User:SusanG/Subs

=CP stuff= {| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; max-width:100%;width:100%;border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #CCC;" | Copies of CP "stuff" copied either to preserve or just to laugh at
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

=     =

=     = {| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; width:100%; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #CCC;" | Debate:_Are_Mormons_Christians
 * style="border: solid 1px silver;; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver;; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Crocodile gets defensive
cp:User:DeanS/Religion & protects

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and I am a cp:Christian.

While I appreciate the Conservative, Christian emphasis on this site, I have noticed several negatives:
 * 1) cp:anti-Mormon editors
 * 2) cp:anti-Mormon Sysops
 * 3) They have removed cp:Christianity from the Church articles
 * 4) They have removed the Church from Christianity articles
 * 5) They also insert anti-Mormon comments.

If you are a cp:Mormon or sympathize with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, please suggest factual edits to the cp:Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article.

Farewell to Conservapedia
I've been an editor here for about a week now. I'm a conservative and a Christian. I came here looking for an alternative to Wikipedia that was more conservative in viewpoint, less biased, more accurate and more credible. There may be such an encyclopedia out there. I'm certain that Conservapedia isn't it.

The short version of my reason for leaving, the straw that broke the camel's back, was that I was blocked for adding examples to the article cp:Deceit. The examples were cp:Richard Nixon, cp:Scooter Libby and cp:Enron. Surely it was a no-brainer that such well-known examples of deceivers on a huge scale merit a mention? Such examples were not appropriate I was told, although lesser examples of deceit were certainly allowed, if they were carried out by Democrats.

The long version is more complicated. So let me take some time to explain what is wrong with Conservapedia - in my opinion of course. You are entitled to your own.

Nobody seems to want to write an encyclopedia
Conservapedia is incredibly sparse. Many articles on major subjects are very small and trivial in nature. cp:England gives almost no idea of the history of the nation, stopping around 1500. cp:Rome gets barely a paragraph.

The main reason for this is clear. Nobody seems to want to actually write encyclopedia articles. Certainly not among the leaders. Instead they seem to spend all their time having debates or attacking biologists or writing pseudo-articles like cp:Liberal bias or cp:Hollywood Values.

Broken Rules
Conservapedia has some good rules.


 * "Everything you post must be true and verifiable"
 * "Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry"
 * "Conservapedia does not censor any facts that comport with the basic rules"
 * "We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts"

These are good rules, and would make for a good encyclopedia. The trouble is that all of the above rules are frequently and intentionally broken by those in charge. Sysops and particularly cp:User:Aschlafly frequently make edits that are based entirely on personal opinion, and not at all verifiable. If the journalist in question is a conservative, their views are often cited as fact. Facts are frequently censored if they seem not to agree with the personal views of the site's owner. Explanations for such censorship include "liberal claptrap", and includes removal of facts that are agreed with by 99% of people.

Not only are facts removed if those in power don't agree, but people are blocked from editing if they disagree. My own example is a case in point. If I'm still able to edit a week after writing this, I'll apologize, but don't hold your breath.

A point frequently made by sysops as they revert your changes is that "Andrew Schlafley owns this site and he can do what he likes". That's true, though it's a bad example to be setting. When a national leader takes that attitude we call him a dictator. But more to the point, if Andrew Schlafley wants only his own personal view expressed on the site (and that ppears to be the case) why did he make it a wiki? A blog would have been much better. Feel free to ask him why.

Ideological censorship
It is obvious from some of the above examples that facts that are not helpful to the Conservapedia cause are simply ignored. If someone adds them to an article they are removed. If someone complains that they have been removed, the complaint is removed. If someone complains that the complaint is removed the editor is blocked. The article cp:Deceit is a prime example; so is cp:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia‎ and cp:Barack Obama. Any of cp:Hollywood Values, cp:Professor values or any similar named article is another good case. Just look at the edit history.

Factual inaccuracies
Given how small it is Conservapedia contains a large numbers of inaccuracies. Some I fixed in my time here include "cp:Montreal is the second largest city in cp:Quebec" and "the United Kingdom developed a separate but established church". Others I could not fix: "Britain with its atheistic schools leads Europe in teen drunkeness" (British schools are some of the most religious in Europe). These pages are locked against normal users and requests to fix them drew no response.

Final thoughts
So there are my thoughts. I doubt they will remain here long, so read them while you may. I'm not going to edit this mess any further: doing so would only be enabling Conservapedia's dysfunctional dynamic. I will be sending some goodbye messages to a few people. Daphnea

Preservation
Revision as of 07:25, 2 April 2008 (edit) (undo) Fox (Talk | contribs) 
 * Fox: If you are against bullying, then you will naturally want to apologize for your rapidly escalating series of blocks on TK for using one word (idiot) in haste, to describe a frankly idiotic comment or edit that an anti-conservative contributor made.
 * We do not haul each other over the coals here, and I have been reluctant to make a public issue of this, but what you did to TK was wrong: it was far worse than the original "offense". In fact, it smacks of taking revenge, which would be yet another reason to have you removed as a sysop. If that was your motive, then it utterly disqualifies you for leadership in my mind.
 * You are simply not friendly, Fox. You don't exemplify conservative values. I'm sorry to make it personal, but this entire discussion has gotten personal.
 * To the extent that liberal or conservative values posit respect for the individual, then they are welcome here. Will you show some respect for other contributors? Can you take aside an erring co-worker and gently admonish him? Must you spank a colleague in public? I hate to do it myself, but your intransigence and total lack of apology have forced me to do this. It's embarrassing to all of us, but you brought this on yourself.
 * To regain our trust, you can start by remembering the unwritten rule that we do not air our dirty laundry in public, that we are a team. Get back on the team by apologizing for your hypocritical bullying of TK, and I will forgive you. --Ed Poor Talk 07:04, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
 * LOL. I neither require nor desire your trust, respect or forgiveness, you s***** c***. Get over it. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] Fox (talk|contribs) 07:25, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Red indicates the excision by Ed.
 * }

=     = {| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; width:100%;border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #CCC;" | Catholic views on creationism Can see this getting shoved down a hole so it's here just in case:
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Later version at: User talk:SusanG/HolySee

=Talk:Catholic views on creationism= Shouldn't the title case be all caps? Or has that rule been abrogated?-MexMax 20:14, 11 January 2008 (EST)


 * Last I heard that rule had been changed. All words are capped for Categories, but not for article titles. I hope that helps. Will we be seeing you at the contest? ;-) Learn together 20:29, 11 January 2008 (EST)

I'm thinking about it! Thanks LT, and thanks for the rule explanation too.-MexMax 20:30, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Recent Changes
You removed information stated within your own sources, including the prominent Catholic Cardinal who supported Intelligent Design. You have also gone out of your way to add a "Fundamentalist Christian" statement that has no place in the subject matter and is questionable at best.

