User talk:SamHB

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

User talk:SamHB/Archive 1 User_talk:SamHB/archive_2 User_talk:SamHB/archive_3

Contents

Red telephone for Cons

Cons: Thank you for dealing with the matter of Special:Contributions/Cal_Um. I know that you recognize that you are not an expert in relativity and know better than to get into the technical details of these discussions, and I appreciate that. (I wish more people recognized their limitations in this area; you can look up my recent controversies.) But this was a clear case of you recognizing that this guy was a troublemaker, and coming to my aid.

And now I see that there has been another case, with Special:Contributions/Bobbillyman69, taken care of by Andy. Vandals look at the Recent Changes log: "Oh, look! Relativity is on today's dinner menu!" We old-timers know all about that phenomenon.

SamHB (talk) 12:21, 7 March 2017 (EST)

Your welcome. I just happened to see it. I am guessing that for the foreseeable future that you and Andy are going to have to maintain the article as far as keeping it in accordance to compromise you two reached as far as the wording of the article. I don't think I will be of much help in the future. Again, I just happened to see that particular vandal.Conservative (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2017 (EST)

A liberal is wanted for an online dialogue

A liberal is wanted to have a single online dialogue. Please let them know at http://opposing-views.org/ if you are interested. Conservative (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2017 (EDT)

Here is their contact page: http://opposing-views.org/contact/ Conservative (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2017 (EDT)
Well, I'm somewhat flattered, but significantly puzzled, by this. From looking at the web page, it looks like some kind of general liberal/conservative debate site. Currently focused on Obamacare, but with a wider outlook in general. My guess is that they are looking to increase their "contributor staff", particularly liberals, and they came to you. Or, more likely, you discovered them.
I'm not interested in contributing to such a site. And one thing puzzles me about it. There are thousands of liberal/conservative discussions/debates/controversies that take place every day. I find myself in such discussions several times per day. So these people want to create yet another one? With nothing noteworthy about it? They will be (already are) totally drowned out by the discussions already going on around the internet. I have about a dozen such web sites already bookmarked.
Now, about your choice of correspondent: I'm flattered, of course. But, when you needed to find a liberal friend, you came to Conservapedia? Well, perhaps you contacted 97 other liberal acquaintances, besides EJamesW, AlanE, and myself. Actual liberals are a rare and endangered species here.
About my politics. You put in some question, that you seem to have deleted, asking whether it's really true that I'm a liberal. Well, compared to most people, especially the admins, here at CP, I am way far left of the norm. But relative to the outside world, I am rather middle-of-the-road. (I can't speak for EJamesW or Alan, but I would guess that they are similar.) I actually hold a lot of conservative and "traditional" views, though that doesn't seem to mean much at CP. For example, I am appalled that we have a President who is a serial adulterer and is on his third marriage. And, all through the cold war, I was on the side of freedom, not the side of the murderous Communist thugs who were out to conquer the world. I believe in American exceptionalism, and believed that the United States was a beacon of liberty to the whole world. I was relieved when the Soviet Union collapsed. But now Russia, the descendant of the Soviet Union, is ruled by Vladimir Putin, a descendant of the Communists, one who invades other countries and fairly openly has his political opponents murdered. I am appalled that our current President doesn't have a problem with this.
SamHB (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2017 (EDT)
OK. Thanks for letting me know your decision promptly. Conservative (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2017 (EDT)
I hope that it is possible to be a social conservative, a fiscal conservative, a political conservative, but still believe in rule of law, quantum mechanics, special relativity, and recent advances in machine learning/artificial intelligence. I never thought of SamHB as being a "liberal." JDano (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2017 (EDT)

OK. SamHB is less on the left spectrum that I thought. Conservative (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2017 (EDT)

Doesn't help him though, does it, when some petty tyrant of the field decides to burn a conversation and give him a day off just because they can. AlanE (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2017 (EDT)
Sigh. Semper idem. --AugustO (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2017 (EDT)
Well, actually, he can't. No, to be precise, he can, but he may not. It's interesting that this happened shortly after I complained about abuse of block power here, and his reply seemed to acknowledge that it was not within his authority to block me—"That's not up to me at this point, but to one of the admins".
I suspect that Northwest is probably feeling a bit guity about having violated his position of trust so blatantly by blocking someone over a content dispute. He may not realize that I am well respected by the admins; I've been around a while and they know me well. I've had some run-ins with Ed Poor, and he blocked me a couple of times for my abrasiveness, but we have since made peace. If Northwest looks at my block log, he will see that, until this week, none of my blocks involved "liberal POV". Mostly they were by people who had a rather checkered history of honesty, or for totally bogus claims of sockpuppetry with people I had never heard of.
It's ironic that all this happened only 2-1/2 hours after I put the lyrics to America on my user page, specifically calling out the lines
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law!
That was aimed at Donald Trump, who seems to have little self-control, little respect for law, little knowledge of American history and traditions, and little knowledge of, and respect for, the teachings of Jesus. But, as we say in this country: if the shoe fits, wear it.
In a few days I may go over to his talk page and try to make peace. To try to convince him that we can make CP a better place if we all work together. And that it would be better not to toss around the words "liberal" and "leftist" with such wild abandon, because it just makes CP look less respectable and trustworthy to do so. And that one doesn't need to be a "leftist" to oppose murderous thug Vladimir Putin.
SamHB (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2017 (EDT)
To make it short and to the point: You were warned before about your behavior on CP and you didn't want to listen (specifically regarding numbers 9 and 10 - especially number 10, which you violated several times before - at How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia), so that's how you got the day off. To read how both you and AlanE are talking about this, you both come off sounding like the liberal media pundits who complain about Donald Trump's travel ban against specific Islamic countries and his proposed illegal immigration ban.
Your comment "And that it would be better not to toss around the words "liberal" and "leftist" with such wild abandon, because it just makes CP look less respectable and trustworthy to do so" also reflects exactly the type of things liberals say regarding CP (at the Liberal Style article, under Debate and rhetorical tactics):
"Like to use the phrase 'reflects poorly on the site' when talking about the liberal articles on Conservapedia."
And numbers 5 and 6 under Liberalism in the same article:
"Calling the use of the term liberal when used in a derogatory context 'stupid'"
"Will often deny being a liberal, or will claim to be a 'true conservative', while spouting liberal and Democrat talking points and criticizing basic conservative beliefs and principles."
And under Personal traits (again in the same article):
"Concealing one's liberal views rather than admitting them"
But at day's end, this is still Conservapedia, not Liberalpedia. Northwest (talk) 09:11, 14 April 2017 (EDT)
I could parody being a liberal, but when pressed to the wall all my inner contradictions and stupidity would come out, which might then just seal the deal. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 13:15, 13 April 2017 (EDT)
I puzzled by several aspects of this. By "parody being a liberal" do you mean make fun of liberals with over-the-top humor, the way Stephen Colbert used to parody conservatives on his "Colbert Report"? (He shows his politics in a different way in his present show.) Or do you mean "Convincingly pretend to be a liberal, in a way that would trick one into believing that I am sincere?" Any intelligent and well-informed person (which you are) can do that. What do you mean by "my inner contradictions and stupidity would come out"? That you would have a hard time convincingly imitating the stupidity of liberals (liberals and conservatives both have consistency problems) so that your ruse would be unsuccessful? Or that your personal "contradictions and stupidity" would make you unable to do the job? And what do you mean by "seal the deal"? Succeed at your imitation? Or let others succeed at unmasking your attempts? SamHB (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2017 (EDT)
You covered all bases quite well. Parodying a liberal is not hard. If you come to a juncture where you're at a loss, and you have to think "What would be the appropriate liberal response?", you just say something nonsensical and contradictory, and it would pass. That's what I mean by seal the deal - there would be no question I'm a liberal speaking from the heart. Poe's Law. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 19:07, 14 April 2017 (EDT)

Vaping

(No, I'm not referring to E-cigarettes.) Cons, please do not vape other people's talk pages, OK? I know that what you recently vaped here was insignificant, but please don't do it. SamHB (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2017 (EDT)

9th anniversary

Congratulations on your 9th anniversary here! Despite disagreements, edit wars, and 19 blocks, you are still around! I know a number of people don't agree with you on various topics, and even I disagree on some things you believe (most notably, macroevolution) but I appreciate that you have "stuck it out" and are still trying to make CP better. I also appreciate your insights on matters which have been influenced by things long before I was here. You were also the only one when I first joined who seemed to be making an effort to help me learn the ropes and how things work here (an effort I am trying to pass on to others now). Thanks for your efforts! --David B (TALK) 11:49, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

Re: Claims of familiarity with CP guidelines

Since you claim to be familiar with, and "well versed in", Conservapedia's guidelines (per your edit on 1990'sguy's talk page), here's a refresher from the Member Accounts section:

  • Conservapedia is a politically conservative, Christian encyclopedia project. We welcome opposing views, but are not interested in users who come here only to change articles to their ideology (as you've insisted on doing with selected articles here as of late to change them to fit liberal POV, despite your claims otherwise - ed.), or disrupt by constantly arguing on the article talk pages that we are "wrong" (likewise - ed.). Trolling comments, incivility and personal attacks can be removed from discussion pages.
  • We are not a debate forum, but a project. If you contribute, where you can, by adding substantive content, abiding by our Guidelines, we welcome you. If not, remember it is a big Internet, and you should go where you can support the goals of that project.

Northwest (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

Go write up a Popeye episode, son. JohnZ (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2017 (EDT)
This applies to you too, JohnZ, just so you know. Northwest (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

re: Liberal article

I made some revisions to the liberal article to make it more accurate. And made some talk page edits indicating my reasons for the changes. For example, liberalism is not communism or Nazism. Attila the Hun was not a liberal, etc.

If you want to review the article periodically to make sure my changes stick, it would be appreciated.

I will pay you the courtesy of not having all or most liberals equated with Attila the Hun, Adolf Hitler, Mao or Stalin. I would ask you, however, to have the decency to not publicize private emails.

By the way, I have been to Framingham, MA and got along with all the people I met. The people I met in Framingham did not give me Nazi salutes. And I did not see any Nazi flags on front lawns. Nor did I see any statues of Lenin while on Massachusetts thruways or while in Framingham. Conservative (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

No Nazi flags? No Lenin statues? Not one? I guess Massachusetts is going soft. It must be all the political correctness or something.  :-) I haven't seen any of that stuff in my trips to upstate New York either. Or in my trips to Iowa, Arizona, Arkansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Virginia, Alabama, Tennessee, or Missouri. What's the world coming to?
Seriously, I have noticed your recent attempts to inject some reasonableness into certain articles, and I appreciate that. (I'm serious this time!) In fact, I have recently noticed some rather decent articles here. But plenty of awful ones, like "liberal" and its ilk. I'm trying to improve the good ones, while ignoring the awful ones. But you need to know that my ability to "make changes stick" is very limited, though I'll try. See my block log, the history of the Pussy Riot article, and the last half of the "A liberal is wanted for an online dialogue" section above (as well as a paragraph below), to see what I'm talking about. So someone might undo anything I do (and block me in violation of policy). But I'll try.
I don't consider "not having all or most liberals equated with Attila the Hun, Adolf Hitler, Mao or Stalin" to be a courtesy to me personally. It's a courtesy to Conservapedia. But I appreciate it in any case.
About the email: Perhaps I should have redacted the email address, but I considered that the name was so nondescript that it must have been a garbage gmail account that you created. If you have gotten spam on that account, I apologize. However, I think the general content of emails can't be considered private. (Just ask Hillary Clinton!) And most of the message was just hawking your own pages right here at CP, along with one link to a vimeo clip to an old Star Trek thing.
Peace, my non-Nazi non-Communist friend, SamHB (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
Follow-up: I have redacted the email more thoroughly; I assume from Cons's vaping that that is what he wanted me to to. He can't possibly have wanted me to conceal the fact that he sent it, since he openly announced it in advance on this page.
But if you do anything that goes against Conservapedia policy (as you've done repeatedly over time, and even recently), you will stand a chance of being blocked again (and despite what you otherwise think, blocking someone for violating CP policy is not "illegal"), so don't go thinking you can game the system just so you can get your way and get liberal POV imposed on this site. All you're doing every time you bring this up is that you're showing you prefer to ignore the rules of this site (and your history here, once again, proves that). Northwest (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
SamHB, I look at your restoration and its skepticism that more than one person has edited using the User: Conservative account.
The edit log shows that the User: Conservative account created the Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals article. The edit log shows that the User: Conservative account created the Gay bowel syndrome and Homosexuality and Parasites articles. No intelligent person believes that these articles are the work of one person. The footnoting style is radically different for the Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals article and frankly the article lacked machismo as soon as it used the alphabet soup of LGBTQ. Frankly, I don't even know what all those letters stand for. Why is the Q even used? It seems redundant.
You still not reconciled this blaring incongruently which was even noticed by a non-fan of the User: Conservative account. There must be some reason why you are not coming up with a reasonable explanation of the incongruity? What is it?
By the way, the explanation is so simple. More than one person has edited using the User: Conservative account.Conservative (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2017 (EDT)

re: "I'm going to organize this in broad categories. That's the right thing to do for articles about scientists"

Bill Nye is an engineer. He is not a scientist. Stop engaging in credential inflation! I realize that evolutionism is exceedingly weak. But try to not engage in desperation tactics and make efforts to control yourself. :)Conservative (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2017 (EDT)

Well, it's the right thing for articles about science popularizers too.
Sorry, I should have said "science popularizers". The fact that he's an engineer is irrelevant.
I think the suggestion that I need to make efforts to control myself is a little harsh for such an infraction as calling him a scientist instead of a science popularizer. It doesn't strike me as anywhere near as great a failure of self-control as spending years pretending to be multiple people, or spending years making tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands? millions?) of edits, deletions, renamings, cross-links, and ineffably pointless changes to image sizes, mostly for an utterly obsessive corpus of foolishness.
But we're still friends. I enjoy sparring with you. And I've got more stuff to do in reply to your previous edit on this page. But first, I need to change an image size.
SamHB (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2017 (EDT)

talk page second archive

You user talk page is insanely long. I think you are overdue for User talk:SamHB/archive 2. Conservative (talk) 09:03, 2 June 2017 (EDT)

You're right. Done. Thank you. SamHB (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2017 (EDT)

Nice job

I read your user page archives - really entertaining, and they made me realized how wretched I was to write articles for Cons, even if they did get on the Main Page. Please, don't stop believing in relativity. Hold onto that feeling.--Nathan (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2017 (EDT)

re: well-intentioned and level-headed people

You wrote: "You need to know that user "Conservative" is not in any way typical of the people we have here. There are a lot of well-intentioned and level-headed people here, and you could have been a member of that community."

First of all, User: Conservative is not merely one editor. So your petty personal attacks are lamer than you think. It is readily apparent that User: Conservative is more than editor. For example, the glaring topical/footnoting/writing style differences in the Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals article and some of the other homosexuality articles by the User: Conservative account. You have never explained these glaring differences.
Secondly, you have yet to find a single factual error in any of the articles written by the User:Conservative account. You merely dislike some of the articles because they conflict with some of your errant/miscreant, liberal notions. Conservative (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2017 (EDT)
Actually, I've been meaning to rip you to shreds, yet again, over that weird fantasy of yours. But there's usually something more urgent to do. Especially now, with the "abcqwe" issue. Trying to keep him on board is much more important than yet another go-around with you. SamHB (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2017 (EDT)
Your name is <name redacted>, everybody who has ever posted on this site knows your name is <name redacted>, people who died 100 years ago know your name is <name redacted>. People who will not be born until the 22nd century knows your name is <name redacted>. Insult your own intelligence(not hard to do I know) but the rest of us are not falling for it.
Actually, that's not my name, assuming that you were referring to me (SamHB) when you wrote "you" above. Maybe you are confusing me with someone else.
In any case, it is considered poor form to "out" or "dox" someone on a wiki. And the identity and personal info about the person you are perhaps referring to are well known. I suspect that you are about to be blocked, if you haven't already been blocked as I write this. And what you wrote above will likely be vaped, though I will restore it (with the name redacted) if that happens. SamHB (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2017 (EDT)
SanHV, why is the footnoting for Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals different from many other User: Conservative articles?
I found out this month what the Q is in the acronym LGBTQ stands for. Why does the article Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals use the term LGBTQ, but the other homosexuality articles created by the User: Conservtive account not use that term?
Probably because you are a klutz with your keyboard, as indicated by your spelling of "Conservtive". It stands for "queer", by the way.SamHB (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
Is the term LGBTQ one that I would likely use? For example, how often does the word "gay" appear in Conservapedia's homosexuality articles?
I wouldn't know. I'd have to read them. SamHB (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
Is the term "persecution of homosexuals" one that I would likely use? Why was there an internal battle within the User: Conservative account about the title of the article Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals? For example, why was the title of that article changed/moved?
Because you like to do that kind of thing, as anyone who looks at your contributions knows. SamHB (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
Liberals dominate the field of psychology. Do liberals excel in the field of psychology in order to be able to discern that more than one editor has used the User:Conservative account?
I doubt it. I doubt that, by and large, they give a hoot about the size of your "collective". SamHB (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
If liberals do excel in the discipline of psychology, why do so many psychology experiments and journal articles have an inability to be replicated? See: Over half of psychology studies fail reproducibility test, Nature, August 27, 2015
RobS, 1990sguy and Karajou have been told privately that more than one editor has used the User: Conservative account. There was an attempt to make one of these editors an editor of the User: Conservative account, but Aschlafly would not permit it.
Can you send me the email in which Andy said that? And, by "one of these editors" do you mean one of RobS, 1990sguy and Karajou? All you would have to do is privately send them your CP password. Andy would not know. In fact, if you mail me your password, at sam4557@gmail.com, I could become a member of your collective! The "sockpuppet" rule prohibits one person from having multiple CP accounts, but there's no rule about giving out your password. SamHB (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
Lastly, you couldn't rip a wet paper bad to shreds, let alone rip of member of the User: Conservative account to shreds. Conservative (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2017 (EDT)

By the way, a 2006 international survey reported that 30% of the Swiss reject evolution which is one of the highest national percentages in Europe.[4] Switzerland has one of the very highest standards of living in Europe.

Denmark has one of the highest rates of belief in evolution in Europe (See: Jon D. Miller; Eugenie C. Scott; Shinji Okamoto (11 August 2006). "Public Acceptance of Evolution". Science. 313 (5788): 765–766.).

The Swiss are known for yodeling.

