Conservapedia talk:Sysops/Archive0

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Please Don't Confuse Sysops & Making Policy[edit]

ad hominem attacks on sysops as a whole, might be interpreted as a sign of weak intellect. Again, you are blaming the employees instead of the management. Just smacks of fascism. --TK /MyTalk 07:49, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Wuh? The Sysops are the management. Who, bar Aschlafly, who is listed here, is giving you orders? Is there some gestalt hivemind to which all sysops gather? This would seem to be contradicted by your decisions based on 'private agreements' with Aschlafly. Oh, and, uh, COI? --Wikinterpreterwoo!
I know a little about fascism...explain how it related to the topic at hand? Also, ad hominem attacks usually implies that the attack is unjustified. Just sayin'DocSock 07:55, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Doc, I think what he's trying to say is, "We just work here", or "I was just following orders". So you see, it is unfair to blame underlings who carry out bad orders. See examples such as Kosovo, Bosnia, etc. Also known as the "Eichmann Defense" --PalMD-Talk 07:57, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

As I have said elsewhere, sysops are nothing but employees. At CP, we don't make policy, Andy does. Doc, please don't go getting all wound up in something that intellectually has no merit. There is no logical comparison to marching people off to death camps and removing them from a site. No matter how much a part of our life it is. Policemen arrest people under laws they do not agree with, teachers suspend students for infractions they find minor, because of the rules. Even here, where supposedly everyone is part of the whole, I see Trent and Colin making demands, orders. So, to make some statement that CP Sysops are some unitary order, is silly. --TK /MyTalk 08:02, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
Tk - we've been over this before, we're not going to let you pick and choose which arguments you want to respond to here. Wikinterpreter made the argument that as a Sysop on CP, you WERE the management, not a mere employee. --Huey gunna getcha 08:08, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
  • Well Huey, you don't really have a choice, do you? Whatcha gonna do? I have a clean slate here. Go bitch to Colin or Trent. Instead of posting silly things, go ask Ed Poor if he made policy, or me. Ask RobS. Andy made policy. Not us. We are the focus of your irrational anger. Get over it. I rather think you hate any authority figure, and that is your right. But please get off my ass.--TK /MyTalk 08:43, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
Um, TK, you had a clean slate. You've written on it a lot in the last couple of days. You might want to try not feeding the trolls and seeing if you can have some fun here. humanbe in 12:40, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, it's all on me, Human. Even when I was, kidding with Doc at the bottom of my talk,Flipping assumes the worst and admonishes me! He later retracted, but the damage had been done, and the well poisoned further. I begged no poll, and its still done. What I feared has happend, and either by design or happenstance, I am once again "made wrong" through no fault of mine. I guess when attacked here, unless one is one of the originals, your just have to take it. Odd. --TK /MyTalk 12:48, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
Indeed. CP Sysops are being persecuted by Conservaphobes. RobS 11:37, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
I appreciate what you are saying TK. My issue is with the enthusiasm that some sysops (no names will be mentioned) have shown when blocking and banning. This is pretty much apparent from a lot of the snarky comments in the shorthand "reason for ban" field. It's one thing to have to carry out certain tasks, it's another to actually enjoy doing it or appear to enjoy doing it. I have to fire (terminate, whatever the term is outside of the UK) employees in the course of my work. Whilst it is necessary to do this, I do not enjoy doing it and I certainly don't do it with a grin on my face or whilst gloating about it. Trashbat 08:10, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
Quite right Huey. I recall that you are 'the sword of Andy'.--Wikinterpreterwoo!
  • Wiki, I will remind you yet again, I have been given a completely clean slate here, and I will ask you (once again) to stop with your jibes. --TK /MyTalk 08:34, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
But, Trashbat, removing someone who hates the site you are working for, and readily has admitted disruption and baiting, is far different than firing an employee. I too have over 100 who I am responsible for. I just don't find that great responsibility to be equivalent. I also think people angry at being removed from anyplace perhaps read far more into the motivations, especially when they are gathering together constantly with others in the same boat, eh? Since I have been promised a clean slate, I am beginning to resent this constant pile on job of you folks. Face it: You knowingly went to CP, most of you completely opposed to most of Andy's beliefs. Did you really think people not Conservative AND not YEC were gonna have an easy go? Certainly not all of you were so sheltered at WP, that you just assumed all places were run like WP! What you are actually mad at is you couldn't change his mind! But please don't blame, or put in his boat, some old Catholic guy who drinks, smokes and knows the Earth is older than 6,000 years.--TK /MyTalk 08:33, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

I'm not making jibes (at least not intentionally). I'm adding a suggestion to a point that any user could have made; namely, that saying that 'the Sysops are just employees' is not true, because, one of them being the management, claims to be 'the sword of Andy', and frequently refers to private agreements made with him to justify his decisions. I got a bit confused, since you were both that user and that sysop, so I'm sorry for posting hastily. I did set up [[1]], which might help this. Oh, and, in response to your unsigned comment on my talk, this isn't a personal remark - it's a factual comment about a CP sysop. I would have said the same if AmesG/Linus/Icewedge had made your points. --Wikinterpreterwoo!

