From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

False statement in article[edit]

The article on Conservapedia states the following: One of the most commonly abused rules is an unofficial one not actually on the rule book[20] called the 90/10 rule which states states that editors must have 90% of their edits in the main space and only 10% in talk spaces. If they were to follow this rule they would have to ban roughly 80% of their regular editors. In fact not one of the major Sysops (Aschlafly[21], TK[22], Conservative[1], Karajou[24]) at Conservapedia is in compliance with the rule." Yet the footnote cited for the Sysop Conservative does not support your contention. Newton 13:26, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Yes, it does. 2699 edits in Talk out of 8974 total is a bit over 30%. A clear violation. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 13:33, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
Here is the conservapedia commandment: "Unproductive activity, such as 90% talk and only 10% quality edits, may result in blocking of the account."[2] If conservative has 30% of the edits in talk then conservative is not violating a commandment. In short, the commandment was stated inproperly in your article which is something I just noticed. Newton 13:59, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
But that is NOT how it is enforced, it is enforced as less than 10 percent talk. We discuss this in other places, the rule as written is not how the rule is enforced in practice. Just another one of a thousand ways in which CP is hypocritical and fascist. tmtoulouse persecute 14:01, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
Actually it's enforced as "You have less than 99.999999% high-quality, rocks-my-socks mainspace contribs and if I continued this discussion with you, it would become apparent that I'm completely wrong, so STFU or I ban you." --Sid 14:14, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
Or if you administer conservative fellatio to Schlafly by bringing him little gifts to his talk page "look look what i did here" kind of thing.That can get you out of a bind. tmtoulouse persecute 14:16, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
While we're sort-of on the subject: How come the page Conservapedia:90/10_Rule doesn't show up if you do a search for "90/10"? --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 14:20, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
At the moment only the main space is set to be searched by default. After you search you will see a whole bunch of tick boxes you can select which name spaces to search. We have been going back and forth behind the scenes over what should and should not be searchable. So at the moment we are minimalist. tmtoulouse persecute 14:22, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
Yes, but it doesn't show up even if I check the CP namespace. Maybe because there's a slash in the title? --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 14:38, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
Hmmm, your right, and I don't have the answer. tmtoulouse persecute 14:40, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
Check cp:Conservapedia:90/10 rule, by the way. It's also where the "Reverse 90/10" originally came from. (Yes, I only realized after the edit that you meant the RW article on it, but I wanted to include the CP link anyway :P) --Sid 14:23, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
Tmtoulouse, I reread the article and now see the article was not talking about actual conservapedia commandment but was merely promoting a unsupported assertion about some alleged "unofficial rule". Why don't you prove the allegation? Is it because you cannot that you do not? I see no proof in the article for the allegation regarding a "unofficial rule". You can discuss this all you want in as many places as you want but until you have proof you are just pushing a unsupported contention. Newton 14:27, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
Okay Ken, whatever, the fact is that it is enforced as 10 percent talk or less on those that disagree. Ed Poor originally created the rule in that way see here. Yes in its final draft the wording was changed but the enforcement is closer to the original proposal by far. tmtoulouse persecute 14:33, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

<---Kinda like Conservative pushing his YEC ideas? (yes, i went there) Jrssr5 14:30, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

I have a solution to this dispute. 'Unproductive activity, such as 90% talk and only 10% quality edits, may result in blocking of the account.' -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
...And since any edits by a Liberal automatically are devoid of any redeeming features, they get to ban them no matter HOW feverishly they work! Brilliant! --Gulik 15:18, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

another unsupported assertion in your article[edit]

