User:LArron/cp-main-page

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is for discussion only of Main Page content and feature items. For discussion of other issues relating to the Conservapedia community please see Conservapedia:Community Portal.

Archive Index

Unemployment remains high at 8.3% -- far too high for an incumbent president to win reelection.[edit]

I definitely do not want Obama to win another term. With that being said, the United States is in uncharted political waters in relation to how voters behave and they are dissatisfied with both parties. So we can't necessarily base things on unemployment and Carter not being re-elected. How high was unemployment when FDR was re-elected? I realize that during part of FDR's president we were in WWII and people probably did not want to change horses during a world war plus war production dropped unemployment.

If memory serves, The Cook Political Report is a good predictor of races. Any presidential race predictions from the Cook Political Report yet? Conservative 18:43, 9 March 2012 (EST)

It seems as if people argue on how you count unemployment during FDR's time and how you count unemployment now as well. With that being said, it appears the highest unemployment got during FDR's term was about 19%. Given the federal government's history of inefficiency in the 20th century, I am guessing that FDR had New Deal government "make work jobs" which were unproductive. Conservative 19:02, 9 March 2012 (EST)
One has to go back more than 70 years (to FDR) to find an incumbent president who was reelected with unemployment more than 7.2%.--Andy Schlafly 19:11, 9 March 2012 (EST)
Andy, you teach a writing class. Do you agree with me that excessive use of "plus" where a simple "and" would do is bad style? --FrederickT3 19:52, 9 March 2012 (EST)

I am guessing people may be more impatient and angrier now and people's sentiments are probably closer to how they were in the Carter years than during FDR's years, yet I do think that U.S politics is entering into uncharted waters right now. In the short term, the economy is tough to call right now, but I think there may be 50% chance it could get worse by November (I have not followed the economy closely lately) and that it will be the economy that decides the election at this point. Europe's problems and the price of gas (for example, the Iran situation) and other economic issues, could affect the U.S economy negatively. Conservative 19:59, 9 March 2012 (EST)

Here's the facts: since 1999 the U.S. population has grown 32 million (from 280 million to 312 million), whereas total employment has grown only 3.5 million (from 129 million to 132.5 million). That is only 1 job for every 9 persons in population growth. The U.S. workforce of 132.5 million stands exactly where it was in 2001, meaning ZERO job growth over the past 11 years. Meantime, the quantity of money in circulation has doubled (from $1.1 trillion to $2.2 trillion) over the same span. (supporting data and analysis of this information available upon request). Rob Smith 16:15, 22 March 2012 (EDT)

"Mindless Students"[edit]

Is disagreeing with Andy the only criteria for categorizing them as mindless? JamesArtois 14:47, 10 March 2012 (EST)

Did Obama skyrocket the national debt of the United States? Over their lifetimes, will students likely be repaying the national debt more than baby boomers (Obama's generation) will? Is Obama's student loan policy a success? Is student loan debt default at historically high levels? Is there any evidence that a lot of student loan debt will not be paid back?[2] Conservative 15:10, 10 March 2012 (EST)

Did you answer his question with more questions?

Disagreement with me has nothing to do with it. Signs of genuine mindlessness include being herded into large stadiums to hear liberal political speeches devoid of content.--Andy Schlafly 15:33, 10 March 2012 (EST)

Stalin[edit]

Is it really necessary to have a photo of an evil dictator, atheist and mass murderer on the main page? Why not open with a more positive picture? After all, Conservapedia is supposed to be family friendly, isn't it? --FrederickT3 18:00, 10 March 2012 (EST)

Life is full of positives and negatives. The Bible certainly reflects this fact and it is an outstanding work and it is consistently one of most read works in all of history. I don't see why the main page has to reflect a pollyannaish view of life. Conservative 20:23, 10 March 2012 (EST)

Masterpieces[edit]

Too much in the bottom. It is not fair for an encyclopedia. --Joaquín Martínez 15:38, 12 March 2012 (EDT)

I agree. --FrederickT3 15:41, 12 March 2012 (EDT)
While I agree with you, I find your post a bit confusing. You are an administrator on this site, are you not? Just edit the main page to improve the masterpiece section's placement. The benefit of wiki-based projects is that they are collaborative efforts, or is different here at Conservapedia? --JoshuaB 17:36, 12 March 2012 (EDT)
You are right... but what is necessary to set is a better criteria in the use of the left column. An encyclopedia needs to cover a wide spectrum; it also has to be polite and care about the interest of colleagues. --Joaquín Martínez 22:17, 12 March 2012 (EDT)
Many of us would agree with you Joaquín, but it seems this site is now run by one editor only. It's a shame. To call this an encyclopedia is becoming a little silly, when only user ever answers comments about the Main Page. Public and positive debate would healthy for this site, rather than the noisy person who takes over every thread and can turn any conversation into a non-sequitur about 'fatties' or personal attacks on an individual. JanW 22:08, 12 March 2012 (EDT)
No one forced you to come into Conservapedia and edit, am I right, JanW? Karajou 22:27, 12 March 2012 (EDT)
No, they have the ancestral rights of "hosts - guests"; and he who invited you both will come and say to you, ‘Give your place to this person,’ and then you will begin with shame to take the lowest place. Luke 14:9 --Joaquín Martínez 22:41, 12 March 2012 (EDT)

"...but what is necessary to set is a better criteria in the use of the left column." How would that standard be defined on Conservapedia? On Wikipedia,a special discussion page would be created, editors would voice their opinions, ideas would be put forward, and eventually a consensus would be reached. What is the process here? As far as I can tell Aschlafly calls the shots, but he tends to fall silent when the topic involves a particular colleague of yours. --JoshuaB 22:54, 12 March 2012 (EDT)

JoshuaB, learn to ignore the colleague. Karajou 23:04, 12 March 2012 (EDT)
Take the opportunity and add what you think freely. Be sure Andy will take notice. --Joaquín Martínez 22:59, 12 March 2012 (EDT)
We could all learn to build a better understanding and avoid useless "hate". --Joaquín Martínez 23:18, 12 March 2012 (EDT)
Karajou, I read you 5by5. Joaquin, what "hate" are you referring to? --JoshuaB 23:50, 12 March 2012 (EDT)
Matthew 11:15 "He that hath ears" --Joaquín Martínez 01:03, 13 March 2012 (EDT)
I'm not sure how that applies to the conversation at hand, Joaquin. If I wanted to quote Matthew to describe certain aspects of the main page, I'd have gone with Matthew 7:16-20 --JoshuaB 01:14, 13 March 2012 (EDT)
I for one would I like to see a more prominent place for the masterpieces. If contributors and visitors are not exposed to the arts, how are they going to ever appreciate them? I have to admit, I've learnt quite a bit about painting schools directly through this site. HumanGeographer 02:37, 13 March 2012 (EDT)
I was especially depressed to see that the current featured article is one of the dozen more or less identical pieces of rubbish about the QE! campaign, while good content like Joaquin's masterpieces stuff is being pushed down the page by the tedious ravings of the manchild. Somebody needs to get a grip on this before Conservapedia becomes known as Kenblog and disappears over the sanity horizon forever.--JoeStrummer 15:38, 13 March 2012 (EDT)

Nerd?[edit]

I'm confused about the use of of the word nerd on the front page. It seems to have been used a derogatory manner and yet this encyclopedia's definition seemes to view them in a very positive light. Do we not have other words we can use to describe atheists besides such childish ones? --DanJG 18:41, 12 March 2012 (EDT)

Click the link on the front page. Second, I noticed you did not contend with the article cited on the front page in terms of refuting the information it offered. If you are an atheist/evolutionist, I find that very telling. Atheism/evolutionism/secularism is doomed in the UK, isn't it? Conservative 20:37, 12 March 2012 (EDT)
Actually secularism is on the rise, as the British people are getting less comfortable with having the Church of England as an established church. HRH Prince Charles has suggested that when (if) he accedes, he might even prefer to use the title "Defender of Faith" or "Defender of the Faiths" rather than the traditional "Defender of the Faith" which goes back to Henry VIII. Plus, there is a widespread sentiment that it's not appropriate to have a state-endorsed religion now that there are so many people of other faiths, notably Hindus and Muslims, living in the country.
HM Elizabeth II recently started her Diamond jubilee tour, and chose to do so in Leicester, which is one of our most multicultural cities (on course to become the UK's first "plural city" with no majority ethnic group in the next few years). So you can see that the British state is keen on plurality, and secularism seems to be the future.--CPalmer 08:25, 13 March 2012 (EDT)
I think that's interesting. It will be a field case for Americans to study, and ponder their own moves. Thoughts?JonM 08:48, 13 March 2012 (EDT)

Speaking of nerds...[edit]

How is bragging about a score you (and some nobody blogger) received on an online quiz newsworthy exactly? --JoshuaB 13:37, 13 March 2012 (EDT)

The score is silly really.. It only really asks you if you know 10 words and then makes an estimate from that. Scoring over 50,000 is not exactly challenging. --DanJG 14:55, 13 March 2012 (EDT)
50,091. That puts me in the lead, it appears. Update the news item! Better still: Remove it. --FrederickT3 15:22, 13 March 2012 (EDT)
Well done! I only got 50,085. Obviously I wasn't operating at full atheist power. As for the "news item" it should be deleted by the first sane sysop who sees it. It's bad enough that mainpageleft has been reduced to one giant splatter of nonsense link-whoring CMI and the endless array of tedious QE! campaign blogs, but now the stupid is dripping into mainpageright, which is supposed to be reserved for news.--JoeStrummer 15:35, 13 March 2012 (EDT)
To be fair, there are adaptive testing mechanisms that adjust the difficulty of the test questions on a question by question basis (like the late 2000s GRE did) to more accurately judge a test taker's ability with fewer questions. However, I have no idea whether this is how the online quiz actually works, and, in either case, 10 questions is far too few to make any meaningful assessment of the "number of words known." (In addition, 50,000 words appears to be on the high end of the range that this test can predict, and tests in general are worse at distinguishing ability at the ends of the spectrum.) By the way, my score was 8/10 correct answers for a total of "42060 words." GregG 16:11, 13 March 2012 (EDT)
Not a good quiz. The answers are often inaccurate. For example, for the word "heterogeneity," the closest to the correct answer was "something composed of different parts." "Dissimilar" would be more accurate than "different," but setting that aside, heterogeneity is a state of being or a property - so "the state of being composed of different parts" would at least fit the type of word, but "something composed of different parts" would not. The latter is equivalent to saying "something tall" for "height." "Height" is not "something tall," it is the property of being tall.
I don't doubt that many users would score highly but please don't encourage Conservapedia readers to utilize a poor educational toolKingHanksley 23:01, 13 March 2012 (EDT)

User:Conservative on the Word Dynamo test[edit]

See my response: HERE

Athiests are worrying[edit]

Just realised that this headline can be read two different ways:

1. Athiests are worrying (about things)

2. Athiests are worrying (me and it makes me uncomfortable)

It's cleared up if you look at the line below anyway, I just found it interesting this morning when I glanced at the headline and saw it in a completely new light WilcoxD 17:47, 13 March 2012 (EDT)

Santorum takes Alabama and Ol' Miss, will Newt bow out?[edit]

