Conservapedia talk:Conservative logic

Finally Done! I even include all of their ref sections (and added a few of my own). Guide: Original Article: the version used, edited on April 7, 2009 and the newest version. Thieh 22:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The words inserted are underlined.
 * The words discarded are striked out.

Congrats on finishing it, but...
To be perfectly frank, it's a bitch to read. I know why you're using stripe throughs and they can be very funny... but I don't think it turned out that well, you have to re-read every sentence several times to deconstruct what was being said, how it was changed and what the joke is, and that's not very entertaining for 36 items... Perhaps it's an idea to make it simpler and not use a whole lot of stripe throughs AND underline AND colors? Or not use stripe throughs at all, since people can read the original by themselves? A side by side version might be a viable alternative too.

It's your article though, so after finally finishing it you may give me a 'fuck you I just made it' and that's fine, just wanted to give some honest feedback. Cheers --GTac 23:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I don't even need the strikethroughs; they are there for reference purposes (where I actually change the words)  I didn't colour it myself; the colours stems themselves through links (valid or otherwise; CP has articles that we don't).  I'll work on a two-column one (or just fuck it and put the original text somewhere else) to see if it works better.  Thieh 05:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

"War on Words" link
I'm not sure what the War on Words is supposed to be. If you aren't going to write it yet, could you give a 10 second exp of what it should be, so we can jimmy something up? (I'm on redlink chase, today. hehe)-- 17:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am trying to have it as "redefining" the term to fit the purpose, like "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." by Bill Clinton (redefining "is"), "Non-Materialistic Neuroscience" (redefining "Science" and "Neuroscience")
 * "Creation Science" however is less obvious: Science can be used to create things, it becomes a problem only when you go deep enough to the question "Who" and "what" is being created.
 * "Natural gas is hemispheric. I call it hemispheric in nature because it is something we can find in our own neighborhoods. " in Bushisms article may be an arguable example (redefining "hemispheric"? But there is no idea to fit the word "hemispheric" into)

Does that warrants an article? Thieh 17:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, because I think we have such an article but under a different term. Maybe as a 'logical fallacy'.  Now that I know what you are thinking, let me see if i can find the link we have and 'get back to you'.  Try these, see if any of them get near your point: Newspeak, Loaded language hum... I don't think anything really directly sets what you are defining, but we should have something, because we use that concept (without term) all the time.  The idea that people want to redefine science to *include* god, or redefine xianity to include *only* fundies and exclude liberals. -- 19:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)