User:Bootmii/Conservapedia:Red Telephone/Gentlemen

When Adam wove and Eve span, who were then the gentlemen?

Ken's rantings preserved

18:51, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

User:Conservative/Gentlemen-regarding-the-main-page-of-Conservapedia-and-the-Hitler-and-Darwin pics

Dear Gentlemen,

I found your commentary regarding my supposed dominance of the main page of Conservapedia rather amusing. However, there is current amicable discussion and cooperation among Conservapedians on whether or not the Hitler/Darwin pictures featured on the main page will appear there for the remainder of 2008 and the duration of 2009. Time will certainly tell the story of what ultimately occurs. I can tell you that am rather fond of the aforementioned pictures appearing on the main page.

Sincerely,

Conservative

Addendum
Gentlemen,

I think you assume that Conservapedians do not have telephones, IM capabilities, Skype, and other technologies. I say this because one of the individuals at your rather liberal website insist that Conservapedians did not discuss the Hitler pic being placed on the main page. Gentlemen, I think you need to be reminded of the principle that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In other words, just because you have not detected Conservapedians discussing the Hitler pic issue does not mean it did not occur.

Sincerely,

Conservative

.

P.S.S.
Gentlemen,

It appears to me that the "random" comment about my material at Conservapedia is rather misplaced. If my material were random it would likely be a mix of liberalism and conservatism. I am writing to you in order to educate you to the fact that my material at Conservapedia was chosen to be conservative in nature. The comment regarding the supposed randomness of my material at Conservapedia emanating from your rather liberal website certainly is not an inference to the best explanation as far as the origination of my material at Conservapedia. To very loosely paraphrase a line from a famous play, "Why can't a liberal be more like a conservative?" 

Sincerely,

Conservative

Gentlemen, re: "flagship articles"
Gentlemen, by "flagship articles" at conservapedia I am assuming you are referring to 3 articles on Conservapedia that have caused a lot of liberal yelping on the internet. Well given the factual nature of these "flagship articles" that tip over 3 sacred cows of liberalism, it is not surprising that these "flagship articles" have caused a lot liberal cats to yelp on the internet. As you are well aware, it is often the cats hit by shoes that yelp the loudest.

=moer=

25/sep/08
Gentlemen,

Do not be surprised if the Hitler/Darwin/Evolutionary/racism pics and captions return to the main page. 2009 sees the bicentenary of Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of the work ‘On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" What do you think about putting the pics up on the main page for the periods surrounding those two anniversary dates in 2009?

....

27/Sep/08
cp:User:Conservative:Gentlemen-re:evolution-article-operations-grassroots-and-fortesses-have-begun

Gentlemen,

Regarding the evolution article at Conservapedia. Expect to see significantly more long term web traffic to the Conservapedia article. Operation Grass roots and Operation Fortesses have begun. Any guesses what Operation Grassroots and Operation Fortesses are?


 * Revised:

Gentlemen at a liberal website,

Regarding the evolution article at Conservapedia: Expect to see significantly more long term web traffic to the Conservapedia evolution article. Operation Grass roots and Operation Fortesses have begun. Any guesses what Operation Grassroots and Operation Fortesses are? By the way, the various operations for the atheism article were a smashing success in terms of the web traffic generated don't you think. By in large, the conservative theists on the internet loved my atheism article and were happy to share it with others. They loved my atheism article at Concerned Women of America: http://www.cwfa.org/articles/15240/CFI/misc/index.htm :)  :)


 * Addition:

Gentlemen, I am disappointed
Gentlemen, I am disappointed. Not a single guess what Operations Grassroots and Fortresses are? Very well, by the time you guessed correctly it would probably be too late as the operations would have been completed. :) :)


 * And then AWAY!

Later


Main page right after Ken got Pwnd excessively from all comers and took his ball home in a sulk. Unhappily it's buggered up half our WIGOs!

Then when he realised he couldn't get things back to how they should be, he panicked.:



21:21, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
Gentlemen,

re: evolution article

Operation Fortresses does not involve reciprocal linking with another website or websites. Please take another guess. Secondly, you have made no serious attempt to guess what Operation Grassroots is. Please take a guess.

Additional: 21:35, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
==Kels== My apologies. Operation Grassroots also does not involve Conservapedia doing reciprocal linking with another website or websites.

Additional:23:15, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
==Gentlemen Please Stop the Small Time Thinking Regarding Operation Grass Roots== Gentlemen, please stop the small time thinking in regards to Operation Grassroots. Please think more expansively in regards to Operation Grassroots.