Looks like Santorum has the Alabama and the Mississippi primaries in the bag. Seems that Newt's "southern strategy" has fallen apart.I personally would like to see Newt drop out so he'd stop splitting the conservative base's vote. --JoshuaB 23:23, 13 March 2012 (EDT)

Evidently the conservative vote is so strong that even when it is split, the liberal candidate still finishes in 3rd place.--Andy Schlafly 00:14, 14 March 2012 (EDT)
That's what I'm talking about. If Newt hadn't of been in the race tonight, Santorum would have had a crushing victory. --JoshuaB 00:38, 14 March 2012 (EDT)
And with Newt in the race, conservatives had a landslide victory.--Andy Schlafly 01:02, 14 March 2012 (EDT)
Yeah but we're not going to have conservatives (plural) running against Obama come November. There can only be one. --JoshuaB 01:08, 14 March 2012 (EDT)
Or we can get stuck with Mitt Romney and have none. That seems the most likely at this point. --BradleyS 01:23, 14 March 2012 (EDT)
Or actually, judging by the total vote, Obama wins, and a republican party in chaos for years.02:16, 21 March 2012 (EDT)

Is Biblical Christianity Rising in the UK?[edit]

The blog post linked to from the most recent story on the Main Page about Christianity in the UK offers no evidence that "Biblical Christianity is rising in the UK." In fact, unless the term "Biblical Christianity" is being defined in some non-intuitive way, the first article cited in the blog post actually tends to suggest the opposite. This article says that, while the proportion of Anglicans attending evangelical parishes is up, overall church attendance is definitely down within the Church of England (a 20% decrease within the past decade and a further significant decrease by 2020, according to one estimate). The article only discusses trends of the Anglican Church, of which the majority (but not nearly all!) British Christians are members.

I am just pointing out that this claim about Biblical Christianity in the UK on the Main Page is not at all supported by the cited material. I am not necessarily refuting the claim, and I am addressing neither the Question Evolution! campaign nor Richard Dawkins' hobbies. --BaileyJ 23:24, 13 March 2012 (EDT)

There is a trend in the USA and UK for conservative churches to increase their membership while liberal churches lose attendance.[3][4] As whole Christianity is seeing big growth (see: Global Christianity) while Global atheism is shrinking and is expected to shrink at an increasing rate in the future. Conservative 04:26, 14 March 2012 (EDT)

"Baracketology" and Swing States[edit]

Interesting little discovery I made and wrote about on my blog.... Obama's "Baracketology" picks for the NCAA Tournament seem to be influenced by who is a swing state. Many of his upsets involve a swing state team defeating a non-swing state team. He also has Xavier (from Ohio) defeating Notre Dame, who may be from a swing state but has a national fan base and a mostly Catholic one who wouldn't vote for him anyway. If you're curious, the URL (shortened) is http://bitly.com/swing-state-picks. I don't know if I'm "notable" enough to get this anywhere on the main page, but it shows how desperate Obama is for votes. Gregkochuconn 11:44, 14 March 2012 (EDT)

Judge rules school must allow access to sexually explicit LGBT sites[edit]

A federal judge has ordered a Missouri school district to unblock its web filters and give students access to sexually explicit material by the middle of March. Greely Gazette [N.B. repetition of article in this posting trimmed here]

And yet liberals (such as i sometimes debate, by God's grace, on Huffington post, etc.) assert that it is conservative (is there any other?) Christians who impose their beliefs, when besides imposition of beliefs in the form of laws being a fact of life from birth, it is liberal judges and pols who impose laws flowing from an ideology which is foreign to that which informed the consciences of the Founders, that being Scripture, the deviations from which is and is costing this country greatly: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html And the worst i yet to befall it. Daniel1212 22:56, 14 March 2012 (EDT)

Were they also exposed to sexually explicit heterosexual material? If not (and I'm guessing not), then this is completely ridiculous. If they were, then I personally think they should block both. My high school blocked everything it considered sexually explicit. Of course, at times it thought Wikipedia was sexually explicit because it had pornography in the pornography article, and the filter therefore concluded that Wikipedia was a porn site. They fixed that problem soon enough. But the point is that all sexually explicit content was blocked. It didn't matter who was explicit with whom. I don't know why they can't just block it all for schoolchildren. Gregkochuconn 09:52, 15 March 2012 (EDT)
Well, it is a long way the wrong way from the past: [5]Daniel1212 22:11, 15 March 2012 (EDT)
As much as I wish it was true, it is just a dead falsehood that the ideology that informed the consciences of the founders was even mostly Christian. If you're going to make a very strong claim like that you better back it up with more than David Barton or the like. It is hardly worth mentioning that many Christians would not even agree with the views of other Christians, so your statements makes very little sense. I personally regard the beliefs of Calvinists, Lutherans, and some "evangelical" groups as heretical. They view us Catholics as heretics and aren't shy about saying so. This "Conservative" fellow relishes it. This is only worth discussing if you 'don't' think we're better off aliging ourselfs as Christian men along the lines of our similar beliefs rather than our differences. Men like Jefferson, Franklin and Washington did no service to this country's religious pedigree. It would have been Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist and whatever else regardless of the stories evangelicals tell. This is a secular country founded by some awful men that succeeded notwithstanding them holding views that were hateful to Christendom. We should make it better without referring to fake history. Nate 04:15, 17 March 2012 (EDT)

2,000 question evolution tracts?[edit]

What are you going to do with them all, user:Conservative :-P Olaf 10:18, 16 March 2012 (EDT)

The problem with speculation based on flimsy or no evidence is that it is often wrong. And unfortunately for you Olaf, your speculation was in error. Conservative 01:09, 17 March 2012 (EDT)
Lighten up "Conservative", I think Olaf was just joking around. Anyway, those 2000 tracts are just a drop in the bucket. :) --JoshuaB 02:39, 17 March 2012 (EDT)

How many other tracts have been ordered or printed out? Does Creation Ministries International or its supporters have plans for a much wider distribution of the tracts? Are there other initiatives on the way?

Evolutionists, get ready for the enormous and hungry school of creationist piranha that will devour Darwinism![6]

By the way, evolutionists, what is one of the biggest differences between gravity and macroevolution besides the fact that one exist and the other certainly does not? Gravity has a much wider acceptance in the world among the public. Get ready for the amount of public acceptance to dwindle through the rapid growth of global Christianity, the continued shrinkage of global atheism and the Question evolution! campaign. Conservative 05:07, 17 March 2012 (EDT)

That animation is surely a strong weapon as it will likely cause seizures and epileptic fits in evolutionists. Well, at least it's not Stalin. --FrederickT3 16:50, 17 March 2012 (EDT)

user:Conservative, I am surprised you didn't pick up on my little joke. After all, I did leave some evidence. I hope you're not too upset Olaf 03:26, 20 March 2012 (EDT)

Why are you claiming I didn't pick up on your little joke? Are you speculating once again? Conservative 09:08, 20 March 2012 (EDT)

Give it up, liberals[edit]

Aschlafly, you preface a number of your news articles with the phrase ‘give it up, liberals’. What do you actually mean by using this phrase? One interpretation could be that you would prefer no opposition to your views; another could be that you would expect liberals to subscribe to your point of view due to your persuasive argument(s). I’m just guessing… Could you explain what your expectation is when you use this phrase?

Ps. Users conservative and Ed Poor – thank you for your responses for my question (posted above) – they were very interesting. Thank you.

Pps. News – could it be a little better?

• Coach crash in Switzerland? Mostly kids – shouldn’t we be thinking of (or praying ) for their families?

• Arch Bishop of Canterbury – intends to resign. Thoughts?

• British Conservative PM visits Obama. Thoughts? Views? EJamesW 16:05, 16 March 2012 (EDT)

Liberalism is presently often based on spending high amounts of other people's money through government wealth redistribution, government Ponzi schemes and crony capitalism. High levels of government debt around the world, the continued unsustainable accumulation of government debt and the increasingly competitive world market for goods and services is causing the inevitable demise of much of liberalism which is based on this model (such as Barack Obama who who received a large part of his donations from bankers and he is a puppet of bankers). The 2008 global economic crisis was just the tip of the iceberg in exposing the fraudulent nature of this model of liberalism and the next economic crises is going to be far worse in its depth and duration. The U.S Federal debt is now larger and the supposed "too big to fail" banks are now larger as well. The conservative new media on the internet is beginning to wake people up this situation and politicians advocating failed policies are facing increased opposition. However, there is still a long way to go and Ron Paul appears to be the only presidential nominee who wants to tackle America's economic problems. [7] Conservative 01:24, 17 March 2012 (EDT)
Prominent Conservapedia administrator Conservative totally embarrasses himself misspelling various words in only a few sentences:
  • "The 2008 global economic crises was just the tip of the iceberg" (crises is a plural noun, the singular being crisis)
  • "The conservative new media on the internet is beginning" (media is a plural noun)
  • "there is still a long ways to go" (ways is a plural noun)
Homeschooled perhaps? Baobab 11:45, 18 March 2012 (EDT)
"Media" is often used as a singular noun. Just search on "media is biased" and you'll see many liberal sites using that form. More generally, we're not like liberals in pretending to be smarter, and we don't engage in silly putdowns of others.--Andy Schlafly 14:37, 18 March 2012 (EDT)
I agree with Andy on the "media" thing. It is common to refer to the media as a collective entity, and to use singular nouns when referring to it that way. In these cases it is roughly synonymous with "the press" (and some prefer "the media" because they consider "the press" to properly refer only to print) which, as a collective noun, can be either singular or plural. It is not meant to refer to "the media" in the sense of "more than one medium."
More importantly, it is better to engage the ideas of your opponents than to attempt to discredit them by pointing out irrelevant or trivial flaws. Clearly you could understand that User:Conservative meant "crisis" and "way." These minor grammatical errors did not prevent you from understanding the semantic meaning of his post.
This is not a copy-edited print publication; it is an online discussion page. If you see an error on a main page, please edit it. If you see an error on a talk page, please refer to the discussion itself. And your "homeschooled perhaps?" invective similarly has no place here. KingHanksley 18:06, 18 March 2012 (EDT)


Discussions of the media as a collective entity.



Baobab, I won a spelling bee prize in a large school plus one of the members of my church captured a prize in the same spelling bee. I will let you decide if modesty or chip on my shoulder prevents me from saying what prize I captured (for example, gold, silver, bronze, etc.).  :)

Second, I sustained an injury which has almost completely healed up and it contributed to some sleep problems which I am in the midst of completely solving and your patience concerning any typos and other errors I make in the meantime are much appreciated (I am expecting to solve the sleep problems in 2012).

Third, according to dictionary.com: "media ( usually used with a plural verb ) the means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, and magazines, that reach or influence people widely: The media are covering the speech tonight."[8] Notice dictionary.com says "usually". Correct me if I am wrong, but if you are referring to the "conservative new media" as a collective/group, would not a singular verb be appropriate to use?

