Information icon.svg Results for the 2023 RationalWiki Moderator Election have now been posted. Thank you for participating in this election, and congratulations to the winners!


From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I am the Franklin on CP that gave Andy a hard time on the Benjamin Franklin discussion. I also attempted to pin down RobS as the origin of the term "New Ordeal." I do not like to say too much about myself, but I do hold two advanced degrees and I specialize in North American history. I may do a piece on some aspect of American history here, but I am very busy with other aspects of my life. As far as CP goes, I think what drew me to it was my dislike of willfull ignorance. I know it was a lost cause, but someone had to set those idiots right!--Franklin 22:48, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

How I found Rationalwiki[edit]

I saw the term Rationalwiki a couple times on CP. I did not know what it was until RobS, in a very strange attempt to defend his "New Ordeal" argument, claimed cites that proved his points were here. Needless to say, they were not.--Franklin 22:55, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

More Fun With Andy Schlafly[edit]

A while back, under another user name, I had a set to with Andy over Alexander Hamilton's postion on taxes (My final riposte to Andy and others regarding this is here: <>. However, there was at about the same time a contorversy in which one user used the term "faggot," and this was somehow OK. That discussion is here <>. So, I do not have a lot of respect for the guy. He seems resistant to common sense, and it is very surprising that he is a lawyer, since he does not understand the use of evidence.--Franklin 23:05, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

Fun with RobS[edit]

Under the guise of couple of my socks, I had some fun a couple days ago with noted RobS over his “New Ordeal” piece. Good God. What a goof. He cannot quite define what the “New Ordeal” is supposed to be, then he list books that he has never (and probably would be unable to) read. CP’ers are just friggin’ pathetic. --Franklin 08:47, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

Proof that CP knows nothing about Science[edit]

on their Mainpage. "Shut down government science research, now that science research can be funded through the internet. See how the American government refused to fund a small test that the public wants done here. (about time travel)Is the problem that government will not fund anything contrary to the Theory of Relativity?"

What we are dealing with[edit]

I am cutting and pasting this exchange, because I suspect it will be removed. On the main talk page, CP user tries to piont out to Andy that the L.A. Times article had some very sublte digs at CP in it. Reading Andy's responses provides us with a interesting look at how some conservatives think (or rather, do not think):

Whilst I agree she disapproves of the "vandalism," you seem to be missing (wilfully?) the fact that the article is overwhelmingly negative about Conservapedia itself.

For your consideration: ...offering what Schlafly describes as fair, scholarly articles. Many have a distinctly religious-right perspective. Nothing negative about that ... unless you have a bias against the religious perspective.--Aschlafly 18:56, 19 June 2007 (EDT) The closing sentence is clearly intended to negate Schlafly's "fair & scholarly" assertion. She reinforces this negation with a description of CP's take on the Pleistocene Epoch - the "multiple lines of evidence" quote from CP is beautifully restrained mockery. You seem to be inferring what you would like to be there. It isn't there.--Aschlafly 18:56, 19 June 2007 (EDT) "We have certain principles that we adhere to, and we are up-front about them," Schlafly writes in his mission statement. "Beyond that we welcome the facts." Schlafly is allowed to damn himself with his own words: facts are less important to him than his religious beliefs. Your conclusion is a non sequitur, and does not follow from my statement.--Aschlafly 18:56, 19 June 2007 (EDT) Femininity? The quality of being "childlike, gentle, pretty, willowy, submissive." Allowing CP to damn itself with its own words. Ms. Simon knows full well that the majority of her readership would be appalled at such an definition. Childlike? Submissive? One can only imagine how much coffee was spluttered over breakfast tables across the nation. Do tell us how much coffee was spilled ... in your imagination.--Aschlafly 18:56, 19 June 2007 (EDT) And the state of the economy under President Bush? Much better than the "liberal media" would have you think: "For example, during his term Exxon Mobile has posted the largest profit of any company in a single year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well." Possibly my favourite bit. With deepest apologies to whoever planted it, a prank statement presented as approved CP material. And no-one posting above spotted it - sometimes I wonder how you all manage to put your trousers on without killing yourselves. Ah, your spelling of "favorite" gives you away. Not an American, and perhaps a Bush-hater? Why didn't you just say at the beginning that you dislike conservatives, if that's case???--Aschlafly 18:56, 19 June 2007 (EDT) [CP's critics] worry about material presented as fact in science and medicine entries that typically seek to debunk evolution, condemn homosexuality and raise fears about abortion. They're also concerned that children who stumble onto the site will assume everything in it is authoritative. "material presented as fact" = non-factual. She does nothing to contradict this concern about material in the articles in question and the following five paragraphs reinforce it. Many would read this as implicit agreement with your critics. Again, you speak in non sequiturs. Your equals sign is illogical.--Aschlafly 18:56, 19 June 2007 (EDT) Schlafly says students can always follow the footnotes to get more information, but few links connect to dissenting — or even mainstream — views. The "or even mainstream" phrase is the clincher: CP as part of the radical fringe. Ah, you turn to namecalling in desperation here.--Aschlafly 18:56, 19 June 2007 (EDT) Schlafly calls the armchair psychology "borderline in acceptability" for his site, but he defends the Clinton article on balance as "an objective, bias-free piece from a conservative perspective." The "armchair psychology" phrase is mildly caustic, but the selected Schlafly quote is intended to make him look ridiculous. A "bias-free piece" would have no preferred ideological perspective. Oh right, like Wikipedia? You'll find many who agree with you there, I'm sure. Too bad it's 6 times more liberal than the American public. ...a few [articles] showed dissenting views. An entry about kangaroo origins, for instance, stated that most scientists believe in evolution. (It was the last line in the entry, after a lengthy discussion about which marsupials Noah may have brought aboard his ark.) Gentle mockery re. Noah and the attention to which CP gives dissenting views. In other cases, a glance at the entry's history — which shows editing over time — makes clear how quickly dissenting views are deleted. Dr. Peter A. Lipson, an internist in Southfield, Mich., repeatedly tried to amend an article on breast cancer to tone down Conservapedia's claim that abortion raises a woman's risk. The site's administrators, including Schlafly, questioned his credentials and shut off debate. Straighforward criticism of administrative policy. But the biggest lesson she's taken away as a young conservative is: "There are people who want to destroy us." A dramatic and emotive closing line. Whilst its interpretation is up for grabs, I have serious doubts about whether it is intended to portray a rational response to the "vandalism" CP has experienced. Given the overall tone of the article, it could easily (and is probably intended) to be read as a somewhat hysterical overreaction, indicative of the conservative mindset in general.

In case anyone's still reading by this point, I'll repeat what I've said before: allowing editors right of fair reply to controversial subjects would solve many of your "vandalism" problems. A "See also" link at the foot of the article would probably suffice, as long as sysops refrained from egregious distortion of the reply article. You should be sufficiently confident in the truth of your beliefs to tolerate a lot more dissent than you currently do. Finding your comments to be biased and illogical, I skipped to the end. We state our perspective. How liberal is yours???--Aschlafly 18:56, 19 June 2007 (EDT)


--Robledo 18:45, 19 June 2007 (EDT)