User talk:Richardm

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Useful links


Hello, Richardm, and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, Richardm!


This is my talk page. If you have any questions you can post them here. IF you reply to a comment of mine on a talk page somewhere else, then post here and I shall respond quicker.

From SamHB

My apology for not welcoming you sooner. By the way, you are putting me to shame in the math/science area! There have been a number of good contributors in those areas (and a number of bad ones too), but one by one they have gotten banned, or have left out of frustration.

I hope my rinky-dink analysis of quantum tunnelling, explaining, in Essay:Rebuttal to Biblical scientific foreknowledge, that it is not possible that Jesus tunnelled through a wall and appeared on the other side, is correct. Though perhaps not as detailed and rigorous as your analysis.

I've been thinking about some major work on the second law. I think that, as we did with relativity over the last few years, we can finally put the misinformation to rest. Explaining, in excruciating detail, that the entropy change in shuffling a deck of cards, the entropy change in growing an apple, and the entropy change in letting a hot cup of coffee cool, are all on vastly different scales. And that makes a difference.

Interesting factoid: An apple tree can turn dirt into apples. And sunlight can turn a ball of rock into a planet teeming with intelligent life.

SamHB (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2016 (EDT)

Yes, I think that would be a good idea. Richardm (talk) 05:09, 23 September 2016 (EDT)

I like what you are doing. But here are a couple of suggestions. Keep rebuttal stuff impersonal. "It is baffling that ...." is better than "I don't understand how you can say ....". Also, don't bother engaging people on talk pages (or their personal talk pages). It accomplishes nothing. Though, if someone engages you, by all means feel free to reply. In fact, I'm tempted to add to BSF a section "Communicating with Conservapedia admins on talk pages", citing Matthew 7:6 "neither cast ye your pearls before swine". Just kidding.

As for editing actual article pages, I think you know how, but, to reiterate, do not change anything above the table of contents. Do not delete anything below the table of contents. But you can move stuff around, and put in true statements, and put false statements into context. If there is something in the article that you absolutely can't stand, that's what rebuttal pages are for.

Keep up the good work. SamHB (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2016 (EDT)

I agree and what you wrote is a great improvement. Richardm (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2016 (EDT)

Disturbed writing

I see that your peregrinations through Conservapedia have taken you into some incredibly confused wilderness; it was bound to happen sooner or later. I had a serious run-in with this person over the Disturbed character page--see the talk and history. I finally gave up; his writing is, well, disturbed. Some of his other articles are Fog displacement and Logic of possibility. I'm planning to put "delete" notices on them. Other articles are ABC Theory of Emotion and Gedankenexperiment. It's really too bad that an interesting scientific concept is so messed up.

I can kind of understand Cons (User:Conservative), and even communicate with him (excuse me, with all the many people in the "collective" that he wants us to believe he fantasizes about), but I simply have no idea how to deal with this person. SamHB (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2016 (EDT)

Reinhold Niebuhr Quote

God grant me the serenity to accept the things that are above the table of contents, the courage to change the things that are below it, and the wisdom to know the difference

I've been around Andy's thermodynamics stuff for quite a while. All his pet ideas are concentrated in that one small section. Including "intelligent intervention", "intrinsic uncertainty in nature, manifest in quantum mechanics", "inevitably derails the system", and "disproves the atheistic Theory of Evolution and Theory of Relativity". It's really a nice compact section. We should leave it that way, and give a correct exposition below the TOC. I removed the word "derail" once, and Andy put it back in.

To see another example, look at "Simply put, E=mc² is liberal claptrap", in the E=mc² article. You can't take that out. That article isn't nearly as neat as the 2nd law article, by the way. SamHB (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2016 (EDT)

Were you involved in the decision to change angular momentum to the law of conservation of same? I think it's a terrible idea. Before you can present the conservation law, you need an article explaining what it is. But there's so much else that needs attending to -- relativity, thermodynamics, BSF, etc. etc.
Do not get into fights with admins. Contact me at for further guidance if you wish. Use a throwaway email address if you wish.
I've changed my mind about making a "rebuttal" essay to Attempts to prove E=mc². On the talk page I said that I didn't think it could be done. I now believe it can. And must.

SamHB (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2016 (EDT)