Lastly, I certainly would not have won a prize in a spelling bee if I had misspelled easy words like atheism, atheist, atheists, separation and church (many atheists at Conservapedia misspell the words atheist, atheist and atheists). :) Please refer to this resource HERE which relates to the American Atheists organization. You would think an organization which relentlessly hammers the notion of "separation of church and state" would at least know how to spell the words "separation" and "church". I do know that obesity does cause brain impairment and that the American Atheists organization has had some challenges when it comes to overweight members (see: Atheism and obesity). Do you think that obesity related brain impairment played a part in their recent internet fiasco?[9] :) I certainly could not have won a spelling bee prize if I had misspelled easy words like separation and church! Someone definitely needs to tell the American Atheists organization about the Word Dynamo resource. It does seem as if the American Atheists is behind the times and is still enamored of antiquated paradigms like Darwinism plus they do not seem up to speed when it comes to nutritional science, exercise science and medical science. Consequently, it seems likely they are not familiar with the high tech Word Dynamo resource and similar resources.:) Conservative 14:43, 18 March 2012 (EDT)


Conservative, Sounds like it's time to start your next big Conservapedia project: Atheism and poor spelling. God speed. --FTomlinson 19:12, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

It must be Double Standard Day on Conservapedia.

  • Andy Schlafly: "We don't engage in silly putdowns of others". Only a couple of days ago user Conservative wrote on the main page: "The American Atheists organization totally embarrasses atheists on the internet [by misspelling] the words separation and church." Nobody complained. Nobody called him to account. In fact, silly putdowns of others seem to be Conservative's main activity on Conservapedia, which doesn't seem to bother you at all.
  • KingHanksley: "Clearly you could understand that User:Conservative meant crisis and way. These minor grammatical errors did not prevent you from understanding the semantic meaning of his post." I totally agree, but the same goes for spelling seperation and curch instead of separation and church.
  • Conservative's defense is too weak to merit an answer. It reminds me too much of liberals trying to argue that what is wrong is right.

In brief: criticism of atheists or liberals or any group is always a good thing, but stop lowering yourselves to, as Andy Schlafly aptly puts it, silly putdowns of others. It doesn't reflect well on you. Baobab 11:34, 19 March 2012 (EDT)

Baobab, the difference with the "seperation" and "curch" thing is that it was on a front page, rather than a talk page. However, in general I agree with you that that kind of petty attack makes us look bad, and I have argued against it on several occasions. However, it's become clear that Conservative uses these methods and ASchlafly supports him, so I've decided to improve the site in other ways.KingHanksley 00:17, 20 March 2012 (EDT)
The pièce de résistance of atheism content has not yet been posted. Pièce de résistance content is like a fine wine and no fine wine should be served before its time. :)
FTomlinson, there are still plenty of cards up my sleeve that could potentially be played when it comes to atheism. For example, the pièce de résistance of atheism content has not yet been posted. Pièce de résistance content is like a fine wine and no fine wine should be served before its time. :) "When torrential water tosses boulders, it is because of its momentum. When the strike of a hawk breaks the body of its prey, it is because of timing." - Sun Tzu Conservative 01:35, 21 March 2012 (EDT)
Hate to remind you, but the talk page is for discussion related to the Main page. How exactly a qoute by Sun Tzu, and a monologue on the piece de résistance of Atheism has anything to do with the original discussion - is unclear.02:10, 21 March 2012 (EDT)
Three sentences is a monologue? It is often humorous how liberals try to change the meaning of words. For example, most so called atheists are nothing more than wimpy agnostics. And of course, evolutionists engage in equivocation when it comes to the evolution issue.[10] Lastly, much to the chagrin of many liberals, the main page has plenty of material related to atheism/evolutionism.Conservative 08:46, 21 March 2012 (EDT)
The original discussion here was regarding Aschlafly's usage of "Give it up liberals", in the news column. Yet instead of staying on topic, we have wandered a fair distance away from the original dispute; what exactly "give it up liberals", meant.14:22, 21 March 2012 (EDT)

Duke?[edit]

I really don't get this one. Duke is not a particularly liberal school, as far as mainstream colleges go, and it's certainly not well-liked by the liberal media. It gets a disproportionate amount of media coverage, but it's largely cast as a villain. Duke College basketball is arguably the most hated team in sports. Most of the coverage of the upset win was positive regardless of the media outlet. KingHanksley 14:28, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

Duke University has become quite liberal, as reflected by the views of its faculty, and it receives over-promotion by the lamestream media. I've never known anyone who "hates" its basketball team. Its basketball coach and team have received enormous praise by the media over the years.--Andy Schlafly 14:33, 18 March 2012 (EDT)
Just throwing this out there, I hate Duke's basketball team, and I consider myself to be somewhat liberal. I don't really see a connection between Duke and liberalism--CarloP 16:05, 18 March 2012 (EDT)
Fish often have difficulty grasping the concept of dryness. If you were more conservative, you could clearly see the liberalness of Duke University! Some of these people (the website seems to reflect the general public) are able to see the liberal bent of Duke University. Many modern Western liberals, especially of the proud atheist bent, have difficulty appreciating historical periods and cultures different than their own. Christian conservatives who believe in the concept of the worldwide body of believers making up the body of Christ (see: John 17:11, John 17:21, and Galations 3:28) and have an appreciation of their spiritual heritage, often have a much easier time understanding cultures and worldviews different than their own. Conservative 16:22, 18 March 2012 (EDT)
Andy, I agree that Duke is fairly liberal, but I don't agree with you about its media presence. First, although it is a liberal university relative to the American population, it is not liberal relative to other mainstream universities, including many prominent NCAA schools.
Second, despite your anecdotal evidence, Duke has quite a lot of negative press in the mainstream media. Simply try a news search of "Duke" and "hated" and you'll find plenty of recent articles, including by liberal media outlets. As a sports fan, I see the Duke coverage being very similar to the New York Yankees or Dallas Cowboys. These teams receive coverage because stories about them sell - they have a large number of fans, and just as importantly, a large number of people who want to see negative stories about them. The reason the team is praised is because it's successful.
Duke's rival, the University of North Carolina, is considered to be more liberal than Duke, and has proportionally more liberal fans. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_NC_020712.pdf. Look at this poll, taken before a UNC/Duke game this year. Overall, 41% of respondents were for UNC, vs 31% for Duke. Among
"very liberal" respondents, the preference was much stronger for UNC - 54% vs 27%. Among "very conservative" respondents, the gap was much more narrow. 38% for UNC, 32% for Duke. Other crosstabs show similarly that Duke has a more conservative fanbase than UNC. However (and this is my conclusion, not in the report), the mainstream media covers Duke because it is simply a more profitable story.KingHanksley 17:33, 18 March 2012 (EDT)
Due to federal and state funding cutbacks (sovereign debt is climbing to unsustainable levels in the USA and elsewhere) and the rising default rate of student loans, the higher education bubble will burst and colleges will become less liberal. Colleges/universities will be forced to: cut out the fluff courses; end fluff academic papers being turned out by some professors, reduce labor costs, end lavish amenities and reduce their prices. Here is an interesting article by The Economist on a higher education bubble and please notice what is says about Duke University: http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2011/04/higher_education Conservative 01:05, 20 March 2012 (EDT)
Conservative, is that just an interesting article (which, I agree, it is) or is it supposed to have something to do with my point about Duke's media presence in the context of sports (which it does not)? KingHanksley 17:31, 20 March 2012 (EDT)
Your opening post was about Duke and liberalism was it not? Does not the article mention Duke in the context of frivolous liberalism? Are you just whining for the sake of whining? See: Atheist whining. Conservative 09:00, 21 March 2012 (EDT)
Conservative, the fact that your user name is "Conservative" does not mean anyone arguing against you is a "liberal" or is "whining." Very simply, I have argued that Duke's prominence in the sports media specifically regarding is due mainly to the profitability of its stories rather than its liberal academia.
I argued that it receives disproportionate negative attention as well as positive, and that many liberal institutions are prominent in the NCAA, but Duke receives more attention than them because of the history of its program and the passionate attention of both its fans and its opponents. I characterized it as playing a similar role in the sports media as the New York Yankees and Dallas Cowboys.
I also pointed to a study demonstrating that its supporters were more conservative than the supporters of its closest rival. This would suggest that its prominence in the media could not be due mainly to its identity as a liberal institution.
None of this disputes that Duke is more liberal than conservative; most mainstream universities are. Duke is no exception. Your link (which was about the quality of research more than the political bent of the university, and went into very little detail about Duke) established nothing new.
So my post was an attempt to steer the conversation back to the topic of where Duke stands in mainstream sports media (in which, I believe, local and team tradition, size of fanbase, and objective success usually trump politics).
Just to set things straight, I am conservative and not a fan of Duke sports team and not a supporter of their academia. I do think the media generally exhibits a liberal bias, and that in modern this occasionally does extend into sports (see the vitriol against Tim Tebow's religion). I like a good conservative sports story, like the success of Jeremy Lin. I just do not think that in this case the assertion that Duke is a media favorite because of its liberal nature stands up to reality. KingHanksley 16:07, 21 March 2012 (EDT)

Overall, I don't have a problem with your analysis, but at the same time, I doubt Liberty University and similar institutions receive much positive press from the mainstream press. Conservative 04:10, 22 March 2012 (EDT)

I agree with you there. Liberal media outlets will never give Liberty the time of day. The one place it does receive respect from liberals is on the debate circuit, where it is always one of the top programs in the country. If debate received as much press as sports did, the media would have to acknowledge Liberty's objective success.KingHanksley 12:12, 22 March 2012 (EDT)

Liberal Death Threats[edit]

"Death threats" happen on both sides of any political aisle. I didn't see a news cite for when Jessica Ahlquist was receiving death threats from the religious right. Crazy is still crazy.. no matter what their political persuasion. --DanJG 17:54, 19 March 2012 (EDT)

I'm surprised anyone can write a serious article quoting YouTube comments. Even I've had YouTube death threats after posting videos of some of the dangerous incidents I've had when cycling to work WilcoxD 20:10, 19 March 2012 (EDT)
Shockofgod gets death threats and he tells them to: "Bring it on!". He cracks me up. Historically, persecution and death threats have not been very effective in damping down Christian zeal and martyrdom has only added fuel to the fire. Conservative 01:23, 20 March 2012 (EDT)

A few comments on a linked article[edit]

A few comments on the article linked to "Our sovereignty is under fire from within as well as without, from people who swear to uphold the Constitution and then violate it." The link suggests that Justice Ginsburg will defer to decisions made by foreign courts, rather than the US Constitution. Having read a fair amount of her speech here: http://www.asil.org/events/AM05/ginsburg050401.html , I find that statement unsupported by her speech. She argues that decisions made by foreign courts can be useful when interpreting law, and she quotes (among many others) former Chief Judge of the DC Circuit, Patricia Wald: "It's hard for me to see that the use of foreign decisional law is an up-or-down proposition. I see it rather as a pool of potential and useful information and thought that must be mined with caution and restraint." Especially in cases which are so unusual, or deal with issues so modern that there is no U.S. precedent, or previous case which raises similar issues.