I'm not going to play tit for tat with you. Either write the article based on Catholic belief or don't edit it at all, and that includes reincorporating the information that your own sources showed. We believe in truth here and an honest representation. If you find this too difficult, then go elsewhere, otherwise I look forward to having an article that expresses Catholic thought. Learn together 02:21, 12 January 2008 (EST)

My article does express Catholic thought. I know that any dissent against YEC is automatically dismissed on this site as not being conservative enough, and I merely wished to point out that there are in fact many devout believers in Jesus Christ that do not share this view. I did remove information from my own source as it did not prove the point I was trying to make. If I am to be made to use information in a way that does not prove a point, than I suggest that everyone else be made to do the same.

However, my attempts at academic rigor have already become too dangerous. I have attempted to use the Bible to propose alternatives to YEC, and I am therefore a threat. Calcnerd314 07:51, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Pope and French
There was an edit about Pope John Paul II speaking "in an unfamiliar French". This is false due to the fact that Pope John Paul II was a fluent French speaker as well as seven other languages (Italian, English, German, Spanish, Russian, Portuguese and his native language of Polish). This should be edited so as to not confuse the reader. Also the line that is in question "Aujourdhui, près dun demi-siècle après la parution de l'encyclique, de nouvelles connaissances conduisent à reconnaitre dans la théorie de l'évolution plus qu'une hypothèse." is translated directly to english as "Today, nearly half of a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge leads to recognition in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis." The question of "une" is mute since "hypothèse" is a feminine noun and "une" is the feminine form of "a". "Un" could be mistaken as the number 1 or as the masculine form of "a" however considering the use of "hypothèse" in the speech given by the pope it is evident that he was fully aware of the gender of the noun. Some english translations Newadvent ETWN.--Able806 09:16, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Latest reversion by Aschlafly
I will be reverting Aschlafly's latest reversion, but first here are my reasons: Philip J. Rayment 03:15, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Aschlafly had the edit comment "avoiding giving undue influence to the evolutionist spin". However, it wasn't "evolutionist spin".  For example, the first line removed was citing Gerry Keane, a young-Earth creationist.
 * The next paragraph was about the Pope saying that evolution was "more than a hypothesis". The article previously had that this was a mistranslation, and that the official Vatican newspaper had the correct translation.  However, I found a Catholic source saying that it was not a mistranslation, and that the Vatican newspaper later changed the translation to "more than a hypothesis".  I cited the source.  Aschlafly has now reverted to the version that it was a mistranslation, and has provided a "better cite for translation dispute", which (a) is from an atheistic, pro-evolutionary, organisation(!), and (b) actually agrees that the translation was wrong, and also states that the official translation was subsequently corrected.  So it actually supports the form before Aschlafly's reversion, not after.

And again...
Aschlafly's latest edit to revert to the view that the Pope said "more than one hypothesis" seems to be based on the text of a translation of his speech on a Catholic web-site (to which he has linked). In that sense, it is better than the last time he put this in. However, the referenced page does not say, as the article now claims, that the translation was not later amended, and it's entirely feasible that there was an amended translation but they have simply reproduced the original translation. This suggestion is supported by the fact that the same website (on a different page) claims that the translation was amended (to say "more than a hypothesis"). Further, both this page and this page, both on pro-Catholic web-sites, also reproduce the translation of the speech, but with the wording "more than a hypothesis". The latter also specifically says that the translation was amended.

So we have the page Aschlafly cited which makes no claims about amendments (i.e. it's an argument from a lack of evidence), and we have another page on the same web-site, as well as other web-sites, that explicitly say that it was amended. It seems from the lack of links that the original translation and the alleged amendment were both published on paper only (the English edition of L'Osservatore Romano), so without tracking down a copy of that paper, we need to rely on reproductions on web-sites. The consensus is that the translation was amended, and a copy of what could simply be the original unamended translation is nothing more than an argument from silence.

I will therefore again revert to the previous version (of that section).

Philip J. Rayment 12:10, 22 June 2008 (EDT)


 * Philip, doing an (incorrect) reversion within one minute of posting a comment about it is unduly hasty.


 * The translation was not changed by the newspaper, no matter what the evolutionists say. Cite to the changed translation if you think it exists.  It does not.  Moreover, don't remove the explanation about the ambiguity in the French, which was not even the Pope's native language.  Thanks.--Aschlafly 13:13, 22 June 2008 (EDT)


 * Apologies if it's bad form to simply step in, but I believe that Philip J. Rayment has a point. The "more than a hypothesis" version appears to be the final translation:
 * 64. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). (International Theological Commission- "Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God")
 * And:
 * 5. The Theory of Evolution Is More than a Hypothesis
 * In those words, Pope John-Paul II, addressing the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in a solemn session, on 22 October 1996, expressed the acceptance of biological evolution by the Church. (Maurizio Iaccarino - "Science and Culture")
 * You should note that both texts come from Vatican.va, the official site of the Holy See. Furthermore, googling for site:vatican.va "more than one hypothesis" gives three results (the two above and one that is unrelated) while googling for site:vatican.va "more than one hypothesis" gives zero results - the term does not appear anywhere on the site. Given these cites, the translation issue might be worthy of a footnote, but the official and final word seems to be that the initially published translation had been wrong. So citing one of the numerous sites that refer to or published the correct version should be enough. --KevinM 14:34, 22 June 2008 (EDT)