So, Wiki you are hereby modifying the promises of Colin? I don't refer to any private agreements. Andy makes policy, now get off my ass. You are so totally ignorant of how the place works, it is embarassing. You want to hate, and I don't have time for people like that. And BTW, I am sorry you think I should sign a statement by Colin with my sig. It didn't seem right to me, but I went back and did it, in the spirit of forgiveness like you show. --TK /MyTalk 08:47, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
Just out of curiosity, is a constant belligerence and generally insulting tone also official policy at Conservapedia? --AKjeldsen 08:53, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
  • Well it certainly seems to be here, so I don't see why it would be different anywhere else. Let go of the personalization, Kel.--TK /MyTalk 08:55, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
I am sorry, but no. I consider it fully legitimate to deal with personal issues when these present a problem. Sometimes, it's simply necessary to be frank. The problem in this case is that, basically, you usually have a very confrontational, impolite, or even hostile tone in your replies to people, even concerning things that were meant to be helpful. Then, when people complain about it, you turn the whole question on the head and accuse them of making personal attacks against you. I would strongly suggest, for your own sake, that you consider trying a more polite approach, because to be honest, I have never seen a worse or more consist breach of usual good netiquette than your behaviour. It is really starting to annoy me, and you're making a lot of enemies and hurting a lot of people. I would suggest taking a page out of mr. Schlafly's book, because despite what else can be said about him, at least I don't think I have ever seen him be anything than unfailingly polite. Just a helpful suggestion. --AKjeldsen 09:10, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
Sorry, Kel. Your own posts and blog show you to be every one of those things. Well, there is that old saying we are blind to our own faults. I strongly suggest you start abiding by the rules here, and cease ignoring my clean slate, and the personal remarks about me. If not, you should be removed as a Sysop, IMO. --TK /MyTalk 09:24, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
I'm sorry, I don't want to hate, and I don't want to come over belligerent or insulting. About the ColinR thing? Thanks for signing. It just makes it easier, so I don't have to dig around in the history. I'm not modifying Colin's promises at all. I thought that the Conservapedia Sysop TK, who I'm not talking to here, was implicating that he had some sort of new seniority, as evidenced by things like this and this were evidence of the Conservapedia Sysop TK having some sort of inside knowledge of what was happening. If I was mistaken, then many apologies to him. Oh, and I hope that I haven't made any personal attacks or threats - the only thing I even mentioned in relation to you was a quote, by Conservapedia Sysop TK. --Wikinterpreterwoo!
  • Well, Wiki, I think you cannot have your nice cake and eat it too. Either you want information, and explanations, our you don't. Just because I might be the most prolific posting Sysop, I am hardly the one with the most blocks, or complaints. I think some of you, without redress, are shooting the messenger, which I understand, really I do. In talking to Trent and Colin, we all agreed this wasn't going to be easy. I can accept that. But perhaps the hate is so bad (why, over a place you all claim dislike) you ignore the many admissions I have made of having my head up my ass? Or not knowing the wikimedia stuff like most of you? Instead of a friendly hand, I was derided and mocked, and people here were urged to ruin my life. So, please! Try to keep in mind there is hardly anyone here with clean hands. Certainly no one with cleaner hands than me. If someone says "lets kill that MF!" once, and another says it one hundred times, is that person 100 times worse? No. It isn't a bit different at MySpace. A user threatens to vandalize, they are instantly removed. Everything wiped. That has been their policy since inception. So, one might assume, since they are undoubtedly the biggest and most trafficked site in the world, they kind of set the standard. Dislike YEC, fine. Dislike Conservative ideology, fine! But to nit-pick about how he runs the place, and his rules for banning, just because we don't like it, or it is not like WP, is totally illogical. Supposedly you guys have "moved on". If you want to build your own place here, someone needs to decide if it is for bashing Andy and CP, or building you own idea of an online encyclopedia. I sincerely hope you decide on building something rather than continuing to just vent. I think everyone here will have greater pride in building, rather than tearing down. --TK /MyTalk 09:24, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
TK, I'm not in the slightest bit aggrieved about being blocked from CP, I did not visit with any intent on changing minds and the blocks I have, I thoroughly deserved, cheeky little prankster that I am (or annoying git with a twisted sense of humour depending on your POV!). The point I was (probably badly) trying to make is that, in my experience, if a moderator blocks a troublemaker with minimum fuss enough times, they will eventually get bored and leave. If a mod bans with a snarky parting comment, a vandal will see that he has got a reaction and probably come back for more attention and a legitimate yet disruptive user may well take slight and come back intent on trouble. Either way, it's more hassle for the mods. Oh, and this isn't directed particularly at anyone, it's a general observation. The staff analogy was probably a poor one but by firing them with dignity I run less risk of them trying to sabotage the databases on the way out, "accidentally" giving away passwords, punching me in the face or filing a formal complaint.

And yes, I'm interested to see exactly what Rationalwiki will become. Somewhere purely to bash CP would be a waste of effort, somewhere for free debate would be very interesting Trashbat 09:30, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

I won't post here any more; me and TK seem to conversing on two different wavelengths: I've been (fairly reasonably, I think) pointing out that sysops have been claiming to have secret information, and that the administrators administer Conservapedia, and he's been making equally valid points, that CP is not WP. All that remains for me now is to quote that great source of wisdom, Weebl and Bob: 'I'll see you next time, Team Laser Explosion TK! Hopefully we can collaborate more peacefully in the future. --Wikinterpreterwoo!

TK, you say "There is no logical comparison to marching people off to death camps and removing them from a site.", in response to a comparison of fascism and a just-following-orders explanation for blocking policy. Would you extend that to a comparison of terrorism and wiki defacement? --jtltalk 13:33, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

  • Jtl, buy a real dictionary, don't use an on-line one, and read the definitions. Anyone who uses threats, or the illusion of threats, or actual damage, to coerce some reaction or action from others, is a terrorist. Wouldn't that include made-up threats to websites? Or actual ones, to cause confusion and disruption? I won't argue something that is stupid as someone defending such anti-intellectual actions. --TK /MyTalk 22:58, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
See this CP edit and this one. Ask yourself where I might be from. Ask yourself why being called a terrorist might bother me (especially since I didn't even do any of the things you include in your very expansive definition of 'terrorist'). Compare and contrast the last two edits you made to this page. --jtltalk 23:09, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
  • I don't think the horrible bombing in OKC compares on any order of magnitude to the Holocaust. However, I concede the point that it would bother you, and since you were not here for 1.0, apologize for my terrorist remark aimed at you. --TK /MyTalk 23:19, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
Thank you for the apology. But I wasn't comparing that bombing with the holocaust; I was comparing the supposed website defacement:terrorism :: just-following-orders:facism. And more importantly, see below... --jtltalk 23:33, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Conservapedia Paranoia[edit]

What's the scoop? I just heard that HeartofGold was an ememy of Conservapedia from a reliable source. What happened? Conservative 18:01, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

