User talk:Newton/Archive5

Statement on your talk page, here.
First, I assume you concede that we've met your challenge on the race/evolution question. Second, if you'd like to open the questions posed in the above cited section for answer here, I'd be happy to reply. And finally, I hope you understand now that you weren't censored.- 18:14, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
 * I don't pretend to be a MLK expert but it seems to me that he was a liberal and socialist in the model of much of Western Europe (guaranteed income ) but I suspect Hoover never had any compelling evidence that he was a communist although I could be wrong. I thought about the many speeches I heard from MLK and it seems to me as if he could be a evolutionist and so I checked into it and found he was an evolutionist.   However, MLK was no secular progessive.  As far as the abolitionist movement, Thomas Sowell is an extremely intelligent and well read invididual.  So I believe Sowell was right when he said,  "The anti-slavery movement was spearheaded by people who would today be called "the religious right" and its organization was created by conservative businessmen."  So I think the liberal/evolutionist camp loses there.  But again, I do partly concede the MLK comment. Newton 18:49, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Dood, the "religious right"'s role in the history of southern civil rights is well known--they were called the Ku Klux Klan. (And I see you had zilch to say about Darwin's anti-slavery sentiments.) --Gulik 19:11, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Given Darwin's racist attitude towards the Black race and given that you did not cite an article on the abolitionist movement that mentions Darwin, I don't think that Darwin can be said to have spearheaded anything in regards to the abolitionist movement (I base that heavily on Sowell though and other material I have read).  By the way, Sowell has stated that slavery was not a major force in history primarily due to racism but had more to do with the strong nations/peoples taking advantage of the weak ones so I do concede that Darwin's racism may have not had a major effect on slavery but I could be wrong as I don't pretend to be a historian who specializes in the area of slavery. Newton 19:26, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
 * I don't pretend to be a historian who specializes in the area of slavery. Then why did you start this whole silly line of talk in the first place?   As various people have pointed out at length, Darwin's theory of evolution had only been published for about two years (in a society with no telecommunications) at the time the American Civil War started, making your whole argument fairly invalid to begin with. --Gulik 19:37, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
 * owell has stated that slavery was not a major force in history primarily due to racism but had more to do with the strong nations/peoples taking advantage of the weak ones Historically (as in, Bronze Age societies), this was true, but THAT sort of slavery was notably different from Southern-Fried Slavery--Greek slaves were often prisoners of war, and could marry, hold property, and buy their freedom, as opposed to the eternal, race-based, and hereditary slavery our noble ancestors in Dixie were so fond of. :( --Gulik 19:45, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
 * I do realize that some forms of slavery were more harsher than others and certainly racism can play a part. But granting that would mean that Darwinian/evolutionary racism contributed to the harshness of some slave owners. Newton 20:16, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Please explain to me the logic underlying that conclusion. And for your sake, you might want to do so in a way that keeps me from asserting that the Bible ALSO "contributed to the harshness of some slave owners". --SockOfGulik 20:49, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Misunderstanding
AmesG, there was a misunderstanding. I had thought that Tmtoulouse has moved the material. But since you, AmesG, moved it and said I could move it back if I wanted then no offense taken. I do think the post was relevant to What is going on at CP as it relates to a current discussion on the TOE talk page.

Secondly, I currently post in 4 forums which have creation-evolution discussions so the charge that I have been kicked off every creation-evolution forum is patently wrong. I do avoid forums which are run by evolutionists or anti-YEC moderators although I do admit that one evolutionist run forum does not censor but that forum is not too active so I do not post there now.

Next, Aschafly and I are on good terms. He very much liked a marketing idea I came up with two days ago that could get us more publicity than the LA Times article and we may implement it fairly soon after a few matters are wrapped up. I realize that Andy and I had a disagreement regarding a matter but we exchange cordial and friendly emails and our disagreement is over. I believe Andy thinks I do have the best interest of CP at heart but now and then on a wiki disagreements about content are bound to come up.