I'm extremely fascinated, delighted, and enchanted to hear that. SamHB (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2017 (EDT)

The Danes are known for bestiality! A 2015 Jerusalem Post article indicates "Copenhagen has for long been the bestiality capital of Europe and has attracted many tourists mainly visiting to have sex with animals. Legislation against this practice was only enacted this year."[5] Conservative (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2017 (EDT)

There are some worthwhile projects that I want to accomplish. I am not going to continue this latest battle between us. It doesn't make sense to respond to every slight someone directs your way. I am moving on. Conservative (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2017 (EDT)
I regret using the word miscreant above. It wasn't necessary.
No hard feelings. SamHB (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2017 (EDT)
I also agree with you that it would have been nice to retain the editor who recently departed. Conservative (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2017 (EDT)
What??? To whom were you referring??? The one who was "showboating" and annoying Karajou and VargasMilan2 [sic]? I assumed you thought it was abcqwe, and I could find no evidence that he communicated with Karajou or VargasMilan. Who was it? Seriously, I'm curious. I'd like to know whether it was someone that I also disliked. SamHB (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2017 (EDT)
I just discovered that someone blocked User:Abcqwe. He made a number of posts to talk pages that irritated people. It seems as if he was spoiling for a fight and/or trying to gain attention. Conservative (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2017 (EDT)
You just discovered that now?????? Really? SamHB (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2017 (EDT)
For the record, he blocked himself indefinitely, but I changed the block to five years because indefinite blocks are problematic. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2017 (EDT)
OK. He was a provocateur at the end. No great loss. Conservative (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2017 (EDT)
But, was it necessary to delete his user and talk pages? Or is this just CP policy? --1990'sguy (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2017 (EDT)
No, it is not policy. Please restore them. SamHB (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2017 (EDT)

In terms of webmaster best practices, deleting low value pages is a beneficial thing to do. In 2017, Conservapedia is going to delete abandoned user pages and their respective talk pages. Andy has given the green light about this matter and he is not changing his mind about it. Conservative (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2017 (EDT)

It is a "best practice" only because you have the technical permission, as an administrator, to do whatever you please. You can delete whatever you want, vape whatever you want, and block whomever you want, at any time. You even burned down this page on 10 January, 2015. I was never under the illusion that you would honor my request to restore his pages. And I can't help noticing that, shortly after you explained this "best practice", you deleted a few pages just to make the point. SamHB (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
Re: annoying Karajou and VargasMilan2 - see: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Karajou&diff=1351118&oldid=1350637 He sometimes signed his posts "Nate". As far as VargaMilan2, see conversation I moved to the community portal. Conservative (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2017 (EDT)
I think User:Abcqwe began to be more of a provocateur after I posted this article American liberalism and 21st century political losses. Given that he is an American liberal, it probably triggered his backlash/bitterness/resentment.Conservative (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2017 (EDT)
I don't think Abcqwe annoyed Karajou or VargasMilan while he actually edited. They wrote what they did in response to the news that he was leaving. On top of that, it seems that Abcqwe uses a lot of sarcasm and sarcastic humor, and I think his "confession" displayed some of it. He also seems to have overexaggerated. Personally, I think he should have been more frank in his post, and I don't think his sense of humor helped at all. Many people probably got the impression that he was a parodist/liberal, while I think it is more believable that he was a more moderate person who originally joined in good faith. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2017 (EDT)
I seem to be the invisible man regarding Abcque. I was the one who tried to keep a lid on his vandalism. Did I need help? Yes. Did I ask for it?Yes. Did I get any from the lads wallowing in their anti liberal groupthinkfest, not giving a stuff for truth? No I did not. Do I still think that CP should be vehicle for information for homesckoolers? Yes. Is it ? No. Do I give a damn? Strangely, yes I do.
Sorry Sam. I have tried other forums to change an article title to allow me to correct the article. I want Joseph Belloc changed to Hilaire Belloc. Its simple really but the lads are too busy doing what they like doing. AlanE (talk) 03:08, 9 June 2017 (EDT)

Border fence for the unfree state of Massachusetts

Border fence for the unfree state of Massachusetts designed to keep people from leaving the state. See also: Free States Movement

Actually, I haven't seen any fences like that, except at MCI[1] Concord, where I go to visit my cousin (you know, the one who is a member of your collective; they let people edit Conservapedia from the slammer), who is serving a 5-year stretch for not being a "svelte Bible believing young earth creationist like Chuck Norris".

Joking about TAR

Question: Will TAR return? Conservative (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2017 (EDT)

I will consider it only if he agrees to completely stop link-spamming and adding categories. If not, I or someone else will be forced to block him. I agree that he made some good changes, but the bad far outweighed the good. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2017 (EDT)
I don't believe TAR is coming back. I was merely joking. Conservative (talk)

That joke is not the least bit funny. I doubt that 1990'sguy appreciated the humor. As I'm sure you recall, during the period when TAR was being removed from the site (which is chronicled at User_talk:DavidB4#Cleaning_up_after_the_blocked_users and User_talk:Aschlafly/Archive60#Re:_Cleanup_work_post_TheAmericanRedoubt, you repeatedly implied that you were somehow in private communication with him, and that, because of this, you could reassure everyone that he had no intention of coming back. But since you have a reputation for pretending to be in secret communication with people, just as you pretend to be multiple people, no one believed you. So Andy had to revoke his rights.

I don't believe he's coming back either, but not because of some private communication. It's because he would be shown the door instantly.

SamHB (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2017 (EDT)

At this point, I really am not concerned if you believe I have had various private conversations with people or if you believe more than one person has edited using the User: Conservative account.
It is probably best if we keep our communications cordial, but very limited in the future.Conservative (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2017 (EDT)
OK. The "ripping you to shreds" that I had planned will not occur. SamHB (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2017 (EDT)
A few points:
1. You called my liar and I have never lied at this wiki. More than one person has edited using the User: Conservative account. You may not accept this fact as being true, but that is your problem and not mine. Aschafly is certainly aware that the User: Conservative account has had more than one editor use it and Karajou is aware as well. I did a checker user on the User: Conservative account and at least one other editor has used the account in the last 3 months.
2. I should have been more cordial in my last communication with you. After all is said and done, I have decided to communicate far less on talk pages due to competing priorities. So any absence of communication with you isn't personal. Conservative (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2017 (EDT)

From warrior to diplomat

"Warrior to Diplomat

In his previous roles, Harald had focused primarily on marshaling the troops to defeat the competition. Now he found himself devoting a surprising amount of time to influencing a host of external constituencies, including regulators, the media, investors, and NGOs. His support staff was bombarded with requests for his time: Could he participate in industry or government forums sponsored by the government affairs department? Would he be willing to sit for an interview with an editor from a leading business publication? Could he meet with a key group of institutional investors? Some of these groups he was familiar with; others not at all. But what was entirely new to him was his responsibility not just to interact with various stakeholders but also to proactively address their concerns in ways that meshed with the firm’s interests. Little of Harald’s previous experience prepared him for the challenges of being a corporate diplomat.

What do effective corporate diplomats do? They use the tools of diplomacy—negotiation, persuasion, conflict management, and alliance building—to shape the external business environment to support their strategic objectives. In the process they often find themselves collaborating with people with whom they compete aggressively in the market every day.

To do this well, enterprise leaders need to embrace a new mind-set—to look for ways that interests can or do align, understand how decisions are made in different kinds of organizations, and develop effective strategies for influencing others."[6]

Harald made the transition. The Apostle Paul made the transition. I wonder if someone else can? :) Conservative (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2017 (EDT)

I think you are making some good points in what you say, and it's certainly true that my ways of interacting with people on the internet (and in real life too) could use some improvement. But I'm having a hard time following your examples. I don't know who "Harald" is/was. Some ancient Nordic king? I know who the Apostle Paul was, but I don't see his situation as being relevant to business, the media, investors, or NGO's. And my situation isn't relevant to those things either. At least you didn't bring in Sun-Tzu. SamHB (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2017 (EDT)
SamHB, I was merely saying that I have decided to be more diplomatic.
Oh! I was reading way too much into what you were saying. (I often do that.) So you were saying that you want to "make the transition" and do a better job of persuasion and conflict management. OK, I will try to do the same.
As an example, I will try to calm GinnyS down. I think she may be cruisin' for a bruisin'. I will try to explain that you are an acquired taste, and that personal attacks are never allowed. And I'll try to make that same point to JohnZ, for when he comes back. He is in a situation that is similar in some ways but different in other ways. I think that, due to my longevity, I have gotten a certain amount of respect among the young-uns, and I can use that respect to get them to behave better.
SamHB (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2017 (EDT)
As an aside, as far as Trump, I have never seen a president attacked as much as Trump and with such venom. On the other hand, I have never seen a president counterpunch as much too (and sometimes in a very personal way). It is nothing new though. Burr/Hamilton had many exchanges of words before their duel. And Lincoln was viciously attacked by his critics if memory serves. Conservative (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2017 (EDT)
Trump deserves every bit of what he gets. He knows next to nothing about American government, institutions, history, or traditions, seems to know very little about Christianity (though I realize I'm suppose to remove the plank from my own eye before making accusations like that), and seems to know very little about the Christian notions of generosity, forgiveness, humility, and contrition. SamHB (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2017 (EDT)

If you know of any good faith editors who have edited in the last 5 years and...

If you know of any good faith editors who have edited in the last 5 years and they are not on my list at User talk:Wikignome72, please let me know.

I relied on: the recent changes list, my memory, user talk page edits for some of the active or formerly active editors. Conservative (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2017 (EDT)

Actually, yes, I could contribute a lot of names of people to keep. As you may know, I do a lot of "homework" or "research" here at CP, and I have a pretty good idea of who's who. Perhaps second only to you. But I think it's an unnecessary exercise to delete the old pages. And I sure hope your current deletion binge (well, deletion suggestion binge) isn't a reaction to my complaining, above, that you should not have deleted abcqwe's page.
By the way, I have been trying to make an addition to Wikignome72's page, saying essentially the same thing, for over 3 hours, getting edit conflicts each time. I'll wait until you come up for air.
If you actually want me to come up with a list of people that should be protected, I could do that. I would probably do it by going through the edit histories of all the articles that I have worked on and think are good, and noting everyone who contributed (who isn't a jerk).
SamHB (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2017 (EDT)

Some people our friend ought to keep

First preliminary, your quizzes are cute.

Second preliminary, I really think he ought to be welcomed, even if he is just you. I don't know why you keep deleting my attempts to welcome him. I like to keep up the pretense that he's a real person.

Third preliminary, I had no idea there was so much garbage in the user base. But I hope you don't think you are saving disk space; you aren't. Nothing ever really goes away in a computer database. Except "vaping", which you aren't doing.

I see the purge is in full swing. I've gone over the list, and there are a few people I recognize as having been, one way or another, significant people in CP's history. I'd like you (him, her) to consider restoring them. Some people left in anger (and at least one had some serious criticism of you personally.) But they are nevertheless part of our history. People won't know how we got here if they can't see our history. I've argued in the recent past that we should keep the "Parthian shot" of someone who has been blocked, so that, if they try to come back, we will know why they were kicked out and why they should not be allowed back in. But it's more than that. We need to remember the conflicts that have gone on in the past. Well, some of them; many people were just losers and deserve to be forgotten. Heck, isn't there a page called something like "Examples of censorship by the 'tolerant'"? I haven't looked at it lately, but we may be damaging it. We need to keep at least some of those examples around, don't we?

So here are a few people I've found so far. Is it possible to bring them back? I think it is, unless they have been "vaped", which I don't think they have been.

  • DanH Wasn't he a sysop and well-respected person? Wasn't he the chess player? I may misremember the details [I sure do!], but he was an important part of our history. I seem to have confused him with ...
  • DeanS Wasn't he a sysop and well-respected person? Wasn't he the chess player? And the Mormon who was concerned about whether there would be intolerance of Mormon? (Answer: none at all.) Wasn't he the person whose wife died? Wasn't he the geologist whose user name was originally "crocoite" (an interesting mineral), and then changed it in order to comply with the username policy? I may misremember the details, but he was an important part of our history.
  • MatthewQ I see there's been some back-and-forth on this. He was a somewhat interesting science contributor.
  • StaceyT Yeah, she was unhappy. But we need to see what sorts of things made people unhappy.
  • Ymmotrojam He was a big player at one time.
  • Coolguy Yes, he was recent, and p*ss*d some people off and was shown the door. But we need to see that history.
  • And, of course, you won't delete Philip J Rayment, right?

There are others that haven't been deleted (yet).

Did you know that DeborahB created her account when Conservapedia was only 6 days old? She was a true "founding mother".

SamHB (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2017 (EDT)

I will restore DanH.
MathewQ mere had "useful links" on his user page so there is no need to restore that, but I kept his user talk page.
StacyT was contentious and probably a sock of a man if I recall. Definitely a loser. Not restoring.
Ymmotrojam deleted his own user page and talk page. I am respecting his wishes and keeping those pages deleted.
Coolguy was a person who was not willing to engage in dialogue. Like many on the left, he was ignorant of history and/or wanted to engage in revisionism. He just wanted to pontificate. There are plenty of reasons to believe that various founding fathers were not Christians. But when you look at the state constitutions and various other important historical considerations, it is very apparent that Coolguy was pushing a very ignorant/false narrative of American history. I not going to bother to restore his user page or talk page. Conservative (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2017 (EDT)

Re: restoration of DanH and PJR. Looking into other restoration

The user pages of User:DanH and User:Philip J. Rayment (PJR) were so boring, it gave me an excuse to delete them. But I really shouldn't have deleted them. And I just discovered that TK made those pages boring with his revisions to those pages.

So I restored those pages to their former glory. I did add a link to my atheism article from PJR's talk page by adding a bracket around his use of the word "atheists" on his user page. I am still in communication with PJR and his wife, and I know that PJR would not mind my small change.

I am looking into the DeanS restoration. I did not delete it. Conservative (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2017 (EDT)

User:DeanS user page history has been restored along with TK's replacing of the blanking by DeanS with a retired template. The retired template looks better. I don't think DeanS would have minded.
DeanS deleted his user talk page. I am going to keep it deleted.
I think DeanS left due to ill health, but it could have been due to disputes with evangelical Christians on the website (He was a Mormon) or some other reason. I have no idea. Conservative (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2017 (EDT)
As far as DeanS, I did a little detective work and restored his talk page to the version I think he would have wanted. Conservative (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2017 (EDT)
Thanks for attending to these details. As far as leaving the last version of something up, when it just says "retired", there's nothing wrong with that, as long as data squirrels like myself can look through the history and see what led to the retirement. That's what we should have—a historical record. (Excuse me, an historical record.) SamHB (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2017 (EDT)
I think PJR left due to a battle over gun owner rights/public safety controversies. But perhaps that was merely the final straw. Conservative (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2017 (EDT)

I restored the user page of User:JacobB as well. Conservative (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2017 (EDT)

I removed the striked out text from PJR's user page. It looked sloppy and I didn't see any real purpose in it. Next time I talk to PJR, I will see if he is fine with the edit. Conservative (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2017 (EDT)

Taking some of your advice

Greetings, Cons!

The long message you left for me yesterday was extremely interesting. I had to go back a long way (June 29, 2015) to find what you were referring to and refresh my memory of the issue. It's too bad that yesterday's message was lost in a wiki server malfunction.[2] The "advice" that you seem to have been referring to was that you should direct your persuasive energies into ways that are more likely to have an actual effect on people, such as human interaction, rather than writing Conservapedia articles. And you mentioned "opportunity cost", that is, the cost of one approach versus another in terms of actual payoff.

You ended with your usual argument against evolution, giving two web references. The first was to a page that had a religious web site in its name. As you know, I totally ignore any arguments about scientific topics appearing in religious web sites or religious publications. If one can't make an argument about a scientific topic (as opposed to, say, a topic of morality or ethics), without saying "because the Bible says so", I'm not interested.

The second web site was this. So I had to look. Though it was clear right from the start (though not from the URL itself) that it was a religious web site—it was from the PNN News and Ministry Network, and it also had front-page references to http://www.hickoryhammockbaptist.org and http://creation.com. It had five "questions for the evolution believer". I had to sit through a guy with a very irritating voice listing the questions. (Aren't there 15 questions elsewhere? This guy isn't even trying!)

The first was about abiogenesis. We all know that the question of abiogenesis, while interesting and having no known solution at present (or perhaps ever), lies outside of the issues of evolution/Biblical creation and young-Earth/old-Earth cosmology. So I had to sit through 55 seconds (opportunity cost!) of that nonsense.
The second one was about "language", making the point that the DNA code satisfies all the accepted criteria for being a language, yet is unique among languages in that it was not developed by humans. (Not true, by the way.) And so somehow this meant that evolution must not have happened. Huh?
It went downhill rapidly from there. The third was about sexual reproduction, and how "wasted energy" involved in this meant that evolution could not be correct. Or something. I stopped listening.

All things considered, sort of fun. But now, if you'll excuse me, I need to take your advice about taking my advice, and consider the opportunity cost of replying to you on my talk page. So long for now. SamHB (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2017 (EDT)

Essentially, I said that I am going to use my time better so I have a greater positive impact in life. Recently, I am more on track except for a comment on main page talk today.
In July of 2017, I will be working on a Conservapedia related project. But you will see no edits being performed by the User: Conservative account in relation to this project.
“Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate.” - Sun Tzu
Well, that's some advice I am not going to take. But if you think it works for you (I disagree) go right ahead. SamHB (talk) 10:58, 8 July 2017 (EDT)
此(译注:用间)兵之要,三军之所恃而动也 Conservative (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2017 (EDT)
I sent you a sour email recently about you publishing one of my emails recently. Looking back, I shouldn't have sent it.
No hard feelings. Enjoy your summer. Conservative (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2017 (EDT)

OK, I got the email. I want to apologize for any behavior that may have led you to believe I can't be trusted with private information. Let me assure you that I am a trustworthy person when I know what information is being kept confidential.

The email that you are referring to is presumably the message listed above somewhere (or maybe it's been archived by now), in which I divulged both the sender and the content. Of course I divulged the fact that you sent the message--you had already said publicly that you were going to send it. I assumed that the email name of the sender was not secret because it looked like a "throwaway" name of the sort that people often create. In fact, you have sent other emails to people with various names. I assumed that you don't consider them secret. If I harmed you by revealing the name, I apologize.

After you complained, I redacted everything in the email listed above except the content. I believed that the content was typical of the things you write all over the place at Conservapedia. It was largely references to your various articles, as is your writing style. If the particular content of that message was something you wanted protected, I apologize.

If you wish to vape the redacted message above on this page, go ahead; I won't complain or restore it. (As you know, I usually oppose vaping, especially on users' talk pages, and sometimes restore the vaped material.)

So I need to know just how much secrecy you desire:

  • Do you want me not to reveal even the fact of having received a message? Even if you said, here on this talk page, that you are going to send it or have sent it?
  • Do you want me not to reveal the user ID of the sender?
  • Do you want me not to reveal the content?
  • Do you want me not even to say that I have replied, or otherwise give any general information about what was discussed?