I can't reveal my source as it was through a prvt email by it was not TK. Conservative 18:05, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Lifted from CP Hoji's talk page. Seems like just the act of leaving CP gets you labeled as an "enemy of Conservapedia" by some sysops. Now from what I saw, Heart of Gold didn't do anything that would be worthy of being declared an enemy, but that may be due to me not seeing everything through the eyes of a victim of "terrorism".Prof0705 17:42, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
Either you're with them, or you're against them. And since so few people have a high enough degree of ideological conformity to be 'with' them, a Seige Mentaiity is kind of inevitable. --Gulik 17:57, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
It's also very typical of fascist behavior...absolute obedience, or absolute disavowal. DocSock 17:59, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
Doc...please. I had family, Catholics, who were gassed. Try and have some class, eh? To many, its a painful subject, and you don't have to be a Jew. Being kicked off a site isnt even 1/10,000,000,000,000 as bad. Come on! --TK /MyTalk 22:54, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
Sadly, terrible things sometimes start small. humanbe in 23:19, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
TK, you introduced the fascism comparison into this page: "Again, you are blaming the employees instead of the management. Just smacks of fascism". So that is in the same league as the holocaust? --jtltalk 23:33, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
  • While it was arguably Nazi's who conducted the Holocaust, Facism, per se, is not the holocaust, no? --TK /MyTalk 23:36, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
So, um, why did you bring up the Holocaust when DocSock said "It's also very typical of fascist behavior"? How is your comment classier than his? --jtltalk 23:42, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
man what.
If the 'employees' follow the dictates of their own conciences, fascism, be it the big, millions-dead kind or the little screwing-over-the-customer kind, can't really get started. And Unless I missed something, nobody was forcing you at gunpoint to be an e-thug at CP. What was Aschlafly going to do, send goons around to break your kneecaps for not banning enough people? --Gulik 23:39, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
More paranoia from the sysops: "Do this site's sysops have an anti-Iraq War bias?

I just wanted to express newfound concern on what I believe to be another attempt by the sysops at criticizing the Iraq War. The earlier reference to an "endless troop commitment in Iraq" (see my above section) coupled with the current Breaking News story referring to a "war cabal" appear to me to constitute a subtle but deliberate anti-war message, even though at first glance the two stories are critical of democrats. I would like to know who all the sysops are and what their backgrounds are, so we can determine if perhaps there is a mole. The only other possibility is that the terms "endless troop commitment in Iraq" and "war cabal" are being used sarcastically to bring attention to the democrats who have voted for a bill that funds the war they are publically opposed to. If this is the case, then I have to question whether this encyclopedia can call itself "trustworthy", since I don't believe the use of sarcasm is appropriate for a learning resource.--Conservateur 16:59, 25 May 2007 (EDT)"

Start the witchhunt. Wonder what will happen to any sysop that is not pro-Iraq war?Prof0705 16:05, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Retrieved from ""

Personally, I think a few of them are angling to get rid of Hoji. Although Andy probably wants to keep his "token librul" so he can tell people he has Sysops from across the spectrum. --Kels 16:09, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

And here is a completely confusing, rambling explanation from CPsysop:Conservative explaning his paranoia about HoG. This is the guy that said MY writing was not clear.
I never associated you with calling HeartofGold an enemy of Conservapedia. However, someone with authority at Conservapedia sent me an email and referred to HeartofGold as an enemy of Conservapedia without saying why. I cannot disclose who sent me the email because I consider a email private. I simply was curious and asked why Heartofgold was referred to as a enemy of Conservapedia. I am sending this note in order to acknowledge your message to me. However, I really don't have any interest in discussing this matter further as I will never reveal who the person was who called HeartofGold an enemy of Conservapedia as I consider personal emails private. Also, I really don't think it was a big loss to lose HeartofGold as an editor and he seems happy at RationalWiki and wishes to be a Admin there. If I had to do things over again, I think I could have clarfied things via personal email correspondence with the person who has authority at Conservapedia who called HeartofGold an enemy of Conservapedia rather than send Hoji an inquiry about it. Conservative 17:00, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Retrieved from ""

This sentence really highlights a massive problem of the CP leadership mentality: "Also, I really don't think it was a big loss to lose HeartofGold as an editor"
HG worked like mad for a good while on CP, doing tons of work that actually improved things (and had been my personal bet for the second round of the sysop contest), but after the official "Enemy of the State" declaration, this doesn't count AT ALL.
It's this complete underestimation of contributions made by alienated/banned users that will lead to CP's downfall. Every productive editor who leaves and/or gets banned is a big loss. --Sid 17:39, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
It's only a loss if you value grubby little facts over ideological purity. -- 18:19, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
Good point, yes. I got temporarily blinded by CP's "neutral to the facts, educational resource, trustworthy encyclopedia" propaganda. Of course, maintaining a yay-sayer community is the most important goal. --Sid 18:29, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
I'd disagree in HG's case. As far as I've seen, HG either agrees with the CP party line ideology, or is willing to ignore areas of disagreement. HG made tons of edits that, even from the CP perspective, should have been great, and none (that I saw at least) that weren't. The difference wasn't over ideological purity -- it was over attitudinal purity. --jtltalk 19:06, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
How so? HG's case still confuses me. I hadn't been keeping an eye on the place when the change happened. I totally agree on HG fitting in (even Andy seemed to be impressed, if I recall correctly) and the edits being very useful for the project. Then, when RW 2.0 went up, I checked back on CP and noticed the 180° turn. And Conservative's "somebody with authority declared HG to be The Enemy" speech doesn't really increase my understanding. --Sid 19:19, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
(And apologies to HG and everybody who's smacking their forehead now. I know I come over as nosy and oblivious, but I just want to comprehend the CP universe as much as possible, and HG's case is most likely the most extreme one in recent history. --Sid 19:21, 25 May 2007 (CDT))
I'm afraid I don't have links to point at, just my impressions (and of course HG's would be more accurate than mine! I hope s/he's reading this page so I'm not speaking behind someone's back), but it felt to me like HG didn't appreciate some of the debate tactics and boosterism, more than disagreeing with the positions being argued. --jtltalk 20:38, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Another instance of Sysops using "science".[edit]