 * Both of your citations are to independent works that have been posted somewhere on the Vatican website. The first emphasizes how Pope John Paul II talked about many theories of evolution, and emphasized how many of them (including the ones most widely taught) are rejected by the Catholic Church.  The second states things are directly contrary to Pope John Paul II's speech, making it a poor authority.  Neither reference represents any kind of official translation of the words--Aschlafly 17:57, 22 June 2008 (EDT)


 * Just so we're on the same page here... are you saying that the International Theological Commission, a department of the central governing body of the entire Roman Catholic Church, by that time headed by not-yet-Pope Ratzinger himself... is using a wrong translation of the Pope's speech? Worse, that they draw the wrong conclusion based on this mistake? I... I don't really think you meant that, but it kinda sounded like it, so I figured I'd rather ask. --KevinM 19:18, 22 June 2008 (EDT)


 * The point of that particular passage by the International Theological Commission is to emphasize that there are many theories of evolution, many of which are unacceptable. It may have chosen a translation favored by evolutionists in order to make its point stronger in criticizing the many theories.  By the way, there is no indication or likelihood that then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that document.  Pope John Paul II certainly did not.--Aschlafly 19:23, 22 June 2008 (EDT)


 * I did not imply that either of them wrote the document. In fact, the document itself acknowledges the multiple people involved in preparing it. (Though it should be mentioned that it was "submitted to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the Commission, who has give his permission for its publication".) That is not the issue, though.
 * If you like, you can use this document as a resource to flesh out the article with information. You're welcome for the link, then. Glad I could help. That is also not the issue, though.
 * The issue here is that you make the very bold claim that a certain translation is officially wrong, and when faced with a document coming straight from a very high department of the Vatican, you first imply that the document used a wrong translation and now imply that it knowingly misquoted the Pope in order to make some sort of incredibly subtle point.
 * We have two carefully worded documents of significant importance here, and they both use the translation you claim is "wrong". Two documents that are hosted on the official site of the Holy See. I would say these documents have significantly higher authority than your opinion of what was published or not. --KevinM 19:40, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

1991?
Why do many of the statements make claims that were true "as of 1991?" Even if this is the best evidence we have, it looks as if some more recent developments are being intentionally concealed. Come on, that was 17 years ago! --IlTrovatore 23:13, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I was the author of that phrase, and my reason is simply that my source dates from 1991, and although I suspect that nothing's changed, I don't know that for sure. I do think the wording seems odd, but don't know how else to put it.  Philip J. Rayment 01:25, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
 * P.S. the "many" occurrences are actually only two occurrences. Philip J. Rayment 01:27, 22 June 2008 (EDT)


 * }

=     = =      = {| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; width:100%;border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #CCC;" | Robert Turkel
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Robert Turkel was one of Conservative's "great acquisitions" for Conservapedia

15:50, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

Please note
Dear user RobertTurkel,

I hope you liked my recent edits to the cp:atheism page. Awake, oh sleeping dragon of Conservapedia. :) Conservative 21:56, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Excellent edit to the atheism article!
Thanks for that excellent edit to the Conservapedia cp:atheism article. You added an excellent quote regarding atheism! Conservative 17:49, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Contributions:
 * 17:23, 1 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Atheism Quotes‎
 * 17:23, 1 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Atheism Quotes‎
 * 17:18, 1 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Atheism‎ (→Atheism Quotes)
 * 17:17, 1 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Atheism‎ (→Atheism Quotes)

each of these consisted of the same words:

=     = {| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; width:100%;border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #CCC;" | Talk:Flaws_in_Richard_Lenski_Study
 * In his essay rebutting a work of atheist cp:Jeffery Jay Lowder Christian apologist cp:JP Holding wrote the following: "...I find that there is no such thing as "reasonable nonbelief." The litany of excuses, wild speculations, and other absurdities ground out by skeptics and critics doesn't deserve the adjective "reasonable"."
 * }
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Excised from cp:Talk:Flaws_in_Richard_Lenski_Study You're right, this letter will never see publication in PNAS, and it certainly warrants no response from Richard Lenski. One glance at the letter reveals that its author or authors are not scientifically literate, and it will be relegated to the waste bin. Take point number two as an example. This is undoubtedly the most galling of them all, and only someone who (a) has not read Lenski's paper and (b) has no working knowledge of standard wet lab procedures would raise such an objection. The methods published with the paper plainly state that all clones used in the replay experiments, including clones from later generations, were Cit-. Furthermore, despite what this letter states, there are methods for separating Cit- clones from Cit+ clones in a mixed population. Anyone who has taken an undergraduate microbiology course would know this. This talk page has demonstrated that Conservapedia readers criticizing Lenski lack the necessary expertise to do so. In fact, I would wager that Conservapedia is hoping for no response, because that would eliminate the possibility of having to formulate some kind of rebuttal to what would be surely be a devastating reply from highly trained scientists. Being ignored also allows Conservapedia to posture as if its objections to Lenski's paper were unanswerable, as well as maintain the illusion of a conspiratorial "establishment science" bent on suppressing the truth of creationism. By all means, submit the letter. However, I would caution Conservapedia against proclaiming these "flaws" unanswerable when they have not even been defended on this page.Gerlach 22:52, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Another Link: Brossa's contrib

The Letter:

Draft of PNAS Letters Response from Conservapedia
Title:


 * Identification of flaws in the following paper published in PNAS: Blount ZD, Borland CZ, and Lenski RE, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli," 105 PNAS 23, pp. 7899–7906 (June 10, 2008).

Author:


 * Andrew Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D.

Author Affiliations:


 * www.conservapedia.com, teacher of precollege students

Text:


 * The following flaws in this PNAS paper negate its claim that E. Coli bacteria underwent an evolutionary beneficial mutation:


 * 1. Figure 3 depicts an "historical contingency" hypothesis around the 31,000th generation, but the abstract states that mutations "arose by 20,000 generations." The paper fails to admit that the Third Experiment disproved the hypothesis depicted in Figure 3.
 * 2. Both hypotheses propose fixed mutation rates, but the failure of mutations to increase with sample size disproves this. If the authors claim that it is inappropriate to compare the Second and Third experiments to the First for scale, then it was an error to treat them similarly statistically.
 * 3. The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events. The Third Experiment results are consistent with the null hypothesis.
 * 4. It was error to include generations of the E. coli already known to contain trace Cit+ variants, and the otherwise highly improbable occurrence of four Cit+ variants from the 32,000 generation in the Second Experiment suggests an origin from undetected pre-existing Cit+ variants.
 * 5. The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance.


