User:NightFlare/Memory Hole/Talk Main Page

Talk:Main Page From Conservapedia Jump to: navigation, search Archives

Contents [hide] 1 when was conservapedia started? 2 Hillary/Obama 3 Sort of Contradictory 4 Conservapedia video on YouTube 5 A General Question 6 Homosexuals love free speech 7 free speech again 8 Subway bars homeschoolers from essay contest 9 Crocker on Al Qaeda 10 Mapplethorpe 11 Nitwit? 12 Genuine Bafflement at Reference To Multi-Culturalism 13 Multiculturism? 14 YouTube 15 Memorial Day 16 Atheist Austin Cline can run but he cannot hide!!!! 16.1 Challenge Austin Cline at About.com:Agnosticism/Atheism 17 This Site 18 Austin Cline and Micheal Martin and the Old Atheism (Cowardice) 19 90/10 rule 20 Of fighting all windmills at once: "Conservapedia message to evolutionist and atheist PZ Myers" 21 Updates regarding atheist Austin Cline's cowardice 22 Microlight in NZ 23 Segregation

[edit] when was conservapedia started? ?

It was started by a homeschool group in December of 2006. Why? ~BCSTalk2ME 15:23, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

It was started in 2006 but began to take off more in 2007 from news/blog coverage and word of mouth. DanH 15:27, 23 May 2008 (EDT) [edit] Hillary/Obama "Hillary and Obama are Marx twins who only differ in race and gender."

Thats ludicrous. What aspects of Karl Marxs political philosophy do they possess? Making the Democratic party the vanguard of the revolution? Nationalising all private property? Do you people think before you type? JEdgar 19:13, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, first of all that was originally from the article itself, not typed by us. --Ṣ₮ёVeN 21:43, 23 May 2008 (EDT) Did you even bother to read the article that was linked to? Jinxmchue 21:53, 23 May 2008 (EDT [edit] Sort of Contradictory I feel that someone needs to point this out. With respect to the headline on Kennedy, the first article talks about how conservatives always respect someone after their death (praying for them etc) and about how liberals do the opposite (wishing the deceased was burning in hell etc). The second article is a list of criticisms about Kennedy. Although it's not exactly on the same level as the sick messages discussed in the first article, it is still in the same key (slamming someone when they are gravely ill is not exactly saying “I disagree with Senator Kennedy's politics, but he is a fellow American and a fellow human being so I sincerely pray for his recovery and wish his family well.”). Perhaps someone could look at changing one of these two links, preferably the second. StatsMsn 09:45, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

I would tend to agree. This seems in very bad taste. By all means criticize Kennedy and other old-school liberals as issues arise. Including this here in this context just makes us look mean spirited and bitter. Ezekiel38 02:33, 24 May 2008 (EDT) Wow, "Ezekiel38", you feel compelled to speak for "us"? Your above comment is your only edit here!--Aschlafly 14:45, 24 May 2008 (EDT) Sorry I didn't mean any offense. I just signed on to make that comment. But I will add more constrictive comments soon. I meant "us" in the sense of eth Conservative community. Sorry if I gave the wrong impresion. Ezekiel38 19:05, 24 May 2008 (EDT) [edit] Conservapedia video on YouTube View it and rate it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvT5YuDovHI

Read, rate and respond to comments (lots of hateful comments from liberals, of course) here:

http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=FvT5YuDovHI&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3DFvT5YuDovHI