"We are discussing the past, not the political present. So, why bring up school prayer? What does that have to so with Franklin's deism?--Jamest 13:17, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

It explains your views. If you're opposed to prayer in the classroom, then there is over a 90% chance that (1) you'll insist that Franklin was a deist and (2) you believe in evolution. That extraordinary correlation suggests that the facts are irrelevant. If you're not open-minded about prayer in the classroom, then it's futile to expect you to be open-minded about these other issues.--Aschlafly 18:41, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, I fail to see how my position on school prayer (which, by the way, you do not know) is germane to a conversation regarding Benjamin Franklin’s spiritual beliefs. You also do not know my position regarding evolution (I am also uncertain as to how that is relevant to this conversation). As for your other suppositions (the 90% figure), do you have evidence to support this? Now could you please show a little intellectual integrity, and address the substance of McIntyre’s arguments, rather than engaging in distractions? I do have an open mind about such matters sir, and I hope that you have the same. --Jamest 08:23, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
I do know, with 95% certainty, what your positions are on classroom prayer and evolution. The 95% confidence level is all that science requires. I know your positions with greater certainty than I know what the weather will be like tomorrow.

But why do you refuse to disclose your positions? Are you embarrassed about them? Do you feel they are indefensible? Conservatives don't hide their views; liberals do. Why?--Aschlafly 10:26, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, my positions on school prayer and evolution would probably surprise you. I do not discuss them because they are not germane to the topic at hand, namely, Benjamin Franklin’s spiritual beliefs. Please show a little intellectual integrity, stick to the topic, and stop engaging in distractions. Could you please address McIntyre’s arguments?--Jamest 10:34, 25 May 2007 (EDT)" -from Aschlafly's Talk page discussion of Ben Franklin.
The sysop and owner in question quotes the use of the 95% Confidence Interval used in various sciences. He claims to know an individuals beliefs with a CI95%, but seems to be unaware of the fact that this is only valid when the percentage is arrived at through some kind of scientific methodology. It may seem petty, but examples such as this point to the scientific understanding of many sysops on CP.Prof0705 10:08, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
As an honest to goodness mathematician, I can safely say Schlafly's an ass. Science needs 100%, is that not his argument regarding falsifiability? He sounds like a scientologist with their "What are you afraid of?" attackattackattack babble. Wowness. αιρδισΗταλκ 10:14, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
It doesn't take a mathematician to figure out Andy's an ass. olliegrind 06:50, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
Does that mean he's a descendent of one of the 2 asses on noah's ark? I wonder if he floated on a raft of vegetation over to the US. Jrssr5 07:51, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Weird distribution on that list[edit]

Over half of them are from letters A-E of the alphabet? Did Aschlafly just go down an alphabetized list, and lost interest partyway through? --Gulik 01:23, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

*snickers* I think we can file that under "coincidence", even though I like your theory. It should also be noted that some sysops went up in the list (MountainDew to DanH, and hadn't CPAdmin1 had been TimS or so before? I'd have to check...). --Sid 06:17, 6 June 2007 (CDT)


Looks like he deleted his talk page content and "forgot" to archive it. Not deceitful at all. [2] Jrssr5 11:48, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Next Sysop?[edit]

Hey, Arthur Dent, can we get (a) permalink(s) to that discussion and deletion? humanbe in 12:16, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Here you go. Remove the "#Articles..." bit if it doesn't work properly. αιρδισΗταλκ 12:24, 6 June 2007 (CDT)


Their newest sysop BethanyS is quite the prolific writer. If her writing quality is an example of Andy's teaching skillz I feel bad for his class. PS. did you know that Eragon is the first book in the trilogy? Jrssr5 14:34, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Hey, when you can see (read?) into the future, the order of things gets a little confusing at times. Note that part of her favourite literature list is a book that doesn't exist yet. --Kels 14:44, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
Say, now that I read that Eragon article, do you think Andy's gonna savage her for saying that the book got attention for the fact he was 15, rather than because he was homeschooled? To Andy, that's all that matters, you know. Maybe Bethany's trying to hide something, hmm.... --Kels 14:45, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
Bethany did upload this totally awesome guy's picture:


Since she hasn't made an article for him though, we may never know who he is. --ויִכִּ נתֶּרֶפּרֶתֵּר שְׁלֹום!

My guess is that's Andy's halloween (if he's allowed to celebrate the pagan holiday) costume. But on a serious note, is there anyway we can get an age on some of these sysops? Bethany sounds like she's 12ish, Conservative, RobS and TK alternately sound like grumpy old men or spoiled teenage brats. And Andy just writes/reads/interperts everything like a braindead circus clown who sniffed too much glue. Jrssr5 15:01, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
I agree, I think Bethany is about 12. In one of her talk pages she said that she was 7th grade. I would put big sis at about 16. TK is 56 or thereabouts. Babel fishÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†Now look here! 15:12, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
Oh, come on. TK can't possibly be a day over 16--I don't care what his birth certificate says. --Gulik 16:06, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

"due to the fact that Christopher Paolini was only 15 when he wrote the first book, Eragon." Actually he was 15 when he STARTED. The only thing listed as 'fact' is not even accurate. olliegrind 15:28, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Let's not get too upset about it. JustineA 15:34, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
I LOLed --Kels 16:11, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
Try to remember that the kids are the victims here, and the best way to help is to get them an alternative view of the world (i.e. truth) so that they can make up their own minds. No need to alienate anyone. And, yes, TK is a grown man, his age is known to me, but I am sticking to the commandment-ish guideline not to post personal info on folks.--PalMD-yada yada 16:22, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
PalMD I agree about the kids being the victims. I'm not having a go at Bethany or any of the other youngsters, it's CP making them sysops that is the ridiculous thing. One of CP's stated aims is to protect minors from filth but as sysop they will come across it even more. Just look at some of the blocked usernames! As for personal info I would only hold back on anything identifiable. The USA is a big country and it would actually take a lot of info to identify anyone in any reasonable sized town. Babel fishÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†Now look here! 16:51, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
Did someone check the copyright on the Aleglaisa map? Valorus 11:29, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

Stuffs that were on teh mainpage[edit]

TK said this on the main article. Moved it because it really is a discussion - it was after the 'TK revisionism' comment.

