User talk:HP

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please feel free to leave comments here. HP 23:59, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

reply: obama

supporting some of the things he does or believes/says he believes is not the same as supporting obama. --SeanS 22:29, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

unlawful acts

That is an incorrect statement-- removed. --Jpatt 21:50, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

How so? For Obama's entire term, Obama's minions have been playing the race card, claiming everything as racism. If he gets impeached over essentially financial fraud with issuing illegal debt, the NAACP and the DNC are going to howl racism, even if Tim Scott and Alan West are front and center charging Obama. So your statement that this statement is incorrect is a bit presumptuous. Maybe it could be worded or sourced better, but it is correct and we should not have to be PC here. I can go to Wikipedia for that! HP 22:28, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
I agree with a valid accusation but if you look at the record over the past three months [1] clearly it is white liberals that use the Race Card the most. BHO is feverishly in campaign mode. Nothing, no court order, no impeachment hearing, nothing will prevent him from running in 2012. --Jpatt 22:39, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
Do you not believe that white liberals are being directed someway somehow by the White House? BHO may be in campaign mode, but he'll lose in a landslide come 2012! HP 22:51, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

Taking this from the Cyrus talk page

Yes that is the fate of liberal Christians, but Tortured by Satan? I think you should do some reading up of your own about what the bible says my friend, Satan does no torture in hell.--SeanS 15:55, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

An underused tool in today's society (RINO trying to play the race card)


OK ..... kind of a red herring there, but may you please sign your posts next time? HP 23:27, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
Sure - how's this. You're very quick to label someone as "liberal" because they questioned your edit. Try staying on topic and discussing the idea on the table rather than insulting the other editor. I personally thought your comment had racial undertones. --SharonW 23:32, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
No, I labeled him a liberal because he slanders Conservapedia and its admin corpson sites dedicated to criticizing Conservapedia. How pathetic is it to have to create a site (which is like #2 on Google when searching Conservapedia) to criticize Conservapedia? What that means is we're getting our message out and that pisses them off, apparently including Rob. And Rob is intellectually dishonest as he piggybacked off of my contributions, making them part of a featured article. HP 23:43, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
Racial undertones? Seriously? HP 23:44, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

Name calling counts as uncivility. As I stated earlier, discuss the topic on hand or don't say anything at all. Consider this a warning - next time, you just might be blocked for incivility. --SharonW 23:49, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
I did discuss the topic at hand, and my position's on the record. If you want to be part of Rob's dramafest which is undermining this site, I can't stop you. But you just called me a racist. Pot calling the kettle black there? HP 23:53, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

I'm not a part of anything. In fact, I've stayed neutral on the matter, unlike you. You're being extremely quick to attack the person rather than the ideas. Why is that?
And you should re-read what I wrote. I said the edit had racial undertones. I didn't say you were a racist. See the difference? A person can say or write something that comes out different than intended. That doesn't make them a racist.--SharonW 00:01, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
My comments weren't racial and I still stand by them, even if you might deem them politically incorrect. We changed the verbiage to the "playing the victim" card, which phrases what I want to say better. However, Rob does edit at a site dedicated to slandering and libeling Conservapedia editors. That's not acceptable, and I will take it as a badge of honor if you block me for calling Rob out on this. HP 00:08, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
I've lived in East Texas. Criticizing Obama is not racist. You haven't seen racist if you think that is racist. HP 00:10, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

See, I won't block you for calling someone out - if that was my policy, I would have to block myself for calling you out, wouldn't I? No, I won't do that, so don't go polishing up your badge just yet. I will, however, block when there's name calling involved. I haven't called you one single name yet (even though you tried to assume I had) throughout this whole conversation. It's possible to do. I'm beyond tired of rudeness on the internet and I will call people out on it. Unfortunately, I couldn't call out either Conservative or Rob during the latest flame wars because they were both beyond reason and wouldn't listen to anyone.
I've lived in the deep South, I've seen racism. I have zero tolerance for it, whether blatent or implied. You should see me at a Civil War re-enactment, where many a re-enactor lives and breathes it. --SharonW 00:20, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
On a somewhat unrelated note, look at his edits to the Jon Stewart article that were later reverted.--JamesWilson 00:24, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

And readded back as those edits were reverted without discussion after several weeks. Thanks! HP 00:29, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

Deadbeat president

This article, which you created, has been proposed for speed deletion as parody, per discussion on the article's talk page. Jcw 16:50, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

Accusation of Inflated Grades

I read your accusation of my grades being inflated. They are most certainly not. I demand an apology. --WilliamMoran 00:36, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

HP mentioned a subject affecting colleges right now; he never made a direct accusation against you. Karajou 01:11, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Percentage correction

Thank you for the correction in my calculation of percentages in this section. I would prefer someone politely tell me when I've made an error, as I try to do when I notice errors in other people's work. That being said, I hope you understand that my point still stands. If a hypothesis predicts one event with a certain probability of occurrence and a complementary event with a different, smaller probability of occurrence, the occurrence of the event bearing a smaller likelihood absolutely does not invalidate that hypothesis. This is why statisticians use hypothesis testing: to test the conditions under which such an invalidation would occur. Simply put, you can calculate the likelihood of a specific event happening, given your hypothesis as to its probability -which is not the same as the originally predicted probability- and analyze the situation from there. If you search basic statistical methodology for hypothesis testing, you will find this. Does that make sense? Let me know if you need anything else clarified; thank you! Kevin Davis Talk 20:33, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

Nice try (A desperate attempt at intellectual dishonesty here)

but try rereading my statement on the main talk page again. I said "lights", not "sirens". --SharonW 22:21, 6 November 2011 (EST)

He did not have his lights on either, but nice try in being intellectually dishonest. HP 23:50, 6 November 2011 (EST)
You know, I don't like you, and you obviously don't like me, so why don't you NOT respond to any of my comments from now on? Thank you for your cooperation. --SharonW 01:58, 7 November 2011 (EST)
Edited to add - I'll give you the same courtesy. --SharonW 02:01, 7 November 2011 (EST)

You post on 'my talk page and then you get upset when I respond, again on my talk page? Your only response then is "I don't like you", because you obviously cannot formulate an intelligent contribution. Typical liberal ... HP 11:35, 7 November 2011 (EST)

No, I'm referring to the two responses you made to me on the main talk page. You ignored the fact that two other editors made reference to both sirens and lights, one of whom was Andy, but went after me instead with a "holier than thou" attitude. Typical parodist. --SharonW 17:46, 7 November 2011 (EST)

Why do you lie, Sharon? You lied twice here. First, you say you will not continue to respond on my talk page, but more importantly, neither Camille nor Andy ever said the police officer had his lights on. It's clear you're trolling my talk page trying to bait me with your repeated name calling, while at the same time deliberately perpetuating falsehoods to make some sort of point. HP 20:14, 8 November 2011 (EST)

Oh, you're good. Twist, distort and blatently ignore what I actually said. I stand by what I called you. --SharonW 02:07, 9 November 2011 (EST)

So do I. HP 08:24, 9 November 2011 (EST)