A second claim that the article makes about Justice Ginsburg's views is that she advises against using the US Constitution to base a new nation's Constitution off of. Although I haven't found where she says that, I will nonetheless put forward a brief argument supporting that suggestion, to some extent. Some sections of the US Constitution are too unsuited to modern times, that if the US Constitution was to be drafted anew, they should be removed. For example, Congress declaring war whilst making the President the sole Commander-in-Chief. When the Constitution was written, wars were pretty black-and-white. Either you are fighting a war against a country, or you aren't. International intervention to protect human rights and prevent genocide and other atrocities would not be classed a 'war', particularly when it is an international force (even if it's mostly composed of one nation). Whether the US President should have that authority is another matter, but because the Constitution gives him all military authority apart from declaring war, it is within his wide-ranging authority.

Also, the Second Amendment. Regardless of the interpretation of it, for a country which doesn't have wide-spread gun ownership, it would be a bad addition to the Constitution. When the US Constitution it was necessary because:

  1. There weren't any police forces.
  2. There weren't any street lamps. and
  3. The Native American tribes were still a major military threat to communities.

In modern nations, with police forces, with street lamps, and without hostile native populations, the Second Amendment would be inadvisable to include in a constitution. Almost every part of the U.S. Constitution which would be advisable to include in a new Constitution (apart from most of the Bill of Rights), would, I expect, be easy to find in other constitutions.

And one short question: Does that website have a tendency to make dramatic statements? Such as those suggesting that Justice Ginsburg should be impeached, and Secretary Panetta should resign, simply because the author of the article disagrees with them? - JamesCA 22:29, 19 March 2012 (EDT)

You should break up the above text into paragraphs. People are reluctant to read walls of text without paragraphs. Conservative 00:31, 20 March 2012 (EDT)
I'll keep that in mind. Thanks - JamesCA 19:46, 20 March 2012 (EDT)

'Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe'[edit]

So read Saturday's headline to Senior Editor Gary Stix's piece at one of the nation's most popular science magazines Scientific American:

A policy article authored by several dozen scientists appeared online March 15 in Science to acknowledge this point: “Human societies must now change course and steer away from critical tipping points in the Earth system that might lead to rapid and irreversible change. This requires fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions toward more effective Earth system governance and planetary stewardship.” [...]

To be effective, a new set of institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers...In principle, species-wide alteration in basic human behaviors would be a sine qua non, but that kind of pronouncement also profoundly strains credibility in the chaos of the political sphere. [11] Daniel1212 23:45, 19 March 2012 (EDT)

Environmentalism in its most extreme forms will take a back seat to the economy in the press and within the American culture when the economy gets worse. As an economy gets worse, jobs becomes the focus. The same is going to happen to the global warming controversy. In Spain, are they focusing on environmentalism as much? I doubt it. The lackluster green gambits that Spain made did not pan out and now they are suffering.[12] Conservative 01:33, 20 March 2012 (EDT)

Amelia Earhart Conspiracy[edit]

I am slightly confused at the wording and possible intent at the recent news item highlighting Hillary Clinton's involvement with an already existing project to study the disappearance of Amelia Earhart. What conspiracy theories would be thrown at a Republican official who would do the same? It is no conspiracy to say that there are unanswered questions in the case and that new information may be fruitful in providing closure in regards to one of the most heralded public figures in the 20th century.--MikaelV 20:14, 20 March 2012 (EDT)

How is this different from Republican theories that POWs were detained in Vietnam after the War, or other theories that challenge lamestream media accounts?--Andy Schlafly 20:23, 20 March 2012 (EDT)
Specifically, how does giving attention to new findings about Amelia Earhart become boiled down to a blurb about liberals and conspiracy theories? --MikaelV 20:29, 20 March 2012 (EDT)
That doesn't answer my question.--Andy Schlafly 20:44, 20 March 2012 (EDT)
And you didn't answer mine. What conspiracy theories would be suggested if a Republican official expressed interest in highlighting actual research towards the disappearance of Amelia Earhart? --MikaelV 20:46, 20 March 2012 (EDT)

I think maybe the person who posted the story may have misread it. The story mentions the conspiracy theory that Earhart was a US agent who was captured by Japan. Its just background for the story though. Nothing in the article suggests that Clinton or the group support this theory. If Clinton or the group she met with had supported this theory, I could see the link.

My understanding of the story is that the group thinks Earheart remained alive after the landing or crash, and lived for a time period on the island.--Andy Schlafly 22:14, 20 March 2012 (EDT)

Tebow[edit]

The truth is, Elway made a purely football-related decision. Tebow is not a pure passer, which is what Elway was looking for (see Tebow's 46% completion rate). Elway decided to sign a quarterback who has had a track record of success, including a Super Bowl victory, to replace a quarterback with much less success and much less potential. It is interesting to note that both Elway [13] and Manning [14] are Republicans, while Tebow has never publicly commented on his political leanings. Not everything is political, and the "liberal" media was/is fawning over Tebow and giving him undue attention considering how little he has accomplished on the field. MarcusThompson 22:41, 20 March 2012 (EDT)

The article linked on the Main Page illustrates the media bias against Tim Tebow. The opposition of liberals to Tebow can hardly be denied.
Many teams were not even interested in Manning. The Colts simply let him go, didn't they? The Bronco deal with Manning is only guaranteed for the first year.--Andy Schlafly 23:06, 20 March 2012 (EDT)
There's no bias in saying that Manning is a better QB with a better track record of success. If you honestly think Tebow is a better QB than Manning, and has more upside than Manning, then you know nothing about football. The fact that the Broncos are willing to move on from Tebow, who despite his faults did win a playoff game, means there must have been a better opportunity on the table. And many teams were interested in Manning, and those that weren't either could not afford his salary or have good quarterbacks already. Off the top of my head, Denver, Arizona, Seattle, Houston, Miami, and Tennessee met with Manning. That's 20% of the league. MarcusThompson 23:11, 20 March 2012 (EDT)
Tebow plainly has more long-term potential than a 36-year-old QB who has a serious neck injury. Honestly, I question the morality of putting Manning on the field in the rough-and-tumble NFL. The Broncos seemed to be looking for a way to rid themselves of Tebow, who is disliked intensely by some liberals.--Andy Schlafly 00:05, 21 March 2012 (EDT)
Ok, if you want to win and win now (which is what the Broncos obviously want to do), then you go with the 4-time MVP and Super Bowl champ. Despite your love affair with Tebow, the Broncos realized that his passing numbers were not that great, and that in order to win it all, they need an established pocket passer. ChrisCooley 09:00, 21 March 2012 (EDT)
We'll see when the season starts up again, won't we. Has Tebow moved to another club, or will he be on the bench for Denver?--CPalmer 10:06, 21 March 2012 (EDT)
Well... it looks like Tebow will be playing for the Jets. Manning is a hot commodity. Many teams were interested in a proven winner. The Broncos weren't looking to get rid of Tebow. The Broncos want a Superbowl ring. Every sports team is the same. It doesn't matter how nice of a guy any player is, they want results and they want it now. --DanJG 14:40, 21 March 2012 (EDT)
If you honestly think Tebow is a better QB than Manning, and has more upside than Manning, Tebow definitely has more upside considering his age and health. All of you that consider yourself knowledgeable about the NFL, are you smarter than John Madden? He said it would be a mistake for the Broncos to get rid of Tebow. "There's no way that I would not find a place for [Tebow] on my team," Madden said. "If I had Tim Tebow, I would never get rid of him. I may not play him at quarterback, but with all this hybrid football now where you have multiple receivers, multiple tight ends, you don't know the difference between a tight end, wide receiver and fullback — they're all the same guy — he could be that guy." [15] Sounds like a player with a bright future to me.--Jpatt 14:48, 21 March 2012 (EDT)
Tim Tebow is one of the most liked and recognized football players out there right now. Many sports commentators, who I doubt are all that liberal, are honest about him also not being such a great quarterback. Madden was pretty honest about this too. If he's hired to play that position, isn't as good at it as another player, and has an unproven record in any other, the choice seems pretty easy to make. This other comment that "the opposition of liberals to Tebow can hardly be denied" doesn't reflect that reality. Peyton Manning has had a long and very successful career and he's universally recognized to be a very good player. Sure, he's older than other players and his career has been something like 3 times longer than that of your average quarterback, but he is in top shape. His doctors would not let him play football if he was not. No team would draft him either. He was let go because he couldn't play for all of 2011 because of his neck surgery and who knew whether he would be recovered to play 2012. Nate 14:56, 21 March 2012 (EDT)
That top shape of Manning is a liability. He is one concussion away from retirement.--Jpatt 15:00, 21 March 2012 (EDT)
Who knows whether that's true or not. We're not his doctors. We do know that he was a first round draft pick and that he is going to be the highest paid player in the NFL. He's flat out much more desirable than Tebow. Now that I'm looking this stuff up it looks like Tebow's salary is the 213th highest. If Tebow is so great yet liberals are rejecting him they have a lot more power over the entire NFL to cause it to make economically stupid decisions than I ever realized. Nate 15:18, 21 March 2012 (EDT)
My understanding about the Manning/Indy situation is that he was due a $28 million salary bonus in March of this year. Considering that, and that Indianapolis has the first overall pick, and a quarterback that is available in the draft who is considered to be a sure-fire player, they let go of Manning. Regardless, Tebow is now on the New York Jets, which is probably the last place he should be considering the negativity surrounding that program. WesleySHello! 15:23, 21 March 2012 (EDT)

I think Denver certainly thought they were making the right football move. However, let's wish Tebow success in New York, where he has a chance to have an even bigger impact on America.KingHanksley 16:12, 21 March 2012 (EDT)

Mark Sanchez has struggled and the New York media is quick to criticize its players. There may be a push for Tebow to start at some point this season, and I think it will be sooner rather than later.KingHanksley 12:17, 22 March 2012 (EDT)
It's obvious the Bronco's couldn't wait to get rid of Tebow. We've seen this movie before. In Oliver Stone's Any Given Sunday, the hotshot young do-it-all-yourself running quarterback Jamie Foxx) vs the old broken down 35 year old superstar (Dennis Quaid) who couldn't play unless the doctor's doped him up. Rob Smith 16:28, 22 March 2012 (EDT)

Grammatical error on main page[edit]

The current top headline on Template:Mainpageleft reads "Are ghosts real? Does the Bible give any clues whom ghosts really are?" (emphasis added). The relative pronoun in the second sentence is a predicate nominative, not an object. The sentence should read "Does the Bible give any clues who ghosts really are?" GregG 14:43, 21 March 2012 (EDT)

I changed it.--Jpatt 14:49, 21 March 2012 (EDT)
It seems that you were not successful and there is no record of your attempt. --BaileyJ 21:04, 22 March 2012 (EDT)

Jeb Bush Endorses Mitt Romney[edit]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57401559-503544/jeb-bush-endorses-mitt-romney-for-president/

seems news worthy considering Jeb Bush currently has a high ranking in our list of who is most likely to win the nomination...AlexanderSz 17:04, 21 March 2012 (EDT)

We didn't rank the value of an endorsement by Jeb Bush high in Endorsements 2012. At this point, after so many primaries and debates, any endorsement is almost worthless.--Andy Schlafly 17:32, 21 March 2012 (EDT)
It looks more and more like the burning question becomes, What more represents or traditional orthodox Christianity, Mormonism or Black Liberation Theology? Rob Smith 16:35, 22 March 2012 (EDT)

Liberal academics, brick and mortar degrees[edit]

While it is true that India is graduating more engineers than we currently do there are several things that we ought to consider:

  • India's population is about four times that of the USA, it would follow that they would need more engineers since
  • India is currently building much of their country out of a third-world condition to a first world state, this will require homegrown engineers familiar with local conditions and mores to facilitate growth more quickly
  • Engineering is one of the most conservative careers one can contemplate, why the "warning" to "liberal academics"?