Well, remembering its a online wiki certainly is, the Internet. Not real. TK/MyTalk

--ויִכִּ נתֶּרֶפּרֶתֵּר שְׁלֹום!

It should be here, yeh, but maybe we shouldn't have a direct shot at TK somewhere he's not allowed respond? Though I guess he can reword it if he wants. Or I will if he wants. Comments? αιρδισΗταλκ 06:19, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
Could someone (preferably TK) reword his comment? I'm finding it unparsable, and I have a strong grasp on English syntax. MyaR 08:54, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

I'll have a go on the sense-extraction part - it was in response to this

Discretion is the better part of valor, TK?		

So I'm assuming that he is saying

remembering it's a online (hence, 'the internet', and 'not real') wiki certainly is

'the better part of valour'. --ויִכִּ נתֶּרֶפּרֶתֵּר שְׁלֹום!

RobS de-sysoped[edit]

It has been noted, but can't be well footnoted, since the source does not have a permalink. it comes from here, on 23:50, 8 June 2007. You'll have to dig if that was a long time ago. You'll also note that Dpbsmith got screwed with "blocking" power. No moving or deleting power, as a stalwart good editor would deserve, just shit patrol. humanbe in 23:34, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

To be fair Dpbsmith has (more than once) been offered the POWER she's always graciously refused. ~~ C®acker 23:41, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
You must be mistaken. Nobody but Christ and George Washington have ever turned down that kind of earthly power. (and more seriously, I'm pretty sure that Dpbsmith is a 'he', not a 'she') --jtltalk 23:44, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
OK, you're both drunk (cool). Yes, dpb has refused what used to be "sysopshit" at CP, but now it appears that every possible function of an editor has been parsed and separately endowed upon the grateful. Dpb did not want to be a sysop, probably because he did not want to be on "shit patrol". I argued he should get the good meat, move and delete, that a prime editor deserves, to fix up a site. He (he is a boy)got the pointy end of the stick. humanbe in 23:50, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
Not drunk here. (I only have one drink a day, unfortunately I was already up to March 24 2512 so I decided to lay off for a while.) I will point out that I, myself, had the power here and gave it back. Who here thinks that RobS will make a good RWer?~~ C®acker 00:07, 9 June 2007 (CDT)
I'm up to 2053 myself, good for you. RobS is already here, and a bit of a conspiracy nut, but at least contributing something. (See Essay: namespace). Cracker. That's a joke, right? Or do you crack safes? Never mind. How do you "give it back"? I actually like, so far, the awesome powerz. Mostly to delete mispelled articles. And to intimidate and aggravate TK and his ToolKit. He hates me. I am so honored. RobS is dead, long live RobS! humanbe in 00:30, 9 June 2007 (CDT)
Like [this], that's definite class there, (low, but definite).~~ C®acker 00:49, 9 June 2007 (CDT)
Lazy bastid, but I don't blame you! humanbe in 01:15, 9 June 2007 (CDT)
No problem with Rob...his email account was hacked or possibly compromised. Removal is just a saftety measure. I am sure some of you are aware of that,lol. --TK/MyTalk 01:50, 9 June 2007 (CDT)
Nice accusation TK, but as far as I know utterly groundless. Still, what on earth is going on with the user rights log thing? With RobS gone, it looks like the CP faithful is closing ranks somewhat. --ויִכִּ נתֶּרֶפּרֶתֵּר שְׁלֹום!
  • No accusation, just that the email from "Rob" asked that a new email be righted, only it was one previously used by Flippin (LMAO). Peksy thing, it is, having too many email addresses, isn't it? --TK/MyTalk 04:32, 9 June 2007 (CDT)
So for the benefit of us perceptionally challenged, what you're saying is that RobS was a sock of Flippin or vice versa? --AKjeldsen 05:25, 9 June 2007 (CDT)
No, I think he's saying that Cracker was trying to get enough info to 'pose as RobS', or, rather, use RobS' mighty sysop powers to disrupt the sheep at CP. So, worrying that he might have already been successful, the RobS account was disempowered to zero out the risk. Would I be far off in presuming that Rob will be given a new user name, etc., and simply reappear in a more fortified fashion? Or, do they really think RobS = Cracker? humanbe in 14:38, 9 June 2007 (CDT)
I had no idea, until your post, That "Cracker" had a sock named "Flippin". I thought they were two different people. In any event, RobS is back as Sysop. --TK/MyTalk 00:54, 11 June 2007 (CDT)
That's good that he's back, it was boring reading over the weekend without RobS's paranoia. Jrssr5 08:00, 11 June 2007 (CDT)
eh, I'm me. I've been pretty upfront about that here. I only make socks to bother RobS and, if I can Karajou. (Sorry, TK, it got old once you came over here.) As far as any connections, I don't know anything about Cracker, or AdrianP (except he is from Fargo, where I was living until about a month ago) or most anyone else. As much as I would like to be the criminal astermid people think I am, sadly, I am just a criminal now and then. Flippin;-) 10:23, 11 June 2007 (CDT)
Yes, I have no idea who this "Flippin" you think he bought it?~~ C®acker 10:26, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

You guys are so mean.[edit]

Simply because an individual is not in lockstep with your views, and obeys the policies and wishes of the founder and owner of a website, does not mean that they are now suddenly a "goon squad". This is simply an attempt to discredit the opposition by namecalling, the tactic you liberals are so fond of saying that Joseph McCarthy used. --SimonA 14:21, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