At the risk of violating the last point, I suspect that the project you referred to (which you also mentioned above on this page) is something I wouldn't be interested in. I know that, in the past, your projects have been things like an anti-evolution pamphlet. Now if you want to collaborate on an anti-creationist pamphlet (you know, things like "15 questions that creationists can't answer") by all means, sign me up.

SamHB (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2017 (EDT)

At Conservapedia, I am not going to discuss any of the off wiki activities of the editors who use the User: Conservative account. This is the simplest solution to potential problems caused by the intolerant left.
The simplest solution to the email issue is for me to no longer send you any emails. But perhaps I will change my mind on this matter. I can certainly pray about this matter. If we were to communicate privately it would probably be Skype communication due to constraints upon my time. I am going to strongly endeavor to be more efficient with my time and communicating via email can be more time intensive. But you have indicated that you are not interested in Skype communications so in all likelihood, I doubt there will be future private communications between us.
Again, no hard feelings. I will certainly endeavor to keep my communications with you at Conservapedia cordial. And again, enjoy your summer. Conservative (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2017 (EDT)
I just sent you an email. Conservative (talk) 07:43, 15 July 2017 (EDT)
I sent you an additional email. Conservative (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2017 (EDT)
I will keep my promise of confidentiality. So let me just say that there has been some traffic on the sam4557 email account of late. SamHB (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2017 (EDT)
I just sent you another email. Conservative (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2017 (EDT)
I sent you a small request via email. Conservative (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2017 (EDT)

re: polishing up my grammar and writing skills

I sent you a private email. Conservative (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2017 (EDT)

For Cons

I normally find "listicles" ("The 15 worst beaches", etc.) on the internet to be extremely stupid. But this one was actually entertaining. I especially liked item number 8. SamHB (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2017 (EDT)

I am cutting back on entertainment. I made a couple of promises to people that require stricter time management.
In terms of time management, I shouldn't have done any Conservapedia editing today. But I decided to get back on track.
"Top performers make mistakes, commit errors, and get off track just like everyone else. The difference is that they get back on track as quickly as possible." - How to Build a New Habit: This is Your Strategy Guide by James Clear[7]
There are so many internet cat videos, but so little time. :)Conservative (talk)

I did a little bit of additional editing to reflect some significant changes relative to some of the articles I have created in the past. But I really shouldn't have done that.

But I am getting back on track in terms of some important promises.

However, I will not be editing Conservapedia for 66 days (see this interesting study: How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world). You can hold me to this. On October 7, 2017, I will let you know how things went in terms of new habit creation and bad habit cessation.Conservative (talk) 10:34, 2 August 2017 (EDT)

I find it odd that all the many members of the User:Conservative account are all going to be busy for the next 66 days, is this an admission that there is only one of you? Listed in the differences between Wikipedia and Conservapedia is the respect for a users talk page. So what is this about?

[8] Not a lot of respect for the rules here, but then again the rules have never applied to you have they?--JoshO (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2017 (EDT)

Those 66 days just flew by. If you cannot model your habits on your own, perhaps you should try to get help from others? --AugustO (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2017 (EDT)
Are you forgetting that more than one editor uses the User:Conservative account and it's the specific editor who said he was taking time off that would be doing it? Northwest (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2017 (EDT)
AugustO, I am going to get back on track. I will not edit Conservapedia until Sunday, October 15, 2017. Conservative (talk) 07:00, 10 August 2017 (EDT)

AugustO, I am going to get back on track. I will not edit Conservapedia until Sunday, October 15, 2017

  • 13:37, 12 August 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+96)‎ . . 2018 Global Atheist Convention ‎
  • 13:37, 12 August 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+125)‎ . . 2018 Global Atheist Convention ‎
  • 13:19, 12 August 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+30)‎ . . Atheist fundraising vs. religious fundraising ‎ (→‎See also) (current)
  • 13:18, 12 August 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-12)‎ . . Fundraising ‎ (→‎Religious fundraising vs. atheist/irreligious fundraising) (current)
  • 13:17, 12 August 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+17)‎ . . Charity ‎ (→‎See also) (current)
  • 13:17, 12 August 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+30)‎ . . Fundraising ‎
  • 13:16, 12 August 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-1)‎ . . Fundraising ‎
  • 13:15, 12 August 2017 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Fundraising ‎ (Conservative moved page Fund-raising to Fundraising) --IMcCleod (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2017 (EDT)
IMcCleod, do you also assume that only one editor uses the User:Conservative account (even though it has been made clear that it is used by multiple editors)? Northwest (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2017 (EDT)
IMcCloud, Christendom is playing a significant role in bringing the quarrelsome and socially challenged atheist movement to its knees and now atheists are shrinking in their global influence.
American atheist fundraising is now anemic. The atheist activist Lee Moore recently admitted concerning major atheist organizations in the United States: "Most of them are starved for cash. They're downsizing left and right."[9]
While I am pleased to see that the largely despondent atheist movement is imploding while Christendom is going one glorious victory after another (see: Atheist pessimism about the atheist movement and Future of Christianity), I have decided to broaden my horizons (And SamHB has played a role in this matter).
As tempting as it is to add further information about the current state of affairs concerning the atheism vs. Christianity topic, I have decided that I must do better in keeping my commitment to be more focused in some of my current endeavors. Therefore, I am going to be completely resolute in this matter and not edit this wiki until October 18, 2017. Conservative (talk)

"AugustO, I am going to get back on track. I will not edit Conservapedia until Sunday, October 15, 2017"

  • 18:01, 15 August 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+280)‎ . . Millennials, irreligion and obesity ‎ (→‎See also) (current)
  • 17:54, 15 August 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-25)‎ . . Millennials, irreligion and obesity--Jaris (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2017 (EDT) ‎

More about Cons

In a section above Cons asked for complete secrecy if we are to engage in an email dialog. I gave him that assurance. I have abided by it, and will continue to do so. He then wrote that he had sent me an email.

Other than to say that there has been some traffic on the sam4557 account, I will have nothing to say about any email. Please do not ask about it; I will not reply. Everything I write below is based entirely on material that is publicly visible on this website.

Alert observers may have noticed that I dropped out of sight at about the same time that Cons (first) did. That is entirely a coincidence; there was no "pact" or "challenge". I dropped out because it became clear, from the Pussy Riot article, that "assistants" / "junior sysops" have been granted absolute power to control editorial content however they see fit, blocking other contributors if it suits them, and that a few of those assistants are actively wielding that power.

Now, about Cons's "pledge" to refrain from editing CP and pursue more productive activities (I have no idea where the 66 days figure comes from), it is clear that, although there has been some good behavior, there has been some backsliding. Various other people have, quite understandably, chided him over this. Cons has apologized and promised to do better, only to have succumbed to temptation again. Longstanding bad habits are difficult to break. I would recommend that people show some Christian forgiveness, forbearance, and understanding as he struggles with this. (This would certainly be easier if Cons had shown more understanding and forbearance toward others in the past.)

But there is something quite revealing about what has been going on. He could easily have blamed the backsliding on other members of his "consortium". Instead, he owned up to it. This shows, the way nothing else can, that the business of Cons's account being operated by multiple people was utter nonsense. Most sensible people, including myself, saw through this all along. But a few people, as seen above on this page, including sysops who presumably had access to whatever non-public information there might have been, seem to have been totally taken in by this nonsense. Cons was man enough to admit to his failings, and other people should be man enough to accept that this "multiple person" fantasy was just that.

SamHB (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2017 (EDT)

I know you're referring specifically to me regarding the Pussy Riot article, SamHB. You were told on that and other articles (more than once) not to impose a liberal POV on them, but you didn't take heed of that advice and you went ahead anyway in violation of Conservapedia policy, following past behavioral patterns that led to you being blocked numerous times before by other editors. When you also say "various other people" regarding User:Conservative, what you really mean is the same poster using multiple accounts (most of which have since been blocked for sockpuppeteering) to hurl that accusation about the account just being used by one editor as opposed to more than one. Until Conservative says otherwise, I'm going to take his word for it. Northwest (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2017 (EDT)

Re: SamHB's recent post to his talk page

A few things:

1. The 66 days is based on a journal article in the European Journal of Social Psychology entitled How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world.[10]

2. Sysops/admins have been told that more one person has used the User:Conservative account and I have indicated this multiple times. Sysops/admins have access to the check user function of this wiki which has enabled them to see that the User: Conservative account has been edited from multiple geographic regions (sometimes the account has been edited from more than one geographic region in the same day due to the fact that the account has been used by more than one editor).

It has also been observed that the footnoting style of various User: Conservative edits has been radically different.

In addition, skepticism has been expressed that one of the users of the User: Conservative account would create an article entitled Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals.

3. SamHB is correct that longstanding bad habits can be difficult to break. While it is true that I had about a week long stretch without editing Conservapedia in early August of 2017, I ended my break from editing this wiki before the 66 days was up.

Since this habit is more entrenched than anticipated, more drastic measures are clearly needed! So this habit will be broken using multiple methods - including a tried and true Marine Corps and Navy Seal method (Push ups if the old habit reemerges!).

My next edit to this wiki will be on Tuesday, October 25, 2017.Conservative (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2017 (EDT)

There might be things I want to say here, but they will have to wait until the 66 days are up.
@Cons: You know what you need to do. Or, more precisely, what not to do. If you absolutely have to have some critical change made, feel free to send me an email.
@everyone else: Please stay away.
SamHB (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2017 (EDT)

Please check your email

SamHB, please check your email. Conservative (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2017 (EDT)

I have not looked at my sam4557 email since late August, and do not plan to look at it for 66 days. SamHB (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2017 (EDT)

Quick note

For the next 66 days, I may not strictly adhere to the 66 days editing total fast on Conservapedia editing, but I will at least be on a very restricted diet. :)

I may do a limited amount of main page posts. Conservative (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2017 (EDT)

I know I have to be very strict about this former pledge. The Apostle Paul says some relevant things about this matter. I am going to write to you about this matter.Conservative (talk)

More than one User: Conservative at Conservapedia

Note the footnoting and writing styles in these recent articles written using the User: Conservative account:

The footnoting styles are clearly different between the first/second works and the third work (which is an essay). Why are the footnoting styles different? Because multiple editors have used the User: Conservative account.

Clearly, the ad hominem attacks against "User: Conservative" and the armchair psychological analysis of "User: Conservative" should be reexamined.

There are scholars that speculate there are multiple writers behind the work commonly associated with Sun Tzu.

"Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate." - Sun Tzu.Conservative (talk)

A major search engine whose name begins with the letter G, recognizes that certain "atheist gentlemen" have been rattled and overwhelmed by the sheer weight of the "Atheism and ...." heavy artillery barage by the User: Conservative collective

Google recognizes COCD.png

For more information, please see:

Talking about obsessions:

My next edit to this wiki will be on Tuesday, October 25, 2017.Conservative (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2017 (EDT)

And no, I had no trouble waiting until Wednesday, October 25, 2017, to post this comment ;-) --AugustO (talk) 04:51, 25 October 2017 (EDT)

Which is nowhere near the level of liberal obsession with wanting to silence free speech for everyone but themselves (hence the regular attacks on this site by immature liberal vandals, and even attacks from within by the few regular liberal posters who think they know what's best for this site better than the admins do). Northwest (talk) 00:26, 26 October 2017 (EDT)

User: Conservative account

I had another member of the User: Conservative editor base change the password to the User: Conservative account.

In about a couple months or so, he will give me the new password.

Taking a break from editing for awhile. See you when you get back.

By the way, the 2018 Global Atheist Convention was cancelled due to lack of interest. Of course, this is yet another sign that Christendom has gloriously triumphed over the atheist movement! :)Wikignome72 (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2017 (EST)

Not impressed

Besides you seeking to provoke yet another fight on this site, you've also demonstrated two things by copying the user template I created for my user page (the one indicating that the user does not support the liberal media) and changing it into something else (accusing Breitbart News, a conservative news site, of being "fake news" even though it is not):

  1. You proved through your actions that liberals (like yourself) lack originality and prefer to copy and imitate others (per the Liberal Style article, in number seven of the Debate and rhetorical tactics section)
  2. You resorted to the notorious tactic made infamous by Marx, Lenin and Goebbels in accusing conservative media of what the liberal media (particularly CNN, MSNBC, the nightly network newscasts, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Huffington Post, Vice Media, etc.) is guilty of itself (propagating lies, bias and fake news)

Congrats, you just proved the point Conservapedia (and other sources) made about liberals and their tactics once again through your actions in trying to force a liberal POV here. Northwest (talk) 09:37, 21 November 2017 (EST)

Well, I am impressed. You say that "liberals [...] lack originality and prefer to copy and imitate others [...]", and yet I have this: [11] on my user page, from 03:52, 12 December 2017, and you made an interesting edit to your user page [12] at 16:58 the same day. SamHB (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2018 (EDT)
Which was in response to the false claims you made about President Trump, FYI. Are you really itching to start yet another fight here? Northwest (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2018 (EDT)

This page is not to be used for abusing, insulting, berating, or bullying cancer patients, or otherwise engaging in the kind of social, moral, or ethical depravity that people outgrow by age 10.

I didn't berate any cancer patients. I merely pointed out the unhealthy and anti-social habits of atheists which give the atheist population a higher cancer rate.

You most certainly did. A careful reading of your activities here at CP relating to cancer, as well as what's been going on over at RW, shows very clearly that you were engaging in abusive and, frankly, un-Christian behavior toward RW user "Mercian". It is completely obvious from a careful reading of this what has been going on. SamHB (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2017 (EST)

In 2017, I helped my friend by researching the best solutions to treat his loved one's cancer. He asked me to do it because he felt I had strong research skills. In 2018, I am helping an anti-cancer initiative. Conservative (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2017 (EST)

Congratulations. BTW, I'm also engaged in helping an anti-cancer initiative.
Also, your suggestion that left-handed people are somehow "mutant" strikes me as a bit more provocative than someone who is trying to win hearts and minds ought to be. You might want to tone down the negativity in the things you write. SamHB (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2017 (EST)
"A systematic literature review combined with primary research on handedness demonstrates that atheism and/or paranormal belief is associated with all of these indicators of high mutational load."[13]
Judging by THE VIDEO I saw where he explains his theory, the British anthropologist who published the article appears to be a person of high intelligence, but likely not as creative in his thinking as he ought to be (Maybe left-handedness creates otherness and people less prone to conformity), Nevertheless, he does appear to be smart enough to recognize what high mutational load is.Conservative (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2017 (EST)

Atheism and cancer

Some atheist (or at the very least someone who appeared to be an atheist) claimed an Atheism and cancer article was created in the past at this wiki. Yet, when I did a search using the search box, I found no record of such an article being created at this wiki.

That's funny. The article you cite was created, by you, at 14:39 on 22 December, before you wrote the above. It's still there now, having been edited almost continuously by you. SamHB (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2017 (EST)

Given what I know about Atheism and health and Global atheism and aging populations, I suspected there was a positive correlation between atheism and cancer. And lo and behold, there is!

By the way, you might find this to be interesting:

According to the American Cancer Society:

"According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 69% of cancer patients say they pray for their health. A recent study published in Cancer, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Cancer Society, suggests a link between religious or spiritual beliefs and better physical health reported among patients with cancer."[14]

The Christian apologist Gary Habermas wrote: "Double-blind prayer experiments: where people pray for others with terminal illness. Habermas admitted that most such experiments have not worked, but the three that he knows of that have indeed worked were cases of orthodox-Christians praying for the sick."[15]

See: Religion/irreligion and cancer treatment Conservative (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2017 (EST)

I've got the power!

An atheist/agnostic wrote about me: "These people get off on controlling you, on subjecting you to their power... I'm sorry that... mound of misery got to you."

SamHB, I thought Christians believed in free will, that people are free moral agents and that God can help people overcome various temptations? See also: Atheism and free will

Actually, we do believe that! Conservapedia addiction is a tough addiction to break, but people have broken even tougher ones. SamHB (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2017 (EST)

"When in reality no one can ever make you feel ANYTHING! That’s right; you heard me. No one can make you cry. No one can make you happy. No one can make you sad. No one can make you feel better. No one can make you feel guilty…but you." - Heather Wilson

Evidently, Heather Wilson has more machismo than the gentlemen of a certain atheist wiki!

I've got the power!

The truth often hurts. And certain gentlemen can't handle the truth!

Evidently, I am the puppet master and certain atheist gentlemen are my puppets!

Atheists obsessed with Conservapedia are like a dog with a bone. Their dogged persistence in thinking about Conservapedia, discussing Conservapedia and making forecasts about Conservapedia is quite prodigious and intense.

I've got the power.

I've got the power.

Like the crack of the whip, I Snap attack...

Bang the bass, turn up the treble.

Radical mind, day and night all the time.

7:14, wise divine. Conservative (talk)

I read this comment directed to me by a member of SJW atheist wiki: "What have you done but spiel hate...".
A best selling book declares that SJWs always project. It's so true.
Well cited and factual encyclopedia articles spieling hate. it such an absurd proposition. The British atheist EJamesW on Conservapedia's atheism related articles: "...they're very detailed, thorough and have lots of quotes and citations." (see: Essay: A British atheist on Conservapedia's atheism articles). Conservative (talk) 03:54, 23 December 2017 (EST)

Re: Online boxing match

Merician and I have been engaging in a bit of an online boxing match lately, but we have been playing by Marquess of Queensberry Rules.

See also: Talk:Essay: British atheist acknowledges the reasonableness of a User: Conservative editor. Conservative (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2017 (EST)

Addemdun: See my comments above regarding high mutational loads/left-handedness/socialization, otherness and less likely to engage in conformity (I expanded the Atheists and genetic mutations article to provide more in-depth analysis/commentary.Conservative (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2017 (EST)

Your edits

When you edited the Billy Graham article, you reverted my previous edit in addition to making the grammar fix. I didn't notice your fix, and with good reason, considering that your improvement was very small compared to what you reverted. Sorry for the confusion. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:21, 21 February 2018 (EST)

This refers to some stuff in archive #3

Actually, we did mark your words, in 2017, 2016, 2015, .... Your words were found wanting.

Incidentally, the deceptiveness of Cons's "as I watch it burn" quote was discussed at [16] on my user page.

Cons would do well to write original material, that the majority of Conservapedians won't feel ashamed of, on topics that the majority of Conservapedians would find worthwhile for this web site.