GregHWB 18:03, 21 March 2012 (EDT) Having re-read the blurb, I would question whether brick and mortar education is necessarily liberal as opposed to on-line learning which being as new as it is can hardly be called conservative. GregHWB

Examine all of my sources. Second, I was silent on the political persuasions of people involved in brick and mortar education vs. the people involved in e-learning. Lastly, if you think the future looks bright for academia in brick and mortar institutions (a great deal of whom are liberal), then I suggest getting a Ph.D. Best wishes in your upcoming academic career.Conservative 18:12, 21 March 2012 (EDT)

I'm surprised that absolute numbers are being compared between countries with vastly different populations. The following is just a rough estimate (and probably needs to be adjusted for age demographics):

  • India has a population of about 1.2 billion, according to the CIA World Factbook. Five hundred thousand out of 1.2 billion is about 0.00417%.
  • The United States has a population of about 314 million. One hundred fifty thousand out of 314 million is about 0.00478%

Again, these are just rough estimates, but these calculations seem to go against the argument that India is better at producing engineers than the United States. It would be like saying that New York City is more religious than Wheaton, Illinois because it has more churches. GregG 18:49, 21 March 2012 (EDT)

The main point of the main page post is that e-learning is going to increasingly compete with brick and mortar colleges and their professors and that the current college system is experiencing significant and growing problems. Also, according to the Washington Post and a study they cite: "By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week."[16] Did you examine all my sources - namely the article and two videos? It doesn't appear as if my detractors on this issue did that. Conservative 03:59, 22 March 2012 (EDT)
I took a course in the philosophy of higher education back in 2010, so I am intrigued by these issues. (I have read The Student Loan Scam and other books that, incidentally, suggest that teaching ought to be more about learning how to think and write as opposed to rote memorization.) I have also heard stories of for-profit colleges closing shop and leaving students holding the bag. Regardless, I think you should remove or further explain the comparison between India and the United States, as it is an argument that is so easily discredited (low-hanging fruit, so to say) that readers might question the credibility of the rest of the headline. GregG 12:48, 22 March 2012 (EDT)
The whole point of the India part of the headline was to indicate that Indian society has embraced online higher education in a big way (at least to educate their engineers). I also don't see the point in a lot of elaboration in a headline. Historically, headlines are very concise and attention grabbing. Conservative 13:42, 22 March 2012 (EDT)

About Conservapedia[edit]

It is a new one that I never go there yet.Albert Einstein.jpg

Neutrinos[edit]

Do you have any source for the claim that "neutrinos traveled at precisely the speed of light, not faster or slower."? AugustO 02:20, 22 March 2012 (EDT)

The quotation seems to come from this article in the Wall Street Journal. However, it's a rather bizarre claim, particular given the writer is a physicist. One suspects the leaden hand of an overenthusiastic sub-editor.
The problem is twofold. Firstly it's impossible to make the measurement with that sort of accuracy. Aside for Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, more practical considerations mean that we can't measure the speed of a neutrino to infinite precision. There will always be an error bar which may centre on the speed of light, or may find itself entirely above or below it.
Secondly, it is generally accepted nowadays that neutrinos have a finite (though small) rest mass. Massless particles, such as photons, can only travel at the speed of light, whereas massive particles can travel at any speed whatsoever (up to but not including the speed of light), depending on their energy. Thus we cannot talk about the "speed of neutrinos" in the same way we talk of the speed of light.
Of course if this is a genuine observation, its entirely consistent with special relativity, but it does raise questions for Quantum Theory in that it implies neutrinos are massless.--MihailD 09:22, 22 March 2012 (EDT)
The neutrinos used for the experiment had an energy of 17 GeV. If they have a mass of about 2 eV/c2, then (if you choose to believe in special relativity) they have a Lorentz factor \gamma = E/mc^2\approx 10^{18}. The Lorentz factor is defined as \gamma = 1/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}, so the neutrino velocity would differ from the speed of light by one part in 10^{18}. This is unmeasurably small, so measuring their speed to be "exactly" equal to the speed of light (that means within the measurement uncertainty) is not in contradiction to their having a small mass. Obviously, this analysis is based on special relativity. I hope Andy will explain us how it is done correctly. --FrederickT3 12:29, 22 March 2012 (EDT)
The Lorentz factor is infinite if the neutrinos were observed to travel at "precisely the speed of light, not faster or slower," as quoted. This contradicts the Theory of Relativity, as explained (prior to publication of the quote) in example 4 of Counterexamples to Relativity.--Andy Schlafly 21:28, 22 March 2012 (EDT)
Andy, you're implying that this experiment was able to measure the speed of the neutrinos to an accuracy of better than one part in 10^{18}. Do you have a source for this claim?--MihailD 09:17, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
The quote is clear and unequivocal. Are you saying the statement by the scientist is wrong?--Andy Schlafly 09:45, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
The quote is a series of new experiment results flatly contradict the sensational announcement last year that something could—and indeed had—traveled faster than light.
How does this clear and unequivocal quote imply that the neutrinos travel at the speed of light?
AugustO 09:52, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
No, August, the quotation in question is "neutrinos traveled at precisely the speed of light, not faster or slower" and yes, Andy, I am saying it's wrong. I think Frederick has explained in very detailed terms just how wrong it is.--MihailD 10:09, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
(What the scientist speaking for the ICARUS project that made these new measurements actually said is: "ICARUS measures the neutrino's velocity to be no faster than the speed of light." [17] --MihailD 10:24, 23 March 2012 (EDT))
Aschlafly thinks physicists are wrong about relativity being fundamental to the laws of the universe. Compared to that, thinking a single physicist was wrong (or at the very least oversimplifying things) in a statement about experimental results intended for a lay audience doesn't seem like such a big deal. --BradleyS 15:12, 23 March 2012 (EDT)

I agree with you, MihailD and FrederickT3. However, the spokesman of the Icarus project, the Italian Sandro Centro said "Now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos." (I couldn't find the original quote - was it in English, French, Italian?) And even in the abstract of the current paper you read: The result is compatible with the simultaneous arrival of all events with equal speed, the one of light. And still, Aschlafly, you are wrong when you say that "neutrinos traveled at precisely the speed of light, not faster or slower.": it's a misrepresentation of the results of the experiment, which allows (as FrederickT3) for a speed very close to the speed of light - which is to be expected. That's why all scientists involved stress the fact that the experiment is compatible with the Theory of Relativity, or as they say in the actual paper Based on seven neutrino events, our result is in excellent agreement with Lorentz dependent velocities of neutrinos and of light. AugustO 11:15, 23 March 2012 (EDT)

Give it up, August. Even if there was a press release that specifically stated "After a thorough review of the data, we can conclude that Andrew Layton Schlafly is 100% dead wrong and that Relativity is correct." Do you think it'd make any difference? No, what you'd get is "Har har! They said I was 100% wrong, but due to uncertainty principle we know they couldn't know that 100%! Therefor this is just politically correct liberal claptrap. Conservapedia proven right once again!"(unsigned by JoshuaB)
This quote is from a scientist writing in the Wall Street Journal: "neutrinos traveled at precisely the speed of light, not faster or slower." AugustO, since you claim it is "wrong" and a "misrepresentation", then I suggest you contact the Journal and scientist to request a retraction. Or do you only complain about Conservapedia?
Other commenters above, if you don't mind, I wonder if any of you would estimate how much time you've spent reading the Bible in this month of March. I ask because I've found that once someone falls for Relativity, they almost never open a Bible again.--Andy Schlafly 15:22, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
Or maybe we should stay on topic? --BradleyS 15:36, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
  • Sorry, the whole article in the Wall Street Journal is behind the pay-wall, I just read the summary. If you provide a context, I will certaily address the WSJ, too. It's just that I'm reading Conservapedia more often...
  • The Bible is a daily inspiration in my household. But it doesn't address the speed of neutrinos! So, indeed, we should stay on topic!
AugustO 15:38, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
The "context"? The quote is crystal clear and needs no "context". By seeking the context, does that mean that if you find the scientist himself believes in Relativity, then you won't complain or request a retraction??? By the way, the same quote (with link) is in point #4 of Counterexamples to Relativity, and the question about the Bible was not asked of you.--Andy Schlafly 15:42, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
Can you show me where my calculation is wrong? I had a typo in there, the Lorentz factor is predicted (from special relativity) to be 1018, not 10-18. Distinguishing 1018 from infinity is hard to do experimentally, don't you agree? If special relativity is wrong (as the bible seems to say), then there is no speed limit. Isn't it ironic that neutrinos travel so very closely or even precisely at the speed of light when they don't have to? --FrederickT3 15:58, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
When you can't win on the science try to defame your opponents by characterizing them as Bible haters. --BradleyS 16:03, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
  • The "context" would be the paragraph. Thanks for the link to the blog which quotes the article in full - I don't know whether the WSJ approves of this copyright violation :-)
  • I tweeted Dr. Michio Kaku, the author of the piece - most physicists seem to think that neutrinos have a very tiny mass. I hope that he gives us an answer.
  • Well, if the question wasn't asked of me, then ignore my answer.
AugustO 16:03, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
Yes, the Wall Street Journal did get it wrong, as did many other news outlets. They should be upbraided for it. Furthermore, many of the scientists involved expressed themselves extremely poorly given the general audience they were addressing.
However, what no news outlet other than Conservapedia (as far as I can see) has done is to take these badly expressed results and use them to support a personal and half-baked scientific theory. I think we all agree that by taking these statements literally we come to inconsistent conclusions. The difference between us is that some of as take this as a reductio ad absurdum argument that the statements are false, others stick doggedly to the inconsistent conclusions.--MihailD 16:41, 23 March 2012 (EDT)

"The new Anglican Archbishop"[edit]

John Sentamu is already an archbishop (he is the Archbishop of York), so this ought to be rephrased.