Holy snap, you actually joined to "talk some sense into" us? Kudos, I hope you'll enjoy your stay. We call certain sysops names like "goon squad" mostly because... they are. We don't discredit the opposition by name-calling. We discredit it by pointing out where they created articles by copy-pasting from copyrighted sources or where they simply engaged in open abuse (in many cases: ban abuse).
Look, I got basically perma-banned because a sysop made a typo in the Bible article and refused to correct it. When people pointed it out, they got banned for attacking the Bible, attacking Jesus, and attacking CP itself. All just because somebody pointed out that a third-party book (not the Bible itself) had a typo in a Greek phrase.
Many of us got banned simply for being a member here. Even more got banned simply because a sysop thought that they might be members here. Tons of people get banned before they can make a single edit, others get banned for pointing out factual errors in stuff "the founder" or one of his pet sysops said.
And heck, it's not even about the bans. I mean, even some sysops openly suggest that we should just make socks and get editing again.
No, this is about CP force-feeding people who don't know better with lies. Things like Andy's "Abortions cause breast cancer" gig or the ongoing Evolution gig are simply deceitful. CP says it encourages other views, but at the same time, people who try to bring these views into articles get banned or mobbed.
You will find many uncomfortable things on these pages. Things that should make you go "Hmmmmm...". I encourage you to poke around and ask questions. --Sid 15:13, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
Edit: I just took a look at your user page. I take the last paragraph back. I fear you'll just end up calling us "Godless liberal atheist evolutionists" (I've been called that on CP once or twice, I think) or something like that. PLEASE prove me wrong. I'm sorry to say, but unless you allow your views to be challenged a little bit, you might not have tons of fun here. You won't get banned for simply being here or arguing for your views (excluding the ultra-short-term bans we sometimes give each other in good fun), but don't expect us to suddenly go "I'VE SEEN THE LIGHT! PRAISE JESUS AND CONSERVATISM!". Just a fair heads-up. Either way, though, you should find a few enlightening things around here. For example, on Conservapedia:Best of Conservapedia. --Sid 15:17, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
I got banned for vandalism! The nerve of some people! olliegrind 15:19, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
I got banned for...oh yeah, I told TK to go fuck himself. I thought he'd appreciate the wise words of Dick Cheney. Anyway, give it a shot, SimonA, you might actually learn something. ʄĹїþþїɲ;-) 15:21, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

Flippin, all he will learn is that you are a worthless piece of shit, more interested in hurting others, than aruging conflicts you have with them over idealogy. --TK/MyTalk 23:13, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

I'm still not sure what I was banned for. Possibly for asking why I was banned from the IRC channel. And I don't know why that happened, either. --jtltalk 16:21, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

I still think you're running a brilliant scam. If you're not, so be it, but I will be standing outside waiting to shake you by the hand when you come out. Doggedpersistance 15:22, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

Hi Simon. Conservapedia sysops often misuse their power to ban users who disagree with them. I (and a few others) schooled Andy on the subject of Benjamin Franklin and Deism (one of the individuals is a serious Franklin scholar) and most of us were eventually banned. Other sysops tried to run interferance for Andy by threating us with blocks off page. The debate is reproduced here <> on Conservapedia. You can also check out my exchange with RobS over his invention of the term "New Ordeal." It should be enlighting for you is that it will demonstrate the intellectual shortcomings of some of the sysops on the site.-- 23:04, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

  • They misuse their power according to the rules of Wikipedia. And some here feel it is their duty to make CP abide by the Rules at Wikipedia, in some misguided, Nazi-esque mission to impose their own ideas of what fair rules are. When it suits their ideology, and their own arguments, people are supposed to take someones word they are indeed some scholar or Doctor. When it doesn't they are told to unmask themselves to every potential lunatic on the Web who might happen on the page, and give full details of where they work and live. So, please,, save your bullshit. --TK/MyTalk 23:18, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

Hey TK, it is not bullshit. Look at the content of the pages that I referred too, and you will see who is lacking in intellectual firepower. One side could mount an argument and provide proof to support their contentions, while the Andy and RobS could not. -- 05:44, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

Far be it from me to get involved in such things but I'm going to have to agree with on the Franklin debate. Andrew annd Rob couldn't muster a coherent argument between them in that particular exchange. In fact, all I've ever seen Andy do is avoid questions or make appeals to emotion (the "liberal" accusations or invoking other unrelated things). Hardly intellectually honest really. Trashbat 06:00, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
Yey, "worthless piece of shit", "Nazi-esque" (sort of impossible for us on CP...) -- we don't even have to go looking for it. Note, Simon, who it was who brought that here. MyaR 06:44, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
And missed one, fromt he bizarre exchange TK reverted back on the article page (back wiki etiquette, that) -- "You are a fucking liar". I also love the "I found it, you fix it mentality. I'll waste lots of time typing about it, instead of the, oh, 30 seconds it would take to change it. Because that way, I can be persecuted. [Those last two sentences would be my interpretation of TK's thought-process.]MyaR 06:49, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
  • They misuse their power according to the rules of Wikipedia. And some here feel it is their duty to make CP abide by the Rules at Wikipedia, in some misguided, Nazi-esque mission to impose their own ideas of what fair rules are. When it suits their ideology, and their own arguments, people are supposed to take someones word they are indeed some scholar or Doctor. When it doesn't they are told to unmask themselves to every potential lunatic on the Web who might happen on the page, and give full details of where they work and live.--TK/MyTalk 07:47, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
Simon maybe you can help them on CP ... I have yet to see a sysop (with the exception of maybe Ed or Philip) engage in an actual debate and have the ability to provide real facts w/o reverting to the "you're a liberal so of course you're wrong" line. It really is sad to see these people who claim they're intellectuals and teach the youth of America lack the basic skills to get their point across without sticking their fingers in their ears going, "I can't hear you!!!"
I picture Andy going on a road trip with the other sysops doing the old, "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you" game, grinning from ear to ear while dreaming up more liberal deceits to post.
And TK, it's been said before, but if Andy didn't want people to assume/use wiki rules then a wiki-project was the wrong way to go. Jrssr5 07:51, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
  • Actually you are really incorrect, Jrssr5. Look at the software sometime. The configurations built into it, make the possibilities endless, almost. The intended people to be able to lock down forums, restrict all kinds of things CP and WP doesn't. But the coding is clear, and with it their intentions. So the argument about using a wiki being wrong way to go is totally bogus. --TK/MyTalk 07:55, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