Just thought you'd like to know. Jinxmchue 12:01, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the video Jinxmchue. It has been posted on the Main Page. --DeanSformerly Crocoite 12:21, 24 May 2008 (EDT) The liberal venom posted on the Youtube comment page is hilarious. Notice how liberals never police or even criticize the overt hatred expressed by fellow liberals.--Aschlafly 12:45, 24 May 2008 (EDT) They hate homeschooling, that's for sure. Even though several studies have shown that homeschoolers constantly outperform their publicly schooled counterparts, many liberals continue to spread the lie that homeschoolers are ignorant, uneducated, backwards and "unprepared for reality." Jinxmchue 14:01, 24 May 2008 (EDT) In regards to Youtube, there really is no "policing", and criticism generally occurs between people who disagree, not agree. Also, why are you linking to the article within the talk page? Wandering 19:11, 24 May 2008 (EDT) My point is that liberals almost never criticize or police fellow liberals, no matter how hateful their venom is.--Aschlafly 22:12, 24 May 2008 (EDT) That's a rather ridiculous generalization, and completely ignores the race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, with supporters of each side constantly criticizing the other. Or have you not been following that at all? Wandering 14:30, 25 May 2008 (EDT) Liberals are humans, just as conservatives. They're both just as much likely to be "venomous" and "hateful" which by no means exemplifies either political ideologies. Kilmarnock 00:30, 25 May 2008 (EDT) Ideas have consequences, and it's folly to pretend otherwise. There is no way that one value system is going to "just as much likely to be venomous and hateful" as a completely different value system. Would you say that people who eat fast food every day are just as likely to be healthy as those who do not? Surely not.--Aschlafly 13:35, 25 May 2008 (EDT) I didn't say the ideology, I said those that advocate the ideology. So both sets of advocates (liberals and conservatives) are just as likely to be "venomous". Nor do the ideologies of liberalism or conservatism give any such consequences to those who support those ideologies. However, I wouldn't say that people who eat fast food every day are just as likely to be healthy as those who don't; that is an irrelevant point. The "fast food" point is based on science while the "ideology" point is based on opinion. Liberals are just as likely to be "venomous" as conservatives. Kilmarnock 14:01, 25 May 2008 (EDT) You're just repeating your sweeping claim, without giving a reason. Why would you expect two groups having completely different value systems to be precisely identical in their style? Would you expect, for example, people who go to church every week to use profanity as often as people who do not? Of course not.--Aschlafly 14:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT) You're just repeating your unsubstantiated statement that liberals never criticise liberals who are "venomous" while you're not even addressing how conservatives can be any different. Why would you expect liberals to be any more "venomous" than conservatives? Would you expect, for example, people who practise tai chi chuan every week to be hateful as often as people who don't? Of course not. Kilmarnock 18:24, 25 May 2008 (EDT) You're simply mimicking my points without answering them, and I'm not going to continue to allow you to post non-substantive comments here. The postings by liberal critics of Conservapedia on the YouTube video are venomous. No one denies that, yet you won't admit it. You won't find postings by conservatives in that hateful style. Moreover, it's silly to pretend that liberals and conservatives, or any two groups that hold such widely different values, would be identical in style. So address these points, or move on. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 19:46, 25 May 2008 (EDT) How do you tell whether a Youtube commenter is a liberal or a conservative? At face value, the difference would apparently be whether they agree with you or not. Wandering 20:27, 25 May 2008 (EDT) Wandering, true to your name, your comment that you can't tell if the Youtube commenters are liberal or conservative is simply absurd. There are limits to how many absurd comments you will be able to make on this site. I trust you can understand the meaning of my last sentence without further explanation, and if you post a comment saying you do not understand then that will likely be your last edit here. Godspeed to you.--Aschlafly 20:59, 25 May 2008 (EDT) Mr Schlafly, you're continuously dodging my question. How do you substantiate that liberals almost never criticize or police fellow liberals, no matter how hateful their "venom" is as opposed to conservatives? Do you think that a conservative can't be "venomous" like a liberal? Like Rush Limbaugh's hateful rhetoric about Michael J. Fox? Like Pat Robertson saying that Satanism and homosexuality came together in helping the rise in Adolf Hitler? Like Jerry Falwell blaming homosexuals for helping the events of 9/11? Like Charles Coughlin's hateful anti-Semitic preachings? Like Sean Hannity's francophobic comments stating that "not since 1972 has the Democratic Party moved so far to the French"? Like Ann Coulter's vicious hate speech calling Muslims "rag heads"? You don't seem to want to admit to this. Why won't you address the question? And in the words of Wandering, how do you tell whether or not a YouTube user is liberal or conservative? There are plenty of conservatives who oppose the ideologies presented in Conservapedia, Mr Schlafly. Kilmarnock 21:33, 25 May 2008 (EDT) To avoid yourself taking people's words out of context, Kilmarnock, I'm going to insist as well as demand that you provide the actual transcripts of what you claim these people have said. Not one or two sentences, but the whole thing. Karajou 01:50, 26 May 2008 (EDT) Kilmarnock said it first but I believe that conservatives and liberals both say venonous things so I have made the list (but neither side should as its counter-productive). Both sides have vitrol to yell at each other but none should, lets focus on issues not cheap shots. Please dont block me, I am just looking for equal fairness on this particulary issue. I dont think asking for actual transcripts is fair as many Conservapedia articles link to blogs and asking for actual transcripts is, in my humble opinion, a dodge of the issue. These comments are pretty well known anyway.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200610240001 - Limbaugh on M.J.Fox (this has a link to the full clip) http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13998.html - Pat Robinson, gays and Hitler http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/Falwell.apology/ - Fallwell apologises for his remarks http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v48/ai_18583041 - Chalres Coughlin bio (couldnt find anything for Hannity, sorry but Bill O'Reilly has a lot to say!) http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200602%5CCUL20060213b.html - Coulter and ragheads. AdenJ 05:59, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

I found the video of Sean Hannity's francophobic comments on YouTube[1] (the comments are at 1:26 in the video). Thanks to AdenJ for providing the rest of the information. Kilmarnock 13:57, 26 May 2008 (EDT) Folks, give us actual quotes of what you think is venom by conservatives, and then compare those to quotes of what you see on the YouTube commentary about conservatives. You're just kidding yourself if you think they are comparable.--Aschlafly 15:07, 26 May 2008 (EDT) Well there are not comparable because - for example - Limbaughs radio shows reaches millions whereas someone on youtube is just a lone internet voice. The Limbaugh clip has his comments and then is apology meaning he knew what he was saying was inflammatory. AdenJ 16:19, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

"When we get through with the Jews in America, they'll think the treatment they received in Germany was nothing." -Charles Coughlin "This is really shameless. Either he didn't take his medication, or he's acting." -Rush Limbaugh "Many of those people involved with Adolf Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals--the two things seem to go together." -Pat Robertson "I really believe that the pagans and the feminists and the abortionists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who tried to secularise America, I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen'." -Jerry Falwell "Not since 1972 has the Democratic Party moved so far to the French." -Sean Hannity “Rag-head talks tough, rag-head faces consequences.” -Ann Coulter No, Mr Schlafly, we are not kidding ourselves. Please be courteous in the discussion. Those YouTube comments aren't aimed at conservatives, they are aimed at Conservapedia. There's no telling which of those YouTube users is a liberal or a conservative as there are conservatives that oppose the ideologies presented in Conservapedia. I would also have to agree with AdenJ. The voice of an anonymous YouTube user bears much less credibility and responsibility than someone who hosts a television programme or a radio programme. Kilmarnock 16:34, 26 May 2008 (EDT) You don't attach dates to the comments. Coughlin was an anti-semitic commentator in the 1930s, and not a conservative. Most of the other comments are not venomous, while the YouTube comments are. Your comment that the YouTube comments "aren't aimed at conservatives, they are aimed at Conservapedia" is silly and pointless.--Aschlafly 16:44, 26 May 2008 (EDT) My final thought on this is as stated above - there is venom spewed on both sides. The focus should be the issues and it wastes time to speak hate. The Limbaugh quote got me the most as he admitted that he actually hadnt seen M.J.Fox in any interviews before so had nothing to compare his observations too. He was just mouthing off. At least he apologised. AdenJ 16:51, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

AdenJ, "mouthing off" is not the same as venomous comments, like what is often seen from liberals, as on YouTube and often here. No, liberal and conservative styles are not identical. There is no reason to expect they would be. To me, that is the most unjustified claim of all: that the styles of two groups having completely different value systems would somehow be identical.--Aschlafly 16:58, 26 May 2008 (EDT) We'll have to agree to disagree then I guess. I dont mind, I'm a moderate (I know you dont believe there are any but nonetheless - here I am!) and see both sides spitting venom at each other. Just differant types of venom. AdenJ 17:03, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