Also, while he is a strong contender to replace Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury, he's not a strong enough favourite that we should say he is 'expected' to do so. The last time a new Archbishop of Canterbury was appointed from York was over 30 years ago, and many within the CofE would strongly oppose Sentamu.--CPalmer 12:03, 22 March 2012 (EDT)

I will say strong candidate. I think the balance of power will inevitably shift in the Anglican communion due to the growth of Anglicanism in the Global south due to evangelism and higher birth rates. Conservative 12:53, 22 March 2012 (EDT)
You fail to take in account the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury is chosen by the British Prime ministerJloveday 16:54, 24 March 2012 (EDT)
Good changes - it's much better now. Certainly the different - and arguably diverging - cultures of the Church in England and in developing nations has been one of the biggest challenges during Rowan Williams's tenure. Williams had a knack for allowing vehemently disagreeing parties to rub along OK in the same Church family; I wonder how his successor will handle it.--CPalmer 12:59, 22 March 2012 (EDT)

Typo[edit]

"It's time be a Christian..." should be "it's time to be". I can't correct it since the page is protected. Gregkochuconn 16:44, 22 March 2012 (EDT)

Homosexual Caribbean article[edit]

If you read the article, it says the arrest had nothing to do with the men's sexual orientation, only with the fact that they were having sex in public. The judge stated that if they were a heterosexual couple, the ruling would have been the same. So is it really relevant enough to warrant inclusion? Also, if you want to combine this with the note on the typo I just wrote, go ahead. I think they are two different issues with it, though. (Especially since regardless of whether the article belongs there, the typo is wrong) Gregkochuconn 16:54, 22 March 2012 (EDT)

Does the geographic area in question have an anti-sodomy law? Did that law have an bearing on law enforcement authorities behavior - namely the police? "The two initially were arrested on suspicion of the local equivalent of sodomy in the eastern Caribbean island, which prohibits sex between two men."[18] Was the pastor very pleased with what the police did? Conservative 00:36, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
I don't see a pastor mentioned in the article. Perhaps he has been taken out of it?--CPalmer 11:31, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
The article seems to contradict itself. The President of the cruise line says it had nothing to do with homosexuality, yet they were arrested on sodomy charges. Perhaps the point is that if it were a heterosexual couple, they would be arrested for indecent exposure or something like that. Or maybe either the President or the source at the beginning is wrong. Gregkochuconn 12:28, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
CPalmer, I thought I was sharing a syndicated article, but the version I picked failed to mention the pastor. Here is an article mentioning the pastor which I added to the front page: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2109731,00.html Conservative 12:39, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
There he is. I agree, he does seem pleased. Greg, I don't think the President is mistaken. What is clearly happening is that he is trying to explain away the incident in a way that won't put gay people (or others who might boycott on their behalf) off coming to Dominica. Like many Caribbean nations, Dominica relies on tourism for a lot of its income, so they wouldn't want an incident like this to wipe out a whole sector of that trade.
What isn't clear is whether the sodomy law is an 'antiquated law' that is rarely enforced as one of the articles suggests, or whether gay people in Dominica might reasonably expect to be arrested even without the additional spur of public lewdness.--CPalmer 13:02, 23 March 2012 (EDT)

Trayvon Martin[edit]

The big news about the USA on this side of the Atlantic is the Trayvon Martin case. I wonder why CP hasn't added it to "In the News" on the Main Page? I would add it myself but I can't edit the Main Page. PenelopeP 15:07, 23 March 2012 (EDT)

They'll post something as soon as they can find a way to spin it against liberals or atheists
The liberal media hope to convert this isolated incident between two people into a big story about racism in America, a nation of more than 300 million people. But that approach of the lamestream media gets old after a while.--Andy Schlafly 15:56, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
I don't see how you can call it an "incident between two people". The third party was the state of Florida, which has refused to prosecute the alleged murderer. Your response surprises me because my clear impression is that CP is firmly in favour of law-and-order and firmly against racism. Surely this is a case you must feel strongly about? PenelopeP 18:04, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
It's not that they refused to prosecute, it's that they have to prosecute carefully because of the awkward way that the law is written. Had they slapped cuffs on him at the scene of the crime then he would be out within hours and free forever due to double jeopardy protections. They are investigating carefully, and if they have a case they will prosecute him. --HHB 02:29, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
I guess Conservapedia doesn't want to take a stance on gun rights. Interesting. IanR 02:31, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
Regarding the witness "John" -- has there been confirmation from law enforcement that he made that report to them? KingHanksley 12:45, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

I don't understand why CP is so lame on this issue. If CP has ambitions to be a leading voice in the conservative movement, shouldn't it be saying: (1) racism is totally wrong, (2) law and order is totally right, (3) we should have respect for the police, who are paid to keep the public safe and who understand that keeping public order involves a lot more than just waving a gun at anyone who looks vaguely out of place (in Trayvon's case, because he was the wrong colour)? I really don't understand why the leadership of CP isn't being more forthright about this case. It's a gilt-edged opportunity to promote genuine conservative values. PenelopeP 19:25, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

E.L.A.[edit]

I’ve been reading (and contributing articles/reverting vandalism on) this website for quite a while but I still feel baffled as to what exactly it is you’re trying to achieve. I have stated before I’m an evolution-believing, liberal atheist. (E.L.A.) and consider myself to be open-minded and a defender of free-speech. I’m sure you’ve heard of the phrase – ‘preaching to the choir’. Many of your popular articles (evolution, atheism, relativity, homosexuality, conservatism, global warming/climate change) would satisfy and fulfil a Christian Fundamentalist point of view, providing a rationale which re-enforces their beliefs.

But what would you say your aims are to all the ELAs that read this site?

Are we your enemy? Do you aim to convert us? Do you just want to ridicule our point of view?

Or do you feel threatened?

Some of the news items on the main page are very hostile to the ‘ELA’ point of view. In fact you often use negative descriptive terms – on the current main page ‘evil evolutionists’ (4 times), ‘unreasonable atheists’ and ‘Liberal double standard’.

Final point: I’m not convinced Jesus Christ ever existed but I’m blown away by the message of love that Bible says he believed in. Maybe he did exist.

Best wishes. EJamesW 15:32, 23 March 2012 (EDT)

This is an encyclopedia free of liberal bias. The truth is not always easy to accept. Liberal censorship is common in newspapers and on college campuses, so many visitors to this site are hearing the truth for the first time. Build a truthful website, and the world will beat a path to your door (apologies to Emerson).--Andy Schlafly 15:37, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
I don't know if the site really cares what we think. To me it seems like this site is just a place for User:Conservative to rant among people that won't dismiss him as insane--CarloP 16:08, 23 March 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly, thankyou for responding. ‘The truth is not always easy to accept’ – wise words indeed – I totally agree (From my point of view). So what do you think the ELA’s gain from visiting this website?

To put it bluntly, do you expect me to be converted by the articles on site?

I think that some of the views expressed on this site are wrong, but I would defend your right to express your views because I believe in free speech. A liberal trait. I also believe in the free market and limited government. Conservative traits.

Also, Aschlafly, do expect me to burn in hell for eternity? I give to charity, I’m a teacher, I’ve saved people from harm, but I don’t believe in God. Do you think I’m going to be tortured forever? EJamesW 17:15, 23 March 2012 (EDT)

It's one thing to complain about the insane rubbish that covers the main page these days, but I think your latest questions are just an attempt to be provocative. You know what the Bible says is going to happen to people who don't accept Jesus, so why badger Mr Schlafly about it?--HolterSchmitz 17:22, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
You left out quite a lot, EJamesW, in your listing of what you do and don't do. Do you object to classroom prayer, even when everyone wants to say a prayer? Do you make the Bible and its truths available to others who might benefit from it? Do you stand up for evangelists who are persecuted or censored by other atheists? The answers to these questions would be far more significant than whether someone gives something to charity.--Andy Schlafly 18:41, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
I think he's just trying to cause trouble. On the other hand he is right about the state of the main page. It's pretty embarrassing. I wouldn't want my children to see it the way it is now, because it makes it look like conservatives only talk about sex and make jokes about fat people.--HolterSchmitz 18:44, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
Have you ever heard the expression, "he protests too much"? Or how about the quip, "Oh, nobody goes to that restaurant any more. It's too crowded!"--Andy Schlafly 18:57, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
Of course I've heard it, but how is that relevant? The front page of your encyclopedia is full of stupid pictures and links to a couple of blogs. That has nothing to do with restaurants.--HolterSchmitz 19:35, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
I no longer encourage my children to browse Conservapedia specifically because of the ridiculous nonsense "Conservative" splatters all over the place - they know to just look stuff up now. He's also the reason men from one of my study groups find Conservapedia hard to take seriously. Nate 18:12, 24 March 2012 (EDT)
Nate, you are just upset that I have I provided material which shows evolution to be wrongheaded and atheistic. Plus, I mocked evolutionary belief as well. You certainly cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists so your complaints are inconsequential. Conservative 09:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
"Conservative", you're acting like a clown and doing a huge disservice to this website and the work of others like me who struggle to minister to and find fellowship with all men as our daily work. If you think I care about what you think you've shown you're still not paying attention after more than a year of insulting and continuing this embarrassing misbehavior. I am prepared to ignore most of your carping about "evolutionary belief" because I am confident in my Church's teaching. It is hard to ignore that you would rant at me as if I am an atheist for disagreeing with your beloved Creationist Ministries and as if you know the first thing about me about my relationship with the Lord. You are incapable of seeing how ridiculous and insulting this is. I'll tell you something "Conservative". I study with other Opus Dei supernumeraries in Illinois and Indiana (all are welcome to join us) who all strive to know and emulate Christ in every moment, from prayer and study, our family time, coming and going to work, practicing our trades, service, teaching our children, and our ministry and fellowship. Other men have different relationships with God. Your laughably ineffective and silly rants discredit our hard fought evangelism, this website and Mr. Schlafly's family's long history of work. I grew up in the 70's learning from his mother's books at home and Church. At first I laughed at the things you posted because I thought they were a joke. Now I know they are not and pray for you to find health and solace. Few others will give you that charity. Most will come here to see that the public face you put on this website is a joke and they will laugh at Conservapedia where they should be at peace in fellowship and learning. I was drawn to this site because I am so thankful for Mrs. Schlafly's work in raising our attention about the murder of children and saw Mr. Schlafly's continuing the legacy. I wouldn't have given this site that credit if I'd come at any point after about 2 years ago when I started looking at it because of you. Please take care of yourself and try to be mindful of your error as we all should be. Reasoned debate and discussion is Christ's way. Your pridefulness is shameful. Nate 14:08, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
Starting especially in the 1960s the Roman Catholic Church embraced a lot of liberalism and they have the scandals and a ton of members in the Western World who left their church to prove it. If it wasn't for Mexican immigration, the USA Roman Catholic Church would be showing a net loss in membership. You can blather on all you want, but the bottom line is that you can't satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists and evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology. Conservative 14:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
"evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology" No it's not and you've never shown it to be. You have your head in the sand when you focus on our scandals as if they discredit us and the Protestants are above them. It is a scandal that the Southern United States has so much looser morals and adherence to Biblical principles than you will find in communities of Catholic piety how ever rare you think they are. Southern Protestants have much more problems with obesity, STD's, divorce, and teenage pregnancy than your so-called atheistic areas. These are the saddest indicators of poor spiritual health. I pray for you to find health and peace, "Conservative". You seem very troubled.
My church doesn't have a problem with STDs, divorce and teenage pregnancy and my svelte pastor does a wonderful job in help making this so! :) Conservative 14:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

Where is the well beaten path?[edit]

If we accept " Build a truthful website, and the world will beat a path to your door" axiomatically, what conclusions are we to draw from the fairly low number of editors for such an old and well publicized wiki? Where is the broad hard-beaten road? --HHB 02:49, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

Main Page Left[edit]

Hello. I read this website fairly frequently and I just thought I would ask about the upkeep of the main page. MPL, in my opinion, is a disaster right now. How is it that some of the administrators, particularly ASchlafly, are OK with this? For months it's just been a place where one user will almost exclusively post a link to either an article that he wrote on Blogspot or a CMI article. I personally have no problem with Conservative keeping up his blog and linking to CMI from within the encyclopedia, but splattering it all over the front page makes this place look more like a sensationalist tabloid than an encyclopedia. The constant use of the cute images gives an overall campy look as well.

