User talk:Daniel1212

A much belated welcome. I used your user page's link to start an article on Homosexual misinterpretations of the Bible. Join in any time! --Ed Poor ^Talk 21:02, 5 December 2008 (EST)

• Would you be willing to donate the entire text of your website to this project? --Ed Poor ^Talk 13:49, 8 December 2008 (EST)

I reverted your additions for the simple reason you did not provide citations for the items. If you have them, please put them back, with the proper links. Thanks. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 21:57, 14 February 2009 (EST)

• I understand. The hard evidence for the first is in my physical file cabinet, a photocopy. But here are two links to the story, though not from the Globe but the AP. http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2001/cyb20011227.asp http://static.record-eagle.com/2000/jul/9letter.htm For the second, see http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr2002.htm A third example is linked.

• The title I put should not have been the Boston Globe, but "Notable Examples" but the page is really sparse and much needs more material. Which is easy to find, but i do not have the time now. The External link i placed to http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp much substantiates the bias change in other ways - which of course, is not seen by those who provide it. I think I will just delete the section, and put the material on the talk page until someone provides more examples to warrant a section on examples. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel1212 (talk) -- 09:58, 15 February 2009

Well, as I said, add the material back if you have something to cite, which you seem to have. Use the links and add whatever explanations you feel needed to give users confidence in the material. Thanks for responding and letting me know! --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 07:10, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks for the encouragement. I had just run across the article and thought I would add to it. Some people from Free Republic might help there. But I am more preoccupied on working on the substantial and referenced page on Homosexual misinterpretation which you started me one (thanks!). I left a message on your page about my need for a Leviticus 18 page to link to it, with the reftagger script embedded. Thanks again and praise be to God.

I linked to your bible interpretation and homosexuality article from the main conservapedia homosexuality article. When I have more time, I can link to the article more prominently in the article. conservative 18:48, 27 February 2009 (EST)

I looked at the article and found another place to link to your article and it is in a very prominent place. conservative 18:54, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks for taking an interest. Any honest critiques I can also appreciate. Pray and press. Ever revising.Daniel1212 14:18, 28 February 2009 (EST)

I believe I can get a lot more views to your homosexuality and biblical interpretation article plus the homosexuality article as a whole. Please email me if you want to help cause this to happen. If you prefer just writing material that is fine to. Keep up the good work!  :) conservative 03:30, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Open for you now, Daniel. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 23:07, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

Glad to see you are on top of things! Thanks be to God.

Well, it appears you are not going to be getting to this now, so just let me know whenever, and I will unlock it for you. Today is Resurrection Sunday / Easter Sunday. Rejoice! --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 01:26, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

Ready when you are. Praise be to GodDaniel1212 15:40, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

BTW, is there an easy way i could convert this page to put it on CP? http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/BooksOfTheBible.html There is no such page now. Also when i placed a

• You were cut off......opened Salvation for you again. I just copy and paste from Word into the edit box here at CP, for the longer items. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 21:13, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

TK. The page i was referring to was highly formatted, with tables, and cut and past would not do it. So i edited my original (OpenOffice) this AM, and uploaded it to Firefox, selected it all and and copied the "view selection source" and pasted it in. With some minor deleting here it is, but do you think it is too colorful for CP? I could not do references the normal Wiki way, and it would be very hard for someone else to edit.

Sorry I missed your post here completely! If still having trouble formatting for the wiki, I reccomend you check with Iduan. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 22:28, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

Please be encyclopedic, and don't repeat absurdities simply to refute them. Thanks and Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 21:01, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

• Daniel, maybe this will help you:

encyclopedic : of, relating to, or suggestive of an encyclopedia or its methods of treating or covering a subject: comprehensive (an encyclopedic mind an encyclopedic collection of armor).

encyclopedic Function: adjective

Text: also encyclopaedic covering everything or all important points <a tour guide with an encyclopedic knowledge of New York City and its people> Synonyms: compendious, complete, comprehensive, full, global, inclusive, in-depth, omnibus, panoramic, universal Related Words: broad, catholic, extensive, far-reaching, general, overall, sweeping, vast, wide; blanket, indiscriminate, unrestricted.