Charles Coughlin was a conservative[2]. Mr Schalfly, can you please specify which of the given comments aren't venomous? Because you appear to be proving the point that conservatives almost never criticize or police fellow conservatives, no matter how hateful their venom is, as opposed to this point being applied to liberals. I would appreciate it if you directly address the arguments instead of dodging them (i.e. claiming them as being "silly and pointless") as I could have done the same for your arguments much further back in this conversation. Kilmarnock 17:37, 26 May 2008 (EDT) Kilmarnock, I said I wanted the entire transcripts of where you said these quotes came from, not blurbs taken out of them and spun about by the news media. Go get them. Karajou 02:33, 27 May 2008 (EDT) Kilmarnock, we have rules against incessant talk, talk, talk. Take a look at your own edit pattern and check it against the rules. During your brief absence, learn about Charles Coughlin from our site rather than a liberal one, and see why he was plainly not a conservative. Hint: conservatives did not support the New Deal.--Aschlafly 19:52, 26 May 2008 (EDT) Perhaps Andy can cite specific quotes from the youtube responses he considers especially venomous, and then others can look for similar sentiments expressed by conservatives on other videos or on other sites. That way we can compare apples to apples. I seem to recall seeing some responses to articles on conservative websites which were unnecessarily hateful to liberals. If no one can come up with anything expressing a similar attitude, then Andy will have a good point, I think. Jaguar 18:52, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

[edit] A General Question I have a general question. I am posting here in order to gauge opnion from you all. There is a lot on this site mocking environmentalists, saving the whales etc. Why is this? I would have thought the believing in God would make you want to protect his creation/s. AdenJ 21:35, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

The problem is the tendency for environmentalists to elevate animal or plant life above the value of human life. The environment is the creation of God, but humans are in the image of God. Also, environmentalism can push falsehoods that impose unnecessary hardships, like interfering with the development of energy sources.--Aschlafly 22:11, 24 May 2008 (EDT) I definatly agree that environmentalists can be a pushy bunch! However I think that in protecting our environment we also protect ourselves. AdenJ 22:17, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Protecting the environment is fine. Protecting animals is fine. Hindering needed human activity based upon lies about global warming or forcing people to use supposedly environmentally-friendly products (like those compact florescent bulbs which ironically contain mercury and are hazardous if broken) is not. Jinxmchue 23:51, 24 May 2008 (EDT) That is true. I personally am very skeptical of Global Warming (sure its happening but I am undecided on the human impact) but, in saying that, limiting outputs and converting to clean energy is only going to benefit us in the long run. AdenJ 00:00, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia's viewpoint expressed above is fair enough. My main problem with CP on the issue is that whenever it talks about an environmentalist group, no matter what group it is, it almost always either strongly implies or states directly that that group is an extremist group. It's true of some groups certainly, and the extremists probably have a voice in the environmental movement that is out of proportion to their numbers. But every left-of-center environmental group is "extremist"? I have a hard time believing that.--Frey 13:57, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Homosexuals love free speech http://www.afamichigan.org/2008/05/21/news-triangle-foundation-newspapers-should-get-sued-and-slapped-business-owners-go-to-jail/ Michigan homosexual lobby backs jail, lawsuits for refusal to recognize homosexual “marriage” Columnist: Triangle Fdn’s Kosofsky says business owners should be jailed, newspapers sued and “slapped publicly” “A representative of the largest Michigan gay-rights group, the Triangle Foundation…told me that people who continue to act as if marriage is a union between a man and a woman should face being fined, fired and even jailed until they relent. What happens if a traditionally religious business owner wants to extend his ‘marriage discount’ only to couples married in his eyes? Thiudareiks 06:20, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

[edit] free speech again http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3273 Thiudareiks 06:30, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Subway bars homeschoolers from essay contest http://www.homeedmag.com/blogs/newscomm/?p=1493

And the pièce de résistance is Subway's spelling of "United States." lol! Way to go, Subway. Not only do you end up looking prejudiced, but you look stupid, too. Jinxmchue 11:06, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't see Subway as being against homeschooling, just that they want the grand prize to go to a school instead of a private individual so the benefits are shared. --DinsdaleP 14:25, 25 May 2008 (EDT) The benefits are more likely to be "shared" with students if given to a homeschool group than if given to a union-controlled public school, so I don't think your reason holds water.--Aschlafly 14:46, 25 May 2008 (EDT) Are you implying that if the group-prize would be won by a public or parochial school it wouldn't be shared? You truly have a low opinion of non-homeschoolers and the institutions that serve them, don't you? I read the rules, and if the entry was submitted from a homeschool group with a P.O. box or the address of a center they meet at, I have a feeling it would be allowed. It seems clear that the intention was to have the "School" prize go to a group, and not to an individual/household - that's why there's one prize for the school, and one for the individual whose entry won. If you teach your students in a group/class setting instead of their individual homes, why don't you have them enter on behalf of the "school" name that represents that group, and see what happens? --DinsdaleP 15:14, 25 May 2008 (EDT) The rules seemed to expressly prohibit homeschool entries, so I'm not eager to waste my time on it. My comment that an award would more likely be shared with students in a homeschool environment than in a union-controlled public school environment stands, and I doubt many would even dispute it. It's common for public school students to lack funding for basic resources despite overall budgets that are astronomical.--Aschlafly 15:40, 25 May 2008 (EDT) Count me as a disputer, then, if you believe that unionized schools would keep an award earned by students from being shared with students. I'll write Subway and ask them to clarify the rule, because I doubt they'd have a problem accepting an entry from an official homeschooling group or association, just from individuals schooled at home. --DinsdaleP 17:37, 25 May 2008 (EDT) [edit] Crocker on Al Qaeda I hope he's right, but after George Bush's "Mission Accomplished" debacle in 2003 and Dick Cheney's 2005 assessment that the insurgency in Iraq is "in the last throes," (along with a prediction that the fighting would end before the Bush administration leaves office), one would hope that our leadership would stop talking about progress (the reality) as if victory is around the corner (the wish). This is a long-term engagement, period. --DinsdaleP 15:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Mapplethorpe I wanted to create an article on photographer Robert Mapplethorpe, but it was apparently already created and then deleted. Please undelete it, so an article can be made about one of the most marvelous photographers of the modern era. Naturally, I will not include any objectionable material.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 18:04, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't see an outpouring of interest in this ideological favorite of liberals, Tom. So the answer is "no".--Aschlafly 21:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT) That is unfortunate. His Patti Smith photos are almost without exception amazingly beautiful, and his frank portrayal of homosexual topics was groundbreaking. While ranging from stunning photoexplorations of flowers to brash displays of deliberate obscenity, his mastery of composition was boundless. Consider this photo's astonishing composition, for example, and its beautiful use of gray tones. If not for his amazing art, Mapplethorpe should at least be recognized as highly notable because of controversies about his work, such as with the NEA and in Britain. Please reconsider.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 21:30, 25 May 2008 (EDT) Uh, yeah. Let's have an article about a guy who is lauded by liberals for photographing naked gay men with bullwhips shoved where the sun don't shine. Jinxmchue 10:27, 26 May 2008 (EDT) Mapplethorpe was also noted for his use of platinum-based printmaking, as opposed to the silver-based prints used almost universally. They create an entirely different tonal effect in the finished prints, which is one of the reasons his work stands out on the aesthetic merits regardless of the specific subject. Instead of censoring any mention of an important artist because of some aspects of his work, why not let TomMoore create one that's accurate but family-friendly, and lock the page afterwards? --DinsdaleP 11:58, 26 May 2008 (EDT) By that logic, we shouldn't have an article on Hitler, either. Is this going to be an encyclopedia, or a Compendium Of Things Conservatives Approve Of? --Gulik 17:14, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