Consider the fact that "Popular articles at Conservapedia" is more than half way down the page, buried under ideological articles, all created by Conservative. That just seem to me like an odd thing for an encyclopedia to do. Honestly, I think it drives away intelligent people from this site. I also found it quite disrespectful to Joaquín Martínez to shove Masterpieces down to the middle of the page just days after he had moved it up.

I'm just saying, the way the page is now looks tacky and unprofessional. People that come to an encyclopedia shouldn't immediately have ideologies forced on them. That isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia. I would really like an administrator's input on this--it almost seems as if no one wants to speak up. Anyway, that's all I've got. Thanks for reading.--MNCalder 16:05, 23 March 2012 (EDT)

OK, I'm an administrator, and here's my response: this is a meritocracy. The more an editor contributes substantively, the more important his opinion is. This appears to be your only edit. How about editing some substantive entries first, before complaining?--Andy Schlafly 16:11, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
Andy, the view that the more someone posts on this site, the more important their opinion is is absurd. The contributor should be judged by the quality and integrity of their contributions, not the quantity. Conservative's contributions may be quite numerous, however it'd hard to defend the claim that they are anything more than irrational rantings. The maturity level of this site is certainly brought down quite a bit by the garbage he puts on the main page--CarloP 16:19, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
My edits aren't really relevant here. And Conservative basically only makes edits to Evolution, Atheism, Homosexuality, and his countless essays--all pages that only he is allowed to edit. In other words, even if I wanted to edit here, I'd be severely restricted to what I could edit. That kind of throws your meritocracy argument out the window, and I'm honestly surprised that you'll stand for the main page of your web site looking this way. I guess I just thought you were smarter than that.--MNCalder 16:26, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
Folks, we have a 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk.--Andy Schlafly 16:33, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
Why are you deflecting? Please try to address the issue here. Do you honestly think the main page looks at all intriguing to an intelligent human being? By the way, I don't plan on making any more edits here outside of this conversation, I just thought someone should speak up, because MPL has been getting worse little by little until it finally erupted some time last night into a volcano of stupidity.--MNCalder 16:39, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
Since when is an article like Denmark, Sweden, evolutionary belief and bestiality considered a substantive contribution deserving of high ranking in a meritocracy for its author? --BradleyS 16:43, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
It all comes down to page views. User:Conservative's articles attract lots of traffic. Of course a factor that needs to be considered is what sort of traffic, and I think the fact that a liberal website I'm not allowed to name here has a "What Is Going On" page filled with links to Conservative's stuff may be a bit of a clue.--HolterSchmitz 17:04, 23 March 2012 (EDT)

The whole point I'm trying to make, Andy, is that you should do something. I think it's obvious that Conservative cares more about getting his own viewpoint across than he does improving this place. It's also unfortunately impossible to voice any complaint to him, as any conversation he gets into ends up turning into him accusing all of his dissenters of homosexuality, bestiality, atheism, liberalism, etc. He's not a mentally stable person and he's turning this place into an eyesore for new and old users alike.--MNCalder 17:07, 23 March 2012 (EDT)

Not to mention that anyone who does complain gets blocked by one of his lackeys shortly afterwards. He's completely out of control. The way he moves good content, like the "masterpieces" section, way down the page is just rude. The heading of MPL is "Featured on Conservapedia," but the top half of it is just links to stuff featured on Blogspot and CMI. It's extremely shoddy and until it's stopped nobody who looks at the mainpage is going to take this wiki seriously.--HolterSchmitz 17:12, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
If the liberals want to see the main page left changed, I suggest satisfactorily answering the 15 questions for evolutionists and explaining why the material on atheism and homosexuality on the main page left is incorrect. So far all I see is liberal bellyaching. Maybe your overindulgent liberal mothers listened to your whining and temper tantrums, but conservatives are not going to. Conservative 18:13, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
Liberals love MPL the way it is, because it makes Conservapedia look juvenile. Why do you think the wiki that must not be named links to your edits so much? Hint: it's not because they're frightened of you. It's CONSERVATIVES who're complaining about your rubbish and asking Mr Schlafly to do something about it. People should be coming here to get accurate information about serious issues, not to choke on links to your stupid questions. Which, by the way, have been answered all over the internet.--HolterSchmitz 18:17, 23 March 2012 (EDT)

Speaking of satisfactorily answering questions, why do you never satisfactorily respond to anyone? You sound like a robot by always telling people to satisfactorily answer the questions. Anyway, I think it is a legitimate thing to say Conservative is not benefiting the website with his EXTREME ranting on the website. Have you heard of the idea that the more extreme something is the more it seems like a parody? The more Conserative is allowed to rant like a looney on the main page the less credibility the website has. I personally didn't believe the website was real until I read other sites saying it was.

EJamesW, by now, it should be obvious to you what this site is about. It is a site dedicated solely to the purpose of presenting Aschlafly's ideological, philosophical, and political opponents in the worst possible light. Every negative human trait imaginable is attributed to, and heaped upon, his enemies. Instead of promoting their worldview in a positive light, they have chosen the path of relentlessly demonizing all who disagree with them. As an example, the article for Jesus Christ is 73K long, while the article for Atheism (one of a staggeringly long series on the topic) is a whopping 169K! Homosexuality again tips the scales at an impressive 169K, while heterosexuality is not even worth a paltry 1K of effort. They have 10 times more to say about "liberal hate speech" than they do about "love". And surely, a conservative, family friendly, bible-believing encyclopedia would have more to say about the Almighty than they would about bestiality... wouldn't they? You would think. --JoshuaB 19:38, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
I've just read the Atheism and bestiality article. I think it says a lot of things that needed to be said.--DavidEdwards 17:47, 24 March 2012 (EDT)
How about Mormonism and bestiality? Maybe you could get to work on that one. Rob Smith 20:02, 24 March 2012 (EDT)
I'm afraid that I don't know much about that. Are they known for it? Perhaps we could work together on Mormonism and underage marriage? I know they are sometimes accused of that but I'm not sure if the accusations are true.--DavidEdwards 12:43, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

I think some gentlemen need to be less obsessed with Conservapedia. Conservative 20:25, 23 March 2012 (EDT)

And your obsession with evolution, atheism and homosexuality is healthy? Projection, thy name is User:Conservative... RedGoliath 23:56, 23 March 2012 (GMT)
What I was just about to say. Also his obsessions with Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, obesity and machismo.--HolterSchmitz 19:59, 23 March 2012 (EDT)

I see some gentlemen still have not figured out why I wrote the homosexuality article. Will I/we take the reason to my/our grave? :) C.S. Lewis said the liberals who engage in criticism of written works in terms of how and why they are written are wrong in 100% of the cases based on his own experience. [19]

Lastly, as far as some of the articles I wrote, I just saw a need in the marketplace for more comprehensive works. At the time I wrote the atheism article I didn't realize the extent that atheism was a shrinking worldview in terms of its adherents that is expected to further shrink at an accelerated rate (see: Decline of atheism). Why the pixels of the atheism article will barely be dry before atheist population is a shriveled up and emaciated population. And at that time, the atheism article will be of much interest to the general public as an article on Baal worship is today. :) Conservative 20:54, 23 March 2012 (EDT)

Conservative you're starting to sound like a broken record (See: http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=sound+like+a+broken+record) Andy why do you let this guy hijack the site? Quality is better than quantity. Mijae 00:32, 24 March 2012

I understand that liberals, particularly atheists and evolutionists want to shove significant events in history under the rug and also want to silence evidence that is contrary to their various errant notions. I think you need to get it through your head that you don't control this website nor do your priorities matter. Your petulant complaints will continue to go unheeded. Feel free to continue to wail and bellyache though as I am sure some find your futile and dogged persistence fascinating and entertaining. Conservative 07:21, 24 March 2012 (EDT)
I'm a new user just signed up here and I must say that I think the main page is fantastic. It really shows up liberals and atheists for what they are! Keep up the good work.--DavidEdwards 08:37, 24 March 2012 (EDT)

<--

  • Andy said,
  • this is a meritocracy. The more an editor contributes substantively, the more important his opinion is.

With all due respect Andy, I think we've proven that's not true. Rob Smith 17:04, 24 March 2012 (EDT)

Conservative's work has important and positive goals; may be it is not perfect... but who could replace him? Who could give so much of his time to this project? May be a polite understanding among us could help; anyone interested in the prosperity of this site? --Joaquín Martínez 20:13, 24 March 2012 (EDT)
I tried that. User:Conservative deleted and oversighted my ongoing conversations with other editors. Karajou blocked many and deleted their user pages. It's hard to foster a spirit of collaboration when sysops, who are not even involved in discussions, interfere with your work. The net result is simply a colossal waste of time. Rob Smith 12:36, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

Approximately 5 years ago, I set a goal in relation to atheism which I achieved. I do think the best is yet to come as far as atheism being crushed like a tin can.

Presently, there are some Christian grassroots movements and Christian initiatives developing which will help accelerate the current trend of global atheism shrinking. Some of them include: the explosive growth of global Christianity, Creation Ministries International continuing to grow its outreach, the Question evolution! campaign, Christian internet evangelism and the grassroots Christian apologetics efforts of Ratio Christi.

In addition, there are some major obstacles facing atheism. Also, there are some strong demographic factors which causing atheism to shrink which will accelerate as time progresses (see: Global atheism). I realize some atheists are upset about these matters and want to engage in denialism and hide in their intellectual bunny holes, nevertheless these events are taking place. Conservative 10:06, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

Do you imagine anyone actually reads your posts? Rob Smith 12:36, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
MNCalder, you claimed I set up a blog on blogspot, but I noticed a conspicuous absence of evidence for this claim. Evidently, you are not a skeptic nor are you trying to convince skeptics of your claim. :) Conservative 10:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
Conservative is right, You have not responded at all. Please back up your claims before making such accusations. Also, we are a meritocracy, and Conservative's edit far outstrip your own.
RobS, do you imagine writing high traffic articles? Why don't you launch your own wiki if you are so unhappy? Show the world how it's done since you are often telling people how it should be done. Conservative 13:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

And a message to certain gentlemen: Last time I checked, your website still was not notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article (Even your fellow liberals don't respect you).  :) Conservative 14:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

Newton, you have your own account at "that other site", so instead of posting red telephone messages that cast serious doubt on your sanity, why not use it?22:33, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

Yet ANOTHER ludicrously derailed conversation about the way this site appears. My particular bugbear, and one that I cannot understand is being forgotten about by Mr. Schlafly, is the Conservtive Bible Project. That project needs work, is unique to Conservapedia and authentically a product of this site, has nothing to do with other websites to which most of the Main Page now diverts people, is an enormously valid project, and ought to be pinned to the top of Main Page Left. Instead of which we now have a picture of Hitler, the most repulsive man in history. The Art Masterpieces section and the Conservative Bible Project should be the first things people see when they come here - instead, they see a deranged racist lunatic, with links that pull people away from doing any useful work here. It's stupid, and makes this place a complete joke. And, adding insult to injury, the idiot who writes all this nonsense then claims that the only reason people complain about it are liberals? As another user above points out, this is the kind of stuff liberals LOVE - it makes us look like their cartoon portrayal of 'looney right-wingers'. It's CONSERVATIVES who object to the abject humiliation of this site by that user, not liberals. PLEASE DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS USER! And please, no responses asking me to answer 15 questions about anything. JanW 14:50, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