SamHB (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2018 (EST)

Didn't Conservative suggest the man in the picture was a cowardly unionized firefighter. Most of the firefighters on 9/11 were unionized and they rushed into those buildings knowing fine well that the odds of them coming out alive were slim. Horribly disrespectful.--RSturmer (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2018 (EST)
The global market share of atheist has generally been declining since 1970 (see: Global atheism statistics). So atheism has burned from 2015-2017. Please don't post counter factual rubbish/contentions on your talk page. Conservative (talk)

You're Cool

Just Sayin'. DaveSG (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2018 (EST)

Thanks. And I have 19 blocks to show for it. I think the powers that be have come to an understanding that I do not harm or materially dilute what Conservapedia is saying, and that what I say is generally rather thoughtful, so they don't generally harm me these days. Many other, far less thoughtful, users can be found in the permanent block log. SamHB (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2018 (EST)
Getting blocked 19 times for your misbehavior on this site is nothing to be proud of, and denying that you have tried to harm this site by repeatedly forcing a liberal viewpoint on it (including under the transparent guise of "essays") and provoking fights with other posters does not make what you've done here over time untrue or any less bad. That you would be praised for your behavior by a troll who has since been blocked says plenty. Northwest (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2018 (EST)
And incidentally, your recent snide edit summary comment in the Pussy Riot article, combined with your decision to ignore Conservapedia guidelines yet again by edit warring, insistently imposing liberal POV on that and other articles and by provoking yet another fight, just earned you a two-day break. Northwest (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2018 (EST)
Hi Northwest, you did not give a reason why the essay of SamHB is written from a "liberal point of view". Instead of arguing with him you simply started an edit war. I could not find any liberal tendencies in this essay and therefore there is no comprehensible reason for his block.--JoeyJ (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2018 (EST)
Again, Assistant SysOps are not allowed by the rules to block longstanding membersto resolve disputes--I agree with JoeyJ's response. That said, edit warring is also unproductive, and making essay versions of CP articles has already been discussed and generally disapproved of. (Yes, I know, I just used a trailing preposition....)
I do see the differences between these two (listed here: https://www.diffchecker.com/49fnIo4C), but in the long run, do they make that much of a difference? Can't we let the reader decide what view to take? I don't trust Putin either, but the fact these people are using obscene activities to convey their message still stands. Perhaps focusing on them and their activities rather than Putin's is the best idea? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DavidB4 (talk)

Northwest and Pussy Riot

User Northwest seems to have a spectacular disdain for me. This can be seen in many things he has written in a number of places, most notably here on this talk page, and on the Pussy Riot article and talk page. A particularly noteworthy case of this can be seen in the "not impressed" section above, where he takes me to task for copying material from another template (something that people do all the time) to accuse me of lacking originality, claiming that all liberals do the same, and comparing me to Marx, Lenin and Goebbels.

He also says, in the "You're Cool" section above, that my having been blocked 19 (now 20) times shows misbehavior. A few things:

  • I have been here much longer than Northwest, and most of those blocks were before his time. He knows nothing about the circumstances.
  • Other than a few that naturally expired, all of those blocks were later rescinded, either by the blocking party directly, or by being countermanded by an admin.
  • One of those blocks was by someone who was later unmasked as a parodist.
  • One of those blocks was for a completely bogus accusation of being a sock of AlanS, whom I never knew. (That incident has led me to have no confidence in the process of identifying sock accounts.)

As far as I know, I am respected at least to some extent by virtually everyone that I have had contact with here at Conservapedia. Even someone who had earlier gotten the wrong impressions and blocked me. I have had my work praised by a number of admins, including the site owner. So I do not know why Northwest takes such a strong attitude against me. I have mostly ignored him, but the Pussy Riot issue did not admit a solution other than making an "essay" alternative article.

I agree with DavidB4 that having an alternative "essay" article is not a good idea. I only did that because Northwest's insistence that only "leftists" and "Social Justice Warriors" (SJW's) oppose murderous thug Putin. I simply could not stand for that implication.

In further response to DavidB4, yes, these people use obscene activities (I've seen the youtube videos; some of them are appalling). But the article is almost entirely focused on them and their activities. There is only a small portion about the international protest of Putin regarding their imprisonment and pardon. That is a small, but nevertheless important, part of the article. The protests in support of Pussy Riot were an international phenomenon, and was not limited to leftists and SJW's.

I would have no problem with getting rid of the essay (it was admittedly picayune, and the change was extremely minor) if it were permitted to mention the international protests. We would either have to have the article locked by an admin (this has been done on several other articles that were subject to edit warring) or we would need a clear statement from Northwest that the article reflect a consensus of the Conservapedia community.

SamHB (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2018 (EST)

Ignoring the truth about those protests - that they were staged by leftists (regardless of nationality) with an anti-Christian animus like the band itself has - does you no favors. As for the past blocks against you, regardless of what you think about those blocks, they were justified because you saw fit to violate Conservapedia's guidelines more than once, including imposing a liberal viewpoint on that article and on the Nazi Party article (and your attitude toward the blocks also reflects your attitude toward the rules of the site itself), and ignoring that fact does nothing for you either.
And about your claim of "being respected at least to some extent by virtually everyone that I have had contact with here at Conservapedia", your attitude toward User:Conservative and other editors here who don't necessarily agree with your viewpoint here and who counter or refute your claims with counterpoints supported by non-liberal-sourced, reference-backed evidence (which you've shown to get offended by in at least Conservative's case, and has led you to provoke fights against myself and other posters in other cases and to make false claims of conservative media like Breitbart being "fake news" in response to the fact that the liberal media itself purveys fake news) appears to show that that respect is not a two-way street when it isn't convenient for you (as part of that, I've even noticed that in this edit in Conservapedia proven right, most of your sources in that edit come from liberal media websites, specifically NBC, CBS and the BBC - all of which have been discredited due to being exposed as fake news creators, and all of which you put back in the article in response to Andy Schlafly removing them because he noted that the sources were from multiple liberal sites all reporting the same thing and that your claim of "gravitational waves being convincingly detected" was itself implausible and claimed by liberals, whose claims you used via those sources). Those are some of the things you really should keep in mind. Northwest (talk) 04:29, 28 February 2018 (EST)
  • My relationship with Cons is far more complex and nuanced, both publicly and privately, than you seem to be aware. If we didn't actually have a cordial relationship beneath those gruff exteriors, he wouldn't post pictures of concertina wire on my talk page. You would do well not to assume that you understand the situation correctly.
  • On the anti-relativity bandwagon? Really? Please do your homework, as outlined in the "People who write about relativity but don't know what they are talking about" section of my user page.
  • The Nazi Party article? You really follow me around, don't you? That stuff was from a year and a half ago. Do you keep similarly detailed dossiers on other people? Or is there something about me that fascinates you?
  • I am actually well aware of the rules of the site, having read them many many times. You don't seem to be.
SamHB (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2018 (EST)
Your comments still don't excuse your behavior on this site, or the fact that you not only continue to manipulatively deny any wrongdoing you've done here (including your use of liberal sources for your science article edits and claiming them as "fact" despite Andy stating otherwise) and shift the blame to everyone else (a hallmark liberal tactic), you even claim to be "well aware of the rules of the site" yet continue to violate them when you see fit. I'm actually more aware of the rules here than you realize (or care to admit), so don't go making assumptions (including about the reversions of edits in which you imposed a liberal POV). Northwest (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2018 (EST)
Agreed overall with Northwest (especially how SamHB seems to go with CBS and NBC articles when sourcing things and making things more liberal despite this explicitly being a Conservative site, and people like SamHB are pretty much the reason I distrust mods immensely, especially when I've encountered several like him on wikis and forums, and also why I'm exceptionally reluctant to take a mod position, fearing I'll turn out like a monster if I become one.). Though to be fair regarding the bit about Putin, though, I've seen a few writers at The New American (which is tied to the John Birch Society, which obviously ain't liberal or SJW) as well as Trevor Loudon (who has shown himself to be very anti-Communist and pro-Trump), and even Ion Mihai Pacepa condemn Putin as well, citing that he's closer to being of the Communists than he is in actually being anti-Communist, so I wouldn't go so far as to say only SJWs and liberals hate Putin. And quite frankly you ask me, the fight between SJWs/Liberals and Putin's more like the feud between Stalin and Trotsky, or Stalin's feuding with Hitler initially (which was more for control of the left than actual ideological differences). Pokeria1 (talk) 06:02, 7 February 2020 (EST)
I'm not going to argue further about the Pussy Riot case; Northwest has shown us his worldview, and his view of the use of administrative power to get his way in editorial disputes. And I think Putin has shown his true colors quite clearly.
But I would suggest that, before agreeing with statements to the effect that I largely rely on CBS and NBC, that you do your homework. I haven't gone over a huge amount of my history—most of my writing is about relativity, where I rely on very extensive reading of the scientific literature— but my only relevant edits in the last two months are:
  • 04:16, 3 February 2020‎ cited blog.stewart.com/ (from the U.S. Census Bureau)
  • 19:31, 4 February 2020 cited 247wallst.com/
  • 20:38, 3 December 2019 cited www.legislation.gov.uk/
Are these some kinds of leftist "deep state" blogs?
But feel free to distrust moderators. It's not hard to find evidence supporting that distrust. SamHB (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2020 (EST)
Oh, I see. Northwest was referring above to my 17 Feb 2018 edit to the "Conservapedia Proven Right" article. I gave 13 references, of which 3 were "mainstream media" things—NBC, CBS, and BBC, while the other 10 were scientific web sites. If anyone believes that all 13 of those were fraudulent, they should feel free to say so. SamHB (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2020 (EST)
LOL. Is www.legislation.gov.uk/ a leftist "deep state" blog? Gosh golly geewhiz.... RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:44, 7 February 2020 (EST)
Please do not bore me. I have no idea what you are talking about, nor do I care. There are quite a number of people here at Conservapedia that I can interact with in a sensible way, and you are not one of them. Why don't you go over to ritionalwaki, where you (as nobs) seem to spar with people in a way that they find worthwhile. SamHB (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2020 (EST)

Liberals are obsessed with Russia and Vladimir Putin ever since Trump soundly beat them fair and square in the 2016 election against crooked Hillary. Russia is a country with an economy the size of Italy and it faces a demographic winter due to its sub-replacement level of births. Both the Catholic Church and Russian Orthodox Church are authoritarian so it is not surprising Russia is authoritarian. If only the Russians were Presbyterians, then Russia would not be so authoritarian! The good news is that Protestantism is growing in Russia (see: Growth of Protestantism in Russia).Conservative (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2020 (EST)

  1. Northwest and I are both Catholic, so I would REALLY appreciate it if you didn't just call us "authoritarians" in an obviously bad manner. Besides, there are plenty of Protestants that can be labelled authoritarian or even totalitarian (and I of course mean the terms in a bad way), like the Puritans (heck, their seminal work, "Sinners at the Hands of an Angry God, depicted God as being far closer to a sadistic psychopath who utterly enjoys throwing people into Hell or even toying with throwing people into Hell, and only spares people on a mere whim, meaning that rendition fails to depict him as neither a loving nor even a just God, let alone both. And don't get me started on Oliver Cromwell, who arguably made the French Revolution the birthplace of totalitarianism possible after executing Charles, and was pretty much the reason why King Henry VIII took a slide into totalitarianism with his trying to have a male heir with his War of the Roses.), the English Episcopal Church (remember, King Henry VIII made that into his bully pulpit specifically to force Christianity to constantly remarry to get a son), and even Lutherans, the last example being the first Protestants in fact, so it's irresponsible to imply that Protestantism isn't authoritarian.
  2. To everyone else, considering that half of congress already showed themselves it was under leftist control, that site might actually BE under leftist "deep state" control especially if it's the House of Representatives. Also, I was specifically referring to what Northwest was referring to. If the articles are backed up by places like PJMedia, Townhall, or Breitbart, or American Thinker, or New American, sure, feel free to use them. But when you insist on only those sources, and discounting PJMedia or anything else, then yes, you are trying to liberalize the site, which is unacceptable. And I've had personal experience with really horrible mods, like for example on Serebii.net forums and Bulbagarden forums. Pokeria1 (talk) 06:02, 8 February 2020 (EST)
About your first point, my initial reaction was "What on Earth is Pokeria1 talking about?" I never said anything about Catholicism. Then I realized you were bothered by Cons's edit, not mine. And I had ignored Cons's anti-Catholic bigotry when I had read it; I never take that stuff seriously. I do not harbor anti-Catholic bigotry. I know it's a cliché to say this, but some of my best friends are Catholic. And I am aware that Andy, you, Northwest, and many other CP contributors are Catholic.
Please let me set your mind at ease on this. Cons frequently writes things with no regard for the effect they will have on people, or, for that matter, what people will think. He does not seem to care what impression it will make on people when he writes incessantly and obsessively about "flying kitties", the comparative values of ponies and atheists, Atheism_and_diabetes, Atheists_and_physical_attractiveness, and so on. And he's obsessed with the "Protestant work ethic", which is where a lot of his seeming anti-Catholic bigotry comes in. I recommend that you ignore all that. It's just Cons being Cons. Based on extensive email correspondence, I don't think he is actually an anti-Catholic bigot. He simply doesn't know how to express himself in a civilized manner. Which is too bad, because he's a smart person. SamHB (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2020 (EST)
About your second point, my initial reaction was "Does he really want me to use a right-wing rag like PJMedia as a source for gravitational waves?" But, being open-minded, I looked around. Sure enough, PJMedia has an article [17] about gravitational waves (well, actually about the need for arts in the schools) which cited this article, in the Daily beast, about Einstein and Mozart, and this article, in the New York Times, about the discovery of gravitational waves. So I have added the latter to the "Conservapedia proven right" item. I'm glad to know that you consider the New York Times to be an acceptable source, even if only indirectly. It's a small world. SamHB (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2020 (EST)

John McCain

Rob Smith: I have reverted your additional negative comments about John McCain.

"I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," -- Gen. Wesley Clark, June 30, 2008 as a surrogate for the Obama campaign.
"They want us to forget the insults we've had to endure. Intolerance. They've made us feel marginalized in this country we love so much. John McCain and his Republican friends have two faces," -- 2008 Obama campaign ad.

It's well known that people say negative things about their opponents during election campaigns. And I'm not aware that Mr. McCain ran on a platform of having been a POW in North Vietnam, though I'm sure it got mentioned. My recollection is that he ran mostly on his legislative record. The two comments that I put on my user page were simply pure evil.

Feel free to take the material and put it into some kind of "McCaingate timeline" article, or whatever you want. SamHB (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2018 (EDT)

My apologies. I thought I'd help you appear to be a fair minded individual rather than standing by Democrat race baiting and hypocrisy. Again, my apologies. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 04:16, 27 May 2018 (EDT)
Well, I thank you for your offer of help in keeping my talk page free of race baiting and hypocrisy. But I think the amount of race baiting that I do (zero) is just right. I'll be really careful not to engage in race baiting in the future. SamHB (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2018 (EDT)

Rob's finding that I engaged in race-baiting in the John McCain tribute on my user page piqued my curiosity. I wondered "What is RobSmith's writing actually like?" I hadn't read any of it in many months, since he has lately been engaging in manic editing sprees that would put User:Conservative to shame. And the edit comments and article titles indicate that the edits must be rubbish on a par with Cons's writing. Worse than, for example Atheists_and_physical_attractiveness? Hard to say. I'd have to read that stuff.

So I picked one of Rob's edits at random: this one. He essentially added "... as millions of misogynist white women went to the polls on election day ..." to the Trump transition article. Huh?? In an encyclopedia? One that prides itself on being trustworthy?

That edit was one of 211 edits, over a 30 hour period with just 3 breaks, of less than 5, 4, and 2 hours. That's the sort of thing that Rob considers worth spending his time on? By contrast, Cons made only 10 edits in that same time frame. Cons still has a long way to go, be he's making progress.

SamHB (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2018 (EDT)

USA Today: John McCain ran on repealing Obamacare. He broke his promise.
John McCain is a petty, vindictive and unreliable man. He is a war hero though. McCain let his anger at Trump get the best of him (Trump's comment on his military service). I suppose this isn't the first or last time that a person of Irish descent let their anger get the best of them. Conservative (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2018 (EDT)
Cons, my friend, a couple of points. (You know me well enough to know when I'm reaming you out and when I'm just disagreeing, right? This is the latter.)
  • It's true that McCain's recent vote on healthcare was the opposite of what you, and many others, had hoped for. But people change their position between their campaigns and their final votes all the time. If everyone was required to vote exactly the way they campaigned, they wouldn't bother to hold votes in Congress. On the first day of the session, they would just enact into law whatever people had indicated they would do while they were running for office, no? Then they could all go home. In reality, they hold committee hearings, they hold conferences, they try to reach consensus, they try to persuade their colleagues ("log-rolling", I believe it's called), they rewrite the proposed legislation again and again and again, trying to get it into a form that will pass the voting. What people vote on is often not what the issues were perceived to be when they were campaigning. You really shouldn't call McCain unreliable for this. (By the way, I'm kind of neutral on this issue, and I haven't compared McCain's vote with what the issue was when he was campaigning.) I'm sorry that his vote disappointed you, but these things happen. That's why we have a Congress.
  • Petty and vindictive? Are you suggesting that he voted that way because of personal animosity at President Trump? That his "anger ... got the best of him?" Really? His anger over the "I want people who weren't shot down" comment from a year before is what led to his vote? Can you back up that connection with some statements of his?
  • I know you are not a bigot, but the reference to people of Irish descent was unnecessary. People occasionally let their anger get the best of them all the time. And I doubt that it's related to being Irish. (Though, truth to tell, this isn't the first time I've heard a statement like that.) I don't associate irascibility with being Irish. BTW, I'm not Irish, and I'm pretty sure you aren't either. Just say that he let his anger get the best of him. Though I don't think it did.
SamHB (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2018 (EDT)

"The so-called Irish temperament is a mixture of flaming ego, hot temper, stubbornness, great personal charm and warmth, and a wit that shines through adversity. An irrepressible buoyancy, a vivacious spirit, a kindliness and tolerance for the common frailties of man and a feeling that 'it is time enough to bid the devil good morning when you meet him' are character traits which Americans have associated with their Irish neighbors for more than a century." - Dr. Carl Wittke, Chair, History Department, Western Reserve University, 1952-1962.[18][19] Conservative (talk) 01:15, 2 June 2018 (EDT)

OK, you win. I've also been told that the Irish are known for their humor. In any case, well played, sir! SamHB (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2018 (EDT)
My sincerest dream for America is that we can once again have a sane and realistic enough public discourse to admit that we can, at least partially, attribute somebody's temper to their Irish heritage. And that, yes, Valerie Jarrett really does look like that one monkey lady from Planet of the Apes. VargasMilan (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2018 (EDT)
You never cease to amaze me. Not well played. SamHB (talk) 10:08, 2 June 2018 (EDT)

USA Today (reprinted from The Arizona Republic, opinion piece):

"This is one instance in which President Trump’s criticisms of McCain are well-founded. McCain did run, as Trump is drumming, on a strong repeal-and-replace platform. In fact, it was the principal distinction he drew with his Democratic opponent, Ann Kirkpatrick.