Your article on Conservapedia states: "Conservapedia is the latest manifestation of the ongoing attempt of the American fundamentalist Christian right to portray liberals, atheists, Muslims, and homosexuals as being unholy and anti-American." Now where does Conservapedia say homosexuals are anti-American? Here is the conservapedia article on homosexuality: I don't see anyplace in the article where it states that homosexuals are anti-American! Is this statement in the Conservapedia article showing American homosexuals are anti-American: "The Canadian Medical Association Journal stated that "...the male homosexual community may be an important reservior of potentially pathogenic protozoa"." Is this the statement in the Conservapedia article: "For example in 2004, Jeffrey D. Klausner, Robert Kohn, and Charlotte Kent reported in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases the following: "Proctitis, or inflammation of the rectum, is a condition that is not uncommon among men who have sex with men (MSM), and, in HIV-negative men, greatly increases the risk of acquiring HIV infection. With the recent increases in bacterial sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) among MSM in the United States and Europe, there has been a concomitant increase in the number of cases of clinical proctitis."" I can't seem to find the statement that states that homosexuals are anti-American! Is it because it is not there? Perhaps, you should require that people support their material via footnotes and quotations? Or would that defeat the propaganda purpose of RationalWiki? 14:46, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Why don't you be bold and find a source? -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
The whole article on homosexuality is designed to make it look bad and evil, it is full of quotemines, unsupported accusations, cheery picked bullshit, and insane ramblings all designed to paint a picture that is objectively false and wrong. The whole damn article is an indictment against the site and its contributors (in this case Ken Demyer). tmtoulouse persecute 14:51, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
Tmtoulouse, you have a penchant for unsupported assertions as can be seen in your last post. Once again, you show that RationalWiki is not rational as it often does not support its contentions. By the way, are you denying that proctitus is a common among men who have sex with men and that this greatly increases the risk of acquiring HIV infection? Is the editor of Clinical Infectious Diseases insane? Is the journal article insanely rambling? If so, why is that? Tmtoulouse, are you allergic to the truth and is that why you engage in polemics without evidence? Newton 15:00, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
Ken, you remind me SO much of scientologist its great. Thats what was so funny when we got you and terryeo to fight on CP. We had a great time doing that, do you remember? Anyway, when something is prima facie obvious to an objective observer of normal intelligence I do not feel the need to site anything. You want me to cite? Okay the conservapedia article on homosexuality is full of half-truths, cherry picked data, quote mines, out right distortions and lies and is designed to create the impression that it is immoral, evil and dangerous [3]. There now its cited. Now let me ask you something? Have you read all of the data about proctitis incident rates? How many journal articles have you reviewed? How much data have you compared to arrive at your opinion? Oh wait, all you did was find a quote, probably not even from the original article but another site of quotemines and through it up in the article. Your a hypocrite. tmtoulouse persecute 15:05, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
Tmtoulouse, you wrote: "Anyway, when something is prima facie obvious to an objective observer of normal intelligence I do not feel the need to site anything." I hope that was not your attempt at argumentation. By the way, did you mean to use the word "cite" instead of "site". As far as you "probably" statement you will find I cited the original journal article and provided a link to people who have on online access to the article so people can read the actual article. By the way, why do homosexuals have such high rates of disease? Of newly diagnosed HIV infections in the United States during the year 2003, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimated that about 63% were among men who were infected through sexual contact with other men.[4]Newton 15:19, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
Ken do you remember what I told you the last time you offered up a spelling/grammar correction? Same thing applies here. You want to argue homosexuality go to an appropriate article talk page, thats not here. What is appropriate is my statement that you have not bothered to explore the data beyond finding something somewhere that agrees with your preconceived notions. Have you ever even run a pubmed search? You have not explored the data at all, you have not reviewed the literature, you find one piece of one article somewhere and if it agrees with you you drop it in your hatchet job. So any complaint you have about citations in this article just makes you a hypocrite as well as a deceitful bigot. Your God is proud of you Ken. tmtoulouse persecute 15:28, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
Why the obsession with homosexuals and disease? Surely there are more edifying things you could devote your time to? HexspecimenIt's an X 15:22, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
Like HPV vaccinations? Or how you have all the digits of our IP addresses, and have given them to the FBI? Or your work with Edwin Meese? -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
Can we use this conversation as a cite when mentioning how much Ken really likes thinking about gays and anal sex? --Kels 15:24, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
You might be accused of quote mining...XD HexspecimenIt's an X 15:26, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
"By the way, did you mean to use the word 'cite' instead of 'site'. As far as you 'probably' statement" Emphasis mine.--MountainTiger 15:28, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
Ken seems to have a different sort of "mining" (or perhaps "drilling") on the brain. --Kels 15:29, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
Treacle mining perhaps? XP HexspecimenIt's an X 15:30, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Given the many unsupported assertions in the article can I delete anything in the article without a footnote?[edit]