As far as nobody liking the user Conservative at CP that charge is also patently false as can be seen by the comments of Pearson and Learntogether on the current user page for Conservative. LOL Newton 18:30, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Be careful about Learntogether - do you really trust him to be one of your own? Also, is CP starting up an advertising campaign? Wow! -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

Newton, I thought you were going to take your bat and your ball and go home. But I'm glad to see you here, because I'm really curious to see what YECs and their ilk have to say about Olivia Judson's article in this month's Atlantic Monthly about the interesting links between evolution and altruism. See: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200710/generosity-and-evolution. PFoster 18:40, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
 * PFoster, I don't have a subscription to the Atlantic Monthly. However, I do think the altruism/TOE scenario is an example of a something that cannot be falsified or verified as developing through the hypothesized process of macroevolution. Newton 19:01, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Wikinterpreter, publicity is part of promotion and it can be free so I did not necessarily say that CP should advertise. Newton 19:10, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

They sell the Atlantic at the newsstand for five dollars. They probably have it at your local library, too - unless conservative regimes in your city/state have slashed public library funding, as they are wont to do. And it's not a question of falsifiability or verifiability,through the hypothesized process of macroevolution, it's a question of opening your mind to new ideas and new research.And if falsifiability and verifiability matter to you so much, why do subscribe to a theory that requires faith in an imaginary being as its fundamental principle? PFoster 19:28, 29 September 2007 (EDT)


 * Well, that's easy to understand--Science claims to work on principles of "proof' and "evidence", so of COURSE it has to be held to a higher standard than religion. By the way, Newton, God told me personally that unless you give away your computer and spend the next ten years helping the poor in Africa, you're going to be reincarnated as a paper bag after you die by being mistaken for a Terrorist at the airport.  Do you Believe That? --Gulik 19:42, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
 * PFoster, I am at a University library now. However, I don't want to spend time searching the stacks regarding something I consider to related to a pseudoscience that has no support in the fossil record -especially since you could not tell me how the supposed connection between altruism and TOE could be verified or falsified.  I also think Dr. Bergman and Pierre Grasse (ex-President of the French Academy of Sciences) have notable things to say about mutations.  As far as opening my mind, I do believe that healthy skepticism is a good thing.  Lastly, given that Conservapedia might be getting a lot of traffic if my idea that Schlafly likes is implemented (although there are no guarantees in marketing related endeavors though as far as getting results as the Edsel and New Coke demostrated) I do want to edit Conservapedia some tonight. Lastly, I don't believe you provided any support to your contention regarding the imaginary being claim and given the abundant evidence that is cited at Conservapedia regarding the resurrection of Jesus Christ I don't think you will be able to support such a claim.Newton 19:47, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
 * I do believe that healthy skepticism is a good thing.
 * How do you manage to say things like that without your brain trying to hatch from your skull and fly away in protest? Is there some sort of special training involved, or is your brain's Hypocrisy Detection Center burned out? --Gulik 19:59, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

I read this, and I thought of you:
Slacktivist: Lying Liars. It's about quotemining, and George Bush, among other things. --Gulik 19:38, 29 September 2007 (EDT) Since you won't actually read the article, here's the key quote: Lying about evolution is not evidence of faith. Lying about anything is not evidence of faith. Lying to one’s co-religionists is not evidence that you care about the state of their souls or your own. So why do it? Possibly because it fosters an unwarranted certainty, an us-and-them mentality that can be exploited for political gains. And possibly, just possibly, because it leads believers into distracting thickets of false exegesis, and away from a faith whose basic tenets have never been terribly complicated: Love god. Love one another. Share what you have, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, comfort the afflicted, be humble, love justice, seek peace, tell the truth, pray often, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, recognize everyone as a child of God just like yourself, and forgive trespasses as you hope to have your own forgiven.

It’s a disturbing religion when you take it straight. Heaven only knows what would happen if more of these people started practicing it.
 * You cannot lie about something that never happened. By the way, I had heard that there were attempts to make the evolutionary hypothesis a scientific law but I could not confirm that contention.  Anyone familar with any such attempt or attempts?  Newton 19:49, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
 * You do not actually have the faintest idea what a "scientific law" is, do you? (Hint:  It is not something the Science Police will arrest you for breaking.) --Gulik 19:51, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
 * And like hell it didn't happen. (I didn't THINK you'd read the article, but I want to make it abundantly clear to everyone else that you didn't, on the off-chance some poor, deluded soul was inclined to give you any benefit of the doubt.) --Gulik 19:55, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Gulik, I do not want to get into a contentious conversation in regards to whether or not I know what I scientific law is with a pugnacious member of RationalWiki. However, there does appear to be a crank named Dr. Richard Pike (who is supposedly a member of the Royal Society of Chemistry) who wishes that the evolutionary position would be made into a scientific law.  Well if wishes were fishes we would all have a fry!Newton 20:03, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Oooo.... is that an ULTRA-RARE quote? I'll trade you three gaffes, a misquote, and a "Distorted Context" for it! --Gulik 20:07, 29 September 2007 (EDT) (I wanted to put a link to "KenDeMayher and Magic: The Gathering" here, but I couldn't find the article. :

"You cannot lie about something that never happened." That's an unexpectedly revealing comment, Ken. It explains quite well your history on...well, every article you've been involved with. Once you've decided that evolution hasn't happened, or homosexuality is sinful, or whatever, then no matter how much you twist, no matter how much you misquote, no matter how much you take out of context, no matter how much you lie, deceive, obfuscate and twist, it doesn't count as lying, because it's about something you see as invalid. How very convenient for you that you can turn your morals on and off like that. --Kels 20:05, 29 September 2007 (EDT)


 * Theory
 * Scientific law


 * Kels, I have never stated I decide matters without looking at the evidence first and given my aforementioned comment regarding mutations I think you are going to have a hard time substantiating your last comment. Newton 20:14, 29 September 2007 (EDT)


 * Ken, you have never given any indication you actually look at evidence at all. Certainly none of it appears in your writing, just an endless series of quotes intended, apparently, to poke holes in the credibility of the people talking about evolution.  I've never seen you present evidence, as in experimental results, data or whatever, either for YEC or opposing the elements that make up evolutionary theory.  And I doubt you ever will, since most everything you quote is clearly mined from lists of quotes, utterly divorced from context.  When you show me some proof that actual experimental evidence is something you've taken into consideration, that's when I'll start to consider your posts as anything but bad faith attacks on a theory you don't really understand. --Kels 20:44, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

"I have never stated I decide matters without looking at the evidence first"... Bwahahahahahaha. Good one Ken! It doesn't matter if you state it or not, it is obvious by your "scholarship". CЯacke ® 20:23, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Ken Demeyer
Are you still denying that you are ken Demeyer or have you given that up? 20:25, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh and heres the Rabbit thread at EvC that everyone should try and get through...go on I dare you...get through the first post! 20:30, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Dear Readers;

t stupid;dr.

-- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!


 * I could only make it to #12....sorry, feeling queasy now. ----ИїģḥŤ¤Ṭŗáìṇ ♦Τάļќ ǃ 22:54, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Question about Conservapedia future internet traffic
I am just curious. I have a forecast for what will happen as far as internet traffic at Conservapedia but all bets are off given the possible promotion plan that might be implemented.

So here is my question:

1. It took two years for Wikipedia to have a real upward climb in terms of its internet traffic. See: http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative/alexaconservwikipedia

How long, if ever, do you think that Conservapedia will have a signficant upward trend? If you say, never, then why spend so much time looking at Conservapedia?

2. Secondly, if it is true that the media is generally liberal (see: http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A2898_0_2_0_C/ ) will they choose to ignore Conservapedia or will they bash Conservapedia? I do realize that the Chicago Tribune gave a fairly nice article about Conservapedia but they are conservative (I believe they endorsed Bush in 2004). Newton 20:45, 29 September 2007 (EDT)


 * CP all ready had its upward trend, it had its chance and blew it. CP will never again have a traffic spike as large as the one it got when the blogs pointed to it. You can not compare this to Wikipedia, wikipedia was a new thing, the market is now saturated. Conservapedia will never get anywhere close to wikipedia. It will never be a significant alternative to wikipeida. If it plays its cards right it might become an important resource for homeschooled, Christian, conservative high school children. Thats its best bet. 20:51, 29 September 2007 (EDT)


 * 1. I don't know about anyone else, but I watch CP because I'm morbidly fascinated by the follies of True Believers.  And CP will never grow like Wikipedia did because the sysops won't let it--an influx of new users uncontrolled by micromoderation would quickly turn CP into WP's dumber littler brother, and they KNOW this.
 * 2. The media is about as "liberal" as General Electric and Westinghouse, so the rest of your question is irrelevant. And the media are forced to pay attention to anything if it's grotesque enough, so CP will probably get media coverage for a long time.
 * --SockOfGulik 20:55, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
 * A 1998 Gallup poll stated the evangelicals made up 39% of the USA population.  So Conservapedia may have plenty of room to grow in the future. Newton 21:02, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Except that the kinds of people who use wikis are usually, educated, tech savvy, and respect the value of information and academic pursuits...................so that leaves you with 1 percent if you are lucky. 21:04, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
 * I don't think that young evangelicals (wiki users are generally young) are that less (if at all) educated. . Newton 21:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)


 * CP has a chance of going beyond a persistent flat line with occasional blips if it can encourage a community growth beyond the favorites of Andy. You need to encourage people to contribute. Locking articles (the fallout of the first contest still lingers - there are many articles there that need to be unprotected), insulting entire groups of people in articles (Andy's essays), and outright hostility and rudeness in the talk pages by the site administrators are very good ways to drive away contributors. Those all have negative effects on contributions.  To get positive, you need to accept other points of view on the pages and not be so heavy handed in blocking and removal of anything that differs from Andy's dogma.  CP needs to be consistent so that people know what to expect rather than TK making up rules.  The 90/10 rule is probably the worst thing for CP's growth - you need people to talk and argue and debate about what should be in an article.  You also need talk contributions to form a community beyond Andy's pet home schoolers.  Furthermore, you need a way to scale beyond people with block and night edit abilities outnumbering the rest of the active contributors. --Shagie 21:29, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia's current traffic that takes it seriously: 50 (all sysops/night editors, minus socks), with periodic stop-bys from Robert Turkel (5 unique views per day) and from CreationWiki (20 unique views per day). Conservapedia's current traffic that laughs at it: the rest.- 21:34, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Question about RationalWiki's future internet traffic.
Question about RationalWiki's future internet traffic. What do you think it will be and why? Newton 20:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)


 * If we can maintain our current level of traffic I will be happy, it depends on how much content we can produce. We probably have a shelf life, if everything goes smoothly, of 4-5 years. 20:58, 29 September 2007 (EDT)


 * In passing, sorry about your block. Oh wait, that'd be deceit. I'm not sorry! Sam Wellington the fourth 21:02, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
 * What do you mean by shelf life? Elaborate? Are you saying the Wiki will be taken offline or just not grow after 5 years?Newton 21:06, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Shelf life is how long a wiki has an active community....how long till no one edits it much anymore. 21:09, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

I think tmtoulouse is a bit optimistic, but I obviously have no real data here, just speculation. I have the feeling the point of the question is to draw a comparison to Conservapedia, meant to be favorable to Captain Jesuspants and Company. Well regardless of which site has more traffic or lasts longer, the comparison is flawed. RW is a forum, not an encyclopedia. It isn't meant to replace a giant in its field (such as wikipedia) or revolutionize anything. Like Conservapedia, it utterly fails at being a general purpose encyclopedia, but we don't try to be one, so it's cool. DickTurpis 00:25, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

What is the biggest Wiki compared to Wikipedia?
What is the biggest Wiki compared to Wikipedia? What are the top 5 Wikis? Newton 21:04, 29 September 2007 (EDT)


 * Hard to say since there are so many, its hard to keep track. WoWwiki is big, uncyclopedia, uh I think wookiee is...anyone else can give you more. This is just off the top of my head. 21:08, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
 * I'm guessing none of them start with "Conserva~". XD  --Kels 21:10, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