Luckily, Wikipedia has a quite comprehensive article on this subject, documenting his works, his biography, his influence on culture, related controversies, quite well-referenced with links to sources and official as well as unofficial websites. As long as we censor him from Conservapedia, WP is where people will head for information. In other words, please reconsider. Etc 07:58, 27 May 2008 (EDT) If someone wants to draft a Mapplethorpe entry that is free of liberal bias -- in contrast with Wikipedia -- then let's look at a draft. But in the more likely case that someone thinks he's going to push liberal values in a new Mapplethorpe entry that does not tell the honest truth, forget it.--Aschlafly 09:53, 27 May 2008 (EDT) Can you please point out exactly what you consider to be "liberal bias" in the Wikipedia article, and tell me how it differs from the "honest truth"? The very second sentence of the article mentions how his works created controversy, so I don't agree with your statement that he is an "ideological favorite". The bulk of the article deals with his equipment and techniques, and amongst the few subjective statements about the quality of his works are quotes such as "nothing more than the sensational presentation of potentially obscene material" - can't really count that as praise, either. Anyway, regardless of the current state of the Wikipedia article, I see no reason to permanently delete and censor this subject from Conservapedia - unless you actually want people to turn to Wikipedia when they seek the truth about controversial subjects. Etc 18:56, 27 May 2008 (EDT) I will try to work up a draft on my userspace.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 14:41, 27 May 2008 (EDT) Done.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 18:10, 27 May 2008 (EDT) Good work! Etc 18:56, 27 May 2008 (EDT) I don't see anything Hitler did paraded around in museums and galleries as "art" to be praised and lauded over. Jinxmchue 12:58, 28 May 2008 (EDT) You know, I'm almost inclined to take it back. I wouldn't mind having an article on Mapplethorpe just to see the libs' reactions to an honest, realistic description of his homo-erotic pornography. But that's not really a good basis for adding material to CP. Jinxmchue 13:02, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

Do you have some problem with my proposed version?--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 15:43, 28 May 2008 (EDT) [edit] Nitwit? Spicoli in Fast Times at Ridgemont High is probably better described as a pot-smoking surfer than a "nitwit". --Ampersand 20:25, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

It's a headline, Ampersand. If you can come up with a six-letter improvement on nitwit, then let's hear it. And, by the way, the stupidity of Penn's character is emphasized in the movie.--Aschlafly 21:16, 25 May 2008 (EDT) Spicoli is a nitwit, but I doubt Sean Penn is best known for that role. Using the words "realistic portrayal" is a thinly veiled attack on his intelligence, and I don't think it belongs on any "News" section, where objectivity should be the keyword. It's best to summarize an actor's career by listing notable achievements at the peak of his performance, rather than minor roles at the beginning of the career. ATang 11:28, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

That was Sean Penn's defining role, the one that made him a "star", the one that he is best remembered for. Which other role do you have in mind? Sean Penn uses his popularity as an actor as a soapbox, and it's appropriate to explain what that popularity is based on.--Aschlafly 11:35, 26 May 2008 (EDT) I would rank his Oscar-winning performance in Mystic River as higher in importance than his supporting role in Fast Times, since the Academy Awards is one of the highest honours in acting (regardless of their questionable criteria for selection). It was surely not his "defining role" - how many films after that has him portraying a nitwit? You may personally remember him best for that role - and the reasons for that may simply be the film's liberal views on sex and drugs - but others may not. If you wish to state that he uses his popularity for political activism, why not simply state that in the front section, instead of indirectly calling him a nitwit? ATang 12:01, 26 May 2008 (EDT) I thought the "nitwit" reference to Penn was pretty funny and pretty accurate. Mind you, he and the rest of the Cannes jury did a good job in a difficult year. --KeithJoseph 18:52, 26 May 2008 (GMT)

[edit] Genuine Bafflement at Reference To Multi-Culturalism The entry on the sad stabbing in London includes the phrase "Multiculturalism must have its sacrifices". True enough, but what on earth does it have to do with this story? Where is there any mention of another culture in this news piece? I am genuinely baffled. Am I being thick here? --KeithJoseph 02:02, 26 May 2008 (GMT)

[edit] Multiculturism? The "In the News" secton of the front page reads,

"Harry Potter supporting star Robert Knox stabbed to death in a London pub, after confronting a habitual thief and troublemaker. Multiculturalism must have its sacrifices. Sunday Mirror (London, UK).[3]"

I don't get it. What does "multiculturalism" have to do with this?--MichaelK 21:03, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

God rest his soul. I too don't see how multiculturalism had to do. ---user:DLerner--- 21:10, 25 May 2008 (EDT) The newspapers have not been forthcoming about the identity of the murderer, even though a room full of people saw him and he was promptly arrested, presumably with blood on his clothing. Odd, wouldn't you say?--Aschlafly 21:13, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

