Conservapedia:Censoring Lenski's RW ref
From RationalWiki
The following was removedimg by Conservapedia Sysop "Learn Together" from the relevant Conservapedia talk page on 25 June 08. It is copied here at RationalWiki in case it is completely erased there or Conservapedia is down.
The discussion refers to the Lenski affair.
Note: The following Conservapedia users received blocks during this exchange:
- User:Red Dog. Reason - Being a dog is no excuse for hounding people.
- User:Etc. Reason - Disobedience concerning link questions.
- User:British cons. Reason - Disobedience concerning link questions.
- (User:Jamesmason later attempted to communicate information about RationalWiki to one of the blocked users and was blocked for: Citing from inappropriate source)
Further note: The following contains posts by the sysop Bugler who came out as a parodist on the first of January 2009. Considering the quality of his responses here, they should have known.
[edit] The Missing Link
Excuse the pun but could you please provide the link missing from Lenski's second reply. I know your against censorship so assume good faith here. RedDog 06:50, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
- What missing link is that? All the links to Wikipedia are included. I dont think Andy would stoop so low as to remove anything from the letter when Lenski he specifically asked that it be reproduced in its entirety. Lobachevsky 07:11, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
- This one '[Ed.: citation omitted due to spam filter]'. As stated above I am not suggesting anyone is stooping anywhere and assume good faith. I would still like to see the link. RedDog 07:16, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
- Oh yes, I didn't see that. Well in that case I think I think it should be made known. Even if a spam filter stops it being shown then there could be a couple of asterisks to get round it. Although I doubt that Lenski would use any profanity in his reply so I don't know what could possibly be excised from the original. Without it the terms of Lenski's post have not been complied with. Lobachevsky 07:55, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
- The spam filter blocked it because it consists of a link previously determined by this site to be unacceptable.--Aschlafly 08:08, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
- I am concerned that you have chosen to censor an element of Lenski's reply. Could you please be more specific. If Lenski's reply contained vulgarities etc this is of note to the argument at hand. RedDog 08:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
- It does seem rather odd that one of his references was omitted. It can hardly be a pornographic site. In general, what other links are subject to censorship?--British_cons (talk) 09:30, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
Mr Schlafly has said that the site concerned has been deemed unacceptable. Further questioning on this point will be deemed disruptive and dealt with accordingly. Thank you. Bugler 09:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
- It hardly seems fair to censor part of Professor Lenski's full and comprehensive reply. It also seems to be a little heavy-handed to say that people who ask questions about such censorship will be "dealt with accordingly".--British_cons (talk) 09:40, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
- No, the link should definitely not be revealed. Although I, naturally, don't know what the link is to, though we can assume it was a shock site, foul language, pornography, or something in that line. Since Lenski knew that his response would be posted on this family-friendly encyclopedia, he would have purposefully put the link in to aggravate readers. That tells us a lot about his attitude, and by keeping the link intact, we let him "win".
- However, I would like to ask mr. Schlafly to reveal the nature of the unacceptable site. I personally find it a bit strange that Lenski would insert a pornographic link in his otherwise relevant response. Etc 09:59, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
- If I am allowed to continue questioning this without further threats from sysop:Bugler I would say that it seems to me to be extremely unlikely that the link would be to "shock site". But I agree with you that we should be told why it was necessary to censor the reply. Especially so when Mr Schafly has been arguing for the importance of the disclosure of data all this time.--British_cons talk) 10:08, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
- Deal however you see fit Bugler old fruit. Your censorship of both me and more importantly of Lenski will stand fine testament. RedDog 10:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
Censorship? Censorship? Even a good dog needs a tug on the choke chain every now and again - and where on earth am I supposed to have censored the esteemed Prof? Bugler 10:23, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
- Bugler. Very obviously the link in Lenski's e-mail has been censored (as per the top of this thread). I have simply asked specifically why this is the case. If that gets me banned it says more about you than me. RedDog 10:31, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
- Bugler, perhaps rather than trying to speak for Mr. Schlafly, you could stand down and let him respond to questions that were directed at him and that he is more qualified to answer. ZTak 10:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
- RedDog, it has been removed as it links to a site deemed unacceptable. I do not know what the link was. I did no remove it. However, one either believes that Andrew Schlafly acted in good faith or not. If you believe not, then why should you be here? I know I wouldn't be. And since he acted in good faith and the best interests of CP, we should leave it at that.
ZTak, MYOB
Bugler 10:39, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
- I agree Bugler and I accept good faith. But make no mistake this IS censorship. There is no other word for it. I do accept what you say though and will let the matter drop here. RedDog 10:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
My guess would be RW. I know that it is blocked by the spam filter, and I don't know of any other websites blocked by the filter. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 10:42, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
- What is "RW"? Drochld 10:50, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
- If you knew that is the site, it would be improper for you to mention it by name. Since you don't know, it is utterly irresponsible of you to speculate. Do you see what you have started? Bugler 10:52, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
- Asking what it is seems a lot different from speculating as to what it is... EBrown 10:54, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
- Sorry, that comment was to CPadmin, not Drochld Bugler 11:10, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
- No problem; apology accepted. Drochld 11:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
(@Tim)Why would Professor Lenski be linking to RW? Quite frankly, there are many other more reliable websites to be used as sources... --transResident Transfanform! 10:57, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
- RW is a wiki which claims to be rational. It is highly critical of Conservapedia and I had understood that mentioning its existence generally got the poster blocked. Am I correct in this or has that polocy changed?Tolerance 11:09, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
- Tolerance is correct. The place is the cesspit of the internet. Bugler 11:12, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
- I assume you don't visit the cesspit? --Jareddr 11:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
- The place exists, and I see no reason to pretend that it doesn't. I was simply guessing as to what the removed link might be. As for mentioning it by name, I did not do so. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 11:18, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
Asking for the name of the site that was deliberately not mentioned requires an expectation that the unnamed site will be named, which is clearly ludicrous. My speculation is the same as CPAdmin1's. I don't think anything further can be gained by discussing this particular point, so apart from a totally new take on the issue with good reason, I'm declaring this particular discussion (regarding the site's name) now closed, and further discussion on it will result in blocks. Okay? (Too bad if it's not!). Philip J. Rayment 11:28, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
- What is ludicrous is that Lenski's response has been edited for no apparent reason. What is even more ludicrous is that those who ask about it are threatened with being blocked. This smacks of heavily of hypocrisy on a site that constantly decries censorship. --ProfHigginsPhD 18:40, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
- This is "conservative deceit," to reference our friend Bugler. Hey Bugler! --eligus