TK, the software does not excuse the lack of intellect on the part of the powers that be at CP. Jrssr5 is correct in that there is a strange resistance to fact and the use of proof. This is puzzuling when one considers that CP's founder is a lawyer, and is (presumably) schooled in the use of evidence.--Franklin 08:37, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

Funny, that is exactly what Andy says. Proof once again that ideological arguments are all crap. Did you read my posts above, really? Would you argue abortion with Nuns, for weeks or months on end? I think not. If people and their opinions are not to your liking, why keep at it? That's the part I don't understand. No one has ever presented a logical reason for the hate or the anger. Seems to me, reading this place for two months, people would be happy to have been booted out, and like I have said before, why did they stay? A public service? Surely anyone intelligent knows they are not going to change the mind of a YEC, or funde. Surely anyone who believes in freedom of speech would think anyone should be silenced, especially CP. Maybe you have a cogent answer, Franklin. --TK/MyTalk 10:02, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

TK, I would not argue abortion (and I tend not to argue the political present in any case). I do not think anyone should be silenced, but as I have just noted, someone began a new page (Christianity Today)at CP, and one that was listed as part of the article creation drive. The user was banned and page deleated. So, it seems that person was silenced. I do not think anyone wants to silence CP, but I do think honest debate, rather than avoidance, as in the examples I set forth above in the case of the "Franklin & Deism" and the "New Ordeal" would go a long way toward defusing that anger. In fact, I think much of the anger has already been defused, CP's views are way down from their peak a few months ago, and the novelty has worn off for most people I think.--Franklin 10:17, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

But you avoid answering. Why do people who disagree with their way of doing things, seek to vandalize and silence them? That was the foundation of this very wiki. So it must be people enjoying tearing down ideas, concepts, places they don't agree with. Otherwise they would look at the place and leave, never looking back once. --TK/MyTalk 10:21, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

Hi TK. I can repsond for myself. When I argue (as in the cases cited above) I bring my evidence to the table to support my contention an I ask that individuals that I am arguing with do the same (that explains my exasparation with RobS!). I do not think people should "tear down " ideas that they disagree with, but discuss them, using evidance to support their points.--Franklin 10:29, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

I agree, the purpose is not always to convince. Sometimes I don't know how I feel about something until I argue the "other side." CP has no one (that I know of) capable of doing this. ʄĹїþþїɲ;-) 10:33, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

Outdated section and discussion it provoked[edit]

This was moved here to preserve the discussion it provoked, both main contributors to the discussion seem to say it's ok, if you read it. (me & TK) humanbe in 14:02, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

Next Sysop?[edit]

DeborahB is the hot tip for sysopship especially since TK deleted the following exchange:

Deborah, please understand that when looking for potential new sysops, we take into account the content, not just the article count. Could you please refrain from just posting stubs, and actually offer a complete article? Thanks! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:59, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for your concise entries, Deborah! I've learned from them already. We don't want long-winded, confusing entries here as there are on Wikipedia. Please continue your efforts.--Aschlafly 18:24, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the snipe and undercut, Andy. You are totally out of line and mean spirited here. Perhaps you need to consider removing me. The articles are blatant stubs, and should more logically be incorporated under CP:Congress. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:38, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Discretion is the better part of valor, TK?

  • Well, cheap shots, Mr. Dent, seems to be your better half, that is most certain. --TK/MyTalk 23:59, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
He meant "CP:TK", the one in the quoted conversation, not you, "RW:TK". humanbe in 23:54, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

You cannot see, right above here, where it says: "Discretion is the better part of valor, TK?" You don't see that? --TK/MyTalk 23:59, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes, I can see it. Should it be edited to say "CP:user:TK" or "sysop-TK"? This is, after all, an article. And we are discussing it here instead of its talk page. Meta-content, I guess. humanbe in 00:03, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

You can remove all of these comments, Human, that's your style and that of the Bureaucrats here, when they dont like shit. However, here is a quote from me, standing up for something you guys have complained about, and I get a derisive comment? And since it was a question, I guess I, or anyone had the right to answer, eh? Talk about cheap shots, and those who refuse reality in admitting them...... --TK/MyTalk 00:25, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

Actually, the quote (which puts you in a good light here, getting chided by ashfly) is getting irrelevant on this article, since she got sysopship a while bakc now, right? if you want, move this whole segment (with our comments) to the talk page and put it under "deleted from article due to being stale". Hey, I agree about the derisive comment - but it could have been removed by the normal wiki-process - bring it up on the talk page, clearly quoting what you are discussing, etc. humanbe in 00:54, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
  • You are a fucking liar, (sub)Human. I have never been afforded the normal editing courtesies here. Not ever. You have been part of those who revert and delete everything I do, including allowing personal information to remain for weeks. All this was, was yet another cheap shot at me allowed to remain, unquestioned by any of you high-minded, "fair" people you claim to be. When I am supporting the things you do, I am given derision, when I am not, the same. But hey, this is all in fun, and I am stopping and smelling the roses, and playing like you guys do, right? :D --TK/MyTalk 01:17, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
It would appear that TK actually likes stubs after all.

*The "problem" with this entire topic is its false premise. To my certain knowledge Andy has absolutely no desire to compete with, or be like Wikipedia. Some of you are always missing this point. They are not our "competition" for they make no attempt whatsoever to be what we are. And, conversely, most of us here couldn't care two cents for changing to be like them. I like concise. If I wanted complete (and mostly needless) detail, I would go to a library, not some online wiki. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 08:32, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Pepsi-Cola is an alternative to Coca-Cola. They compete[1] for customers. Conservapedia is an alternative to Wikipedia they compete for...?

  • Andy Schlafly says the new site is an alternative to Wikipedia and what he deems to be a liberal bias.[2]
  • The site describes itself as "a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American."[3]
  • The founders of say their site offers a "much-needed alternative" to Wikipedia, which they say is "increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American".
    "It is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind," he [Mr Schlafly] said.[4]

Surely something conceived as an alternative to something else is in competition with it?

WhatIsG0ing0n 08:51, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

Non-funny vandalism[edit]

I'll consider any further attempts to move conversation from this page back to the article page to be non-funny vandalism, and will block accordingly. --jtltalk 15:24, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

  • LOL...who gives a fuck what you think, vandal/cyber terrorist. I guess it can no longer be argued or disputed, since the Los Angeles Times says it true! Since the reporter says you admitted it, Jtl. Now you should consider taking your puny little dick and your shitty little mind, and get into therapy. --TK/MyTalk 06:46, 19 June 2007 (CDT)
As long as she also says that Conservapedia blocks because of ideological differences, I can live with that. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 07:37, 19 June 2007 (CDT)
Funny, but she never quite says that, does she? לול 08:19, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

CP Sysop Identities[edit]

It doesn't need to be published here but for those who are interested, Stephanie Simon's article in the LA Times about Conservapedia reveals the real identity and location of Karajou. While my guess about the age of a young female sysop that likes Irish dancing (whose mother asked not to reveal her name), was spot on.

Get a life. Pretty soon you lot are going to have to get over the CP thing and do something to justify your claims of superior reasoning, worldly knowledge and scientific rationality - ie quit vandalizing and cyber stalking and express your ideas and knowledge in an accessible way as articles on this site. The reason why I have only contempt for most of you here is not because you challenge the YEC or other Biblical approach to some matters, it is because of your hypocrisy and hate. You throw out your motivation as wanting to protect "high school aged kids" from CP "ideology" yet do it by filling CP with obscenity. Way to care about the forming of young minds and attitudes! You are fledgling EngSoc, aiming to stamp out any thought that doesn't fit your template. You are everything you claim to hate about CP. That should shame some of you, through whose (non-vandal) writings it is plainly discernible are talented and gifted thinkers. But you are all being dragged down to the level of that moron Icewedge, or will end up bitter and twisted like CatWatcher (who still licks butt via a sock over at CP - I know who you are, teacher's pet), who can't bear to have their world view challenged and - shock! horror! - disproved occasionally. CP isn't your ideology - but why does that mean you have to destroy it? They blocked you, deleted your dissent, etc. Is that really justification to do all this? Rational people would take this wiki and use it to make available articles that challenged CPs articles constructively, offered opposite views. Instead, you all sit and fester and marinade in your own hate. (Well, not all, there are a couple that I see are trying to get some constructive content posted here.) I don't necessarily agree with the viewpoints of all of the articles on CP, but I agree that they have the right to hold those opinions and the right to have a vehicle for expressing them, and that's a right I will fight for. Similarly, your vehicle is RationalWiki (or even Wikipedia), but right now this is a beaten up old chevy with FUK! spraypointed on the hood, 3 or 4 crazies all grabbing at the steering wheel, and nobody knowing (or caring, apparently) where its actually going. לול 05:00, 19 June 2007 (CDT)
It's (the Chevy) actually moving? I thought it was up on blocks in the front yard? Huh, wonders! CЯacke® 07:47, 19 June 2007 (CDT)
As an aside, even in an isolated, rural environment, I knew more profanity at the age of 12 than the entirety of the vandalism on CP. And yet it never harmed me, and I've always been known as very polite and agreeable in person. In fact, I never swore once in front of either parent until I was in my late 20's. I doubt profanity is nearly as harmful as you seem to think. --Kels 08:06, 19 June 2007 (CDT)
It isn't that I believe it is incredibly harmful, Kels, so much as I believe it is counter-productive and hypocritical when used as a tactic to protect children's minds :/ לול 08:17, 19 June 2007 (CDT)
Protecting children’s' minds? That statement reminds me about a conversation I had with a person in their 20's about STDs. She grew up in VA in a very conservative community and was not informed about STDs other than once you got one your life was going to end (how the community protected the children’s' minds). I had to explain to her the differences in Bacterial STDs and Viral STDs and how there are treatments and prevention methods for each. I also recounted a situation where a male contracted syphilis at a young age but since his family was of a similar conservative mindset like the lady from VA, he did not feel able to admit to his parents that he had intercourse at a young age nor did he ask to see a Dr. to check out the changes he noticed until it was to late for the treatment to reverse the effects of the syphilis. So are we really protecting children by hiding the world away or are we enabling them to be harmed through ignorance?--TimS 08:41, 19 June 2007 (CDT)
That might be a nice article to do, perhaps using the HPV Vaccine as a starting point. I'm not sure what kind or article vs essay we could come up with.--PalMD-yada yada 08:44, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

That's moving away from my original point quite some distance, though. Firstly, it is RW who claim to be the guardians of the innocent high schoolers; secondly, why is CP "hiding the world away"? If these kids are accessing the internet, they are a couple of clicks away from all the information you allude to. This is why RW worries me so much - there is a mindset among you that CP is somehow attempting to supplant all other sources of information. It isn't! Its attempting to create a conservative, Christian-friendly, family-friendly online encyclopedia that exists as an alternative, a 2nd opinion, so to speak. And in that aim, it deserves to succeed, and "liberals", of all people, should laud it for its intentions to present a break from the mainstream. You don't have to like it, you don't have to believe it. Nobody is asking that of you - what they are asking is for the right to freedom of expression of their beliefs. Are all viewpoints equal (but some more equal than others..?) I have a difficult enough time already with my family, trying to ensure that my children are true to their heritage as Jews, without indoctrinating them that messianism is the be all and end all. I can tell them that is what I believe, but they will eventually be of an age, like my eldest daughter, to decide for themselves. As it happens, she chose to disagree, now lives in Israel and is an orthodox frum :D The point I'm trying (and maybe failing) to make is that if all of your efforts were focused on construction instead of destruction, I'd be a lot happier. And so would you all - this "war" is gonna give everyone ulcers :P לול 09:07, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

True, I grew up in a very conseravtive community as well but broke away from the norm because of the need to understand things. I had an argument with my mother three weeks ago about corn and how humans had cross bred different types of grains to produce it, the sad thing is that my parents are farmers and understand cross breeding. They just did not want to see that evolution is something that happens, either directed or undirected.--TimS 08:51, 19 June 2007 (CDT)
I think RW has evolved quite a bit from RW 1.0 and vandalism. The more content we add, the better.--PalMD-yada yada 08:13, 19 June 2007 (CDT)