• Words that are jargon speak, "homosex" and the like are not encyclopedic. Their use conjures up near-parody, as they are politically inspired buzzwords, and likely to have little meaning and cause confusion among the majority of the population not specializing in whatever topic. Hope this gives you some help. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 15:12, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

Thank you very much for helping me discover any errors. However, homosex did not seem to be what Andy objected to, as his edits only changed pro-homosex to prohomosex. I do think some of my division titles were too inventive however, and will change some, as well as do a review of this article and try to change like terms.

The reason i use homosex is because it is the term of choice by the most prolific conservative writer on the issue, Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon, who references it's use by some advocates of homosexual behavior See explanation for Why use the word "homosex"? @ http://www.robgagnon.net (2nd up from the bottom). The problem is that "homosexuality" is not precise enough, and while homoeroticism could be used, yet the Bible most specifically prohibits actual sex. Like in the realm of heterosexual sexual relations, the Biblical prohibitions on such also forbid all unmarried erotic activity, but i was trying to be precise, and "homosex" seemed to serve that purpose, and may become more used. Thus i placed a "Terms Defined" section. Maybe know i should change it to homoeroticism.

But "absurdities" must have also related to my refutations of the prohomosexual attempts to read sex into Scripture, and not just the title. But that was part of being encyclopedic, as "covering everything... comprehensive, full, global, inclusive, in-depth,.."

Thanks for your help.Daniel1212 17:57, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

• Oftentimes when we are refuting the things we feel strongly about, there is a tendency to go overboard, to really hammer the point home, when more restrained language would do the job just as well, in a subtler way. When we do that (hammer, or bludgeon) the point home, those who are not practicing Christians or even Christians who might not be evangelical are put-off by our language, not only the terms which are jargon, but the dire nature of what we write. When needed, Christ used a "velvet glove" to make his points, not a bare fist, and that might be best for an encyclopedia trying to win converts, and since CP attracts people of all stripes, more people are attracted to sugar than vinegar. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 18:19, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

I appreciate your spirit, and counsel. I am addressing the "jargon" issue as i see it. But you are also addressing something i have struggled with. As an apologist i can easily slip into an overt polemical style. But on the other hand in a case like the Bible and homosex, when the obvious is smoke screened by specious if sometimes sophisticated sophistry, then presenting it as purely neutral manner comes across as conceding that they may be a case, which gets back to absurdities. I see the CP evolution article dealing with the theory as a refuted hypothesis, while i have represented the revisionist side on homosex, while manifesting with detail that the traditional position is what is warranted, which also fits with CP. But i do see myself sometimes going too overboard for this format, in tone, and in "jargon."

So i am working on improving it, and a review of the whole article by me was overdue. Daniel1212 21:05, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

TK, just what is going on here? I did not reinsert jingoistic phrases that Andy took out, but in fact was editing more of what i perceived were of that type. If the main problematic term is Gagnon's homosex, which is still in the page in many places, then consider that Andy had left them in. I could easily replace those, if i was not now locked out of the article i wrote. I was in the process of revising the article in seeking to comply with the objections, and could see places where i did use "jargon" that sounded fitting it me but it not encyclopedic, and changed some of them until i had to quite for the night. Rather than just locking someone out who had worked much to make an article(s) which would enhance CP, there ought to be some more specific dialog as to what changes are desired and were made. ThanksDaniel1212 22:34, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

I think in the class discussion I made myself clear, Daniel. Editing is a trust, not some right, and by your pedantic demeanor, you have (temporarily, I hope) lost my trust. What you are inserting is didactic, and I am using the word to mean inclined to lecture others too much. I am not saying you are wrong in my opinion, but how can one convey knowledge, which is the point, if one is going overboard too much, as you admit above? I am not locking you out of it, and will unlock it when I feel people have stopped retreating to their respective corners, and are ready to show some geniality. Try to remember people, as opposed to computers, have feelings, emotions, and arguing with others in the wrong way, same as conveying information in articles in a way that makes people not want to read it, is counterproductive. I am not indulgent like Andy, and will not engage you in a open-ended discourse here, which is a distraction to other editors, and quite frankly, to me as well. If you have something specific to ask, use the email. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 23:21, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