 * The underlying data for this publicly (NSF) funded research have not been publicly released, despite requests to do so and despite NSF policy that "data collected with public funds belong in the public domain."

cc:
 * Randy Schekman, Editor-in-Chief, PNAS, University of California at Berkeley (by email and postal mail)
 * New Scientist (by fax - 0171 261 6464)
 * Rep. Brian Baird, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education of the U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology (by postal mail)
 * Judicial Watch (by email)

Comments
The word count for the above letter is precisely the PNAS limit of 250 for the Text section, excluding the cc: list. The foregoing letter is to be sent by postal mail, return receipt requested, to PNAS, 500 Fifth Street, NW, NAS 340, Washington, DC 20001, by email to pnas@nas.edu, and by posting it in its feedback form at http://www.pnas.org/feedback.

And the talk page:


 * It's an excellent draft, DinsdaleP. I made a few minor revisions above.  After others improve this, then I'll plan on sending it to PNAS later this week. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Aschlafly / talk / contribs
 * I like it. I'll sign my name to it when the time comes.--DamianJohn 09:35, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

Thanks for the feedback - When applying changes, please keep in mind that the "Text" section in the final version needs to be 250 words or less. If there are important points to add that would exceed this limit, they could be added to the main Flaws in Richard Lenski Study article instead since PNAS is being asked to respond to the full list there, and not just the summary. --DinsdaleP 09:47, 22 July 2008 (EDT)


 * I think if i would have presented some draft of that quality to my supervisor i think i would not have reached the door of his office alive and in one piece. It starts with the fact that the correct citation of the article is missing. Please use the appropriate form, inclucing journal number and page. Please have a look at other PNAS Letters. Restate the central issue you criticise in the first sentence, then explicitely describe what your claim about the same issue is and state using what method you come to your conclusion. Keep a neutral tone. Don't make requests. It is obvious that the original author should respond (please look at PNAS for examples of responses, which are published at the same location). Plese fill in your numbers and precise arguments at the points where i left the dots in the following suggestion (Please note that nothing of this is my opinion, i just tried to rephrase your opinions in a way that they have the chance to be exposed to a broader view - i skipped tyhe details, because i will not rephrase your arguments, just the structure):
 * Recently ...... inferred from their experiments (1) that ...... . We analyzed the statistical analysis in terms of ..... and conclude that several variables do not scale as .... . Using hypothesis tests under such circumstances is, in our opinion, ......, and we do not understand how the authors of the original publication ..... their results.
 * The replay experiments yield an ..... scaling with .... . We do not find a consistent value of ..... between the experiments. Furthermore the statistical deviation due to ...... in each sample set does not allow to infer ..... with a sufficient precision. This lack of scaling makes, in our opionion a constant or random source of contamination a likely explanation for a random observation of the ...... dependence of the mutation rate claimed in the paper. The following calculation supports this hypothesis: ........
 * Furthermore we point out that Fig. ... contains a serious disagreement with .....: while the data would suggest ..... from gen. ..... the figure suggests .....
 * We find the material cited in the original article (2)...(n) about the same long-time experiment not to describe the following procedures and experimental constants in a way accessible to us: Handling of ..., contamination rates of ...., and ..... We would kindly ask the authors to clarify these issues. --Stitch75 12:48, 22 July 2008 (EDT)


 * No offense taken. I have no experience in these types of submissions, and would appreciate it if you could restructure the submission improve the quality while adhering to the 250-word limit. As I suggested above, it makes the most sense to incorporate these revisions into the main page for this article, where length is not an issue. --DinsdaleP 12:52, 22 July 2008 (EDT)


 * I realized that you have obviously not much experience in it; getting the right tone for a scientific publication is hard and i had to try it quite some times on conferences and i still dont get it right sometimes - and from what you said seem to be a student. Sadly, it is against my conviction to rephrase the original arguments in the right way because it would make me an co-author of argumentations i strongly object. In case you did not realize it, helping here to get the structure right doesn't mean i agree - actually the two reasons i would like to see it published is because then the (wrong) idea that scientific journals are not accepting criticism could be obviously be put aside and because i would like to see the needed scientific rigorousity applied to the arguments presented here, because this would put this discussion onto a scientific basis. Quite frankly - i am a liberal by the standards of this site. But i believe the discussion must be carried out with all respect to define the borders of science. The more effective the discussion is carried out, the better the outcome will be. I am willing to listen, as i have proven here, even when beeing treated by people like Mr. Schlafly as if I would be one of his students, while evaluating his qualification in natural sciences quickly shows that i more likely could supervise him in the issues he discusses here (which is something he has proven all along). Regarding that, i am close to giving up, but nevertheless i have seen that a lot of conservatives actually are willing to lead this discussion in a scientific way, which is something, which fulfills me with hope. I recommend you not to fight a fight in where you don't understand the arguments. Don't pick up arguments from others. If you can not fill in the missing words, numbers and arguments in my text, i cant help you. I see what Mr. Schlafly believes, however i do not know how to get the calculation right to support his hypothesis (random or contant mutation rate) - and, this is most likely not because of a lack of statistical knowledge. The only way i would see is to use the rudest form of descriptive statistics and agreggate the data in a very specific way, while ignoring the structure of the experiment - and ignoring the fact that the authors pointed out the problem they see and adressed them. So i can only give oy a few hints (maybe i can form a short contibution to conservapedia; i am just thinking about the title):


 * If you claim something is wrong, put your opposing claim in a positive formulation, with a supporting calculation, in contrast . Even if the calculation is simple, this is very important to provide it. E.g. we estimate a rate of x+-y per z for dataset N, in which we aggregated generations a,b,c,d, etc .... In the end, you should either prove a mathematical mistake (which was not done) or shoe you hypothesis is more likely.


