Essay talk:Open Letter to SharonS

1. You cannot apologize for something that you had no hand in (paragraph I).

2. I do not respect faith (paragraph II).

3. I do seek to destroy SharonS (and all her Irish dancing ilk) and I certainly seek the destruction of Christianity and Christian beliefs (paragraph III).

4. love from Horace 02:00, 20 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Very well written, hopefully she'll see it and embrace it instead of immediately labeling it as liberal deceit as other closed-minded people will. Jrssr5 12:23, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Your eloquence is inspiring, Ames. Very well put and thoughtful without being condescending. Have you ever considered going to law school? ;)  ʄĹїþþїɲ ;-) 12:25, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
 * As the Glorious Founder of RW (bite me, Colin!), I pronounce you "Literate"! Congratulations!--PalMD-yada yada 12:30, 20 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Nicely put Ames, I only hope Sharon (and little Bethany) read it, think about it and maybe learn something from it. My initial reaction to religion is that it should be obliterated as it has been the cause of so much suffering and strife. However, I know that many religious people have good hearts and make positive contributions to the welfare of the global community.  Science has led us to a greater knowledge of the world we inhabit and the potential for a better life for all.  In general, it is political and religious ideologies that have thwarted the possibilities. But science does not explain why we are here or why the universe came into being. The current universe may be explained by a big bang but what was there before that? The concept of an absolute zero of time is difficult to come to terms with and the infinity of the universe is mind boggling.  An expanding universe begs the question, expanding into what?  All analogies to curved time-space etc. are beyond the comprehension of normal people. Thinking about it sometimes makes my head explode.  I can understand some people taking comfort in a Great Creator or designer but for me it only inserts another step - who made the creator? If we accept that God has always existed then we can except that the universe in one form or another has existed.  Some genial bearded old man in the sky just seems a little more convenient for some people. Where religion really starts to bug me is when it is used as means of power, to control the thoughts and actions of others.  Insisting on pathetic rituals that must be invoked to try and curry favour with an omnipotent being in the hugeness of space, rather than being kind to one's fellow man.  If God does exist then the monotheistic religions of this world insult him by portraying him as a capricious and vain being, rather like any human ruler over the last four millennia or so.

Well this comment has almost turned into an essay, so I'll leave it at that and maybe expand at length in another place at another time. God's peed Babel fishÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй† Now look here! 15:46, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

RW 1.0
Ames Ames Ames, oh my...

 Jesus CHRIST, these people are insane. Andy's gone completely off the deep end lately. I have a plan, but before I tell you about it, I need to know how secret this site is. Do any loyal CP'ers know about it?-*AmesG*yo!16:26, 21 April 2007 (CDT) No, it's invite only, and the only hint given so far is to call it "the other place" --*Teresita*  16:40, 21 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I can say categorically that I have no hand in them myself. 

Sweet. So the two most important questions are (1) is account creation enabled at CP? and if so (2) can anyone recommend a fast proxy address?-* AmesG*yo!  16:45, 21 April 2007 (CDT) 1. I don't know about account creation, but as a test I created an account using [2]and it worked. -- (CDT)
 * Teresita*  16:56, 21 April 2007

That looks like an easier proxy system than Tmtoulouse's FoxyProxy! Teach me how to use it!-*AmesG*yo! 17:01, 21 April 2007 (CDT) You just type conservapedia's URL in the window and hit "SURF!" --* Teresita*  17:03, 21 April 2007 (CDT)

This is amazing. I love it. I can't find the "create account" area at CP - are you sure it's not disabled?-*AmesG*yo!17:14, 21 April 2007 (CDT) Sounds rather conspiritorial.


 * ''Naked we came forth, and naked we shall depart, the only thing in this life we posess is our name; our name and our credibility, they are one and the same. -- RobS.


 * Rob, it may sound conspiratorial but it offers no proof whatsoever of vandalism. Despite CP's decrial of RW as trying to repress free speech it is actually CP who are the true culprits.  When people have engaged in debate they have often been banned for expressing their views.  AmesG's  conspiratorial efforts that you  have drawn attention to above only look like an attempt to engage in a discussion under a different user name.  A "sock" account if you like.  The use of a sock account does not mean that a user has vandalistic tendencies but is a way to make a point in an argument without having their main account blocked.  Many editors have received infinity blocks without even a warning for pointing out a sysop's mistakes.  CP is not a a defender of free speech and Andy's deletion of entries from Sharon's user talk page is blatant hypocrisy.  If a user's talk page is their castle then it is the prerogative of the page owner to decide what should be there not the site owner. Revisionism and suppression of dissent are the hallmarks of a fascist regime.  God's peed Babel fishÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй† Now look here! 06:39, 21 June 2007 (CDT)