McCain now says that Democrats made a mistake in passing Obamacare on a partisan basis, and that Republicans shouldn’t undo it on a similarly partisan basis. But that’s the equivalent of a Brezhnev doctrine on domestic policy. Democrats can enact legislation on a partisan basis. But Republicans can undo it only if Democrats agree.

McCain is undoubtedly correct that bipartisan policy changes are more enduring. But when one side acts unilaterally, it shouldn’t get a veto when the other side attempts to undo it."[20]

IrishCentral.com:

"An article on McCain in Prospect Magazine from August 2008 saw writer Anatol Lieven attribute many of Sen. McCain's traits to his heritage. Lieven wrote, "his obstinacy; his tendency towards unshakeable friendship and implacable hatred; his hair-trigger temper; his deep patriotism; his obsession with American honor; and his furious response to any criticism of the US.""[21]

"In the end, Irish American McCain took revenge for Trump's deadly attack on him last year calling him no hero because he was captured in Vietnam."[22]

The New York Times:

The New York Times admits: "It probably didn’t hurt that it was also a measure of cold revenge against Mr. Trump, a man who on the campaign trail in 2015 had mocked Mr. McCain’s ordeal as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. "[23] Conservative (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2018 (EDT)

Trump's blunder was that he did not know his enemy. In a divided country where U.S. Senate votes can be close, creating a bitter enemy in the U.S. Senate was definitely not smart. Trump should have merely said that military service should be respected, but being a war hero does not give someone a free pass to do whatever they want or make them immune from legitimate criticism. In the 2016 election, Trump may have gotten more votes from veterans had he done that. In addition, perhaps McCain would not have voted against ObamaCare.
The Independent: "When he arrived for the vote McCain, who could easily have pleaded ill-health and simply stayed out of the whole thing, told assembled reporters to “wait for the show”.(bolding added for emphasis)".[24]
McCain's vote was a showy vote of revenge. Had he not campaigned so strongly against ObamaCare previously, a more convincing counterargument could be made. Conservative (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2018 (EDT)
Well played again!! You do your homework on current events and contemporary U.S. politics as diligently as I do my homework on math and physics. I'd much rather read your writings on current events than on why potholes show that evolution didn't happen. SamHB (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2018 (EDT)
You make too many mistakes for that to be true. VargasMilan (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2018 (EDT)
Ireland, Scotland and the USA gave a significantly higher GDP than Britain.[25] It helps to have a fighting spirit that drives the British from your land! Don't get the Scotch-Irish or the Americans mad!Conservative (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2018 (EDT)

Inactivity?

Your user page says you will be inactive for 66 days, until late August. Did something change, or did you forget about it? --1990'sguy (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2018 (EDT)

re: Having an article related to attractiveness and a segment of the human population

"Of course, we do not deny evolutionism itself."[1] - Kim Jong-il, an overweight, unattractive leftist, evolutionist and atheist who died of a heart attack. See also: Evolutionists who have had problems with being overweight and/or obese and Atheism and obesity

Truly knowledgeable individuals in terms of knowledge about biology and science properly regulate a basic function such as eating and also get an adequate amount of exercise!!!

Carrie Nation, a radical member of the temperance movement, used to go into taverns and wreak havoc with a hatchet. Since you appear to see no value as far as attractiveness when it comes to people's appearances, have you ever thought of going around beauty parlors and wreaking havoc with a hatchet? You could also lead protests outside of beauty parlors. You could lead a movement to ban beauty contests.

For thousands of years, cultures have valued beauty. Even the Bible comments on Sarah's beauty. Solomon's Song of Songs mentions beauty.

And yet, a petulant liberal complains about an article on Atheists and physical attractiveness. Conservative (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2018 (EDT)

By the way, given that the social science data indicates that right-wing individuals are better looking than left of center individuals, is the reason you take umbrage at the article due to jealousy?
Deny that Donald Trump is taller and better looking than the godless, leftist and evolutionist Kim Jong-un and lose all credibility!
"Of course, we do not deny evolutionism itself."[26] - Kim Jong-il, an overweight, unattractive leftist/evolutionist/atheist who died of a heart attack. See also: Evolutionists who have had problems with being overweight and/or obese and Atheism and obesity
Truly knowledgeable individuals, in terms of knowledge about biology and science, properly regulate a basic function such as eating and also get an adequate amount of exercise!!!Conservative (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2018 (EDT)

Meet PZ Myers, the overweight and unattractive atheist/evolutionist/leftist

The biologist and evolutionist PZ Myers in 2006. Myers is also a staunch atheist. See also: Atheism and obesity

For further information, please see: PZ Myers embarrasses himself at the Creation Museum and Professor PZ Myers fails his applied biology course

User: Conservative proven right again!

At the 2018 American Atheists convention, the ex-president of the American Atheist organization David Silverman declared:

It is a hard time to be an atheist activist. This has affected us. And it has affected our community...

...it has really affected us. We are suffering a level of defeatism that I have never seen before...

We feel the loss. And we feel like we have lost. We feel like we lost the election... We see this cascade of attack coming down at us over and over from all different directions and we feel like it's over. I have heard so many times it makes me sick. It makes me sad. It feels like we lost.

The apathy that follows. It doesn't matter. We can't win anyways. It's useless to fight. This apathy is infecting us. It's hurting us.

And people are reacting to each other now. And so that is causing a division. Lots and lots of division in our movement. Hard, bad division... And that has resulted in a splintering and factioning of the movement that I have never seen before and none of us have.

In other words, we're in a bad situation and it's getting worse. (bolding added for emphasis).[3]

Didn't I tell you that each successive year was going to be the WORST year for atheism? It's coming to pass! Conservative (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2018 (EDT)

Re: Religious people and Donald Trump

So, this article from a liberal-leaning anti-Trump website (as it makes clear in its About Us page) is your source in your latest anti-Trump attack on your user page (which claims in effect, "religiously observant Christians were least likely to be seduced by Donald Trump’s “post-truth” style politics in the GOP primary")? You do realize that liberal-biased websites like the one you linked, like the rest of the liberal media, are more likely to lie and make baseless and unsourced claims about the targets of their attacks, right? Northwest (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2018 (EDT)

Oh, my! I do seem to attract the attention of junior "assistant sysops". Ordinary contributors have better things to do than attack me, and actual admins do too. In fact, there are a few traits that I've noticed in assistants such as yourself and Vargas "embraces the pseudoscience that leavens science too tightly to be trusted"[4] Milan. An example was Vargas bringing me in to a discussion of FredJ with a comment that actually had nothing to do with me, simply because I had welcomed FredJ and advised him not to use "fact" tags. And, of course, there is your comment above.
A striking trait that assistants seem to display is the tendency to think that they, and apparently only they, can police the "ideological purity" of the web site. In fact, the admins can control the ideological content of CP; they don't need your help in this regard. Your efforts are plainly on display in the fight over the Pussy Riot article, in which you seem to accuse me of turning the place into "liberalpedia". Apparently because you believe that anyone who opposes a murderous dictator who imprisons, murders, and poisons dissenters, must be a "leftist", "elitist" or "social justice warrior". I can assure everyone that I have no intention of trying to turn this web site into "liberalpedia".
Now, to address the most recent claim (just above) that I am citing a "liberal-leaning anti-Trump website", I don't go searching for liberal web sites in order to post references to them here at Conservapedia. The web site that I was citing was taken from footnote number 4 of this. That was put in by Cons. So you'll have to ask him why he was putting in "left-wing" web sites. I figured that, if it's good enough for Cons, it's good enough for Conservapedia, and if he doesn't actually read the articles that he cites, that's his problem.
SamHB (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2018 (EDT)
Sounds more to me like you're trying to make this more about yourself (indicated by your pretended "offence" at the truth being pointed out to you in your reply) to distract from your history of trying to ideologically reshape Conservapedia to suit your tastes and those of your fellow liberals (as well as the liberal trolls who come here for the sole purpose of vandalizing the site, along with your denial of doing so), particularly regarding the Pussy Riot article (a fight which you started, by the way). All you're doing here is further proving the points being made in the Liberal Style article regarding what your type does and how they react (acting "offended", not taking responsibility, etc.) and what they resort to (denials, deflection, condescension, attacking those who catch them, etc. - all of which you've pulled on other editors and admins here before, in case you need reminding again) when caught at their actions. Northwest (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2018 (EDT)
Well, people do sometimes get accused of talking or writing about themselves, and seeming to make everything about "me, me, me", and using a lot of first-person pronouns in their writing. I've been accused of that myself on occasion, but it doesn't seem to apply in the case of the paragraphs above. You, on the other hand, seem to write about "liberals, liberals, liberals", and accusing anyone who says something you don't agree with of being one. This is most obvious in your claim that anyone who opposes murderous thug Vladimir Putin must be a "leftist", "elitist" or "social justice warrior". And must be trying to change this site into "liberalpedia". Anyone who has been around here for any length of time knows that, in my 10-1/2 years here, I don't do that. Feel free to ask any admin, like Andy or Cons, for example. Or, for that matter, any trustworthy and decent person that's been around for any length of time. They can also tell you that I have repaired a lot of vandalism and other damage, though probably not as much as I could have repaired if I'd been given sysop powers.
Now let's go through your paragraph above.
Sounds more to me like you're trying to make this more about yourself (indicated by your pretended "offence" at the truth being pointed out to you in your reply)
I'm not offended, just annoyed.
to distract from your history of trying to ideologically reshape Conservapedia to suit your tastes
Really? Give an example. Opposing Putin is not my taste; it is the taste of any decent person.
and those of your fellow liberals
Huh?
(as well as the liberal trolls who come here for the sole purpose of vandalizing the site,
We are all aware that this site is the frequent target of vandalism. I've done my share of repairing this.
along with your denial of doing so),
I don't deny that there are vandals.
particularly regarding the Pussy Riot article (a fight which you started, by the way).
Well, actually, you were the one who started it, with your edit of 08:14, 13 February 2017.
All you're doing here is further proving the points being made in the Liberal Style article
No, that article has nothing to do with me. It's incredibly badly written, by the way.
regarding what your type does
My type? What type is that?
and how they react (acting "offended", not taking responsibility, etc.)
I fail to take responsibility? Given an example.
and what they resort to (denials,
really?
deflection,
really?
condescension,
really?
attacking
really?
those who catch them, etc.
You've "caught" me? You realize that everything on this site is public, right?
all of which you've pulled on other editors and admins here before,
Really? Give an example.
in case you need reminding again) when caught at their actions.
Really? Give an example.
SamHB (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2018 (EDT)
The rambling wall of text you posted (where you do exactly as I said you'd do on all counts, including deny your repeated past wrongdoing and refuse to take responsibility for it, and even try to push a liberal POV here while you simultaneously deny doing so - all liberal traits) is proof enough - and no, I was not the one who started that fight, you did by removing factual info from the article on March 2, 2017 (just as you're trying to provoke another fight even now). By even objecting to the Liberal Style article (by claiming it is "badly written" when it is nothing of the kind), all you're doing is further proving the points made by that article.
And incidentally, the reason you don't get given sysop powers here is because if that happened, you'd most certainly abuse them by misusing them to force a liberal POV on articles and blocking those you don't agree with here (which would mean just about every conservative-leaning editor here), which would result in even more fights here than you already cause and would only be disruptive to the site - and that's not needed here. Northwest (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2018 (EDT)
Your presumption to know the reason I don't have assistant ("sysop") authority is incorrect. I do not want block powers, and I have said so many times over the last 10-1/2 years. SamHB (talk) 00:57, 25 December 2018 (EST)

Resurrection - The new and improved version of the phantom essay

I hope you find that the added content further clarifies matters.Conservative (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2018 (EST)

Well, I'm glad you have apparently decided that this "essay" should become a permanent part of your work. I was worried for a while that you considered it to be some silly "throwaway" thing. It's really one of your most charming things, mostly because of the really nice picture of the two kids. Though it's not clear to me that they are cheering over the victory of Christianity. They might be exulting over having won something in a computer game they are playing. Or maybe cheering over having posted something stupid, perhaps involving cats, or maybe gerbils, on social media. Or maybe they are cheering about having successfully vandalized Conservapedia.  :-) You never know.
But its not possible that your added content "clarifies matters". I'd have to read the article. You see, I don't read your articles. I just look at the pictures. And this was a nice picture.
Now, I have a bone to pick with you over your flippant use of the word "resurrection". I've never liked the use of that word other than in the context of Jesus. Here you are talking about having undeleted a file on a wiki.
And they gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.
And they did a "delete page" operation on him, and parted his garments. And they "changed visibility of 3 revisions" on him.
But on the third day they "restored his page".
Not right.
Be that as it may, have a Merry Christmas.
SamHB (talk) 00:57, 25 December 2018 (EST)
"The act or fact of bringing someone back to life, or bringing something back into use or existence."- Cambridge Dictionary[27]
I hope the Queen's English helps clarify things for you.:)Conservative (talk) 01:05, 25 December 2018 (EST)
Yes, I know English pretty well, and I did not need to look at your dictionary reference. I know that "resurrect" is often used in a secular sense. But it still sort of bothers me that you use it in a totally flippant and childish article. And I notice that you are continuing to mess around with that article, among other things, vaping/memory-holing 45 versions at a time. Can't you make up your mind? Is there something about those vaped versions that embarrasses you? Jesus was only crucified and resurrected once.
And speaking of childish, I speculated above on the possibility that those children "might be exulting over having won something in a computer game they are playing." Well, I was right. The picture is from https://pixabay.com/en/children-win-success-video-game-593313/. They were not celebrating "The thrill of Christian victory", as your caption says.
Do you think Christianity is a video game?
SamHB (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2018 (EST)

re: Conservapedia:Editing article and talk pages

This page Conservapedia:Editing article and talk pages at Conservapedia needs to have a section on how to create quotes.Conservative (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2019 (EST)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm busy just now, but I'll get to it. The usefulness of this was brought to my attention by some recent comments about the various templates or whatever. Something about one of the templates being changed. So I need to do some research into this. Do You by any chance know where that discussion was? SamHB (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2019 (EST)
I hope you don't mind me cutting in. The hubbub you heard in regard to quote templates was just that I added some documentation to template:Cquote but also accidentally added a category outside of the noinclude tags, so all the pages using that template were suddenly in Category:Quotation Templates. I have since fixed the issue.
We do seem to have three different quotation templates, so I have wondered if there is a specific policy or it is more a matter of preference, save the discussion about Cquote. Anyway, I hope this clarifies and saves you some time. --David B (TALK) 19:02, 11 January 2019 (EST)
Right. I'm awfully busy these days, but I'll get to it. I have a personal stake in having these quote templates documents, since I use them and typically have to look around for examples of my, and other people's, work to figure out how to proceed. SamHB (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2019 (EST)

I'm ready to go. Please unlock this page. SamHB (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2019 (EST)

I recreated the article and removed the duplicate content

I deleted User:SamHB/Cons Christian victory Dec+27+2018 because I recreated the article at: Essay: The thrill of Christian victory and the agony of atheist defeat.Conservative (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2019 (EST)

OK. I'm going to have to reorganize my "rogues' gallery of things you have vaped"; I have a significant backlog already. You could help by not vaping things, recognizing that The Internet is Forever, and perhaps not writing things you will later be ashamed of. Just sayin' SamHB (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2019 (EST)
It is not a matter of being ashamed, it is rather a matter of material being funny vs. non-funny or effective or ineffective.
One of the reasons why Chess computers can beat chessmasters is because the machines don't have big egos and can pullback from an ineffective chess attack.[28] Computers change course when it is warranted.
If I decide I don't like some of my material in retrospect, I delete/vape it.Conservative (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2019 (EST)

Vindication is sweet

Even the British New Statesman admits that the UK pothole crisis is a sign of national decline.

See also: United Kingdom's road repair crisis

I hope the New Statesman article helped clarify things for you.Conservative (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2019 (EST)

Right. The things you send me in the hopes that they "clarify things" for me rarely have the desired effect, to say the least. But keep trying.
I may create an article on causation vs. correlation. Including such examples as potholes vs. Darwin's homeland. SamHB (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2019 (EST)
[Some material was put in here and then vaped a short time later (before I could catch it), with the edit comment "I think I will be editing less at this wiki". That person then made 30 more edits within a fairly short span of time. People would do well not to make edits that they are going to be ashamed of later.]

Name-calling -- "making a fool of oneself"

I was recently accused of name-calling, when I told Cons to stop "making a fool of himself". According to Merriam-Webster, "making a fool of oneself" simply means "behav[ing] in a very foolish or silly way". That's not the same as being a fool—we all do foolish things from time to time. I intended no name-calling, and I apologize to anyone who took my comment as such.

I try to avoid name-calling, such as calling people

and so on. SamHB (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2019 (EST)

SamHB, a 2016 press release of a University of Minnesota study on atheists reported: "Survey data collected in 2014 shows that, compared to data collected in 2003, Americans have sharpened their negative views of atheists.."[29]
In addition, according to a study published in the International Journal for The Psychology of Religion: "anti-atheist prejudice is not confined either to dominantly religious countries or to religious individuals, but rather appears to be a robust judgment about atheists."[30]
For more information, please see: Views on atheists and Distrust of atheists
This section is not about atheists; it is about name-calling. It has nothing to do with atheists or atheism.
As I'm sure you know, I have absolutely no interest in the things you write about atheism. As I'm sure you know, this is because your writings about atheism, and nearly everything else you write, are simply the result of scouring the internet for anything you can find that might support whatever it is you're trying to say. As I'm sure you know, on a planet with 6 billion people expressing 6 billion opinions, you can find just about anything you want on the internet.
I realize that you take exception to my atheism content, nevertheless it is undeniable that my atheism content gets significant web traffic. For example, my atheism and stealing article is merely about a month old and already it has over 2,200 page views.
"All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved." - Sun Tzu
In all seriousness, I do plan on changing some of my priorities. There are a number of worthy endeavors that I wish to pursue.Conservative (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2019 (EST)
Yes, please do that. You probably have more worthy endeavors than vaping your own edits to other people's talk pages. SamHB (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2019 (EST)

You should face reality and accept there is more than one editor who uses the User: Conservative account

SamHB, you are wrong. Most, if not all, the active Conservapedia admins know there is more than one User: Conservative editor. So does the owner of the website. On one or more occasions, I have received an email from one of the fellow admins saying, "Why did you do such and such?" I then explain it was one of the other editors of the User: Conservative account. And then I either reverse that co-editor of the User: Conservative account's decision or I explain his/her (I say his or her to keep the veil of mystery thicker) decision to my fellow admins. By the way, your objections are not cruel, they are just misguided and/or haughty/vain.