Conservapedia Sports?[edit]

Hello, upon scrolling through the main page today I was struck by a great thought. Although the coverage of Tim Tebow etc. is of great merit, I think there should be a greater focus on sport overall, as a nice sidebar to all the torment and strife highlighted on the main page. Would it be possible? And would anyone be interested in collaborating for a christian, conservative (obviously!) section on the upcoming NFL draft for example? God bless

You mean on the left sidebar like the debate topics? Conservative 23:24, 24 March 2012 (EDT)

Rain[edit]

It is totally hilarious that the atheists' parade was rained out, serves them right. I would just like to ask whether we can actually be sure that this was God's doing. Andy Schlafly said here: "I don't think anyone claims that God is responsible for everything that happens in the world." Can we know for sure that God caused this rain fall, but not, say, last year's tsunami? --FrederickT3 15:02, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

What did Jesus say about rain? Didn't He say God causes it to rain on the just and the unjust? Does the book of Job give any clues about weather and weather catastrophes? Conservative 15:12, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
Short memories anyone? WilcoxD 19:29, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
Thanks for your good humor, Wilcox. But at the March for Life, the rain subsided during the afternoon event. (But it did, I must admit, remain cold.)--Andy Schlafly 19:37, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
The Reason Rally was an utter failure. Plus, 2020 is expect to be turning point in the pro-life movement and that is merely taking demographics into account.[20] On the other hand, global atheism is shrinking and expected to shrink at an accelerate rate.
It is a glorious time to be a Bible believer and a depressing time to be an atheist (see: Atheism and depression). Conservative 20:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
File:Desperation man.jpg
God caused it to rain during the Reason Rally and only several thousand people gathered at the event. Plus, I can't answer Shockofgod's question and the 15 questions of the Question evolution! campaign. Please see: Atheism and depression
Please see: Essay: The "Reason Rally" was so depressing Conservative 21:16, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

Maybe it was raining on these people[21]? --JoshuaB 22:40, 25 March 2012 (EDT or maybe it was just rain, without any political implications?

Atheists are so simpy though with their "why is their evil" whining. Like, if there was a God, then why is my triple scoop ice cream cone dripping on my hand and why did it rain on my parade? Of course, Christian apologists have a ready defense about the existence of evil which confounds simpy atheists: Atheism and the Problem of Evil No doubt any pockets of whiny and simpy atheist resistance to the gospel being spread throughout the world is going to be easily defeated with the Question evolution! campaign and other Christian initiatives. Conservative 22:51, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
Conservative, did you ever play Mad Libs as a kid? It's the game where you supply a random collection of nouns, verbs, adjectives... etc. that get placed randomly into a pre-written story. The end results can be quite comical. Anyway, that's what many of your replies read like. Either that, or a poorly written Turing program. --JoshuaB 23:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
JoshuaB, why don't you show me how it's done. Show me a well-written article that you have composed which has received a wide readership. Of course, we both know that is not going to happen, don't we? The "criticmeister" is no doubt quite lame when it comes to his own writing. Conservative 23:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
You have me wrong Conservative, I lay no claims to being a skilled practitioner of the written word. Yet, one does not need to be a master to spot amateurishness in others. For example, I am not a gymnast. I have all the grace of a three-legged ox. But if I watched you take to the balance beam, do a triple back flip, and land squarely on your head... I wouldn't have to be Mary Lou Retton or Nadia Comaneci to tell you that you're doing it wrong. Hey! I just thought of something! You thought I was making a claim of skill, so you demanded proof. Very shrewd of you. Unfortunately for you, I made no such claim. Nice try though. But it does remind me that you have made many claims at never having lost a debate... got any proof? What's that? The street lights are on and you hear your mom calling? ;-) --JoshuaB 00:09, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
Thanks for providing us another sample of poor writing that is devoid of any real significance. Conservative 01:02, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
Burn? --JoshuaB 01:21, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
Your pridefulness is damaging this website's credibility and would be embarrassing to a well man. I sincerely hope you get good care. I feel so badly for you. Nate 02:27, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

Nate, what you feel sorry for is your bloated stubborn pride which hates being shown that you and your post 1960s liberal Roman Catholic Church (RCC) are wrong on an issue and you get very angry when this occurs. The mere thought that you and your scandal ridden post 1950s liberal church hierarchy could be wrong on an issue is intolerable to you and your embarrassing undisciplined and vitriolic rant on your user page which you took down is evidence of this. Of course, we both know that what I am saying is true in this case as evidenced by you not being able to satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists.

By the way, your church hierarchy was wrong in the Galileo affair as well. The funny thing is that some prideful Catholics still can't get over the fact that the church was wrong in the Galileo affair as evidenced by the Catholic Robert Sungenis, Ph.D. who maintains that Galileo was wrong and the RCC was right as can be seen HERE. The Roman Catholic Church at the time of the Galileo affair was so enthralled by Aristotle (who was a mere man) that they blew it in the Galileo affair.[22][23] History has a way of repeating itself and now the post 1950s liberal Roman Catholic Church is a follower of Darwinism via its ideological cousin theistic evolution. Conservative 06:54, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

File:Angry hitler.jpg
Invisible Red telephone! Operation Flying Fortress is gathering steam, and soon Conservapedia's articles will be ranking high on a certain search engine starting with the letter "G", to the chargrin of Athiest Militant Evolutioninsts! :):):) So, gentlemen at another site, what are your responses? :):):) Global Atheism is Shrinking, much to the chargrin of Richard Dawkins, and friends!":):):)
The above seems unduly anti-Catholic.
"The rain it raineth on the just and on the unjust." I don't think bad weather at any event, no matter how atheistic, can be considered evidence of God's disapproval. It would be more pertinent to ask, if all these atheists are so scientifically minded, why they couldn't plan their event to avoid the rain.
(Of course, in the biblical context, rain is a good, life-giving event, and the original point of the verse is that good things happen to bad people, not vice versa.)--CPalmer 09:14, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
Nate (and CPalmer), One of the biggest promoters of the Question evolution campaign on the internet is a Roman Catholic and he did it due a request of mine (I have a cordial relationship with this person). Correct me if I am wrong, but no Pope has spoken ex-cathedra on behalf of the macroevolution issue. And we both know that a Pope never will given the absence of compelling evidence for macroevolutionary thought and all the evidence contrary to it. :) Conservative 09:23, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

CPalmer, Nate is the one who is contending with me and I see no problem with spirited rejoinders and theological debate at a wiki. Christianity certainly have a history of spirited debate. Martin Luther was certainly not a shrinking violet. I see no reason for squelching a debate concerning Protestantism/Catholicism relative to biblical creation. Conservative 09:23, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

CPalmer, I am certainly not anti-rain. :) I merely quoted the verse to demonstrate the point that God is involved to some degree in weather/rain. The degree of involvement is not a matter I want to discuss at this point but the accounts of Noah, Elijah and the words/actions of Christ himself bolsters the view that God influences weather. There are plenty of verses in the Bible to support this view. Conservative 09:50, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
I still think that the more interesting question is why these supposedly brilliant atheists couldn't plan around the weather forecast, or at least arrange some kind of wet weather alternative to their event.--CPalmer 09:56, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
It is just rain, no? Please, people, less talk, more edits!14:12, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

Has the scope of Conservapedia changed?[edit]

Hello Conservapedians. I'm a new user here, altough I follow Conservapedia for some time. Mainly for my interest for different internet encyclopedias. However, I remember coming here, some years back at this site, it looked more or less like a regular encyclopedia. Some news, some featured articles on the frontpage etc etc. Nowadays the frontpage, seems to be a one-issue anti-evolutionist-campain folder. To my humble opinion this is a pity. It would be so much nicer if there would be a bigger variation in featered articles and less emphasis on only 1 subject. If I look at "recent changes" I see that most edits are not done in the enclopedic article, but more in debate-topics. Are there more users who noticed this change and might the be a threat for the popularity of this encyclopedia? I think a real encyclopedia could be a true conservative major competitor for Wikipedia. The way it looks now, it doesn't resemble an encyclopedia. But that is just my observation as an oustander. Furthermore I would like to excuse myself for my language. As you have probably noticed english is not my mother-tongue. Understanding however is no problem at all. Cyclofile 09:45, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

There are plenty of news stories on other issues. Conservapedia goes through seasons where various issues have more coverage depending on events occurring. Lately, there has been a rash of anti-evolution bills and increased advocacy of biblical creationism in the world. Plus, evolutionary thought is at the root of much of liberal thought. In addition, post the growth of Christian conservatism and post New Atheism, the issues of theism/atheism/evolutionism have become more an issue in the public discourse. Conservative 09:56, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
I have to agree on the fact that issues on evolutionism are in the public discourse. Howver, I think that the balance between anit-evolutionisme/anti-theism and "normal" topics is a bit tilted. Why not some more links to the the many non-political lemmas this encyclopedia has? I read somewhere that Conservapedia is a family-encyclopedia, so why not link to interesting topics like famous poets, painters or geographical articles? I think there's enough space for both anti-atheist articles and for "not-anti-articles" on the main page at the same time. Cyclofile 10:10, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
Well for a while, I relentlessly pounded the atheism beaches via the main page and it was very popular post New Atheism. :) Shockofgod and his fans certainly liked it. :) I think Christendom is going to be increasingly active on the evolutionism front and I see no reason for not covering it on the main page. With global atheism getting weaker by the day and this trend accelerating, Christendom should certainly capitalize on this matter and evolutionism is the air supply of atheism. Much of conservatism is driven by religious conservatism after all and this is going to increasingly be the case.[24] Conservative 10:30, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
Ok I think I get your point. I also think you should cover the anti-atheistic artciles on the frontpage. Still I miss a bit of normal artcles which are not anti-XXXX, but just neutral and non-political. I understand that as a conservative you want to use the encyclopedia as a measure to bring down atheism, but please don't forget that Conservapedia is also a encyclopedia which is just interesting to read and learn from. Anyway, in the end it's all a matter of taste and mine is just a bit different than the main page we have nowadays. Cyclofile 10:39, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
File:Chopping down evolutionary belief.jpg
Picture featured in an internet posting entitled The Question evolution! campaign axman cometh[1]

I want to report more on the Question evolution campaign axeman and the person who ordered the 2,000 Question evolution tracts. Do you think they are the same person or are they different people? :)

Here is some information on the Question evolution campaign axeman:

"A person who loves the Question evolution! campaign has made the commitment to intensely promote the campaign. Hundreds of hours are going to be added to promote the campaign in the short term. He is going to relentlessly swing his Question evolution! axe at the rotten tree of evolutionism and nothing is going to distract him."[25]

He sounds very zealous and determined!  :) Conservative 12:03, 26 March 2012 (EDT)