In the UK, reports about a suspect tend to be very limited until someone has been charged. This is because of contempt of court laws that are designed to protect a suspect's right to a fair trial.--KimSell 07:20, 26 May 2008 (EDT) So he was obviously a ... (help me out here), the only thing you have from the article is that he was black, "Then last night we were all in the bar having a drink when word started going round that the black lad we'd seen last week was coming down to start trouble. We told the bouncer, where are you going with this? According to the article, they have someone in custody, maybe they're trying to get him to confess before leaking the name. (Remember, in England the libel laws are very stringent, all you have to do is call someone an ass and you get charged with libel...). Whoever the thug is I hope they lock the mamzer up for the rest of his life! ---user:DLerner--- 21:26, 25 May 2008 (EDT) I didn't post the item, and don't know where the multiculturalism reference came from. I do know that there is nothing libelous about reporting who was arrested, and if they're waiting for a confession then that might mean waiting forever. So the newspapers are not telling all they know, and when that happens it's not unreasonable to speculate.--Aschlafly 21:33, 25 May 2008 (EDT) When you announce the name of an arrest to the media/public, the plebs/morons/media/Nancy Grace prejudge you and assume guilt, in England, they apparently don't release names unless they've been officially charged. (Would be refreshing to have that here, wouldn't it? That way someone scooped up for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, won't have to carry the stigma of public humiliation.) ---user:DLerner--- 21:38, 25 May 2008 (EDT) Yes, and when the name is released, the person involved "is assisting the police in their enquiries." And Everybody Knows What That Means, don't they?--TerryHTalk 21:46, 25 May 2008 (EDT) Postscript: This is about multiculturalism because not only is this an interracial crime, but also—and not to put too fine a point on the matter, as they say on that side of the pond—in the England of today, all too often one does not require a recent immigrant to assimilate into the culture. I am going to assume, absent any evidence to the contrary, that the perpetrator is a first-generation immigrant from a Commonwealth member country in Africa. And where he comes from, his codes allow him to do exactly what he did and for the motive that he had, which was: revenge. And in school one does not question such codes. Why? Multiculturalism, that's why.--TerryHTalk 21:51, 25 May 2008 (EDT) Book deal and appearance on Oprah? ---user:DLerner--- 21:48, 25 May 2008 (EDT) More likely, "He is assisting the police in their enquiries" is the equivalent of "he is a suspect in the crime that the police are enquiring into."--TerryHTalk 21:51, 25 May 2008 (EDT) Wow, Terry, that was equally prejudiced and racist all in the span of a few sentences, while only knowing the color of his skin, you immediately assume he's a savage. ---user:DLerner--- 22:04, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

No, DLerner, before running like a liberal to knee-jerk and unjustified cries of "racism", recognize that "multiculturalism" is not about "race", but about "culture". The anticipated fight had conflicting expectations about the level of violence to be used. You have not even recognized that yet, let alone attempted to explain it. Please do.--Aschlafly 22:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT) sigh: (Another liberal knee-jerk reaction, I know....) My assumption of racism was based on the fact that all we know about the killer is that he's black, we know nothing of his heritage, education, family etc, and yet someone writes I am going to assume, absent any evidence to the contrary, that the perpetrator is a first-generation immigrant from a Commonwealth member country in Africa. That doesn't sound even the slightest bit racist to you? Oh, and Michael, why don't you take off you klan robe and open your eyes. Statements like that pave the road for genocide. ---user:DLerner--- 22:18, 25 May 2008 (EDT) DLerner, first of all, you have not stated "all we know." We know he brought two knives to a bar fight and murdered someone, and that suggests something about his culture. He was not crazy, as he came with friends having similar expectations about the fight. But more importantly, we don't allow the level of discourse here to degrade into crass name-calling as you've been doing. Stop it, or your account will be blocked.--Aschlafly 22:25, 25 May 2008 (EDT) I just reread the article, I didn't see anything about multiple accomplices, just multiple victims. Bringing knives to a fight means he's interested in bloodshed which is unfortunately a universal custom. (They had knives in England before they had African immigrants). All I was saying is that we shouldn't automatically blame multiculturalism for every nasty murder, especially when we have very little information With regards to your warning, I would suggest you take into account I had just read MichaelK's condemnation of all black cultures, then you will see my comment in context. And as personal favor, please stop calling me a liberal as if it was a dirty word, it's against the rules---user:DLerner--- 22:36, 25 May 2008 (EDT) OK, I just reread MichaelK's comments, and you have a point. He may be a parody.--Aschlafly 22:41, 25 May 2008 (EDT) Yeah. Is it okay if I delete them?--MichaelK 22:56, 25 May 2008 (EDT) Yes, you can delete it entirely, not just with a strike-through. Thanks.--Aschlafly 22:58, 25 May 2008 (EDT) "All we know is he is black" Do we? How do we know that? --KeithJoseph 15:24, 26 May 2008 (GMT)

"OK, I just reread MichaelK's comments, and you have a point. He may be a parody." What an interesting observation. Considering all the attempts here to justify this entry, one would have to conclude that it was a very effective parody indeed. A lunatic conspiracy theory -- The liberal media wishes to hide the race of the murderer! -- has been invented to make sense of one mischievous non sequitur. It's amazing what unlovely attitudes use of the word "multiculturalism" can expose. --KeithJoseph 16:49, 26 May 2008 (GMT)

It's even more amazing how some react to any criticism of multiculturalism, as though that is something that somehow may never, ever be criticized.--Aschlafly 11:54, 26 May 2008 (EDT) I would certainly agree with you on that. --KeithJoseph 17:07, 26 May 2008 (GMT [edit] YouTube Notice that the video was a rating of one. Does YouTube have a liberal bias too? Rockthecasbah 21:24, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Youtube ratings are placed by the viewers (6,097 at last count), not all of them rate the video, and I'm willing to bet that those who hate the site put the lowest rating, while those who participate in the site (myself included) gave it the highest rating. ---user:DLerner--- 21:28, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, DLerner ... thanks! As to "Rockthecasbah", the bias of the commenters on YouTube is pretty obvious, wouldn't you say?--Aschlafly 21:33, 25 May 2008 (EDT) This is how: Sites linking to this video (5) 1,199 http://atheistmedia.blogspot.com/2008/05/conservaped... 272 http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=36367 162 http://atheistmedia.blogspot.com/ 49 http://poetv.com/video.php?vid=36367 42 http://www.videosift.com/video/Conservapedia-on-The-... The atheists found the video (probably "discovering" it from this very website).

And yes, YouTube probably does have a liberal bias in that the majority of its members are liberals. Jinxmchue 00:40, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

"The majority of YouTube members are liberals" is more a comment about the English-speaking world than about YouTube, since very, very few people aren't YouTube members these days. MrGrieves 00:54, 26 May 2008 (EDT) MrGrieves, I think you overestimate the membership of YouTube by a few hundred million people. It's a terrific site but there are many people who are not plugged into it, particularly many voters.--Aschlafly 18:05, 26 May 2008 (EDT) [edit] Memorial Day I hope no one will think this is a shameless plug (although I guess it is, a little) but in honor of Memorial Day, I've posted two articles on American Medal of Honor winners: David McCampbell and George Davis.--Frey 11:40, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Atheist Austin Cline can run but he cannot hide!!!! [edit] Challenge Austin Cline at About.com:Agnosticism/Atheism Austin Cline confronted with material from the Conservapedia atheism article. The prominent atheist website About.com:Agnosticism/Atheism has been challenged to respond to Conservapedia's atheism article, but its main writer, Austin Cline, has been unable to do so effectively. Watching him trying is like watching a deer caught in the headlights! Please visit the site and challenge him on the intellectual poverty of atheism in relation to his articles. Our article will provide you with plenty of ammunition!

Update! Austin Cline seems to be rather concerned!!! Austin Cline used to have his new articles that people could respond to prominently at the top of the webpage About.com:Agnosticism/Atheism Now those new articles are at the bottom of the webpage. Of course, this was likely done because Austin Cline is unable to effectively deal with the material from Conservapedia's atheism article. Mr. Cline, you can run but you cannot hide! Conservative 08:18, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Here is an excerpt from Austin Cline that shows a rather defeatist response in regards to Conservapedia's atheism article: Austine Cline: "Even if we were to assume that Conservapedia is worth taking seriously, and even if we were to assume that it's page on atheism happened to summarize the best and most serious explanation of and engagement with atheism, my not tackling it directly would say nothing at all about either atheism generally or even my own atheism in particular." Of course, the truth is that Austin Cline can't refute the atheism article at Conservapedia. In short, you cannot give what you do not have.Conservative 09:03, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Of course he can't refute the article. If he tried, you'll ban him. --Gulik 14:33, 27 May 2008 (EDT) [edit] This Site Hello all. First off, I'd like to say that I don't fully agree with many of the things you say on this website. But, instead of some people (i.e. most of the people who write these articles, it seems)who simply bash others belief's left, right and centre, I'm curious. First off, can you scientifically prove Intelligent Design? The only proof I see on this website is things evolution cannot explain. Secondly, if this website was created because you believe Wikipedia is of a liberal bias, is it not hypocritical to make a website with straight, conservative bias? Would it not be better to make a website where we have no bias? One where someone could go to get the pure,facts unblemished by personal beliefs? Well, thank you for your times :)--JZed 22:03, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

The criticism of Wikipedia is that it pretends not to have bias, when it has enormous bias. See Bias in Wikipedia. On Conservapedia, we disclose our point-of-view up-front, as Wikipedia should. The issue of scientific "proof" is a philosophical question that can be raised about many scientific theories, not simply Intelligent Design. I'm not going to try to address that right now.--Aschlafly 22:25, 26 May 2008 (EDT) [edit] Austin Cline and Micheal Martin and the Old Atheism (Cowardice) Although Christopher Hitchen's practices the New Atheism which is more aggressive but not more effective, it appears as if Austin Cline and many atheist practice the old atheism which is cowardly.

Right now, at least in my estimation, Austin Cline appears to be acting rather Michael Martinesque at this point in that he is displaying a rather unmanly act of cowardice. Here is an excerpt from Austin Cline that shows a rather cowardly attitude in regards to Conservapedia's atheism article: Austine Cline: "Even if we were to assume that Conservapedia is worth taking seriously, and even if we were to assume that it's page on atheism happened to summarize the best and most serious explanation of and engagement with atheism, my not tackling it directly would say nothing at all about either atheism generally or even my own atheism in particular." Of course, the truth is that Austin Cline can't refute the atheism article at Conservapedia. In short, you cannot give what you do not have.

Richard Dawkins pretends to practice the New Atheism but in actuality he practices the old atheism in respect to its cowardice. Richard Dawkins and many other evolutionists no longer debate creation scientist because when they did in the vast majority of cases the creation scientists did extremely well! Conservative 09:29, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps I was wrong but I thought we were working on an encyclopedia to help children and adults. What is the purpose of this conflict with Austin Cline? How exactly does challenging another website fit the purpose of Conservapedia? I thought we were to stick to the facts and write material that would be used to improve a person's education and understanding.--Able806 09:52, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Able, wait until I update the atheism article in relation to Internet Infidels and the organization American Atheists. I would also point out that Austin Cline fired the first salvo. While it was a rather cowardly and pathetic salvo that referenced nothing in the Conservapedia atheism article, I see nothing wrong with Conservapedia responding to that salvo. Conservative 10:29, 27 May 2008 (EDT) Isn't it a bit hypocritical to call someone else a coward by making dozens of posts on your website?JPohl 12:21, 27 May 2008 (EDT) Mr. Cline has been challenged at the website that posts his material which has been mentioned before. So I find your remark to be without merit. Conservative 12:41, 27 May 2008 (EDT) I believe that you have been challenged at other websites to sit down (or log in) and have a rational debate with others - and yet, you don't respond. One can hardly blame Mr. Cline not to take on all people wishing to do a bit of self promotion and boosting google rankings when those challengers themselves don't accept similar challenges. Lead by action and don't expect others to do what you, yourself, won't. --Rutm 13:15, 27 May 2008 (EDT) Rutm, do you really believe I have been challenged at other websites? Could you please provide a list of those websites? I think you want me to edit at another website that I have edited before. While I do appreciate the invitation I do choose to not participate on that website due to the actions of their more deceitful and inhospitable members. I hope you were not being deceitful in regards to being challenged at other websites and I hope you can quickly provide me with the list of websites that I requested. Conservative 13:40, 27 May 2008 (EDT) We can start with Rationalwiki, and move on from there. (And why IS that name spamfiltered? One would almost get the impression you people were SCARED of them.) And if "Inhospitality" are going to drive you away, you shall find the Interwebs to be a VERY barren soil. --Gulik 14:37, 27 May 2008 (EDT) Perhaps I was not clear, what exactly does challenging another website have to do with making an encyclopedia? I would hope that my work on mathematics would help some student but how does this challenge thing help? If anything it seems to detract from the purpose of the encyclopedia by routing traffic from here to there. Would it not be the better man to turn the other cheek even if Cline fired a shot? I personaly did not know about him until you posted this information.--Able806 13:53, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Able, other than the issue of Opportunity cost which is certainly debatable, I really don't see how doing both actions are not useful. If you could elaborate, it might be helpful. I would also remind you that there is a time and place for everything under the sun. While turning the other cheek has its place as can been by the passion of Christ, Elijah certainly did mock the prophets of Baal. Conservative 14:02, 27 May 2008 (EDT) I don't think it's fair to criticize these guys for spamming this stuff everywhere on CP, since Conservative just wants to get the word out in all available venues here. I think he sees himself as the tip of the sword on the matter. And if he indeed has been gulling Austin Cline, who is very clever and has been writing that site for something like a decade, that is a sight to see.

Conservative, I think your purpose would be very well served if you could link to the discussions where you have him like a "deer in the headlights," so we could see. As an atheist myself, I am personally curious as well to see the unanswerable comments you made that he couldn't address. Would you mind?--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 14:58, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Further updates of Austin Cline's cowardice are located HERE Conservative 00:13, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

[edit] 90/10 rule I am a bit confused. How can someone get a 90/10 block after a single edit ? It is laughable if a single conversation is taken as 100% talk!--MauriceJ 15:20, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Wise King Solomon stated that a dead fly in the perfume make it stinks. Well if you only have one dead fly of a post in a talk page, you really haven't built up sufficient goodwill to overlook you poor post and keep the privilege of posting at Conservapedia. I realize that many liberals feel the world owes them, but in reality that is just a false liberal myth like the false evolution myth. Conservative 15:36, 27 May 2008 (EDT) Could you guys at least be honest and admit that the 90/10 rule is applied primarily for ideological reasons? People come here to complain how bad Wikipedia administration is, yet someone can make one ideologically bad edit on Conservapedia and get instantly blocked, with an explanation no better than, "That's the way it is." Indeed, I wouldn't even have found out about Conservapedia except for the fact that someone complained about my actions as a Wikipedia administrator when I blocked an anonymous user who had been causing problems for a month. And I think I was a lot more patient with this user on Wikipedia than Conservapedia administrators are with editors who cause problems here. If Conservapedia administrators are going to block at the drop of a hat, that's their right, but it's dishonest to see claims here about bad Wikipedia administrators who are making bad blocks. --Elkman 16:24, 27 May 2008 (EDT) Does not hurt either of us. By the way don't call me son. I am quite keen to see your debate skills by the way where you cannot block to win debates!--Mauricius 16:12, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Elkman, I really don't hear Wikipedia complain too much about Conservative editors trying to purposefully introduce errant material into their wiki or other such nonsense. Liberals have such a low regard for the truth that they have no problem introducing purposefully errant material into a wiki and even bragging about it. I have no problem with banning people on the first offense when they are behaving badly given the volume of foolish liberals that CP has contended with. Perhaps if liberals know that we are quick on the banning draw in regards to pure nonsense, we will get less nonsense directed at us. Conservative 17:05, 27 May 2008 (EDT) The 90/10 rule is not to be used after one edit. I will expressly say that. If a user's first edit is that bad, like obscene, they can be blocked for other reasons like obscenity. One of our stated differences from Wikipedia is that we do not block for ideology. DanH 17:07, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Agreed. Philip J. Rayment 07:42, 28 May 2008 (EDT) [edit] Of fighting all windmills at once: "Conservapedia message to evolutionist and atheist PZ Myers" I think I'm going to need the wiki equivalent of those "I'm not with this guy" shirts. Seriously, Conservative, your efforts (the spamming public awareness campaign, the sudden "Article of the Year" decision, the open challenges to Cline and now Myers, the "Gentlemen" shout-outs, etc.) have made people all over the net laugh at us. You made us all look like narcissistic idiots. I'm well aware that this post may get me in trouble for openly opposing a sysop, but I will rather accept a block or ban than staying quiet about this. I will not silently endorse your efforts to give half the Internet the impression that we are spamming trolls with an absurd need of attention. Please stop. --JBrown 18:08, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

The latest addition to the front page does look a bit unprofessional. Respectable encyclopedias do not make those sorts of call-outs, generally speaking. It's undignified. If you are so confident in the articles, just let them speak for themselves.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 18:27, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

And yet, it's apparently important and professional enough to get its own page, which in turn is linked from our "Article of the Year" box. --JBrown 18:33, 27 May 2008 (EDT) Very unprofessionall like, I agree, we need to look like a professional encyclopedia -- Deborah (contributions) (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