I hope this further clarifies matters for you. Conservative (talk) 04:23, 5 April 2019 (EDT)

Just for further clarification: How many edits are done by the most prominent persona of your little posse: 90%? 99%? 99.9%? --AugustO (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2019 (EDT)
Whether it is a little posse or large posse, I will not disclose. I will merely say the decision to have more than one editor use the account involved more than one consideration.Conservative (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2019 (EDT)
I'll get to your outlandish claims of being multiple people, and the outlandish "proof" of this that you have been pushing (unsuccessfully) over the years, soon. Be patient. I have this thing called a "life" that sometimes gets in the way of any desire I might have to spend all my time writing stuff at Conservapedia. And a relativity issue has just come up, that needs to be attended to. SamHB (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2019 (EDT)
SamHB, a majority of my online work has been related to atheism (or related issues such as evolutionism). Now that the atheist movement in the Western World has been burnt to a crisp and has been soundly defeated (see: Decline of the atheist movement and Decline of militant atheism in the West), my desire to have a protracted discussion about how many users use the User: Conservative account has waned. One thing I can say with absolute certainty, there is more than one editor who uses the User: Conservative account.
Second, if the owner of Conservapedia decides to bequeath control of Conservapedia in his waning years, unlike Conservapedia editors whose accounts will remain inactive after they meet their Maker, the Conservapedia account I created will live on. "Old soldiers never die, they simply fade away".Conservative (talk) 12:47, 8 April 2019 (EDT)

SamHB, I enabled other editors to use the User: Conservative account for these reasons: 1) Sun Tzu is considered by many as one of the greatest strategist/tacticians of all history. He said to be mysterious for various reasons. What could be more mysterious than multiple anonymous editors? 2) After TK passed away, his influence at this website obviously went down (I was never a fan of TK). It occurred to me that if a prominent editor has a "succession plan" in relation to his/her account, it would be a better thing for multiple reasons. 3) The amusement factor. Frankly, it is amusing to see people rail at the User: Conservative and construct armchair psychological analysis of the account when the fact is that the account has multiple editors which makes their foolish strategy of personal attacks rather impotent. Conservative (talk) 05:54, 10 April 2019 (EDT)

Let it go, man. Your real life identity is well known, and your writing / argumentation style is unmistakable. Hyraxes chewing the cud, etc. No amount of dissembling is going to change this.
FFIW, though, your general sentence construction has improved considerably over the past few years. There's less repetition and far fewer redundant phrases than there used to be. Good work (seriously). JohnZ (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2019 (EDT)
There is more than one person who uses the User: Conservative account. Conservative (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2019 (EDT)
No there isn't. No one believes you. You have been given many opportunities to show that there is more than one person, and you have notgiven a positive response to any of them. Not a single admin (these people might be in a position to know about this) has come forth to support your claim, nor has anyone else. All you do is write the same trash over and over again, sticking in different footnoting styles and such. But it's the same trash, a fact which anyone can see. Whether you use the "Q" in "LGBTQ", or whether you once used a diacritical mark, is irrelevant. SamHB (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2019 (EDT)
Fine. Have it your way. The real life identity of the primary user of the User:Conservative account is well known, and his writing / argumentation style is unmistakable. Hyraxes chewing the cud, etc. No amount of dissembling is going to change this.
Happy now? JohnZ (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2019 (EDT)

JohnZ, key question: Did the same person largely write these articles: Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals and Atheism and women and Homosexuality?

Please address both the writing and footnoting styles of the three articles. Also, address any quote box differences. In addition, address any differences in points of view.Conservative (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2019 (EDT)

Gosh. He didn't reply, either about the writing styles or about the footnoting styles. Perhaps this is because he considers those questions incredibly childish. Perhaps he's got better things to do. SamHB (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2019 (EDT)

Multiple personalities, part 1

You have, for years, been claiming that the senior admins here know about your multiple personalities, and accept this behavior. (I know it's been going on for a couple of years; I can't be bothered to look it up just now, but I will if necessary.) I'd like you to prove it.

You recently said, in [31], that "Most, if not all, the active Conservapedia admins know there is more than one User: Conservative editor. So does the owner of the website." Thats good to hear. If it's true. But I have my doubts. Why don't you have those admins (including Andy) put short posts here assuring all of us that what you say is true. Or, if you or they prefer, tell me so in private email—I happen to have, from time to time, had email conversations with a number of admins and we trust each other. So have them reassure us of their acceptance of this situation.

Another thing would be for you to post or forward any emails from these senior admins, indicating that they know about and accept this. If you (quite understandably) don't want to post those emails here in public, forward them to me at the email that we use for our extensive correspondence: sam4557@gmail.com. You know that I can be trusted with our confidential conversations.

Multiple personalities, part 2

You also said, in the same place, "On one or more occasions, I have received an email from one of the fellow admins saying, 'Why did you do such and such?' I then explain it was one of the other editors of the User: Conservative account. And then I either reverse that co-editor of the User: Conservative account's decision or I explain his/her (I say his or her to keep the veil of mystery thicker) decision to my fellow admins." So this is the excuse you hide behind when the other admins overrule your actions? Wouldn't it be more straightforward simply to accept that what you had written was inappropriate? Also, can you post or forward some of the emails in which the other admins take you to task, and the emails in which you explain his/her decision?

Multiple personalities, part 3

Another thing you have been doing for years, in support of this multiple personality fantasy, is claiming that it is proved by inconsistent footnoting style in your articles. This, too, is discussed at some length in [32]. So let me get this straight: You are intentionally using inconsistent footnoting style for the purpose of "proving" that you are multiple people? You are using your own writing as evidence in this case? Writing that you can, of course manipulate any way you wish, to make any point you wish? And you expect the rest of us to believe that? In the real world that would be called "fabricating evidence". Wouldn't it be more straightforward just to fix the inconsistent styles?

SamHB (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2019 (EDT)

From User: Conservative to SamHB: My additional responses to SamHB about more than one editor using the User: Conservative account

The other admins at Conservapedia either agree with my decision to expand the editor base of the User: Conservative account or they tolerate it or they are ambivalent (I really haven't deeply queried them about this matter).

I don't believe you. I see no evidence that the other admins, or any other people, accept that you have "expanded the editor base" of your account. Just saying it again and again and again and again doesn't make it any more convincing. You have utterly failed to substantiate this claim, a claim you have been making for years. I would think you would be able to come up with some evidence by now. SamHB (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2019 (EDT)

After all is said and done, they see that Andy Schlafly is not making a big stink about it so they are ok with it.

Perhaps the reason Andy isn't making a big stink about it is that it doesn't matter how many people you say you are. Perhaps he doesn't care who is behind your keyboard. Perhaps he sees this whole situation as amusing but irrelevant to anything he cares about. Perhaps he doesn't care whether you are being truthful. Perhaps the other admins have a similar view, and just don't care whether you are being truthful.

As far as Andy Schlafly goes, he knows there are more than one editor of the User: Conservative account and he tolerates it.

I don't believe you. SamHB (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2019 (EDT)

He is not excited about it despite the fact that account could potentially remain active upon my demise. :) Conservative (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2019 (EDT)

Here is an excerpt from an email I sent other admins on Jun 30, 2018, 9:02 AM: "Given that another editor of my User: Conservative account unblocked him, I think he was hoping would be unblocked again. That is not going to happen."Conservative (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2019 (EDT)
I don't know whether to believe you. Saying things like "Given that another editor of my User: Conservative account ..." doesn't convince me of anything. You make such statements all the time, in public on this web site, so it doesn't surprise me that you would make them in private emails also. How about posting (or forwarding to sam4557@gmail.com) the full message, with headers intact so that I can closely examine its authenticity, showing that the recipient acknowledged that your account is actually used by multiple people. Just saying that you said this is no more convincing than saying it directly. Which you do again and again and again and again. I want acknowledgement of this from someone else. By having them post something to that effect on this web site, or send me email to that effect. SamHB (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2019 (EDT)
SamHB, did you notice that editor of the Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals used the term LGBTQ. Personally, I think the Q is rather redundant so I am not a fan of this term. How often was the term LGBTQ used in other articles created by the User: Conservative account? Of course, this is yet another sign there is more than one editor of the User: Conservative account.
And then there are the stylistic issues of: the footnoting style differences; the quote box differences; the greater tendency to put footnotes in the middle of sentences; the multiple use of the word gay in the article which is a term I rarely use; the dependent clause "as such" used in the beginning of a sentence which I believe I have never done in any of my writings at Conservapedia and finally the multiple use of the word "régime" in the article/page (I may have used the term "regime" in my articles but I never spelled it "régime").
We've been through this before. You write articles in which you deliberately use varying styles, and then you claim that that proves you are multiple people? Really? SamHB (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2019 (EDT)
SamHB, it's time to face that more than one editor has used the User: Conservative account.Conservative (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2019 (EDT)
I don't believe you. SamHB (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2019 (EDT)
Have you noticed that User: Karajou, who commonly uses check user, has never disputed the notion that more than one editor has used (or uses) the User: Conservative account?Conservative (talk) 06:14, 14 April 2019 (EDT)
I haven't actually noticed the connection between your multiple-personality fantasy and checkuser. There's a very simple explanation for the fact that none of the people with checkuser rights sees anything amiss. All your edits come from the same person, at the same IP address. Nothing for Karajou to notice or comment on. SamHB (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2019 (EDT)

I listened to a video of a hardcore, no nonsense, high performance coach yesterday. He said not to care about what other people think, but to just move forward and do the right things. That is excellent advice! Sorry to hear that you don't believe that more than one editor uses the User: Conservative account. But frankly, I don't care! I hope this helps clarifies things for you. :)Conservative (talk) 11:20, 25 April 2019 (EDT)

Well, it clarifies that you are making no attempt to convince people of your multiple personalities. SamHB (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2019 (EDT)

And accept there is more than one editor who uses the User: SamHB account

HEY EVERYBODY! MORE THAN ONE PERSON USES THE SAMHB ACCOUNT! I'M ONE OF THE OTHER PEOPLE. I KNOW YOU'RE SKEPTICAL OF THIS, BUT I HAVE PROOF. WE HAVE DIFFERENT WRITING STYLES. CAN YOU FIGURE IT OUT? BY GEORGE, YOU'VE GOT IT. I WRITE IN ALL CAPS. ISN'T THAT CUTE? SamHB (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2019 (EDT)

Not any more there isn't

I have just changed my password and revoked Samantha's permission to edit under my account. SamHB (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2019 (EDT)

Announcements concerning the User: Conservative editor team

Two announcements:

1. This month saw an expansion of the number of editors in the User: Conservative editor team.

Right. It's been raised to te 6th power. Thanks for clarifying that for me. SamHB (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2019 (EDT)

2. One of the editors of User: Conservative team was given an update as far as the password for User: Conservative account as the account has periodic password updates.

Right. You've been making periodic password changes (always a good idea), and it just now occurred to you to let one (just one?) of your alternate personalities know about it. Thanks for clarifying that for me. SamHB (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2019 (EDT)

By the way, I have finally figured out your steadfast refusal to accept the fact that more than one editor uses the account. Of course, it is jealousy. Deep down you want to be a member of the User: Conservative editor team!Conservative (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2019 (EDT)

Right. Your actions certainly entertain my "armchair psychological analysis" proclivities. Actually becoming one of your alternate personalities is certainly an intriguing thought. Thanks for clarifying that for me. SamHB (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2019 (EDT)
Hang on - Conservative is a bunch of different people? How is it there are a bunch of people who ALL have the same verbal style and have all the same rhetorical tics. Seems unlikely to me. JohnSelway (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2019 (EDT)

Number of editors using the User: Conservative account

The User: Conservative account was launched around the birth of the New Atheism movement. The New Atheism movement had four horsemen. Namely, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris. With the newly minted editor being given the username and password of the User: Conservative account, the User: Conservative account now consists of four individuals. The new editor of the User: Conservative account, however, cannot be a fourth horseman of the User: Conservative account. Why? Because the fourth horse of Revelation is a pale/ashen horse named Death. And is you many know, the atheist movement already died before he/she was made an editor (See: Decline of the atheist movement).

Well gosh. I've been trying for months (years?) to get you to convince me, or anyone else, that multiple people use your account and make Conservapedia contributions under your name.

When you produce, as "evidence", your claim that various sysops and admins know about this, and I ask you to produce the emails or other validating information, you change the subject. When you repeatedly and obsessively repeat, to me and others, that your writings do not all have identical styles (including footnoting differences, knowledge of what the "Q" in "LGBTQ" means, or different use of diacritical marks), and I point out that anyone can manipulate their own writing style to get that effect, you change the subject.

And now I see that there is a very simple ironclad proof that you are 4 people—an 1887 painting by Viktor Vasnetsov. So there are 4 people, corresponding to the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, in your "collective". How could I not have seen that before? It's so simple and straightforward now. Thank you, as usual, for clarifying that for me. SamHB (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2019 (EDT)

A message I left on User: JohnZ's talk page

I left the following message on User: JohnZ's talk page:

"By the way, the User: Conservative account is a mixture of Protestant/Catholic editors (I have asked the Catholic editors to refrain from anti-Protestant posts using the User: Conservative account). A message from one of the User: Conservative Catholic editors to the British atheist JohnZ: Deus vult!Conservative (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2019 (EDT)"

I trust this further clarifies the number of editors using the User: Conservative account.Conservative (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2019 (EDT)

The unfree city of Boston, Massachusetts and its rat infestation problem

Boston, which is the capital and most populous city of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, is one of the ten most rat infested cities of the world.[2]

As you are probably aware, rat infestation is a sign of societal decay. More orderly societies like Switzerland, which is a beacon of young earth creationism in Europe, simply don't have significant rat infestation problems.[3]

It's not too late to leave the unfree state of Massachusetts and move to a more orderly, rat free area that enjoys the blessings of liberty.

Swissinfo.ch: Rats save lives in landmine-infested areas

(Swiss neutrality has insured that Switzerland is not a landmine-infested area needing the assistance of rats)

SamHB vs. User: Conservative. SamHB badly loses again

User: Conservative wrote: 7-11-2017 Newsweek article: Why American Conservatives Love Anti-Gay Putin. Putin's workouts have more machismo than Obama's too.[33] [34][35] Conservative (talk) 11:13, 2 August 2019 (EDT)

SamHB wrote: "Well, this sure started a lively discussion! It was gratifying to see so many people come out and do the things that we each do so well. I look forward to seeing the videos of Donald Trump showing off his athletic prowess. SamHB (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2019 (EDT)".

According to liberal/left leaning Wikipedia: "Golf is a club-and-ball sport in which players use various clubs to hit balls into a series of holes on a course in as few strokes as possible."[36]

According to Golf Digest: "My main memory of playing golf with Donald Trump—preserved with more care now that he's the president—is that he really went after the ball hard. But the interesting thing is that though Trump's action might have looked a little reckless, it soon became clear that it was quite under control... Trump was 67 when I played with him in 2013 at his course outside Charlotte and in early 2014 at Doral, but he still possessed a significant remnant of big-man athleticism... As a golfer, the 45th president is the real deal."[37]

VIDEO: Golf Digest: Trump vs. Obama. According to Golf Digest, Trump is the better golfer! Specifically, Golf Digest said that Trump was the "best golfer ever to hold the presidency."[38]

I hope this clarifies the issue of whether Trump has more machismo than Obama.Conservative (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2019 (EDT)

By the way, once ObamaCare disappears, Trump's victory over Obama will be complete!Conservative (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2019 (EDT)

Best and fastest way to create an ex-homosexual

In 1980 a study was published in the American Journal of Psychiatry and eleven men participated in this study. The study reported that eleven homosexual men became heterosexuals "without explicit treatment and/or long-term psychotherapy" through their participation in a Pentecostal church.[39] The Apostle Paul in a letter to the church of Corinth indicated that Christians were able to overcome being homosexuals through the power of Jesus Christ (I Corinthians 6:9-11). Conservative (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2019 (EDT)

Atheistic Troll

According to my exchange with User:Conservative / User:Wikignome72, he just lost (temporarily) the access to his account ("The other editor of the account reset the password" - so there is only one other user). Perhaps an intervention by a concerned friend or relative? --AugustO (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2019 (EDT)

Somewhat the "exchange" mentioned above got erased - perhaps to save valuable memory space. Nevertheless, I just reprint it here:
Why?

Just why? And please, don't quote Sun Tzu. --AugustO (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2019 (EDT)

Did the creationist Dwight D. Eisenhower tell the German evolutionist Adolf Hitler why he did things or his future plans? Nein!Wikignome72 (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2019 (EDT)

If you just forgot User:Conservative's password, you probably can ask Andy to reset it. It's quite irritating to have a wiki gnome making substantial edits - like having a user calling himself robot. (BTW: happy 47th birthday! ;-) ) --AugustO (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2019 (EDT)
There is more than one editor of the User: Conservative account. The other editor of the account reset the password. I will get the new password from that person down the pike. In the meantime, I will make an edit on the User page so there is not an unsightly red username in the recent changes to the wiki page.Wikignome72 (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2019 (EDT)

--AugustO (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2019 (EDT)

“The whole secret lies in confusing the enemy, so that he cannot fathom our real intent.” - Sun Tzu, The Art of War. Donald Trump (who quoted Sun Tzu on Twitter) and User:Conservativedom, are both unpredictable. Get used to it! I realize this may be upsetting to a certain editor who has a Germanic love of rules and predictability, but this is going to be the way it is!Wikignome72 (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2019 (EDT)

OK. I will offer a fuller explanation. I will be working on about 5 or so significantly sized projects soon so I asked the other editor of the account to change the password. Previously, SamHB and I discussed doing a 66 day period of nonediting of CP. SamHB already did his 66 day period. Soon, I will be using these two extensions to my main browser: Site blocker and Stayfcsd. I have decided to do the 66 day period of nonediting of CP after I finish about a 12 hour project related to CP.Wikignome72 (talk) 03:42, 27 September 2019 (EDT)
A few comments:
  1. I have never had any communication with "Wikignome72", on- or off-wiki, on the 66 day topic or any other topic, until just now.
  2. The 66 day business appears to have come from the Developing_good_habits_and_breaking_bad_habits section of Cons's user page. It was probably placed there in late 2017, but it's hard to tell, because the page has been repeatedly vaped/burned/rebuilt. I have not read the two referenced articles; they might have wise counsel, though it doesn't appear that they helped the 4 Cons people achieve their goal.
  3. I promised one of the 4 users of the Conservative account (at the time I did not believe his assertion that there are actually 4) that I would respect the confidentiality of emails with that person. #Taking_some_of_your_advice https://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SamHB Taking_some_of_your_advice. Therefore, I will not discuss my communications, with that person, on the subject of the 66 day "challenge".
AugustO hypothesizes that, perhaps because of an "intervention", or perhaps because of dissension among the 4 people, some or all of the 4 users have had their password involuntarily reset. Perhaps this was done by Wikignome72, in an apparently successful hijacking of an account. Perhaps the 4 people gave out their password a little too freely, Of course, the Cons people could request that Andy reset the password, which he has apparently not done.
SamHB (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2019 (EDT)
There have been 3 users of the User: Conservative account. A 4rth person was given the password to the account, but never began editing.
Again, I asked another editor of the account to change the password as I want to tackle some upcoming projects and wanted less potential distractions. It was understood between us that I would ask for the new password later. I have nothing more to say about this matter. As far as I am concerned. AugustO is making a tempest in a teapot.Wikignome72 (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2019 (EDT)

Sorry. Surprisingly, I'm a member of this site for more than eight years. I apologize if I assumed an unwarranted familiarity with you all: frankly, I was just amused that a long-term user lost his/her/their access... - and I was annoyed when a wiki-gnome acted as an administrator: that's just wrong.

