fayfreethinkers.com

There's a new kid on the block, the web-block that is. Seems the Right led by
Andrew Schlafly, son of conservative activist and Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly found Wikipedia too liberal, too scientific and too anti-Christian.

Anyone been poking around?

Here is link www.conservapedia.com/

May require several minutes to log into the site. Those wingies are not
up on IT just yet.

Regrets, I forgot to sign in on the above post.

DAR
I was wondering if he was related to her. Truly, the right wing nut does not fall far from the tree.
Check out his recent roast on this forum here.

LaWood wrote:There's a new kid on the block, the web-block that is. Seems the Right led by
Andrew Schlafly, son of conservative activist and Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly found Wikipedia too liberal, too scientific and too anti-Christian.

It's been around a long while. It was recently mentioned here on FFForums. The rest of the world is too factual, so Son of Schlafly decided to pretend that his fantasy world is true reality. Seriously, reading some of it will just make you sick.

Thanks guys. I should take more time to see if something is here.
If you wish take this post down since it's really a duplication and doesn't
add much.

LaWood wrote:Thanks guys. I should take more time to see if something is here.
If you wish take this post down since it's really a duplication and doesn't
add much.

This bulletin board software makes it really easy to see what you've missed since last time if you'll just log in.

Hey, I went on Conversapedia to see what it says about some topics and here you go.

On the page entitled Birth Control Pill:

The birth control pill (often just 'the pill') is a carcinogenic method of female contraception that forces the unnatural release of hormones.

The entire page entitled Sexual Intercourse:

The entire Bible clearly teaches ... that sexual intercourse should take place in the context of the marital union of male and female. To argue otherwise is to argue against the entire weight of Scripture on matters of sexual ethics.

On the page entitled Contraception:

Contraception (or birth control) refers to techniques, drugs, or devices that prevent conception. There are many different methods, each having its own level of effectiveness and safety. Abstinence during fertile times can take the place of artificial form of birth control.

On Pregnancy:

A woman becomes pregnant when a fertilised egg—a new human life—is implanted into her uterus.

and

Pregnancy in animals other than humans is referred to under the broader term of gestation.

Ok, The pill can actually reduce the risks of some cancers. They do not describe what sexuality is, they just say what the bible says about it (Which is actually wrong. The bible endorses polygyny and sex slaves). Abstinence during fertile times is not that effective because of the difficulty in pinpointing that exact times of ovulation. Other methods are proven to be more effective, and require less knowledge and paperwork. The phrase "a new human life" looks like it was inserted at the last moment. Gestation is a term used for humans. The authors are trying to set up a difference between a human embryo and other animal embryos.

You're saying that conservative arguments are full of half-truths, propaganda, and blatant lies? No!

(Poe's law requires I designate the above as sarcasm.)

Even if something has been posted before, I don't think it's appropriate to "fuss at" someone for posting it again - especially if it's been a while. For one thing, lots of people might not have read it before. I didn't know about this, so I appreciate LaWood's post.

Betsy wrote:Even if something has been posted before, I don't think it's appropriate to "fuss at" someone for posting it again - especially if it's been a while.

I don't see any fussing. In fact...

Betsy wrote:For one thing, lots of people might not have read it before. I didn't know about this, so I appreciate LaWood's post.

... my pseudo-harsh comment was about a method to prevent this from happening.
You'll also notice that LaWood himself brought up the possibility of deleting the thread, yet nobody has so much as locked it.

Sav, you said: This bulletin board software makes it really easy to see what you've missed since last time if you'll just log in.

Maybe you didn't mean it to sound sarcastic/rude, but it kind of did

Betsy wrote:Maybe you didn't mean it to sound sarcastic/rude, but it kind of did

Or maybe I meant it to be sarcastically rude, meaning not truly rude yet poking fun at the fact that LaWood does things the hard and mistake-prone way.

Okay, Sav, you win. What a shame we all can't be as perfect as you.

Oh, was that rude? No, it was sarcastically rude. That makes it okay, by your rule book.

Look, if you want people to participate on the forum, you can't fire away belittling remarks to them, especially over nonsense. I'm pretty sure that's why Barbara doesn't participate like she used to, and that's why I left for a few months. I'm not going to argue about this anymore, I was just pointing it out so maybe you'd apologize. What a concept, huh?

Betsy wrote:Okay, Sav, you win. What a shame we all can't be as perfect as you.

Oh, was that rude? No, it was sarcastically rude. That makes it okay, by your rule book.

If that's what it takes to get a point across, then so be it. You're welcome to use my philosophy of delivering a metaphorical swift kick to the ass of somebody who deserves it.
(In fact, I strongly recommend this philosophy to everyone. Betsy did a pretty good job here.)

Betsy wrote:Look, if you want people to participate on the forum, you can't fire away belittling remarks to them, especially over nonsense.

What I'd really like is for people to follow the extremely simple posting conventions as laid out in the General Information forum. For example:

In general, it is better to add to an existing thread than to start a new one. Do not start a new thread if the specific desired topic already exists on the forum.

By posting a new thread, LaWood instilled in me a feeling of obligation to link to the previous thread to let everybody see all of the comments that have been made on this topic. I'd rather not have to do that, and I expressed this very clearly in the forum that everybody is supposed to read and understand before posting.

Here's another:

Please condense long URLs by using the "url=..." tag. For example: [url=http://www.reallysuperlonginternetdomainnamethattakesupwaytoomuchspaceonthepage.com]Short link.[/url]

LaWood continually posts URLs that haven't been condensed, which makes pages hard to read. I have to manually edit these posts to end up with a page that doesn't have to be scrolled horizontally in order to read. I do this for you, the reader, to make your experience here less of a hassle. The forums are not self-maintaining, self-moderated, and self-despammed, so Darrel and I sink time and effort into making this happen. It seems to me that making these very small, easy-to-follow requests of our contributors shouldn't be a big deal at all.

I have repeatedly asked LaWood to condense links. I have linked him to the help page, to the FAQ page, and I have explained how to do it. Nevertheless, I have just shortened yet another link that he posted. To say that I was tired of it months ago is but a crude representation of the facts.

You may be thinking: "You know, you could send LaWood a private message so that this could be resolved in private." And yes, that would be great. But I've tried before, and he doesn't get them because he doesn't sign in. My only way to contact people who don't sign in is to respond in the thread.

Betsy wrote:I'm pretty sure that's why Barbara doesn't participate like she used to, and that's why I left for a few months.

I'm not aiming to chase anybody off. I want to get my point across: I've asked people to read all of this information -- including the request to become a member and sign in, to follow posting conventions, and to follow the directions of the moderators -- yet I find myself dealing with the same stuff over and over again.

Betsy wrote:I'm not going to argue about this anymore, I was just pointing it out so maybe you'd apologize. What a concept, huh?

I'm sorry that I've provoked you to take offense (or anyone to take serious offense), but I see no reason to apologize for my intent. I was not trying to genuinely belittle or berate LaWood; rather, I was trying to get a point across because being Mr. Happy Cheery Professional Nice Moderator Guy wasn't working.

Oh. Good explanation.

Ummm.....(looking around, whistling)....Alrighty then!

Since my name was brought into this - Sav, sometimes you are a little - abrupt - for comfort and there are a few topics that we disagree so profoundly on I won't go there any more. However the reason I don't participate like I used to is that I used to post from work at lunch, coffee break, or when things were REALLY slow. A terminated employee who knew this came on the site, printed out every post I'd made, and sent them to the provost accusing me of running a political website from work. While that got as far as me telling the department head that if I knew how to run a website, we wouldn't be having so much trouble with our departmental webpage (and pointing out that the moderators are clearly listed on the site and I'm not one of them), he suggested that I not post from work anymore. He didn't have a problem with it, but he did have a problem with explaining it to the dean and provost. So now I only post from home and I have a small and cranky computer (and after a week of staring at a computer screen, I don't log in at home very often).

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote:A terminated employee who knew this came on the site, printed out every post I'd made, and sent them to the provost accusing me of running a political website from work.

DOUG
Wow, what a horrible person. Must've been a Republican.

This is not directed at any one person but hopefully all who read it will gain.

Before we chastise Sav or any other administrator or moderator on here keep in mind all we must do to use this site is simple enough for most of us.
But, hey! I can screw up a ball bearing. I think everyone who uses this forum or other forums/blogs for free must keep in mind the effort, energy, learning and time moderators and administrators put into creating and maintaining it.

When the porn attack happened on here a while back I sent DAR an email about it. He responded that it was requiring a long, almost overnight effort to get the stuff removed and blocked. There is simply a lot of work done for a love of labor and service to community on these forums. It's good to keep that in mind when we criticize the moderators and administrators.

When using this site our comments are rarely edited for content or inappropriateness. I also note a lack of advertising banners flashing in your face or sidebar ads asking you to click and see yet another attempt to get your money.

It's a good site. Everyone gets a fair shot. That's good enough for me.
.

Does this mean you'll start condensing your links now, LaWood? Because I'd really appreciate it.

Savonarola wrote:Does this mean you'll start condensing your links now, LaWood? Because I'd really appreciate it.

DAR
I think he already did one. Check out this beauty:

here.

Unless you did it.

D.