JBrown, if more people were aware that creation scientists won the vast majority of debates at public universities in the past and that is why evolutionary scientists cowardly no longer debate them I think this would be helpful. Secondly, the liberal press in the USA touts New Atheists as somehow being brave and dashing, but the truth is that many of the leading atheists are quite cowardly (Austin Cline, PZ Myers statement that he might critique Conservapedia's homosexuality article [which he will never due as it has far too many citations to mainstream medical journals], Richard Dawkins and the other high profile atheist evolutionists refusing to debate creationist scientists, Michael Martin backing out of his debate with Dr. Bahnsen). I think a little reality being injected into the public forum in terms of the cowardly nature of many key atheist leaders being exposed is a valuable contribution to the public at large. That is one of the reasons why I link to Dr. Theo Hobson's article entitled "Atheism is Cowardly and Pretentious" in the Conservapedia article. Now I realize that "professional" encyclopedias do not challenge certain groups of people or individuals but I would state that Conservapedia is not out to make money so offending certain ignoble individuals or ignoble segments of the public is certainly not a concern of Conservapedia. I would also point out that for an article that is listed at the very bottom of Conservapedia's atheism article that the Theo Hobson article is quite popular and has received almost a 100 views. So it appears as if many individuals in the public at large quite enjoy the cowardice of the atheist leaders being called on the carpet.Conservative 20:45, 27 May 2008 (EDT) Heh, you were so fond of that reply you reposted it in like three other places. I am not sure anyone is objecting to you challenging atheist leaders, and no one thinks there's any money to be made in it, certainly. Those above who object (or at least speaking for myself) simply wish it were done in a more dignified way. It might be "popular," but that's not the best metric for dignity. An educational resource just should not be sneering at people from the front page with "There is entirely too many citations in the Conservapedia homosexuality article from mainstream medical sources for you to contend with and let us not pretend otherwise."--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 22:21, 27 May 2008 (EDT) Okay, so why is this challenge listed as part of the News section? Between the sudden "Article of the Year" designation and the constant headlines about how many pageviews it's gotten and who's linking to it, it seems like the promotion of the Atheism article has become a lot more important than the other content and activities on this site. Now the Conservapedia main page and News section is being used like someone's personal Blackberry to send taunts and messages to PZ Meyers and others. Can these "I'm calling you out, you cowards" statements be sent privately instead of through what's supposed to be an encyclopedia? --DinsdaleP 22:18, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Dinsdale, an article is either the article of the year or it is not the article of the year. I don't understand your sudden comment. Any designation of an article having a certain label is going to be sudden. Also, please tell me where there has been a posting regarding how many views the atheism article has received. I do not recall any such post. Lastly, calling attention to cowardice by directly addressing those involved is certainly the most effective of calling attention to it. Certainly the Old Testament prophets and many great world leaders did not avoid directly confronting people. I am guessing the most popular words spoken by a conservative in the last 40 years were the words, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Conservative 22:59, 27 May 2008 (EDT) Are you sure that PZ Myers reads Conservapedia? If he doesn't, posting messages on the front page is certainly not an effective way to address him. I would recommend that you address him by sending an e-mail, comment on his homepage, or otherwise contact him directly if you have anything important to say to him. Any way you put it, that entry is not news and does not belong in that section. I'd create an op-ed section and put it there instead. Etc 06:00, 28 May 2008 (EDT) Our theory of evolution article is ranked #4 by Google for the search theory of evolution. There are over 70 entries at his blog for conservapedia when you do a search for conservapedia on his blog and he keeps writing articles about us. I would not be too concerned. By the way, don't hold your breath in regards to PZ Myers having the courage to carry through his empty threat of writing a piece about our homosexuality article. I do not believe he wants to contend with the abundance of medical science journal citations in our article due to his cowardice. Conservative 07:28, 28 May 2008 (EDT) [edit] Updates regarding atheist Austin Cline's cowardice Update: It appears as if Austin Cline's Google ranking has taken a noticeable drop in the United States version of Google. It appears as if many USA atheists are not fond of atheist cowards. I can't say that I blame them. It also seems as if perhaps Conservapedia is the only thing keeping Austin Cline in the Google top 10 rankings. When the posting of his cowardice was removed from Conservapedia he disappeared from the Google top 10 rankings. Deep down Austin Cline wants this notice of his cowardice kept up! :)

Next Update: It appears as if Mr. Austin Cline has now resorted to criticizing Phyllis Schlafly on his webpage. Rather than be a man and take on the Conservapedia atheism article directly (which of course he is unable to do), Mr. Austin Cline has instead chosen to criticize a conservative woman who is the mother of the director of this website. Of course, this is only reinforcing the legitimate claim being made here that Austin Cline is a coward. I wouldn't be surprised if he starts criticizing Mrs. Schlafly's grandchildren next!

Further updates of Austin Cline's cowardice will be located HERE

Conservative 00:19, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

Question 1: Who is Austin Cline and why do we care about what he writes in his blog? Question 2: Could you please provide direct links to his entries, rather than just links to the homepage? Currently, there is no mention of Conservapedia on his homepage at all. Etc 05:51, 28 May 2008 (EDT) Etc., now that Austin Cline's cowardice has been exposed and his Google USA ranking for the search "atheism" has plunged a lot of people likely understand your questions of "Question 1: Who is Austin Cline and why do we care about what he writes in his blog?" It appears as if his irrelevancy is growing by the day. Conservative 07:33, 28 May 2008 (EDT) So, you're saying that a lot of other people, like me, wonder why they should care about Austin Cline? That's still not an answer to the actual question - why are Austin Cline's opinions relevant enough to post them on the front page? Also, please answer my question 2 as well. Etc 12:02, 28 May 2008 (EDT) Mr. Cline's opinions are not on the front page. Secondly, I have no desire to wrangle with you about this matter. Conservative 13:59, 28 May 2008 (EDT) [edit] Microlight in NZ Funny thing about that Microlight in NZ. Those pilots prayed and came down safetly, ironically next to a Jesus billboard however several days previous a microlight in NZ went up and crashed killing both passengers. I bet the dead guys prayed too. AdenJ 06:14, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

I wouldn't be too sure about that last point. Also, perhaps in the other case, the people weren't Christians. Philip J. Rayment 07:50, 28 May 2008 (EDT) AdenJ, your comment is illogical. If I replaced your statement about prayer with "went to the hospital," would you also insist that it's worthless to go to the hospital in a time of crisis? Something doesn't have to work 100% of the time, precisely as desired, to be effective and worthwhile.--Aschlafly 08:29, 28 May 2008 (EDT) [edit] Segregation I was wondering, as to the separation of boys and girls in school, whether the students can be separate but equal. Did something change since the civil rights movement? Is it ok to discriminate on the basis of gender as opposed to race? Just wondering... Rockthecasbah 13:35, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page" Views Article talk page Edit + History Personal tools Log in / create account Popular Links Main Page Educational Index Debate Topics Recent changes All pages All images All logs Random page Help Help Index Statistics Conservapedia Commandments Supreme Court Course Info and Enrollment Supreme Court Project Lectures Search edit console What links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Printable version Permanent link

This page was last modified 15:17, 28 May 2008. This page has been accessed 137,027 times. Privacy policy About Conservapedia Disclaimers