How fast is the world's computer usage % going up and if it is expected to keep rising is there a wiki saturation problem?
Someone said the market for Wikis is saturated. If it is indeed saturated why is that supposedly so? Also, how fast is the world's number of computer users going up and if it is expected to keep rising is there really a saturation problem? Newton 21:10, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Uh the number of people who are 1) able to use wikis and 2) willing to do so and 3) actually do is a tinny percentage of total internet users. Also new people getting on the internet are now less likely to fit into wiki users. Wiki users are people who are computer savvy and on the cutting edge (usually) and they are all ready on the internet. The saturation problem is why edit anything other than wikipedia? Why read anything other than wikipedia? You have to have a niche market, such as WoWwiki, or RationalWiki, and to an extent conservapedia.........the problem is that conservapedia is not marketing to its niche as much as trying to put itself against wikipedia. Bad idea. 21:14, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Evangelicals are lukewarm or cold to Wikipedia as far as I can see due to their worldview. So there is a reason for them to not edit Wikipedia. As I stated earlier they make up a large part of the USA.  Lastly, I don't think that young evangelicals (wiki users are generally young) are that less educated (if in fact they are less educated). . Newton 21:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
 * okay. 21:29, 29 September 2007 (EDT)


 * Still, it makes very little sense to set up a new wiki project as a general encyclopedia with practically no explicit content boundaries to rival Wikipedia as a whole. Wikipedia has countless members, articles on a wide selection of topics, and policies that (mostly) have been refined over the years. No matter how many people you can gather, you will have a VERY hard time competing directly, and that's the optimistic view. The good news is that you don't have to.
 * I think even the most radical, ultra-conservative Young Earth Creationists would not find overly many "errors" in... say... wp:hammer or wp:excavator (although I almost fear that I will be proven wrong, but at least CreationWiki has no entries for those things, so I think I'm safe). So there is no practical need to reinvent the wheel by re-creating those articles elsewhere. That's what a niche wiki is all about: Just pick the field you think you can improve away from WP and focus your wiki on that (and ONLY on that). That's what fan-wikis or genre-wikis are all about. For example, Wikipedia most likely won't tolerate separate articles for every character who played a major role in any Star Wars novel. Or for every single Transformer that ever existed. Or for every episode of some soap opera. That's where new projects step in.
 * CP would stand a chance if it ever bothered to set clear and official goals about what it is and what it isn't. Without those (and with only the countless direct comparisons with Wikipedia), one has to assume that CP has no niche focus and thus tries to compete with somebody who has all advantages on his side. Yeah, good luck with that. Oh, and btw: cp:excavator does not exist yet. ;) --Sid 22:07, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Dibs on tilting-at-windmills-wiki!! --Kels 22:14, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Why is Google favoring Wikipedia?
Why is Google favoring Wikipedia? Yahoo doesn't seem to favor Wikipedia as much. Is it because they want to gain favor with Wikipedia users? It seems to me that a big reason why Wikipedia appears to be growing is that Google seems to rank them high even for stubs of articles.

Secondly, do you think that the opportunity is there for a rival wiki to cut a deal with a competitor of Google? Newton 21:34, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
 * No, and if so, it wouldn't be a niche wiki. It'd be another npov wiki, with potentially more expert opinions.  And Schlafly wouldn't be a part of it.- 21:35, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

What on earth would CP be able to offer as part of a deal with someone like Yahoo? --Kels 21:45, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
 * More holocaust deniers per page view.- 21:45, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
 * True, and they've got the all-important racism market sewn up, since Poor Ed came within a hair of calling the monks in Burma "wogs". --Kels 21:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

The difference between yahoo and google rankings have to do with the page rank algorithms. Google ranks wikipedia so high because everyone links to wikipedia. Its that simple. And "competitor" to google is about as meaningful as "competitor" to wikipedia. Google, like it or not, is the search engine. There is a reason why the term "search" in the English language has been replaced with "google."

There was no back door deal like you seem to be implying. 22:06, 29 September 2007 (EDT)