==Re: Gentlemen Dawkins Picture== Instead of offering a picture of Mr. Dawkins I think it would have been better if you featured the rather humorous comeuppance of Gentleman Dawkins.

 Aside An editor draws Andy's attention to the matter:

== A user's communications with other website ==

Hi Mr. Schlafly - I noticed that cp:User:Conservative has been using Conservapedia as a means of directly communicating with and taunting members of the "other" website (Just take a look at his contributions - the ones for pages starting with "gentlemen"). It seems rather childish of him, as I think us Conservapedians should be above such petty communications. Furthermore, I don't think Conservapedia is the proper venue for such communications. I tried asking Conservative via his talk page what his motive is, but he went as far as to just permanently delete my questions. What do you think about this issue? --DRamon 22:12, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

yet Moer 07:18, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
==Gentlemen, re: evolution/evidence/academia== Gentlemen, first of all being a member of academia has certainly lost its luster recently so I don't know why you prattle on about academia support of the macroevolution position: http://www.phds.org/the-big-picture/restructuring-of-the-professoriate/the-adjunctification-of-academia/ and http://crookedtimber.org/2008/04/24/part-time-work-in-academia/  Perhaps, you believe that many academics do better work as of late but I would find such a belief suspect given the information in the resources I just provided. Of course, I am not saying that all academics produce poor work. However, if a profession offers lower rewards I would think it would be harder to attract quality people.

Second, the burden of proof for historical claims lies upon the claimant and the fossil record clearly makes a lack of belief in the macroevolution entirely reasonable.

Third, I believe that CMI/AIG/Behe adequately addressed the Lenski issue and I provided resources on this matter at least in regards to CMI/AIG. ===Gentlemen PI=== Just because I merely stated that being a member of academia has lost its luster does not mean I am not a member of academia or will not soon be a member of academia. I merely pointed out that it is not terribly hard to become a member of academia given that it offers less rewards. Certainly teaching has its place and can be useful to society. I would also point out that there are members of academia who are creationists.

Yawn ... 21:05, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
==Gentlemen, the Conservapedia evolution article ranks fairly well by the search engines==

Gentlemen, Yahoo ranks the evolution article #10 and Google ranks it #20 for the search evolution. Your obfuscation is not very convincing when one merely has to clear their cookies and see how the article ranks at Google. And it would not surprise me if the article climbs up the search engines as many of my articles have done so. For example, I think my articles on cp:Gay Bowel Syndrome and cp:Homosexuality and Parasites still have Google rankings of #1 !! :) :)

Second, I see that you were not very effective in rebutting my reasonable comments about academia. By the way, did you read the caption below the first picture in the evolution article concerning the German academia around the time of the Nazis?

Lastly, you can rant all you want regarding my intellectual capabilities all you want. I would appreciate it though if you can get back to me when you have created an article that many people wish to read on your website. I don't want to be too critical though as atheism is a causal factor for suicide and I wouldn't want you to get overly depressed about the fact that your website has yet to create an article which many people wish to read.

Getting bored now! 22:44, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
==Gentlemen, your article about Andy supposedly being something lots of people want to read== Gentlemen, your article about Andy has merely been viewed about 35,000 times and the article was started over a year ago. I don't think your example of a "flagship article" has very impressive traffic. Since you appear to believe you are individuals with average to notable intellects, you should be surprised that the view count is so low for the article on Andy.

==The irony is quite delicious== Gentlemen, unable to find any factual errors in my material you now constantly chime I abuse the English language. I do have a question. If you fine gentlemen are such good writers, then why such low traffic to your material? I must say that I find the irony quite delicious.

Gentlemen, a question
How long do you think I should keep the Josef Mengele picture up at the beginning of the evolution article? I do think that the pic and caption highlight an important matter. In fact, I am going to incorporate the material in the social effects of evolution material soon.

21:39, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
== Gentlemen, Good News! == Gentlemen, have you heard the good news? Please see: http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/21337.htm Added & deleted: (I think he is referring to the English speaking world )

22:14, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
==Evolution article - Deju Vu All Over Again== Gentlemen, the Conservapedia evolution article keeps rising in the Google search results for the search evolution. It is ranked number #16 now and the article appears to have momentum on its side because it keeps rising in the Google search results. The article reminds me of the atheism article but it is rising much faster in the Google search results than the atheism article did if memory serves.

I'm so bored with this that I'm not copying any more of his trivial drivel - anyone wants to take over - feel free.

Timing: He's deleted it, Praise the Lord!