 * Don't be rude. You are not the referee and you are not member of a commitee to examine scientific misbehaviour. Dont act like one (and even referees have a friendlier tone usually). Dont act like an personal enemy either. Don't ask for retraction of the article. It is up to the author to make the conclusion respond or retract. This happens more often than you may think as a response to an critisism (actually it's fun to read the "reply section" of scientific journals - sometimes you find things like: "yes, the commenter was right we copied the paper and retract it"). And you are never requesting, but you are kindly asking. Everybody understands that "kindly asking" does not mean "kindly asking" in this context.


 * Always give full and specific citations which back your claims. Give it in the form required by the specific journal. General citations like "materials on his website" will make your text bein trown out in the editorial screening (because you can not expect that somebody read trough all information to find something backing you claim - this is your job). See for specific styles ]. Ypu may even reference a page/paragraph/eq/figure number to point the reader to what you mean (for papers longer than 4 pages i usually do that).


 * Run a style checker over your text to eliminate common style mishaps.


 * Most important: go to your university library. Take the time to just read a few PNAS Letters and replys, and the original articles (Try to finde some with an easy understandable subject). Understanding how these are written and how authors usually reply will help you to get your one right. You are writing against somebody who has twenty years of experience in a field of publishing in natural sciences. You seem to have little experience and Andrew Schlafly, honestly, neither. This game is an uphill battle and unfair game anyway. Make sure you maximize your chances by understanding the rules of the game.


 * Focus on a single you are sure about. It is better to present one claim well that two claims badly.


 * Good luck. You will need it. --Stitch75 14:22, 22 July 2008 (EDT)


 * "Stitch75", you seem to think that the truth depends on whether PNAS accepts it. It doesn't.  Lenski's paper is badly flawed regardless of whether he admits it, PNAS admits it, or you admit it.  That's the beauty of the truth: it doesn't require admission by anyone.  I'm fine with Lenski and PNAS refusing to admit the flaws in their paper.  After all, if they really cared about quality then I doubt they would have published their flawed paper after merely 14 days or less of peer review.--Aschlafly 15:38, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

I tend to agree with you Andy. I say we get this thing sent to PNAS and see what happens. If they refuse to answer it then we know what that means, and if they thumb their noses at you that's fine too. However I have a little more faith than you in the system and I hold out hope that they'll respond to our queries. Anyway lets get this thing sent. --DamianJohn 15:50, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

I'd like to thank Stitch75, because he took the time to explain his points constructively, and I learned something from them. (I'm actually an IT Specialist in my 40's, not a full-time student, but learning is a never-ending process and I appreciated the lesson). I consider myself bound by the same ethical constraints on editing that he mentioned, because these objections to Lenski's work are Mr. Schlafly's, not my own. I tend to believe that the Lenski experiment was properly executed, but I'm a strong believer in the scientific process, and Mr. Schlafly's objections deserve a fair hearing whether one believes in them or not. My contribution is to help in the process of getting these objections to the proper forum, namely PNAS, and leaving the response up to them. --DinsdaleP 16:20, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Stich has given you brilliant advice, and you throw it away. He has told you that your letter will not get published, and it will have nothing to do with it's content. And when it doesn't get published you will claim it as a victory. If you take his advice and continue to take it, you will make it so no one can simply claim your letter wasn't accepted because it didn't match the criteria set out for letters to PNAS. Now if you have a well written and correctly laid out letter, and then it isn't published, at least you have a leg to stand on.

As a lawyer I would have expected you to understand that certain documents need to be written in set styles, and obey certain rules. Have you published anything (this isn't meant to be derogatory, it's a geniune request), I am positive you must have done so. When you did your citations would have had to be correctly arranged, and many other rules obeyed. Law suits are written up in a set style, and no one would dream of simply scribbling a note and saying check out this website, and expect to be taken seriously. So why do you expect a scientific journal to accept whatever you send them? Follow the procedures, then you have a right to complain if nothing happens. Raggs 10:12, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Stitch75's advice has already been disregarded, and it seems as though you have arrived at your final word choice for the letter. I think that the letter in its current state is fatally flawed and would not warrant publication by PNAS or any other reputable scientific journal. I say this not because I think that the objections raised in the letter are misguided, but because they are presented as assertions without rationale or supporting evidence. For what it's worth, I'll address the five points individually and offer suggestions to improve them:


 * Your insulting tone (any other "reputable" journal) discredits yourself, but I'll respond this one time to you below.--Aschlafly 22:22, 27 July 2008 (EDT)


 * 1)Drop the complaint about Fig 3. The paper's hypothesis does not depend upon the jump in mutation rate happening at 31,000 generations; it's merely a graphical representation of the difference between the contingent hypothesis and the rare mutation hypothesis. Nobody has objected that the y-axis of the graph lacks numerical values, have they? Also, since this figure represents the hypothesis formed before the data was obtained, where should the jump have gone? It's location is arbitrary until the data is collected. The abstract and the results section state that the data supports a potentiating event at the 20,000th generation. Since the paper does state the p-value of the third replay, it's inaccurate to say that the paper fails to admit anything.


 * No scientific paper should present a graphical depiction of a falsehood, without indicating that it is false. Figure 3 suggests that the potentiating mutation occurred at the 31,000th, despite the data proving otherwise.  If the authors won't correct that error, then they're unlikely to correct any other error also.--Aschlafly 22:22, 27 July 2008 (EDT)


 * It is not a falsehood; it is a hypothesis. The hypothesis must be formed before data is collected. They hypothesis was that a potentiating mutation occurred that increased the rate of mutation to Cit+. Prior to running the experiment, it is impossible to know when (or even whether) that potentiating mutation occurred. Given that, it is not an 'error' to show the jump at the 31,000th generation, or the 15,000th, or the 10,000th - any point picked for the figure is abitrary. The hypothesis was not that a potentiating mutation took place at the 31,000th generation. For Lenski to put the graph jump at the 20,000th generation would imply that he got the data and then altered the original hypothesis to make it a perfect fit with the results - and that would be an ethical breach. The data collected suggest that the hypothesis was correct in that a potentiating mutation took place - and they further suggest that this mutation took place at about the 20k generation point. This does not disprove fig 3; it refines it. Again, you may as well object that fig 3 doesn't provide numerical values on the y-axis.--Brossa 10:39, 28 July 2008 (EDT)


 * 2)This point is where I think your best argument lies, but it should be restated along the lines of: the null hypothesis suggests a fixed mutation rate rather than historical contingency. However, the largest replay experiment did not demonstrate the expected increase in Cit+ mutations, and was consistent with the null hypothesis with a p-value of 0.0823 by the Monte Carlo test method.


 * Your reply to the second point is unresponsive to the flaw. You seem to completely misunderstand it, or hope others do.  Any fixed "mutation rate" should scale with sample size, yet the data prove otherwise.--Aschlafly 22:22, 27 July 2008 (EDT)


 * If you're growing several of the same kind of plant in two different pots, one would expect that under the same conditions total stem growth would scale with sample size (number of plants in the pot). But would you still expect that if one pot received ample water, light and fertilizer while the other was unfertilized in dry, dim conditions? That's an extreme example, but nonetheless you wouldn't expect plants to grow the same way under different conditions. Also in this example, mutation rates in the plants would differ, since one pot received more radiation while the other contained plants that were less healthy and therefore less able to repair DNA damage- different environments lead to different pressures. So, once more, cells, be they bacteria or part of a multicellular plant, do not grow or "behave" the same way under different circumstances, and for someone always claiming that everyone else is erroneously grouping the experiments, you consistently keep doing it yourself here.Kallium 23:06, 27 July 2008 (EDT)


 * 3)The claim that the use of Monte Carlo resampling test was an error is unsupported by argument or counterclaim. Why is the use of that test an error? Problematically, if the test itself is invalid, why are you willing to accept the p-value for the third replay? Furthermore, the Monte Carlo test was not the test used to combine the three experiments to arrive at the final p-value of p<0.0001 - that was a Z-transformation method. Perhaps your real objection lies with this technique rather than the Monte Carlo test.


 * Monte Carlo resampling will often result in small p values for rarely observed events, and it is error to use that technique to draw conclusions in such circumstances. By the way, I don't accept that approach for analyzing the Third Experiment.  The data in the Third Experiment are entirely consistent with the null hypothesis.--Aschlafly 22:22, 27 July 2008 (EDT)


 * In your own words, "your reply... is unresponsive to the flaw." Would you care to reference that statement about Monte Carlo resampling? Why don't you accept that approach for analyzing the third experiment- would you care to explain that statement or keep repeating it? And what statistical calculations can you present to support how the data for the third experiment are consistent with the null hypothesis? You complain about others' flawed statistics yet your statistics are strangely absent.Kallium 23:06, 27 July 2008 (EDT)


 * If you can formalize your objection to the Monte Carlo resampling, then by all means do so and include it in the letter - with a reference, if possible. This is an honest suggestion, not sarcasm. Something along the lines of 'With one million resamplings without replacement, the Monte Carlo technique will potentially underestimate the p-value by x% if the probability of an event is below y; see Statistician et al, 1997'. If you're basing your acceptance of the null hypothesis on some other statistical technique that gives you some other p-value, then you should report the technique and the p-value. If you think that the Monte Carlo technique gives a lower bound to the p-value, such that it must be higher than 0.08, then say so.


 * 4)It was not 'an error' to include later generations in the replay experiments, because those generations provide information that bears on the contingency hypothesis- they can indicate if the contingency 'window' closes. It would be a valid request that the authors provide an explicit description of the techniques used to exclude the presence of occult Cit+ cells from the samples used in the replay experiments. At some point you will have to accept or reject that it is possible to do so, routinely, using basic laboratory techniques. If you accept that it is possible, the only way to prove that the routine procedures failed is to repeat the experiment with more rigorous controls and show a different result. Otherwise your objection boils down to "because I said so". If you reject categorically that it is possible to screen all Cit+ cells out, then all of microbiology comes into question, because these are truly fundamental techniques used across thousands of labs for many, many years.


 * Your analysis here is absurd. Trace Cit+ cells inevitably existed after the 31,000th generation, and it's foolish to claim otherwise.  It was error to include these generations in the data, and there was no valid reason to do so.  The potentiating mutation, if any, would have occurred earlier! Indeed, it occurred before the 20,000th generation according to Lenski's own analysis.--Aschlafly 22:22, 27 July 2008 (EDT)


 * You completely missed the point of Brossa's comment and again only keep repeating yourself without elaborating. Do you have experience employing the bacteriological methods referred to?Kallium 23:06, 27 July 2008 (EDT)


 * The statement that trace cit+ cells inevitably existed after the 31,000th generation requires that there are no techniques to remove them from the mixed-population sample. As others have told you, these techniques do exist and are reliable. You can request that PNAS publish exactly what technique was used (most likely dilution and plating on an indicator medium). Your option then is either to attack the method (difficult, since the techniques have been around for a very long time) or the execution (which would require that you or someone else repeat the experiment with the same technique and obtain different results).
 * Or, taking a different tack - the paper states that it is impossible to exlude an origin for Cit+ that is earlier than the 31,000th generation. So how many generations prior to 31,000 should have been eliminated from the replay?--Brossa 10:39, 28 July 2008 (EDT)


 * 5)This point is, in my opinion, the worst of the lot, mostly because it is meaningless - what does 'combined based on outcome rather than sample size' mean?- but also because it restates the claim in #3, that there was some problem with the technique used to combine the three experiments into a final p-value. If you object to the Z-transformation method, you should state why; if you object to the result, you should be able to say what you think the result should be - with a different p-number that you calculate yourself.


 * The hypothesis of a mutation rate is obviously dependent on sample size, yet the paper combined the results of experiments having vastly different sample sizes as though that did not matter. Point 5 illustrates that the self-contradiction of the statistical analysis in the paper.--Aschlafly 22:22, 27 July 2008 (EDT)


 * Again, show what you think is wrong by showing statistically what should have been done and what numerical results should have been obtained. Recall the bridge analogy, if you read it.Kallium 23:06, 27 July 2008 (EDT)


 * The combination of samples of different sizes is standard practice in the sciences - so you must be objecting to the particular technique used. If you object to the Z-method, state your reasons in the letter. If you have a preferred method, state it in the letter and defend it. Best of all, use your preferred method and present your results. By 'the hypothesis of a mutation rate', are you referring to the calculations of mutation rates? Because the data for those calculations were not obtained from the three replay experiments.--Brossa 10:39, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

I would hope that you would at least run this letter past a sympathetic scientist (someone from DI?) before you submit it, to confirm that these concerns are in a legitimate format.--Brossa 20:10, 27 July 2008 (EDT)


 * Oh how you cling to the views of others! Logic does not depend on what some think, or the perception of what some think.  The readers of this page are smart enough to look at the logic and admit the truth.  So are you.  Rest assured that logic does not care that some reject it.--Aschlafly 22:22, 27 July 2008 (EDT)


 * Oh how you cling to your views! The problem with logic is that it only works with knowledge- almost all of the replies on this page have been trying to teach you something about microbiology and/or statistical analysis but you are convinced you understand it better than those who have many years of experience working with them, although you continue to misinterpret basic concepts covered in any undergraduate microbiology, genetics or statistics course. Where is the logic in ignoring the input of all those who have actual training and experience in the fields you are discussing? How is that having an "open mind"?Kallium 23:06, 27 July 2008 (EDT)


 * Oh, how I cling to the views of others! Yes, which is why I have an accountant and an attorney and a doctor and a statistician and an architect - I accept that other people have greater experience and knowledge in certain areas than I do. If I want to charge my lawyer with malpractice, it behooves me to check with another lawyer to see if my complaint has merit, or if I'm even articulating the complaint correctly before I show up in a courtroom.--Brossa 10:39, 28 July 2008 (EDT)


 * I wasn’t planning on making any more comments, but in perusing other articles on this site I found that part of the Atheism article reminded me of Brossa’s comment:


 * “Christian apologist JP Holding rightly states that Bible exegesis and Bible exposition is a multi-disciplinary pursuit, and often critics of the Bible have not done a fraction of the due diligence required to make an allegation regarding the Bible. Holding states the following:


 * ““Having now been engaged in apologetics for eight years actively and more years than that on the side, I have long since come to a conclusion that I have shared with others, but will now present in a systematic form here for the first time. My conclusion is a warning that is appropriate for any new readers (hence I link this article from my front page) and will be familiar to veteran ones.


 * "I'll sum it up to begin: Whenever you run across any person who criticizes the Bible, claims findings of contradiction or error -- they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. They have to earn it from you. Here's why.


 * "It doesn't take very long to realize that a thorough understanding of the Bible -- and this would actually apply to any complex work from any culture -- requires specialized knowledge, and a broad range of specialized knowledge in a variety of fields....


 * "Not even most scholars in the field can master every aspect -- what then of the non-specialist critic who puts together a website in his spare time titled 1001 Irrefutable Bible Contradictions? Do these persons deserves [sic] our attention? Should they be recognized as authorities? No, they deserve calculated contempt for their efforts. (By this, I do not mean emotional or behavioral contempt, but a calculated disregard for their work from an academic perspective.) They have not even come close to deserving our attention, and should feed only itching ears with similar tastes.””


 * Now let’s change the academic subject (I leave out the introductory paragraph of Holding’s quote):


 * “Whenever you run across any person who criticizes scientific reports, claims findings of contradiction or error -- they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. They have to earn it from you. Here's why.


 * "It doesn't take very long to realize that a thorough understanding of microbiology and evolutionary biology-- and this would actually apply to any complex work from any field of science -- requires specialized knowledge, and a broad range of specialized knowledge in a variety of fields....


 * "Not even most scholars in the field can master every aspect -- what then of the non-specialist critic who puts together a website in his spare time titled 7 Richard Lenski Study Flaws? Do these persons deserve our attention? Should they be recognized as authorities? No, they deserve calculated contempt for their efforts. (By this, I do not mean emotional or behavioral contempt, but a calculated disregard for their work from an academic perspective.) They have not even come close to deserving our attention, and should feed only itching ears with similar tastes.”


 * I do not post this as satire or mockery, but as another serious attempt to provide perspective. Ironic that Holding’s quote is in an article on Conservapedia, which at the same time is rightly concerned about double standards.Kallium 22:38, 28 July 2008 (EDT)


 * Brossa has made several excellent points. I would add that there is a disconnect between your primary claim and the list. You should rethink your thesis statement or choose different "flaws" that fit it better, since your primary claim that the flaws "negate [the paper's] claim that E. Coli bacteria underwent an evolutionary beneficial mutation" does not follow from those listed. With your flaws, with the possible exception of #4 depending on interpretation (and even then, where did the undetected Cit+ cells come from?), you are arguing against historical contingency, not whether or not Cit+ cells evolved. In other words, the flaws you claim are questions of mechanism, i.e. the dynamics of how the Cit+ cells arose, but your thesis statement questions whether or not they arose at all from Cit- populations. So even if those flaws were true, they would not negate the "evolutionary beneficial mutation" as you say but rather just historical contingency as a path to it. Kallium 21:23, 27 July 2008 (EDT)


 * No, point #2 indicates that the paper's data disprove any plausible mutation rate, because the mutations did not scale with sample size. Point #2 thereby negates the claim of "an evolutionary beneficial mutation" as insisted by the paper.--Aschlafly 22:22, 27 July 2008 (EDT)


 * See my above post regarding scaling of mutation rate. As for disproving "any plausible mutation rate", are you referring just to Cit+ variants, or truly any mutation rate? If the former, where do you propose the Cit+ cells came from in the first place, and if the latter, see my above post about basic microbiology. Also, your letter claims that flaw #2 disproves a fixed mutation rate, not, as you just said, any mutation rate. So which are you claiming?Kallium 23:06, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

==How about this

I'm not going to say I know much about the science but I made this suggestion a few days ago (in the article page). It is certainly a lot shorter, and I think a little more polite. What do you think Andy

Word Count
Is the 250 limit for the body text - the 'meat' of the letter? Or everything? RobCross 11:42, 25 July 2008 (EDT)


 * I believe it applies only to the Text portion. --DinsdaleP 11:44, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Completion of the cc: list
I don't think it's appropriate to submit without specific names in the cc: list. If those were meant to be placeholders then they need to be filled in ASAP. Also, the inclusion of congressional representatives overseeing funding does nothing but add an implied threatening tone to the submission. If this is about questioning his science as reported in the PNAS, then let's keep it focused there - PNAS has nothing to do with the funding of his research and this detracts from the focus of this submission. For that reason, I'm also removing the "refusal to provide data" line from this text, because it's out of the scope for what should be discussed with PNAS. --DinsdaleP 11:44, 25 July 2008 (EDT)


 * I agree with what you have said. I think we should send out a separate letter to the congresspeople.  There are two separate, though very related issues.  The rigor of the experiment (this is what PNAS deals with) and the fact that such research is given funding (Congress and the watchdog groups have to do with this part).  Lets address the first problem before we look at the second. -RoyS 17:05, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Link in Letter
Andy or any of the other sysops: I think it would be a very good idea if you locked the page which the letter refers too. This is necessary, because the last thing we want is to be embarrassed by liberal vandalism that does not reflect what Conservapedia is really about. -RoyS 16:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)


 * That makes sense to me - good idea. --DinsdaleP 16:59, 25 July 2008 (EDT)


 * Thanks. Also, we should completely check all of the sources and make sure each is completely verified, because we don't want are argument to be made less credible by some silly mistakes. -RoyS 17:02, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Availability of data
The comment about the availability of data should be removed. The PNAS guidelines for letters state that letters must not include "accusations of misconduct". They have a separate procedure for issues regarding data and material availability. ("Contact pnas@nas.edu if you have difficulty obtaining materials").--YoungA 09:18, 26 July 2008 (EDT)


 * I thought about this, but PNAS can simply omit the sentence at the end upon publication. It seems unnecessary and inappropriate to break this letter into two separate ones just for one sentence.--Aschlafly 16:26, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

My sixpenn'orth
I think this reads very sharply and is a pretty punchy 250 words worth - I know it's difficult to express complicated ideas so concisely. A couple of very minor, nitpicky comments: should Lenski's article have its PNAS edition/page citation in brackets? And I'd thought the Editor of PNAS would not be a cc, but the principal recipient.

Congratulations to Andy and all who contributed to this. Bugler 15:58, 27 July 2008 (EDT)


 * Thanks for your suggestions, which I've incorporated and addressed. Godspeed to you, Bugler!--Aschlafly 16:25, 27 July 2008 (EDT)


 * }

=     = {| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; width:100%;border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #CCC;" | COwen's letter re JJacobs
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

JJacob's rampage
You know, Andy, I agree with you. It is a real tragedy how some delight in deceit. JJacob was clearly and obviously deceitful in the way he played you for a fool to earn his block rights. It's interesting that so many realized he was a parodist right from the start. His over the top sycophantic agreement with your every statement, no matter how ridiculous couldn't have been a more clear sign, yet you're so self deluded and convinced of your own righteousness that you were completly fooled. The bigger tragedy, though, is that despite this clear evidence that you're so easily fooled and so capable of being fundamentally wrong that you will continue in the same vein with so many subjects (breast cancer and abortion, shaken baby syndrome, vaccination, etc). How much proof do you need, Andy? MexMax, Samwell, JJacob, TK, with Bugler still to come. So many people you've trusted because they told you that you were clever and that you were right. Who knew it was so easy to earn your trust? I've known golden retrievers who were more wary than you. You'll surely delete this as a rant, but indeed this is something very different. It's called criticsm, Andy, something you insulate yourself from like an Eskimo from the cold. The difference is that the Eskimo is trying to protect himself from from something that would surely kill him if he were exposed. You do the equivalent of wearing Eskimo gear when it's 60 degrees out with a light breeze. Are your beliefs so fragile that you must stifle all those who would challenge them? You parade around your BSE and JD initials so proudly. You must have had to stand a defense at some point to earn those credentials. And what have you done with them, Andy? You're the general council for a group held in extreme disregard by the medical and scientific communities, you've created a second rate wiki project that I'll admit had so much potential at the start but has long since turned into an ideological mouthpiece, and you ride your mother's coattails as a homeschool teacher for the Eagle Forum University. You know, I seriously considered taking a law degree after college, and I know that earning a Juris Doctorate is amongst the most difficult distinctions in academia. I've always held JDs in the highest respect because they're committed to intellectual honesty and academic rigor. You are the antithesis of those things. Imagine my disappointment the first time I saw those JD initials after your name. This could go on a long time, it's already longer than I would have had it be when I started writing. Suffice it to say I've said my piece, and I'll have it noted that I've done so without any profanity or foolishness. You're certainly welcome to block the account, it was always meant to be burned anyway. I'll be moving in 2 days and I'll have a new ISP. See you on Saturday, Andy. COwens 23:42, 23 July 2008 (EDT)


 * }

=     = {| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; width:100%;border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #CCC;" | Andy's Obama- ghostwriter rant
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

=Mystery:Who Ghostwrote Obama's Books?=

cp:Barack Obama is not an accomplished writer. In fact, he's not much of a writer at all, having never published a single article under his name despite serving as president of a law journal and on the faculty for years at a law school. It took him years and a leave of absence from his job before one of his books was published late under his name.

So the mystery is this: who ghostwrote the books that were published in Obama's name?

A prominent blogger, Steve Sailer, does this comparison between Obama's friend Bill Ayers and Obama's own book:


 * Here are similar ideas on the unreliability of family anecdotes from the opening of each book expressed in somewhat characteristic language. Ayers writes:


 * As the journey to my birth was told and retold, stretched and exaggerated, it was as if the young couple had arrived by dogsled having crossed the Alps in a blinding blizzard.


 * The first half of Ayers' sentence sounds rather like Dreams, but the second half is too Erma Bombeckishly plain-spoken for Obama, whose literary dignity always accompanies him.


 * In contrast, Obama writes:


 * ... as a child I knew [my father] only through the stories that my mother and grandparents told. They all had their favorites, each one seamless, burnished smooth from repeated use. ... That’s how all the stories went-compact, apocryphal, told in rapid succession in the course of one evening, then packed away for months, sometimes years, in my family’s memory.


 * On the other hand, it is the same thought.