User:Conservative, over the years you have announced countless projects, out-times, booklets, etc. - nothing ever came of it. For me, you are somewhat the "comic relief" of Conservapedia, so, please, do not take our interactions too seriously. I hope that quenches the tempest in the teapot. --AugustO (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2019 (EDT)

AugustO, a few matters: 1) I promised the author of the book/booklet that I would not discuss any details concerning the book/booklet. I am certainly not going to break that promise for the sake of some foolish evolutionists who assert a ridiculous ideology. 2) A far as my projects/operations, the web traffic to my articles speak for themselves. My key articles are receiving thousands and thousands of page views each and every month. Evidently, those projects/operations worked! 3) AugustO, now please feel free to go on with your work on that Bible Project you got involved in (A project you were unqualified for "Dr. Augusto - Professor Emeritus of Greek and Hebrew literature!").09:26, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
Is the author George R.R. Martin? We have been awaiting his publication for a long time also (Joking of course).--Chewy Suarez (talk) 10:28, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
Re: book/booklet: Things happen in people's lives. Projects experience unforeseen difficulties. One thing for certain, the growth of European creationism[40] and the growth of evangelical Christianity and Islam in Britain, insures that a bungled 19th century attempt to come up with a viable explanation of the origin of animal/plant life on earth will be extinguished.Wikignome72 (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
Oh my! I had not intended for this discussion to get sidetracked by the "Question Evolution booklet" issue. But, as long as we are here, and now that the Cons's appear to have left the site, we have a chance to lay this matter to rest once and for all.
The predictions by the Cons's (though I believed at the time that there was only one of them) of some forthcoming "Question Evolution booklet for middle-school students" has been going on for several years. One of my early recollections of it involves some Canadian woman writing it, and sending it out for review by some students, and some other people (perhaps from RW) wanting to see it, and being rebuffed. The earliest reference I can find now is from 2012 (long before Wikignome72 arrived here): here. And here it was again in March, 2019: here. And again in April: here.
All questions were rebuffed, as in the comment "If anyone wants to know about the past, present or future of that project, it is incumbent upon them to determine this." from the March 2019 page. This strikes me as peculiar. When I go to Amazon, for example, looking for a book, it typically tells me how to buy it. Occasionally a book is listed prior to publication, in which case the web site tells when it will come out and how to place a pre-order. Telling the person, in effect, "It's none of your business how to find out about this book" strikes me as not a good way to do business.
Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light to all that are in the house. Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. -- Matthew 5:15-16
All this has struck me as odd for someone who was so intensely concerned with popularity statistics and page views for their many articles. It has led me (and I suspect others) to wonder whether this whole "Question Evolution booklet" issue was nothing but a childish and narcissistic fantasy on Cons's part. But here's the good news: We can now put this whole issue to rest. Since the Cons's are gone, and you (Wikignome72) seem to be in close contact with at least some of them, could you use your influence to find out from them what was going on, and whether this really was just a fantasy? I'm sure that you, as a responsible person, will be able to unravel all this. That would help us all to achieve closure. SamHB (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
My 2¢ --AugustO (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2019 (EDT)
Well, this gets more confusing practically every day. Wikignome72 writes ("I asked another editor of the account [clearly referring to the Conservative account] to change the password ..." Another editor? This suggests the WGN is one of the editors of that account. But that would be sockpuppetry, which is clearly forbidden, and gets people banned instantly. So we have to assume WGN simply misspoke.
And now WGN says, as though he is in close communication with the Cons people, that the number of Cons people is only 3, not 4. Perhaps it was hoped there would be 4 horseman of the User:Conservative account, but that this never occurred. Perhaps that 4th person, who was given the password but apparently never did anything, engaged in a bit of treachery and changed the password. Or perhaps the password change was actually done at the request of WGN, in order to keep him from being distracted while he (WGN) tackled some projects. Though I don't understand why the actions of the Cons folks would distract WGN. And WGN now appears to be tackling the same projects (atheism, atheism, atheism, New Zealand, and atheism), and with the same zeal and intensity, that the Cons's did.
And it's possible that WGN's failure to simply reset the Cons password was because he had forgotten that he had admin privileges, or perhaps was never aware of this in the first place? Even though his user page has said, since 00:06 on 26 September, that he has them?
So it's all very confusing. I don't know what the relationship is between WGN and the Cons folks, or the relationship among the Cons folks. But it appears that the number of Cons folks is 3, not 4.
By the way, I don't normally follow Richard Dawkins, or all the atheist material that the Cons folks, and WGN, write, but today I just happened to look at a Google trends page. And I thought "Mission accomplished!", depending on what the mission is. I can't figure out what the surveys mean. They seem to be treating Richard Dawkins as though he, personally, is a religious stance. But the pre-2043 page certainly suggests that something has been a smashing success!!
SamHB (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2019 (EDT)
In a private email, I will tell you about Operation Super Fortresses!Wikignome72 (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2019 (EDT)
Warning!! I have not promised email confidentiality to anyone other than the person who I believed at the time was the sole owner of the User:Conservative CP account. Any mail that I get that appears (based on, for example, its topicality to the present discussion) to be from Wikignome72, I will assume to be from Wikignome72, and will be subject to being made public. If it comes from one of the email addresses of the Conservative group, I will simply assume that someone in that group gave his email password to Wikignome72, and that the latter is posting it on his own. SamHB (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
Eisenhower had many good points indeed but it should be understood that he was not a "fighting general" in the mold of Patton, Montgomery or Rommel. He was a superb administrator and took well informed strategic decisions that were presented to him. He had little actual battlefield experience, a great man and leader perhaps but certainly no master tactician.--Chewy Suarez (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2019 (EDT)

It's pretty obvious by now that this booklet never existed, and was a fantasy all along. Why the Cons folks thought they were fooling anyone is a mystery. But it doesn't matter any more. SamHB (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2019 (EDT)

"Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness"—note to some people who lock their own user and talk pages

It seems that Wikignome72, on his user page, [Vaped by another user, though it's still there.[5]] is using a favorite saying of some of the User:Conservativeism [sic] folks. It makes me wonder: Do Wikignome72 and the various Cons folks know each other? Very careful analysis of their writings seems to suggest some very subtle (perhaps even to the point of formlessness) similarities in their writing styles and choices of topics. The similarities are so subtle that it took me months to notice them.

I have access to the User: Conservative account again.
Glad to hear it.
I still like to use another account once in awhile in order to make the work of those who obsessively follow the User: Conservative more challenging. :)
Not challenging at all; your antics are utterly transparent. But I'm glad you enjoy it. SamHB (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2019 (EST)
By the way, there were some skeptics that claimed the city of Ninevah never existed. Yet, it most certainly did exist. Feel free to to claim the booklet never existed though! The truth is though that you are not certain if the booklet existed in the past, exists in the present or will exist in the future.Conservative (talk) 06:53, 18 December 2019 (EST)
My observation was about the Sun Tzu quote. It had nothing to do with Nineveh or with booklets. By the way, when I find that a wikilink doesn't work, I typically investigate why, such as whether I have misspelled it, rather than just removing the double brackets. SamHB (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2019 (EST)
Oh, now I get it! The "booklet" was a reference to the fantasy you've been harping on since at least 2012, and most recently in the section above this one. No one wants to play this "betcha can't figure out what's going through my mind regarding a booklet about evolution" game. No one has ever wanted to play that game, going back at least to 2012. Pretending that people want to play that game, and that you are outsmarting them, is pointless. Why don't you either (1) write something up, even if it's just two sheets of paper stapled together and left in a dentist's waiting room, or perhaps a thing on YouTube, or (2) forget about it and move on with your life.
By the way, one of you was going to send me an email describing "Operation Super Fortresses", or whatever it is. I hope that my inability to promise email confidentiality isn't deterring you. It isn't secret, is it? Can't you just post the information here at Conservapedia? You already post a lot of insanely silly things. SamHB (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2019 (EST)

Well, that was fast!

You, wikignome72, put up an edit, and then vaped it ONE MINUTE LATER! At 23:38, 11 October 2019‎. Your behavior gets more similar every day to that of our dear departed friends in the Cons account. By the way, now that they are gone, I'll have a few things to say about them soon. SamHB (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2019 (EDT)

A quick clarification

Re: Trump revealing the so-called whistleblower's name

Two points. 1) The whistleblower law in question does not guarantee anonymity. It guarantees job security as far as the prevention of the employee being fired for retaliatory reasons. "Neither the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 (ICWPA) nor any related statutes have language guaranteeing anonymity for whistleblowers." - Washington Post.[41] 2) President Trump's call to the Ukraine leader was a perfect call.

I hope this clarifies matters.Conservative (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2019 (EST)

Yes, it will, as soon as I figure out what a "perfect telephone call" is. It seems that a lot of other people are puzzled by this as well. I'm sure that conundrum will all become clear when all the Trump books (see below) are written. SamHB (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2020 (EST)

Be polite, please

Sam, I found your edit comment on Deism to be unnecessarily rude. Please be polite to new editors or don't comment at all about them. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2020 (EST)

I apologize for the rudeness. But the illiteracy and overall ineptness of the edit was more than I could bear.
I think I'm reasonably welcoming and positive to new users, and willing to overlook a lot of bad writing. But this person's writing quality was far below my lowest standards—I simply couldn't cut anyone that much slack. It was just a bunch or words strung together, with no attempt to integrate it into the rest of the article, which is a high-quality article that a number of good people have contributed to. And he he just stuck it after the references section.
His departure, whether caused by me or not, will be no loss to this site.
I fear for this country's educational system.
SamHB (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2020 (EST)
Imagine what scholars 100 years from now will think when reading the transcript of Democrat Managers at the Trump Impeachment Trial: just a bunch or words strung together, with no attempt to integrate it into the facts of the case. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:37, 26 January 2020 (EST)
History has already started judging Donald Trump. The books about his narcissism, dishonesty, and destructiveness have been coming out for years, and will no doubt continue to come out for many years to come. History's judgment of Richard Nixon is tame in comparison. History's judgment of the Republican "defense attorneys", and its judgment of the behavior of the Senate Republicans, will be extremely harsh, once the truth becomes fully known. And there is no doubt that the truth will come out in the end.
Your ability to predict the judgments of history is already known to be appalling. Of course we cam't check the judgments you make here with what will happen many years in the future, but we can check your writings about Communism in the first half of the 20th century against how things actually turned out. SamHB (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2020 (EST)
History's judgment of the behavior of the Senate Republicans will be extremely harsh once the truth becomes fully known -- SamHB
A conspiracy of infamy so black that, when it is finally exposed, its principals shall be forever deserving of the maledictions of all honest men -- Sen. Joseph McCarthy
Yes indeed, now that the Left has finally fully converted to McCarthyism. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:07, 28 January 2020 (EST)
"I simply couldn't cut anyone that much slack." - SamHB. Couldn't or wouldn't? You must do better!
Sorry, but I truly couldn't. I appreciate your faith that I can do better, but what this person wrote is simply far below any level I can stoop to. And I stoop to some pretty low levels here, with evolution denial, relativity denial, complex number denial, global warming denial, and so on. My 3rd grade teacher publicly ridiculed that kind of writing. Now maybe he's only in the 3rd grade. But, if so, he needs parental supervision.
"The majesty and grandeur of the English language, it's the greatest possession we have. The noblest thoughts that ever flowed through the hearts of men are contained in its extraordinary, imaginative, and musical mixtures of sounds. And that's what you've set yourself out to conquer Eliza. And conquer it you will." - Professor Henry Higgins, My Fair LadyConservative (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2020 (EST)
Rat meat dish in Yangshuo, Guangxi, China. See also: Atheism and rodent eating
As usual, my friends, I appreciate your erudition and acumen, and your high regard for this beautiful language. Though perhaps not your obsessiveness. Perhaps you can do better.  :-) SamHB (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2020 (EST)

I just used the majestic English language to create the article Atheism and rodent eating. :)Conservative (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2020 (EST)

Yes, I saw that. The language is majestic. Your content, not quite so much. SamHB (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2020 (EST)
If you go to China, avoid eating the live mice.Conservative (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2020 (EST)
Uhh, sure. In fact, I don't need to go to China to follow that advice. I don't eat live mice in this country. Nor dead ones, in fact. Not even on those occasions when I go into Boston, where you have indicated above that rodents are plentiful. SamHB (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2020 (EST)
What? People are suffering under Trump's full employment economy. Trump has cut millions off of foodstamps. Try making student loan payments on a pizza deliveryman (deliveryperson)'s salary who is about to be replaced by drones and robotics. We are the 99%! Your elitist attitude is appalling to people of color, transsexuals, victims of sex abuse, and white trash who are reduced to eating mice in Trump's America. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:19, 28 January 2020 (EST)

Global warming "denial". More importantly, man-made global warming "denial"

re: Global warming "denial". More importantly, man-made global warming "denial"

First, see: Global cooling

Second, the Medieval Warm Period caused bumper crops and the prosperity it created caused many of the Europe's biggest cathedrals/churches to be built.

Third, consider these predictions listed in the article 50 years of failed doomsday, eco-pocalyptic predictions; the so-called ‘experts’ are 0-50:

1988: World’s Leading Climate Expert Predicts Lower Manhattan Underwater by 2018

2005: Fifty Million Climate Refugees by the Year 2020

2000: Snowfalls Are Now a Thing of the Past

1989: UN Warns That Entire Nations Wiped Off the Face of the Earth by 2000 From Global Warming

2011: Washington Post Predicted Cherry Blossoms Blooming in Winter

Sam, the experts really do have a bad track record when it comes to global warming forecasting.

Fourth, read the material below.Conservative (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2020 (EDT)

Avoiding common pitfalls of forecasting

Academic and highly educated/intelligent people, political elitism and pride/blindsidedness

"Yet the cognitive and behavioral science literature suggests that those who are highly educated, intelligent or rhetorically skilled tend to be significantly less likely than most to revise their beliefs or adjust their positions when confronted with evidence or arguments that contradict their priors. This is because, in virtue of knowing more about the world, or being better at arguing, they are better equipped to punch holes in data or arguments that contradict their prior views or to otherwise make excuses for “sticking to their guns” regardless. And so, they do...

Indeed, research suggests that people with highly refined critical capacities often deploy them to scrutinize others. Hence, those with higher education levels and academic aptitude (college GPA) tend to be less attuned than most to ambiguity, complexity, uncertainty and limitations in their own knowledge -- and less prone to innovative or creative thinking.

That is perhaps because studies show that, compared to the general public, highly educated or intelligent people tend to be more ideological in their thinking, more ideologically rigid and more extreme in their ideological leanings. Highly educated and intelligent people are also more likely to grow obsessed with some moral or political cause. Research suggests that they are more likely to overreact to small shocks, challenges or slights. Other studies have found that, while they are less likely to be prejudiced against others on the basis of things like race, they tend to be more prejudiced than most against those who seem to think differently than they do -- and often look down on those with less education.

In short, many of the biases and distortions to which all people are susceptible seem to be even more pronounced among those who are highly educated or intelligent."[42]

P.S. re: predictions

Speaking about predicting the future, a number of experts have predicted that Donald J. Trump will be re-elected POTUS in 2020. Let's hope these experts are right. :) Conservative (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2020 (EDT)

Des conservateurs américains nient la relativité d'Einstein

This section, and the next, were recovered from the archive page archive 191 of the main talk page. It's rather stale by now, but I hadn't finished with it; I've been extremely busy over the last couple of months, for which I apologize. If you consider this material to be hopelessly out-of-date, feel free to ignore it. Other people's comments, with their dates and signatures, are intact.
Barthélémy, Pierre (April 3, 2013). "American conservatives deny Einstein's relativity." Le Monde website.
"Plusieurs de ces 48 pseudo-preuves n'ont pas de lien direct avec la relativité et elles montrent surtout que ceux qui les ont rassemblées – lesquels semblent vouloir se contenter de la théorie newtonienne de la gravitation – ne comprennent pas grand chose au sujet. Un constat que confirme l'examen de leurs sources. Pour ces 48 contre-exemples, on compte seulement 30 références et parmi ces 30 références, une seule est un article publié dans une revue scientifique à comité de lecture...."
Google translate:
Several of these 48 pseudo-proofs have no direct link with relativity and show above all that those who gathered them - who seem to want to be content with Newtonian theory of gravitation - do not understand much about the subject. A finding that confirms the examination of their sources. For these 48 counterexamples, there are only 30 references and among these 30 references, only one is an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal....
"So, Pierre, you called Conservapedia's Counterexamples to Relativity 'pseudo-proofs' and construed that only one of the list's referenced articles was 'published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal', a state of affairs which is 'confirmed' by your inspections that 'show above all that those who gathered them...do not understand much about the subject.'"
"That's right."
"Tell me, how many of Einstein's papers would you construe were peer-reviewed by the journals in which they appeared?"
"? Just a minute." [goes back inside]
[ten minutes later, comes out]
"I'm not supposed to talk to you."

VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 09:48, 7 May 2020 (EDT)

"I'm not supposed to talk to you" - that sounds just like one of the rote replies that those confronted by Canada's Rebel News give in response when questioned about the illegal shenanigans of Justin Trudeau and his Liberals (or any other left-wing provincial party currently in power), their cronies and their liberal media (i.e. CBC, etc.) lapdogs, along with other liberal/leftist public officials (and the criminals they protect), corrupt police officers, Marxist college professors, leftist special interest groups and Communist professional protestors, and for the same exact reasons - like the groups I mentioned for their own reasons, those critical of the counterexamples to relativity, who dismissively call them "pseudo-proof" without giving any explanation why they make that claim, are extremely uncomfortable with the truth getting out and don't want it being exposed to the light of day for fear that their already-shaky and fragile narratives would be ripped to shreds. Northwest (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2020 (EDT)
This and the Jimmy Kimmel one are my favorite satires that I did. Could I have reached peak Milan? VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 10:51, 8 May 2020 (EDT)

I'm very puzzled by all this, assuming I correctly understand what VM is trying to say. It looks as though he has found an article in a French journal that disparages the anti-relativity content here at Conservapedia. Assuming that's the point he's making, it is not necessary to look in French journals for this sort of material. CP's relativity denial is ridiculed all across the internet, including in this country and in English. I surveyed the responses to the Counterexamples_to_Relativity page a while back, on the occasion of its two millionth page view, here. My survey of 100 Google hits got 97% making fun of the article.