Given the many unsupported assertions in the article can I delete anything in the article without a footnote? Not that I think merely because a sentence is has a footnote it is necessarily correct. Newton 14:52, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Your welcome to do whatever you want, but so is everyone else. tmtoulouse persecute 14:53, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
Tmtoulouse, so let the mob rule? Is that what you are saying? Caveat emptor should be the RationalWiki motto. Newton 15:04, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
We do clearly say that we're a mobocracy.--MountainTiger 15:05, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
Its in our policy in multiple places, we do not hide who we are or what we are. Unlike some other places! tmtoulouse persecute 15:06, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Yes, this is most certainly User:Conservative - his really long and unnecessary headlines, which to be honest, should be in the text of his comment, give away his true identity.[edit]

-- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

Ugh thats annoying. tmtoulouse persecute 14:56, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
WP:POINT! Bad Wikinterpreter! -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

A lie intentionally staying in the article! Why?[edit]

Conservapedia stating that homosexuals are anti-American still hasn't been demonstrated! Yet it remains in the article! Why is that? Is this article merely propaganda? It sure seems that way! :)Newton 15:23, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Well, I'm just tossing this out, but doesn't this amount to endorsement of the author's views, which support the idea that homosexuality is evil and foisted on Americans who would normally resist it? Of course, the sections around it are in much the same vein. --Kels 15:27, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
If that is the best you can do then this article is truly in trouble. I merely looked at two sentences of the article closely and already the article is in trouble in terms of factuality. No wonder the journalists are not clamering to interview RationalWiki.Newton 15:31, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
Yes! We must add great articles on ""Robin Hood"", ""Polygons"", Latvia, and the ""Tuba""! -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
...I totally forgot we had an article on latvia. Cool. --Kels 15:41, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
If you want to berate your opposition for typos, you might try spelling "clamoring" correctly.--MountainTiger 15:33, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
No, that's something I tossed out after skimming the spew on that page. I'm not the one who made the claim in the first place, so I don't feel terribly motivated to wade through six feet of your shit to find a particular bit of offal, thanks. --Kels 15:34, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
Oh yea, thats gotta be the reason isn't? Your almost as pompous and clueless as Ed is a hint, no one is clammering to interview conservapedia either. And what press coverage it has received has been completely mocking. We are a website that caters to a particular group of people. They are finding a home here and are happy. And we are accomplishing our goals. For example, we are now getting a large percentage of people visiting our site who google "conservapedia." Thats an accomplishment because it ensures people know exactly what you guys are. tmtoulouse persecute 15:36, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
I have to say, I stumbled upon conservapedia thanks to a wonderfully scathing article in the UK press and all the press attention I've seen since has been equally damning. I don't think RW needs that particular brand of attention. I wouldn't be proud of the page views on most of the "top" CP articles either, most of the views are from people who visit to have a good laugh. HexspecimenIt's an X 15:41, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
Oh I am not boasting about how wonderful our page views are or anything, but its true that people googling consevapedia are coming to your article on it. tmtoulouse persecute 15:42, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
That's true, I found CP because the funnier political blogs had picked up the story from the science blogs, and I got tired of seeing mocking references there and finally checked it out. Mostly I stayed because of the folks who later went on to start RW, and I followed them over here. Never did start an account at CP, despite what some of the more delusional sysops seem to think. --Kels 15:44, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
Hehehe, and my gay friends just looooove the CP article on homosexuality. Comedy like that is pure gold! HexspecimenIt's an X 15:48, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

The titles are the best bit. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

RationalWiki prefers wishful thinking rather than facts in this article - No "evolution" article at Conservapedia

The RationalWiki article on Conservapedia states: "Several controversial pages (Homosexuality[29], evolution[30], George W Bush[31], Goat[32], etc..) are listed as protected and locked (supposedly to prevent vandalism)." Conservapedia does not have a "evolution" article! Conservapedia has a "Theory of evolution" article! RationalWiki wanting Conservapedia to have a article on "evolution" does not mean that Conservapedia actually does! Conservapedia recognizes the fact that the macroevolutionary position is merely pseudoscience and that is why it cites the following: "Pierre Grasse, who served as Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, stated the following: “ Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case.... Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs. - Pierre Grasse - Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), pages 6 and 8" Newton 15:50, 7 August 2007 (CDT)newton

Wow, that is sad. - Icewedge 15:53, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
Thanks. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 15:53, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
cp:evolution. tmtoulouse persecute 15:54, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
So, your complaint seems to be that the words "Theory of" do not proceed evolution in this article? If so, why not just put them there; if not, what exactly is your grievance?--MountainTiger 15:55, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Wow, that was easy. --Kels 15:57, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Yea Ken's quotemines won't hold up very long when he can't delete and ban the opposition. tmtoulouse persecute 15:59, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
Actually, the statement was half wrong. Conservapedia does have a "evolution" page but it is merely a redirect and there doesn't seem to be much controversy though surrounding the redirected page. Newton 16:00, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
I am as much a pendant as anyone, but you are just taking it to the "Asshole" level there Ken. Anyway, the correction the article has been made and it now says Theory of Evolution. Ah, collaborative editing at its best. tmtoulouse persecute 16:02, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
Maybe rather at its slightly dysfunctional, but workable. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 16:05, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Hang on a sec - do we know that this is Ken, and not just some (admittedly, very funny) parody? This whole furore over 'Evolution vs. Theory of evolution' thing seems a bit extreme. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

Its Ken. Oh and Ken you should check out The incontrovertible evidence of common descent. tmtoulouse persecute 16:07, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Why should I believe the article has a close approximity to the truth?[edit]

Tmtoulouse fixes hole in dike (changes "evolution" to "theory of evolution") yet the gaping lie is still exist in the article! You still haven't demonstrated that Conservapedia states that homosexuals are anti-American! I have only closely looked at the very beginning of the article and see the article lies from the very beginning! Yet the lie stubbornly clings to the article! Why should I believe the rest of the article? The truth is that no rational person should! So much for rationality at RationalWiki! Newton 16:14, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Sheesh. Overfocus much? --Gulik
Whatever, people can read the article, follow the links, and follow this discussion even (which despite what you might thing you have been rebutted on several levels). They can then make up their own minds about just how hate filled, bigoted, insane, deceitful, deluded, pompous, and down right despicable conservapedia and its primary contributors are. There is a point when your beating of the same drum is just silly. Come up with something new or I think most of us are going to stop. tmtoulouse persecute 16:19, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
It is common in writing to introduce the argument before going on to demonstrate the argument. The introduction, therefore, should be expected to make statements that will later be demonstrated. Now, given that CP is clearly anti-homosexual and that CP bills itself as a truthful American source of information, I would say that the jump to "CP holds homosexuality to be un-American" is a small one. The article, then, has a close proximity to the truth.--MountainTiger 16:20, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
If, as you say, conservapedia does not explicitly portray gays as "anti-American", why is the article full of negative bias? When you grow old enough, you will realise that "reading between the lines" and focussing on what is not said speaks as loud as a page of cites. The conservapedia article on homosexuals is a bigoted hatchet job and should be seen as nothing else, cites or not. I could probably write and cite an article on "why all conservatives are cunts" but the cites wouldn't make it any less bigoted. HexspecimenIt's an X 16:33, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
"So much for rationality at RationalWiki". This conversation proves his point. Bohdan 16:36, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
How so?--MountainTiger 16:37, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
It really doesn't. He equates cites with truth and seems to have no concept of framing, reading between the lines and using loaded/emotive language, despite the fact that CP thrives on all of these. Maybe a diet of Fox news has stunted the average American's ability to evaluate media and media techniques? Maybe we didn't add enough supporting bible quotes? Or maybe it's because I used the word cunt? HexspecimenIt's an X 16:42, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
Oh bloody hell, this is not rocket science. Its called lets try doing this in a syllogism, that always seems to go down smoother:
P1:Conservapedia bills its self as "American" and wikipedia as "anti-American"
P2:Conservapedia describes homosexuality as evil and wrong and complains that wikipedia does not
C1:Conservapedia believe that homosexuality is anti-american
Okay, so you can not use deductive logic here, but tap into that inductive part of your brain and you might just see how we arrive at the conclusion form the premises. tmtoulouse persecute 16:45, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
P1:Conservapedia bills its self as "American" and wikipedia as "anti-American"
P3:Conservapedia encourages conciseness, wikipedia does not
C2:Conservapedia believes that long entries are anti-American.
See the problem? CP never says its anti American. I don't see how you come to that conclusion. Bohdan

i c ur point Bohdan, but a) Andy has at some point said that long entries are an example of Liberal Deceit, and b), Premise 1 bases itself around ideology, whereas Premise 3 is a stylistic thang. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

Spoken like a Deceitful, kitten-eating Liberal! Without a cite for this, THIS WHOLE SITE IS NOTHING BUT LIES!!!@!!!!@!one!!1!
(Whoops. Many, I gotta stop mainlining that Conservativism. It's some heavy stuff, but I can see why they get off on it.) --Gulik@work
i don't recall him saying that thing about long entries. And thanks for pointing out my skip from 1 to 3. You have earned a pwn. Bohdan 16:58, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
Seriously, if it involves the phrase 'liberal deceit', Andy's probably said it. It was fairly early on, I think - he was comparing CP to WP. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
If conservapedia had as hate filled and insane an article on the evils of long entries as it does on homosexuality then I would say yes it does think long entries are anti-american. But "encourages" is not the same thing as that bigoted hatchet job CP calls an article. tmtoulouse persecute 16:54, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
Sounds about right to me--these days, anything longer than a sound-bite is Liberal Intellectual Elitism, after all.
(Technically, you are correct....the same way Bush never actually said Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. And they do say Homosexuality is evil, which is almost as bad as being "un-american".) -- Gulik@Work

Conservapedia does not have articles on "long entries" citing all of their negative points whilst ignoring any opposing views. Definitely D- for argument, must try harder. HexspecimenIt's an X 16:53, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

You have to read between the lines that Conservapedia states homosexuals are anti-American! RationalWiki classic![edit]

This is truly comical. In order to see that Conservapedia states that homosexuals are anti-American you have "read between the lines" according to a RationalWiki propagandist. The progandist stated above: "He equates cites with truth and seems to have no concept of framing, reading between the lines and using loaded/emotive language, despite the fact that CP thrives on all of these."

You have to put on your special "Rational"Wiki glasses to read between the lines to see that Conservpedia states that homosexuals are anti-American! A true RationalWiki classic! Could it be that the much clearer and simpler explanation is that RationalWiki is purposefully lying!

Secondly, where do I equate truth with citations! I clearly stated above: "Given the many unsupported assertions in the article can I delete anything in the article without a footnote? Not that I think merely because a sentence is has a footnote it is necessarily correct."Newton 17:33, 7 August 2007 (CDT)newton

Ha! Ha! The lulz! I can't control them at this RW muck-up! -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
2 questions: 1. Are all implicit statements fantasy, or just the ones you disagree with? and 2. If citations are necessary for truth but not adequate for truth, how is that different from not needing citations?--MountainTiger 18:07, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Who is afraid of the unknown?[edit]

The Conservapedia article states without a single supporting citation: "As is common with very conservative groups throughout history, much of their fear stems from unfamiliarity with diverse, nuanced situations and a tendency to believe others are conspiring against them. The former creates fear in the ultra-conservative mind that their position in society is not secure; the latter defines their obsession with security issues."

Yet what does RationalWiki immediately do when there hand is caught in the lying cookie jar! They ban me! Why? Because RationalWiki cannot handle the truth! RationalWiki was afraid of what I might say next! Given that RationalWiki wails and weeps about people being banned due to the 90/10 rule at Conservapedia it is ironic that I was banned for merely pointing out the obvious on a talk page! Will RationalWiki cowardly ban me again? Time will tell! Newton 17:45, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

You were just banned as a joke, and unbanned shortly afterwards. Sysops here do that sometimes. --transResident Transfanform! 17:47, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
You remind me of that article on UP. Also, when did we ban you? You're still posting, right? Furthermore, you don't need to start each tirade with a new header. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
(Block log); 21:17 . . Wikinterpreter (Talk | contribs) (blocked "User:Newton" with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled): subhuman ice gang troll cabal sock vandal)........ Please notice that the reason stated for the block was a lie. I was merely exposing a lie and the management didn't appreciate it. Newton 17:56, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
'21:17, 7 August 2007 Wikinterpreter (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Newton (contribs) (heh)'. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
Yes, that would be this. Note the next three activities:
  1. 21:20, 7 August 2007 Wikinterpreter (Talk | contribs) unblocked Wikinterpreter (contribs) (Freedom of speech!)
  2. 21:19, 7 August 2007 Wikinterpreter (Talk | contribs) blocked "Wikinterpreter (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) (misusing sysop powers)
  3. 21:17, 7 August 2007 Wikinterpreter (Talk | contribs) unblocked Newton (contribs) (heh)
  4. 21:17, 7 August 2007 Wikinterpreter (Talk | contribs) blocked "Newton (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) (subhuman ice gang troll cabal sock vandal)
He blocked himself for longer than he blocked you!--MountainTiger 17:59, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
It's all that κοινε, I tell you! It's bad for the mental stability, I tell you! --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 18:01, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Stability? Stability? Wha-wha-what are you talking about stability? Me? Stable? Hahahahahahah! Also, κοινη has an eta >:) -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

Oh noes! There goes my academic credibility! --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 18:05, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
The Admin lied about the length of the block and the reason for the block. By the way, the article on Conservapedia at RationalWiki still lies from the very beginning and nobody has told me a convincing reason why I should believe the rest of the article is true! 18:03, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Unblocking someone is a lie?--MountainTiger 18:05, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

And your admins don't lie about the reasons for blocks? What about the Night of the Blunt Knives? -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
That's why they stopped giving reasons for blocks.--MountainTiger 18:15, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

All Bitching and no quality edits[edit]

Well done, Newton! I'm nominating you for admin (it's like a "sysop"). Try to play nice. CЯacke® 18:07, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

I second! Demote him immediately!--MountainTiger 18:10, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
For great justice! --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 18:11, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

You killed kenny![edit]

Don't scare the troll! What happened, did TK scare him away from CP?--PalMD-Si Quaeris Peninsulam Amoenam Circumspice! 18:26, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

I hereby evoke the greatest spell on the intertubes[edit]

Do Not Feed the Trolls.

tmtoulouse persecute 18:26, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

I think we might have vanquished the troll actually, at least for the moment - he hasn't commented now for, uh, 20 minutes! Also, when casting spells against trolls, remember to use fire or acid. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

RationalWiki is guilty of hack scholarship in regards to its claims about Conservapedia[edit]

The article on Conservapedia in RationalWiki states regarding Conservapedia's philosophical stance the following:

A literal interpretation of the Bible, often putting Old Testament writings ahead of the actual teachings of Jesus.

Biblical Literalism‎

Now both claims above are uncited.

Here is what Conservapedia states in its young earth creationism article: "Young earth creationists believe that the book of Genesis is historical in nature and that Bible exegesis warrants a 6 day creation with each day being 24 hours.[10][11][12] According to Creation Ministries International, most young earth creationists use a hermeneutic "best described as the historical-grammatical method in which historical narrative (such as the book of Genesis) is interpreted as literal history, prophecy is interpreted as prophecy, poetry is interpreted as poetry, etc."[13] Creation Ministries International further states that "Historical-grammatical exegesis involves a systematic approach to analyzing in detail the historical situation, events and circumstances surrounding the text, and the semantics and syntactical relationships of the words which comprise the text."[5]


According to Andy, some of the New Testament is Liberal Deceit. I can't recall ever seeing him say that aboput the Old Testament....--Gulik@work.

One day there was an earthquake that shook the entire Zen temple. Parts of it even collapsed. Many of the monks were terrified. When the earthquake stopped the teacher said, "Now you have had the opportunity to see how a Zen man behaves in a crisis situation. You may have noticed that I did not panic. I was quite aware of what was happening and what to do. I led you all to the kitchen, the strongest part of the temple. It was a good decision, because you see we have all survived without any injuries. However, despite my self-control and composure, I did feel a little bit tense - which you may have deduced from the fact that I drank a large glass of water, something I never do under ordinary circumstances."

One of the monks smiled, but didn't say anything.

"What are you laughing at?" asked the teacher.

"That wasn't water," the monk replied, "it was a large glass of soy sauce."