the least amicable person you are likely ever to meet on the Internet. Let that suffice.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 07:27, 5 January 2008 (EST)

== Examples of Bias in Wikipedia ==

I know I'm new here and I haven't made many edits, but could you please give me an explanation for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=366421&oldid=366407 reverting] my edit to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]? I didn't delete that example just because I felt like it. One of the sources in the Wikipedia article really does mention something about extrapolation, making our allegation false. I'm not trying to censor anything, I just don't want this site filled with the same kind of lies and inaccuracies that pervade Wikipedia. Best, [[User:Gillespie|Gillespie]] 22:36, 9 January 2008 (EST)

:Explain what? Do you deny it?
:Do you deny that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than is the American public?
:In fact, [[Jimbo Wales]] is proud of that statistic. Proud! He seems to think that we "Yanks" are too busy playing cowboys and Indians to be truly enlightened.
:If you are prepared to show that that entry is in error--show me. Do it on the Talk page of the article in question, so that everybody who takes as active an interest as I do, will see it as well.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:29, 9 January 2008 (EST)

== Schlafly ==
You objected to speculation, I removed it. Now you are censoring my opinion in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments. [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 11:35, 2 February 2008 (EST)
==Help!==
Hey Terry - I hate to have to ask - but I saw that your online and you had just done a template a bit ago, so I assume you're good with templates. Would you mind helping me out on [[Template:USState]]? I can't get it to work properly - I think the problem is {{tl|!-}}. Thanks--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:38, 9 February 2008 (EST)
:Oh btw - see the talk page for the visual on the problem--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:39, 9 February 2008 (EST)
Oh hey - I figured it out! It was just a weird thing with the spacing - I'll fix it now--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:49, 9 February 2008 (EST)
:Well now the only problem is that there's a ton of spaces under "capital" if the parameters aren't filled in - but hopefully I can figure out how to fix this - thanks for your help--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:52, 9 February 2008 (EST)

== CreationWiki ==

Is there something wrong with CreationWiki right now? That seems to happen a lot; it's been going on for several weeks in a row now. I try to access the site and it always tells me "Internet Explorer Cannot display the webpage". I figured you'd know something since you're an admin, please help me out here '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 09:52, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:Thanks! I was getting kind of worried there. I Pray it's up again soon. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 21:18, 14 February 2008 (EST)

::I'm hearing a lot of crap about the God of the OT being infanticidal. How should I respond? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 10:00, 16 February 2008 (EST)

:Yeah, they're talking about God's directives for the Israelites' enemies. "Why would God command them to kill the babies too?" (God tells them to kill the men, women and children and animals) '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 10:12, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:: For questions such as this, a good site is http://www.tektonics.org. You can search for keywords (as you can on many sites), or you can look up particular verses. With a quick look I found [http://www.tektonics.org/gk/guess2much.html this] page that touches on your question. I also found another page that pointed to a different site with [http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html this article], which I haven't read, but I think might be quite useful to you. With a better search, you might be able to find more. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:24, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Headline text ==
Terry, it's a lot quicker to go look at my contributions, hit the "rollback" button, then hit "back" on your browser and go up the list. By the way, ask Andy if he got my email yet! --[[User:HelpfultipsforTerryH|HelpfultipsforTerryH]] 12:00, 15 February 2008 (EST)

== Hai ==

Terry,

Those last two ethereal apparitions of vandals were not me, but I totally endorse what they did. Seems as though I have some admirers!

In regards to the second vandal's tips, it's sound advice. I'd feel sorry for you (that's a lie - maybe a small bit of pity, of definitely not sorry) if one of those WillyOnWheels vandals from last year showed up when you were the only sysop on patrol. Advice is advice, take it from where you can. But, in your defense, it is hard to teach an <s>old dog</s> dinosaur new tricks.

Also, consider archiving those two pages.

You should be looking forward to the next RDubya project - It's an article which systematically compares Conservapedia to your very own definition of extremism! I can't wait for it to be the shining gem of the internet.

By the way, please tell Andy to check his email - I have an important message waiting for him.

Please feel free to email me, the link on my deleted userpage should still be active.

Regards,
-Hojimachong

== CreationWiki ==

Re-install MediaWiki. I use PHP5 on my Mac with Apache2 to run the software for my personal use, and have never had a problem. I understand the base is heavily hacked, but that's life. Alternatively, you might want to consider replacing all of the <code>include</code> directives with <code>include_once</code> directives. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 10:17, 16 February 2008 (EST)
==[[Io]]==
Wow, Terry, amazing job!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:53, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Comment ==

In my short time here I've noticed two blocks, one with an accompanying IP block. I understand that IP blocks are good site policy for persistent vandals, but absent a showing that the targeted vandal is in fact a persistent, repeat offender, is there any reason to block permanently, other than to suppress dissent? Isn't it conceivable that you just blocked a public computer, or a public WiFi net, meaning now legitimate users can't visit? Seems to me like a poor compromise between security and freedom.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 14:07, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:Hmmm, I appreciate your reasons, although I continue to think they're overbroad. I guess we disagree, but you're free to run your own site (into the ground...?). Further, I did not appreciate the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3APhoenixWright&diff=397970&oldid=397934 threatening tone, here.] In fact, I think it's counterproductive. I was not aware that wikis were autocracies. My experience at (dare I say it? - Wikipedia) was different. I see you're different from them, though, in many significant ways, this not the least. Cheers nonetheless.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:19, 3 March 2008 (EST)

==The horror...==
Hey, are you online? Could you please block ZebraSofa? I think I'm the only one who noticed his recent vandalism rampage. He seems to have sort of cooled down, but he could just be regrouping on the savannah. Thanks.[[User:Jellyfish|Jellyfish]] 12:27, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

I second to that, look at Recent Page. Someone stop the idiot that living his own shell

Edit- By the way, good job for defense, Jellyfish.
--[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 12:33, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:I got him. Thanks again Jellyfish. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:44, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== Oops ==

(blush) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:20, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

300.2 million > 3.2 million [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=436643&oldid=436641] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:22, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Opinion requested ==

Could you please weigh in on the discussion [[Conservapedia talk:Manual of Style#City/town/county names as article titles?|here]]? We're looking for more opinions and hope to arrive at some sort of style definition. Thanks. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 19:42, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

== bamboozled ==

Why don't you think Fox News is a major media organization? --[[User:DeanSa|DeanSa]] 17:38, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:The edit isn't about size - it is about liberal bias. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 17:39, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

== quick note ==

I replied to your planet suggestion and would be most happy to review the material and provide any input that I think I would be beneficial. I also sent you an important email. I am hoping to get things rolling as soon as possible and would appreciate your input in regards to my proposal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:27, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

==Regarding removal of my articles==

Is there any person I can contact regarding removing my articles? I see you reverted my deletion notices. Regards. [[User:LChriosa|LChriosa]] 10:22, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

#No need to spam the wiki like this. You are heard.
#They are not "your" articles; you donated them without any strings attached.
#I deleted a couple already. Your article on [[Machiavellianism]] was worthless drivel. I can't believe a professor would use such material as course notes.
#If (by some awkward chance) you are really a professor, email me your credentials and we can talk by phone. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:02, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:They weren't course notes; they were introductory articles. Quite a difference. I have nothing to prove to you, I don't care if you think I am a professor or not (I amn't by they way, I was a lecturer who taught in England and Ireland for many years, and never attained the title of 'professor') and am not going to Email you and am most certainly not going to let a random person on the internet ring me. What aspect of the Machiavelli article didn't you like? Was it above you? [[User:LChriosa|LChriosa]] 11:39, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

== Redheads ==

Why does it need to be deleted? Sure, the first article I posted was intended to be sarcastic (not against Conservapedia, but against the cruel views with which Redheads are looked upon in England (a trend that stems from bigotry against the Scots, Irish, and Scandinavians).

This has manifested itself in the following forms:

-The Chapman family in Newcastle was forced to move MULTIPLE TIMES due to taunts directed to both parents and children

-We have been beaten up, and one man was stabbed in an alley

-Skinheads are organizing against us

-A waitress was harassed on multiple occasions

-Some of us (though not me, personally) are brought to indignation upon hearing the word "ginger", which isn't much when compared to things like "Firecrotch"

-Countless men, women, and children have been taunted, often resulting in suicide attempts

-Over here in Texas, I, along with a few people I know, have also been the target of obsceneties

-This issue has gained the attention of the press from Austin to Aberdeen, along with being the focal topic of an episode of Southpark, along with countless British media and recent literature.

(pardon my bad spelling; I'm only 16)

My second post sought to explain this. It did not have any liberal bias- only pro-ginger bias (my own). It does not concern conservatism or liberalism*. Besides, I thought this is the place to be biased... isn't it?

<nowiki>*</nowiki>Liberalism traditionally refers to free-market capitalism and relaxed social restrictions similar to Libertarianism. Only in recent years has it been misconstrued to refer to left-wing politics.

{{unsigned|GLA}}

==== Vaccines ====
Why did you revert my edits? The article that's cited as a source explicitly states that it has not been conclusively proven that Gardasil caused or was even implicated in those deaths. -- Aaronp

==Principal's Resignation?==

Terry,

Thought you might be interested in this story.

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/575/story/458733.html

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:49, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

==Aggrieved's Talk Page Debate==

Terry, you came to my Talk page and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aggrieved&diff=prev&oldid=474283 demanded] that I "had better: 1) Provide a citation for your allegation that a significant proportion of Guantanamo detainees have turned out to be innocent of the war crimes imputed to them; 2) Retract your last comment and apologize to me; and 3) Prepare to face blockage for contempt of the administration."

My response:

1) - Multiple citations provided. It is duly noted you never provided a single citation to back up your own false claim; 2) - Not a chance; 3) - No problem. This dialog will be in the record and your willingness to disregard fact, remain uninformed about current affairs, and aggressively police your own mistruths will be duly noted. Martyrdom in the name of truth can be my legacy.

In response to your failure to prove your case, and my success in proving mine, I now demand you:
1. Withdraw your claim on Main:Talk Page that "to a man, every one of those released detainess has turned up doing exactly the same thing again", publicly.
2. Apologize to me, publicly, for your aggressive tone and ill-informed opinion.

Thank you. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 21:04, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

== Contempt ==

I'd like to take this opportunity to express my complete and unreserved contempt for your recent behaviour. You backed ''yourself'' into a corner and are now lashing out at those who had the temerity to point out as much. It's OK to make mistakes. All of this could have been avoided with a simple ''"Actually, that was a bit of sweeping statement. What I meant to say was..."'' Your name is TerryH, not TerryK, so stop damn well acting like him. --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 10:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

==Hi==
Just pointing out, you accidentally blocked Leda for a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ALeda month] instead of a day. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:39, 15 June 2008 (EDT)