What followed in VM's edit seems to be a humorous fictional drama. I accept the challenge! Here's my attempt at humorous fiction:

  • How much hush money did you pay to Stephanie Clifford, Karen McDougal, Rachel Crooks, Jessica Leeds, Samantha Holvey, and others, to silence them in their accusations of sexual misconduct?
"Just a minute." [goes back inside; ten minutes later, comes out] "I'm not supposed to talk to you."
  • How much money has gone into your pockets in violation of the emoluments clause of the constitution?
"Just a minute." [goes back inside; ten minutes later, comes out] "I'm not supposed to talk to you."
  • How many entities have you sued to block release of your tax and financial records?
"Just a minute." [goes back inside; ten minutes later, comes out] "I'm not supposed to talk to you."
  • How much taxpayer money has been paid to your hotels, resorts, golf courses, and other entities?
"Just a minute." [goes back inside; ten minutes later, comes out] "I'm not supposed to talk to you."
  • How much did you pay out to settle the fraud class action suit against your real-estate "University"?
"Just a minute." [goes back inside; ten minutes later, comes out] "I'm not supposed to talk to you."
  • Are you willing to have your feet X-rayed to settle, once and for all, whether you have or had bone spurs?
"Just a minute." [goes back inside; ten minutes later, comes out] "I'm not supposed to talk to you."
  • When you said, on Feb. 28, 2020, “It’s [coronavirus] going to disappear. One day, it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.” what time frame did you have in mind?
"Just a minute." [goes back inside; ten minutes later, comes out] "I'm not supposed to talk to you."
  • When will you release your tax returns, as you stated in 2016 that you would?
"Just a minute." [goes back inside; ten minutes later, comes out] "I'm not supposed to talk to you."
  • What is the basis for your claim that you were awarded the title "Man of the Year" in Michigan?
"Just a minute." [goes back inside; ten minutes later, comes out] "I'm not supposed to talk to you."
  • When you said "This [Covid-19] is going to go away without a vaccine.", what data or expertise informed that statement?
"Just a minute." [goes back inside; ten minutes later, comes out] "I'm not supposed to talk to you."
  • Do you stand by your Jan 30, 2020 statement: "We think we have it [coronavirus] very well under control"?
"Just a minute." [goes back inside; ten minutes later, comes out] "I'm not supposed to talk to you."
  • When you said, on March 10, 2020: "It [coronavirus] will go away. Just stay calm; it will go away", what time frame did you have in mind?
"Just a minute." [goes back inside; ten minutes later, comes out] "I'm not supposed to talk to you."
  • Just what is the crime that you were accusing President Obama of when you said "You know what the crime is. The crime is very obvious to everybody"?
"Just a minute." [goes back inside; ten minutes later, comes out] "I'm not supposed to talk to you."
  • When you said, on May 26, 2020, that "A lot of people suggest that [Joe Scarborough was responsible for the death of Lori Klausutis]", who were some of those people, and were you aware that she had been in Florida at the time, while Mr. Scarborough was in DC?
"Just a minute." [goes back inside; ten minutes later, comes out] "I'm not supposed to talk to you."
  • When you said, on April 7, 2011 "I have people [in Hawaii] that actually have been studying it [Obama's birthplace], and they can not believe what they have found." who were these people, and what had they found?
"Just a minute." [goes back inside; ten minutes later, comes out] "I'm not supposed to talk to you."

SamHB (talk) 11:58, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

If that's supposed to be your idea of "humor", SamHB, no one here (other than maybe you) finds it funny, especially considering that it's nothing more than a thinly-veiled jab at President Trump based on what you get from the liberal media. And next time, sign your post. Northwest (talk) 08:11, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

SamHB from Boston

I will no longer waste my time replying to arguments of someone who just throws around phrases that he has no understanding of.
And you don't avoid this practice yourself, as you treat the word "law" as in "physical laws" as if it always meant "generalization" and never "definition". VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 20:29, 26 July 2020 (EDT)

SamHB from Boston is apparently alive and well in hard-hit Massachusetts, his feelings still attached to Einstein's relativity. I wonder why Pierre Barthélémy didn't read SamHB's replies? With sounder arguments, he wouldn't have needed to contort himself into ridiculous positions to try and refute the counterexamples. Then again maybe he read an early draft where Sam said in the equation E=mc2, the "c" stands "constant" not "celerity" and gave up. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 23:31, 7 May 2020 (EDT)

I'm pretty sure I never wrote, in any draft anywhere, that "c" in E=mc2 stands for "constant". Can you cite the diff? I generally cite the diff when I am claiming that someone wrote something. Your reputation for accuracy, probity, and honesty would be enhanced if you did that. Now I probably did write that "c" stands for "constant" in a page on indefinite integration. SamHB (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2020 (EDT)
This is the smoking gun for the peculiar claim you made about "constants" that I described. No integration.
OK, thank you for clarifying that for me. The discussion was about whether the speed of light has changed measurably in cosmological time. Speculation on this subject (other than nonsense from creationists) involves calculation of the fine structure constant from spectroscopic examination of stars in deep cosmological time. (See C_decay for a discussion of this.) While the change, authored by me, does contain the word "constant", it does not relate that to the "c" of E=mc2. The change also contains these words: counterexample, century, causing, conserved, complete, concern, classical, collide, can, calibration, considered, correct, clear, course, correspondence, complex, core, collapse, cited, comes, Conservapedia, claim, and cable. None of them are suggested as the origin for the letter designating the speed of light. In fact, that designation long predates the speculation on whether the speed of light has changed. It very well may have been based on "celerity"; I don't know or care. And thank you for the song lyrics below, or whatever that is. SamHB (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2020 (EDT)
You: The factor "c" appearing in equations of relativity (E=mc^2, the Lorentz factor, etc.) is the calibration constant for space vs. time. While it was perceived as the "speed of light" back in 1905,...
Thesis: "c" was identified as the "c" in E=mc2.
Antithesis: "c" "was perceived" as the "speed of light", but is not the "speed of light".
Sythesis: the factor "c" "is the calibration constant for space vs. time", not any of those other "c" terms you mentioned.
Corollary: "c" always stood for "calibration constant", and the "speed of light" was a misidentification.
Assumption: "c" never stood for some third identification with a numerical value.
Conclusion: Since "c" was only always identified with "calibration constant", therefore "c" must stand for the "calibrition constant", which, naturally, is a type of constant.
The worst part about this misidentification of "c" as an abbreviation for what is a constant, is that the underlying judgments that made you determine this, aren't even correct: there is a good deal of evidence that suggests it's not a constant at all, while remembering a photon neutrino can travel at a rate equal to the [potential] speed of light over long distances, until it [spontaneously] decays
So now photons can spontaneously disintegrate? That's news to me, and anyone who knows anything about science. What happens to its momentum? SamHB (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
I mean vacuum polarization. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 19:56, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
Do you even know what those words mean? SamHB (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2020 (EDT)
Sam, do you remember when I said (you copied it to a little below this comment on your user page) you would do well to learn to use a search engine? I discovered "vacuum polarization" along with the decay of photons in more than two articles on the internet. But then you have a motive for not looking: you already said no expert believed the phenomemon. If you don't like people to comment on your degree of learnèdness (like you said a little below this comment on your user page), you might want to apply your learnèdness more consistently. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 20:38, 26 July 2020 (EDT)
(an event which distinguishes that velocity from that of the calibration "constant", but not light's [typical] velocity over long distances).
  • That the Higgs Field is of equal dimensions
What on Earth does that mean? SamHB (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
Oh, so you think when it disappears and then rematerializes it assumes a variety of different physical proportions at each appearance? Does that make any more sense? VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 20:26, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
throughout the visible universe, that the Higgs field doesn't change as time passes and that the Higgs Field doesn't expand even though the visible universe is thought to be expanding are all unproven assumptions which, if not true, would cause the "calibration constant" to vary.
What on Earth are you taking about? You need to move past your obsession with the Higgs boson. Please read some books about science.  :::SamHB (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2020 (EDT)
I never mentioned the Higgs boson, either as such, or what it does. How does that represent "interest" much less "obsession"? Lol. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 20:43, 26 July 2020 (EDT)
Why? The physical properties penetrability permittivity of free space and permeability of free space may be determined, and vary, by physical features of the Higgs Field and those properties in turn may determine the value of the calibration "constant".
The values of the physical constants ε and μ are determined by the Higgs field? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? I recommend that you read some books about science. I especially recommend The Large Hadron Collider, by Don Lincoln (of CERN), as a book targeted at laymen that does a good job of explaining why explaining the Higgs Boson to laymen is so difficult. SamHB (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
Do you think those kind of histrionics are an attractive quality? Why is there a metric called "relative permittivity" of exactly 1 representing a perfect vacuum and greater relative permittivities for non-vacuums? Does the presence and absence of the Higgs Field have no effect on vacuum of space?
And now you're bringing up "relative permittivity" (there's also "relative permeability"), that is, one can draw a distinction between ε and ε0, and between μ and μ0. This relates to a well-known trick involving electromagnetic wave propagation through various media. It has nothing to do with the Higgs field. I suggest that you read the "optics" chapter of some undergraduate textbooks on electromagnetism that have such chapters (not all of them do), or some undergraduate textbooks on optics. This "relative permittivity" stuff is just an artifice to simplify calculations of how things like lenses work. It's not fundamental physics, and it has nothing to do with the Higgs field. You're just throwing around some terms that you don't seem to understand. SamHB (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2020 (EDT)
  • Richard P. Feynman, the father of quantum electrodynamics, a more important field than relativity, said:
The major contribution of P(A to B) occurs at the conventional speed of light—when (X2 - X1) is equal to (T2 - T1)—where one would expect it all to occur, but there is also an amplitude for light to go faster (or slower) than the conventional speed of light. You found out that in the last lecture that light doesn't go only in straight lines; now you find out that it doesn't go only at the speed of light!
It may surprise you that there is an amplitude for a photon to go at speeds faster or slower than the conventional speed, c. The amplitudes for these possibilities are very small compared to the contribution from speed c; in fact, they cancel out when light travels over long distances. However, when the distances are short—as in many of the diagrams I will be drawing—these other possibilities become vitally important and must be considered. (1983)
VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 02:13, 24 May 2020 (EDT) corr. 17:22, 24 May 2020 (EDT) corr. 11:49, 29 May 2020 (EDT)
Pistol was still smoking/Man lay on the floor. Sam
HB said he had an understanding with the law
Your intellectual methods would be well-accredited outwardly to seize the first opportunity to learn to use the search engine.
Tangentially, I'd advise you tend to your own reputation to see if the virtues you describe haven't already escaped you in some way, remarkable as it may seem. To the point of this tangent: If the 1919 eclipse fakery didn't sway any physicist to reconsider, it's doubtful they'd change their mind on account of any future adverse exposure. After all, it's majority rule, and sometimes the majority is prejudicial. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 08:55, 23 May 2020 (EDT)
I'd suggest that you tend to your reputation for writing lucid English. Whether Eddington's data show "fakery" is moot—the bending of light in a gravitational field, as predicted by Relativity, and as Eddington was trying to measure, has been verified, to exquisite precision, many many times. SamHB (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
Yes, and, without prejudice to the existence of Relativity, field theories of gravity of whatever source call for such things as gravity waves. You seem to think its fairly tolerable exercise in Physics to "frame a guilty man" and then go on to expect (insist that?) others to continue to regard those methods with the same esteem. I don't think that needs an extended commentary to indicate room for honest doubt even among the disinterested. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 20:47, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
English is a powerful, expressive, beautiful, and noble language. In fact, I believe user:conservative and I were in agreement on this observation in some discussion many months ago.
I would suggest that you read some books about science. You might find that, according to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, measurements of an operator yield a wave function that has some amount of dispersion. If the quantity being measured is the speed of photons, some results will be slightly higher than "c", and some will be slightly lower. People who understand basic quantum mechanics know this. This, and similar phenomena, do not contradict the behavior of non-quantum physics outside of the quantum realm. You would do well to read the Feynman lecture that you are citing.
You might also find that, because neutrinos have mass, their speed is very slightly less that "c". And they don't decay—there is no particle for them to decay into.
You might also learn something about the Higgs field, so that you can clearly communicate whatever you are trying to say about it.
You might also learn about the "permeability" and "permittivity" of free space, as well known and effectively complementary attributes relating to electromagnetism and Maxwell's equations, and that "penetrability", by contrast, is an obscure term apparently designed to put gravity on the same theoretical footing as electromagnetism. But it doesn't work, because it uses the classical Newtonian formulation of gravity, which hasn't been used for about 100 years. And that "permeability" and "permittivity" were formulated about 100 years before the Higgs field.
If you want to write Conservapedia articles about any of these topics, feel free to do so. SamHB (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2020 (EDT)
My goodness! I'm quite surprised by the reception I got for one tiny change to a number. I guess I'm a rather renowned person around here. I'm flattered, because I often get the idea that I'm not well liked. It's good to know that I have some fans. I'll have more to say on these issues soon, but I've been very busy of late. By the way, I'm not from Boston. SamHB (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2020 (EDT)
If facepalms are a sign of esteem, you're 100% correct. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 03:26, 14 May 2020 (EDT)
No, SamHB, you're not "renowned" to the extent or for the reasons you think you are, but for you to think that in the first place would indicate narcissism on your part. You're also still causing problems in your replies by inserting some of them in the middle of other people's posts to interrupt the flow of the other posters' messages (seen here), which is considered poor form and perhaps even a bit rude. Northwest (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2020 (EDT)
I strongly suspect that Einstein was right about relativity for the most part. I have a Christian friend who is a scientist and reasonable man and he told me that Einstein was probably right. After looking at one of my diagrams, my physics high school teacher said I might be a physicist some day, but I will never be an artist. :) So that is the expertise I bring to the table. :)
Greeting Cons! You say sensible things occasionally. But I'd suggest that you not couple relativity with religion. I'm sure you know lots of Christian friends, and I'd guess that every single one of them who is not a Conservapedia contributor accepts relativity. I also know lots of Christian friends (as well as Jewish, atheist, agnostic, and so on), and I'm sure they all accept relativity. Keep up the good work. SamHB (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2020 (EDT)
If you read the Irreligion and superstition article, it cites a Wall Street Journal article citing research that shows that evangelical Christians are less likely to believe pseudoscience and superstition. That is why I mentioned that my scientist friend is a Bible-believing Christian and is reasonable too. Sorry I did not make this more explicit.
You don't need to apologize for that; what you said is quite clear, to me at least. I would guess that essentially all of your acquaintances are Christian, scientifically literate, reasonable, and accepting of relativity. SamHB (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2020 (EDT)
With that being said, ultimately you have to run carefully designed experiments and duplicate results to achieve a high degree of scientific certainty. Conservative (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2020 (EDT)
Absolutely right. And the experiments that validate relativity have probably been run millions of times over the last 100 years. SamHB (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2020 (EDT)
I also know that force equals mass times acceleration. I did create a lot of weighty atheism articles with great alacrity so Conservapedia is a force to be reckoned with when it comes to the topic of atheism. :) Conservative (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
I do appreciate the humor, and the pun on "alacrity". SamHB (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2020 (EDT)
In that case, if I were to edit the Einstein article, you might be a bit surprised by what you found, beside his scientific papers never being peer reviewed by the journals in which they appear. I'm sure many good and decent men believe evolution is still a soundly established scientific theory. And some of them are just goobers who try to insult Conservapedia. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 00:11, 8 May 2020 (EDT)
I'm not sure what you mean. Why don't you edit it, and then I'll tell you whether I am surprised.
I was talking to Conservative. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 10:36, 23 May 2020 (EDT)

Relativity Denial? Really? It's still around?

I had thought that relativity denial had died out here at Conservapedia. Andy Schlafly seems to have lost interest, just as he had earlier lost interest in Complex number denial, Axiom of Choice denial, and his strange definition of elementary proof. Of course, he can speak for himself.

But I had thought that relativity denial had truly died out, and that my job was finished, which is why I haven't been around for a few months. Now I've noticed that occasionally someone other than Andy gets on the relativity denial bandwagon, and I had generally assumed that these were just cases of sycophancy. And I had noticed that such people seem to disappear when asked serious questions about the subject. In fact, this phenomenon was described, quite some time ago, in my [43] section.

A great man once said, "he who asserts move prove"! He really meant something different, but with the typo, he gave the logical rule a pleasantly dramatic sense of urgency.
I'm not going respond to your little jabs, even though you don't grasp the concept of being able to argue both sides of the case or the concept of you and AugustO repeating stale arguments because you think they are game-changers. I won't respond because you serve up sycophancy sandwiches and hidden inside is the assumption that only someone showing personal favoritism to Andy could ever defend any of his ideas. Tough luck for you. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 09:18, 23 May 2020 (EDT)

I can't believe that I need to explain that Einstein's papers on relativity were peer-reviewed

The ignorance is utterly appalling. It has to be intentional.

But, since some people here seem to think that relativity, not to mention reality, is "fake news", let me spell it out for you.

Einstein's four main papers on relativity:

  • On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (Zur Elektrodynamik Bewegter körper)
  • Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on its Energy-Content? (Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem Energieinhalt abhängig?)
  • On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light (über den einfluß der schwerkraft auf die ausbreitung des lichtes)
  • The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity (Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie)

were all published in Annalen der Physik, a renowned scientific journal that's been around for 220 years. Its submissions are peer-reviewed. While it's possible that the peer-review process might not have been as rigorous in 1905 as it is now, that is easily made up for by the fact that these papers have been world-famous for over 100 years, and the Theory of Relativity has been effectively peer-reviewed thousands of times over by thousands of scientists. Wikipedia ariticle on Annalen der Physik says that its articles are peer-reviewed. For people who don't accept reality, here's the information for people wishing to make submissions, from their web site:

SUBMISSION STAGE
Only original papers not yet published and not simultaneously submitted for publication elsewhere can be accepted.
"When considering submission of an article to Annalen der Physik, read the General Information (see http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen) carefully. In case of any questions, contact the Editor-in-Chief. Submit your paper as simple PDF document via our online submission system (ScholarOne) at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/andp. Your submission must be accompanied by a statement that the paper has not been submitted simultaneously to another journal. A covering letter explaining briefly why you believe your article is appropriate for Annalen der Physik will be appreciated. Please also indicate in the cover letter the Editor to whom your paper should be forwarded. