Posted on 10/03/2019 7:32:57 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj
The costs would be prohibitive (to me) to launch and maintain such a site. I don’t have the resources ($$) to do so.
You do make some good points. ;-)
I just merely approach the whole thing from the perspective of, “is it true or false ?” The ugly argument over my labeling a place as a “ghost”, because it ceased to have residents since the last government survey of 40 or more years ago. I cited my conclusions and how I reached them and said resources, but that simply wouldn’t appease the editor gods with bad attitudes.
If a point can be proven or disproven when submitting research, it should simply be allowed. If there is a problem with it and someone takes issue and can submit work refuting the work, then do so. There’s way too much, “We don’t like how you researched this, but we can’t REFUTE it” garbage going on at WP. It’s sloppy, it’s lazy, and it makes almost everything on their website suspect as a result.
The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing.
The man whom we believe is necessarily, in the things concerning which we believe him, our leader and director, and we look up to him with a certain degree of esteem and respect. But as from admiring other people we come to wish to be admired ourselves; so from being led and directed by other people we learn to wish to become ourselves leaders and directors. And as we cannot always be satisfied merely with being admired, unless we can at the same time persuade ourselves that we are in some degree really worthy of admiration; so we cannot always be satisfied merely with being believed, unless we are at the same time conscious that we are really worthy of belief. As the desire of praise and that of praise-worthiness, though very much a-kin, are yet distinct and separate desires; so the desire of being believed and that of being worthy of belief, though very much a-kin too, are equally distinct and separate desires.The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires. — Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)
Can’t argue with Mr. Smith. ;-)
It is a job, IMHO, which must not be necessary - because it’s a fool’s errand to try to convince people who are determined not to be convinced. And that is mankind’s inherent condition.A man convinced against his will
is of the same opinion still.
When I say that that job must not be necessary, what I mean is that the laws of libel and slander must be enforced.It’s easy to say that New York Times Co. v. Sullivan was a unanimous decision by SCOTUS, and it makes it impractical to sue for libel in a great many cases. But then, Morrison v. Olson would have been unanimous too, if not for then-freshman Justice Antonin Scalia - and nobody now thinks that Morrison is good law. History quite promptly revealed the wisdom of Scalia’s dissent.
A half-century of water has gone under the bridge since Sullivan was promulgated in 1964, and in retrospect the case is not nearly as representative as has been claimed. First because the plaintiff was neither a conservative nor a liberal - as now understood - and thus was an easy target. And secondly, because the salient fact about “the media” - the fact that American national journalism is a cartel - was not before the court, and would have been laughed out of the Warren Court if it had been brought to it. It is also true that 1964 was at the dawning of the TV age, and we are now well into the Internet era.
It is easy to show that American journalism is a cartel and, in retrospect, clearly was one decades before 1964. The wire services constitute a continual virtual meeting of all major journalism, and Adam Smith’s dictum " People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices” predicts that by now "a conspiracy against the public” is inevitable. That conspiracy is, I submit, the redefinition of terms of political discussion such that, in a Newspeak sense, it is difficult to articulate and thus to even think outside the “box” of pro-big government propaganda.
The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires. — Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)The journalism cartel expresses that desire by instituting a redefinition of “objective” to mean, exactly in accord with the opinion of the journalism cartel.” But the cartel, like the mafia, tries to deny its very existence, and certainly the existence of a particular political viewpoint within it. The cartel also coopts every other positive political label - “liberal,” “centrist,” “moderate,” you name it - all are defined to mean “in perfect accord with the viewpoint of the membership of the journalism cartel (which of course 'doesn’t exist,’ and certainly ‘doesn’t have a political viewpoint').”The reason the journalism cartel has a socialist political perspective is, IMHO, the fact that journalism is on the lookout of “news.” Not just any event makes great copy, tho - journalism is on the lookout for bad news - news which will throw society in a bad light. And throwing society in a bad light inherently suggests that government should "do something.” As if government never made any problem worse . . .
Not only are the wire services, individually and collectively, sufficient condition for the emergence of a conspiracy against the public, they are artifacts of the high cost of telegraphy bandwidth in a bygone era. Today, telegraphy bandwidth is dirt cheap in comparison. If the wire services didn’t already exist, it would be laughable to suggest that creation of them should be allowed. The wire services should be abolished, and their membership/subscription base put on notice that they have been acting anticompetitively and must change their ways.
And that is where discussion of the Sullivan decision comes in. Sullivan prevents government officials and judges from suing for libel. But the reality is that at this point in history all Democrat politicians are “liberals” - are in full go-along-and-get-along mode with the journalism cartel - and therefore, a rule which prevents politicians from suing for libel is a rule that prevents Republicans from suing for libel.
The Sullivan decision claims to be required by the First Amendment. But in reality, the First Amendment is no reason for any change in the rights of the people. That is because, as Scalia pointed out, the Bill of Rights was crafted to prevent changes in the rights of the people. Since the Bill of Rights was intended - by its authors and ratifiers - to prevent changes in the rights of the people, our rights are not defined by the First Amendment or the Second Amendment but by law as it existed before the ratification of the Constitution. And that is why the First Amendment cannot be summarized airily as “freedom of the press.” The First Amendment reified “the freedom . . . of the press” as it preexisted the Constitution. And that is why libel law (and pornography prohibitions, BTW) survive the passage of the First Amendment.
The Warren Court justices knew that, of course - but they wrote Sullivan as if they didn’t. The Sullivan decision systematically deprives politicians who do not go along with the journalism cartel legal recourse when the cartel takes action to punish them for obeying the principle of republican government:
“The republican principle demands that the deliberate sense of the community should govern the conduct of those to whom they intrust the management of their affairs; but it does not require an unqualified complaisance to every sudden breeze of passion or to every transient impulse which the people may receive from the arts of men, who flatter their prejudices to betray their interests.” ― Alexander Hamilton
Then I added some information on the WP Bahá'í Faith infomercial and that was shot down on the basis that it was substantiated by primary sources (the religions own authoritative teachings) which was not allowed.
So in response I made a blog post about Buttigieg as well as here, and created a wiki article on conservapedia , which site certainly needs help, though original research need not be a problem though it can be, and POV abounds.
Why? Because Princeton Theological Seminary. was not an unbiased source, as I support some university like Harvard would be considered to be. Yet consider his resume:
Professor of New Testament Theology at Houston Baptist University. Previously he was a tenured Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, teaching there for 23 years (1994-2017). Before that he had a one-year position as Visiting Professor of Religion at Middlebury College in Vermont. He has a B.A. degree from Dartmouth College, an M.T.S. from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary. His main fields of interest are Pauline theology and sexual issues in the Bible. He is a member both of the Society of Biblical Literature and of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas [Society of New Testament Studies]. He is also an ordained elder at a Presbyterian Church (USA) in Pittsburgh. He is the author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001; 520 pgs.); co-author (with Dan O. Via) of Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003; 125 pgs.); and, as a service to the church, provides a large amount of free material on the web dealing with Scripture and homosexuality. In addition, he has published scholarly articles on biblical studies in Journal of Biblical Literature, New Testament Studies, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Novum Testamentum, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, and Horizons in Biblical Theology; and more popular treatments in The Christian Century and First Things. He is also author of article-length encyclopedia entries in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (Baker/SPCK), New Dictionary of Christian Apologetics (IVP), Oxford Handbook of Evangelical Theology (Oxford University Press), and Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization (Wiley-Blackwell). In addition, he has been quoted in, or has written for, the New York Times, National Public Radio, CNN, U.S. News and World Report, Christianity Today, Christian Century, and other news outlets and popular magazines. http://www.robgagnon.net/
You have to get past the suspicion period.
Some of the information from Wiki is helpful but I always check the footnotes and won’t just accept whatever is written at face value. Not good that it has become so political over the years. It used to be somewhat dependable. I guess it’s only as good as the people who write it and if the ones in control are playing a leftist power game, then I’ll use it even less. I’ve never contributed any money to them. Does that make a difference, you think?
The argument can be made that anything is a biased source.
I would say so.
Wikipedia's core sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, previously defined the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia as "verifiability, not truth". "Verifiability" was used in this context to mean that material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source.
The phrase "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" meant that verifiability is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material, though it is not a sufficient condition (it may not be enough). Sources must also be appropriate, and must be used carefully, and must be balanced relative to other sources per Wikipedia's policy on due weight. [but not in regards to conservative views]
Wikipedia's articles are intended as intelligent summaries and reflections of current published knowledge within the relevant fields, an overview of the relevant literature. The Verifiability policy is related to another core content policy, Neutral point of view, which holds that we include all significant views on a subject.
Meaning that as I found out, absurd interpretations of Scripture as regards its treatment of homosexual relations were included since they could be sourced to "scholarly" liberal sources.
And in regard to the Bahá'í Faith article , I was not allowed (repeatedly deleted) to to cite statements from their own authoritative interpretations of their beliefs since it was a primary source! Instead, only what others say about it might be allowed (which exposed it to be contrary to the infomercial the article is). I showed them I could also do that also, but that primary source material can be allowed in some cases.
Thus no one knows from the article that their christ, the self-proclaimed propet "Bahá'u'lláh," is declared to be the "supreme Manifestation of God," with all other manifestations being servants unto Him and do His bidding:
His Holiness the Exalted One (the Báb) is the Manifestation of the unity and oneness of God and the Forerunner of the Ancient Beauty. His Holiness the Abhá Beauty (Bahá’u’lláh) (may my life be a sacrifice for His steadfast friends) is the supreme Manifestation of God and the Day-Spring of His most divine Essence. All others are servants unto Him and do His bidding.” ; http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/WOB/wob-39.html
and with a goal of a new World Order, in which the Bahá'í Faith is the universal religion, " for "reality does not accept multiplicity, nor is it subject to divisibility." (Abdu’l‑Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, 1912; www.bahai.org/r/152498792) And in which "The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition of Him [Baha'u'llah] Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His laws, Who representeth the Godhead." .."whoso is deprived thereof hath gone astray, though he be the author of every righteous deed." (The Kitab-i-Aqdas, THE MOST HOLY BOOK, 1992, p. 19; Baha’i World Centre, Haifa, Israel; www.bahai.org/r/495703799)
Which is envisioned to
consist of a world legislature, whose members will, as the trustees of the whole of mankind, ultimately control the entire resources of all the component nations, and will enact such laws as shall be required to regulate the life, satisfy the needs and adjust the relationships of all races and peoples. A world executive, backed by an international Force, will carry out the decisions arrived at, and apply the laws enacted by, this world legislature,
A world federal system, ruling the whole earth and exercising unchallengeable authority over its unimaginably vast resources..(Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, by Bahá’u’lláh; http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/WOB/wob-56.html)
And in which faith,
The Greatest Name ["Bahá"] should be found upon the lips in the first awakening moment of early dawn. It should be fed upon by constant use in daily invocation, in trouble, under opposition, and should be the last word breathed when the head rests upon the pillow at night. It is the name of comfort, protection, happiness, illumination, love and unity.
The use of the Greatest Name and dependence upon it, cause the soul to strip itself of the husks of mortality and to step forth freed, reborn, a new creature….”(Lights of Guidance, by Helen Hornby. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá: United States Supplement to Bahá’í News, No. 80, p. 2, October 1964; https://bahai.works/Lights_of_Guidance/The_Greatest_Name,)
Among other conflicts, Bahá'í teachings contradicts the classic Christian belief of the Fall of man and consequently substitutionary atonement, as well as most Christian theology on Regeneration (theology), seeing it as unreasonable that Justice requires inflicting punishment upon the posterity of Adam for Adam’s own sin and disobedience, as well as the atonement of Christ redeeming such men as all the holy prophets. Instead, Bahá'u'lláh taught that suffered all tribulation and hardships from the people and finally offered His life as a sacrifice in order to illumine humanity—gave His blood in order to guide the world of mankind." gave His blood in order to guide the world of mankind. (The Promulgation of Universal Peace); www.bahai.org/r/992430260
Then there is their trojan horse Junior Youth Spiritual Empowerment program..
I gave up long time ago trying to correct those type of errors of whateverpedia.
You have to get past the suspicion period.Don't you think Conservapedia is going to grow if people such as yourself put time and effort into it? - righttackle44
The suspicion is that someone who is open about his/her POV can’t be trusted - whereas someone who claims not to have a POV can be trusted implicitly.There is obviously something wrong with that picture - one which was confronted by the ancient Greeks:
The Sophists claimed to be wise (compare: journalists, and Wikipedia moderators, claim to be objective), and their opponents rejected their claimed superiority. But to get out of a “he said, she said” argument, the Sophist’s opponents rejected claims of wisdom - for others and for themselves. Instead of claiming wisdom - and having the argument be about credentials rather than facts and logic the Sophists’ opponents claimed only to love wisdom. To be, in the Greek, “philosophers.”
- sophist
- 1542, earlier sophister (c.1380), from L. sophista, sophistes, from Gk. sophistes, from sophizesthai "to become wise or learned," from sophos "wise, clever," of unknown origin. Gk. sophistes came to mean "one who gives intellectual instruction for pay," and, contrasted with "philosopher," it became a term of contempt. Ancient sophists were famous for their clever, specious arguments.
- philosopher
- O.E. philosophe, from L. philosophus, from Gk. philosophos "philosopher," lit. "lover of wisdom," from philos "loving" + sophos "wise, a sage."
"Pythagoras was the first who called himself philosophos, instead of sophos, 'wise man,' since this latter term was suggestive of immodesty." [Klein]
- philosophy
- A fondness or love for wisdom that leads to searches for it; hence, seeking a knowledge of the general principles of elements, powers, examples, and laws that are supported by facts and the existence of rational explanations about practical wisdom and knowledge.
Yeah, must have sources, “no original research”.
I’ve only made minor edits.
So much info is out of date, lots of counties don’t have 2010 census data up.
Some phaggot messed up the 2016 House election page.
Once like IDK 15 years ago, I added in parenthesis the distance of the Earth to the Moon in MILES next to kilos and some eurotrash deleted it and said we millions of Americans should just convert it in our heads. I knew then that there was no way I’d doing editing on Wikipedia.
I edited a Game of Thrones wiki a couple years ago, this prick undid it and I told him he was incorrect and he said (whether it was an insult or he was serious I don’t know) that need to improve my English language skills.
You can’t compete with knobgabbling little shitebirds who LIVE to abuse their power as wiki editors because it’s the only thing they have that takes their mind of their micropeens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.