Dear TK, I receive your correction, and i was hoping someone would do some necessary editing, and i myself was not finished with the page. But if you look at the exchange, what i was asking for was more specifics as to what was "jargon" and non-encyclopedic, so that i could fix it, and you were the only one who made some attempt to help. I pray that you can edit the wording of the content to make it better, as it was perhaps the most comprehensive referenced page on that subject available to read on the web. All i was going to basically add was the issue of Jesus and John, as well as the centurions servant, in the light of traditional exegesis, as pro homosexual assertions of both are popular, as WP's page also shows. In the meantime, I will take Andy's advice. Thanks Daniel1212 08:58, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

What do you mean by "absurdities"? The whole article deals with what normally would be considered absurdities, but now are accepted are viable interpretations. You have deleted an entire section which deals with attempts to read homosex into passages, and which WP offers as viable, as i am sure most of today's universities would see as the same! Due to the foundational liberal revisionist grid most anything can now be considered reasonable.

Thanks for better formatting changes and any worthy corrections, but realize that it is hardly a full treatment of the issue if prohomosex contentions of approved homosex are not dealt with. BTW, Googling Homosexuality and biblical interpretation conservapedia did not show in the first 50 hits, which i used to see in similar searches, and i could only find it if i put it in quotes. However, it did have the mother page, homosexuality and the Bible. ThanksDaniel1212 09:02, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

I know you had some conflict as far as the jargon you used in the homosexuality and biblical interpretation article. I do think that it would be a shame, however, for Conservapedia to lose a prolific editor who is sincere.

So I have a request, could you please expand the article on the History of homosexuality ? conservative 18:52, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

It was jargon, as well as being too polemical. But I have been posting occasionally, and am only locked out of my main work. I am quite busy now, but by God's grace i hope to improve the History of homosexuality soon. Thanks.Daniel1212 21:25, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

Daniel,

When you are done with your History of homosexuality would you be interested in doing the following:

Create the following articles :

• Homosexuality and Christianity

• Dangers of homosexuality (individual and societal dangers)

• Religion and homosexuality

• Homosexuality and opposing viewpoints

• Homosexuality in America

• New Testament and homosexuality

• Presbyterian views on homosexuality

Expand these articles:

• Greek Homosexuality

• Roman Homosexuality (right now it has a dead link)

I will email you further about this matter. conservative 01:06, 3 June 2009 (EDT)

The latter actually does work, though it is brief. I am busy now but will try to get to some these pages by the grace of God. Some may be a bit redundant, but maybe it makes CP more viable. Yet I think i should explains that my motive in doing the Homosexuality and biblical interpretation page (and it would good if TK lets me edit it again as it needs much), was not really that i have a driving animosity toward homosexuality, though i certain consider it to be sinful, but it was because of the extremes they went to in seeking to negate the Biblical injunctions against it, as well as to enlist it for their cause which actually kinds of how AIDS works. Had they simple been advocating it i would not have put much effort into showing that Biblically it is sin, but as they realize the authority of the Bible so their efforts supererogatory. So the history of it all does not interest me that much, though it confirms that the pagans did what the Bible charges them with, and uses their examples as what to avoid.Daniel1212 23:02, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

• I strongly resent your false statement, inasmuch as you have never once contacted me asking to edit the article again. Anyone can read the history there, and what it shows is the site owner, Andy Schlafly reverting your contributions, and me merely complying with his wishes....expressed in his reversion of your edits. I made many attempts to dialog with you, arrive at some accommodation of your verbosity, your inflammatory language, which is what Mr. Schlafly was concerned with. You have two choices, as I see it; You can attempt to comply with the requests of an Administrator, or not edit that article, or any others where you insert jingoism. I also expect an apology, and an end to mean-spirited snipes inserted in your posts. Such conduct is decidedly not Christian, in word and deed, Daniel. I hope that upon reconsideration, you will realize it was beneath you. I have a great appreciation for your valuable contributions, and you have previously acknowledged my compliments, so I wonder where this hostility is coming from? --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 23:25, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

TK, I must ask, what false statement, and what hostility? What you had said on 28 April 2009 was "I am not locking you out of it, and will unlock it when I feel people have stopped retreating to their respective corners, and are ready to show some geniality." I therefore assumed that is what you would do, and that it did not require a request to get unlocked.

As for the whole issue, and the idea of hostility, that also has an element of mystery. Andy did not revert all my contributions, but as the 23 April 2009 comparison shows, he did some editing which left most of the article intact, though he deleted the sections on pro homosexual attempts to read homosex into the Bible. But for some reason the edit history says "(Reverted edits by Daniel1212 (Talk) to last version by Ed Poor)", while in reality all Ed did was start the article for me to work on it, which the history shows i did for months. But bcz it mentioned Ed Poor, and i wanted to know what i was dong wrong, i also inquired about the edits on his page, which you reproved me for. Inquiring of Andy, who is likely quite busy, had given me little info on what he wanted changed. You in turn were helpful on that, and upon reviewing the article i understood my errors more clearly. Accordingly, I then did some editing to correct them, but in response you reverted my edits, with a note "Constant re-insertion of jingoistic words and phrasing." when in fact i did not reinsert any but instead was removing such, including the term homosex, with Andy had not edited.

As for my tone, I did appreciate your being more specific on what needed to be changed, though some would have been obvious to me if had done a complete review first, but after reverting my attempts to comply it seems that your tone changed, perhaps due to the above misunderstandings. Seeing i was locked out, i began working on an edited version of the article on a personal wikia page, which i hoped would be acceptable in case i could edit the CP page again. As it is, this was the most extensive referenced treatment of homosexual apologetics, which issue they take very seriously, but in addition to the phrases at issue and digressing into an overt polemic style sometimes, it has other errors which need fixing. Thank you for corresponding. Daniel1212 10:09, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

You might want to check my user page, and the number of pages I am watching. While you have a narrow focus in this matter, it is really impossible for me to remember to check back with you. The edits were discussed on the articles talk pages, and on Andy's personal one as well, I remember. At no time did I receive feedback from you, after the decision was made, and Andy agreed with my comments...so if you want to link me to whatever you have added on some personal page, that would be great...but it isn't logical to assume that if someone makes a personal page and does editing, I will notice it.

In the future, just email me, or post a message on my page, rather than including me in when discussing something with another Admin. You might want to argue the point, and claim you don't understand, but your comment was negative, was initially negative, up to and until Andy commented that your edit were too bombastic and narrowly focused. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but that isn't necessarily the POV we want to present publicly, or perhaps more precisely, not exactly the style we wish to use. If you don't understand, or wish to continue this line, please use the email. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 19:41, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

Thanks for getting back to me on this, and i know these things are hard to track, and thus some more clarification is needed, and i will write to you in an email.Daniel1212 10:58, 6 June 2009 (EDT)

I am wondering if your material added to MSM might be more appropriate in Liberal media ? --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 19:19, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

Hmm, i did not know there was such a page. Yes, it would go there, but people searching for "main stream media" would not get much on its real nature, as Liberal media is not even linked to on that page. I shall effect changes, by the grace of God.Daniel1212 08:12, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

Thanks, Daniel....I wasn't sure myself! --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 12:37, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

Yes, liberal media is now linked in MSM, and the stats added, etc., and an expose of Newsweek. Thank God.Daniel1212 12:41, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

You seem to have an unhealthy obsession with homosexuality. I hope that you seek help. CindyL 10:01, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

Dear Cindy,

the real obsession is on the part of homosexuals activists who make constant and inordinate efforts to misconstrue the Bible. Outside of atheism, which i also contend against, they are the foremost promoters of radical revisionism, and demand acceptance of homosexuality, which is a particular manifestation of rebellion against God, as seen in Romans 1. My response is in reaction to such, by objectively contending against it. As for the unhealthy part, it is sadly incontrovertible that pertains to the typical homosexual lifestyle. God's laws are good, and to our individual and collective benefit when obeyed, and to our hurt when we do not, as nations now in dust - and souls in Hell - testify to. Yet apparently some of the first Christians were former homosexuals, (1Cor. 6:11) and there is room at the cross for those who will repent and believe - to God be the glory!

You are the most bigoted scum to have graced this awful site's pages.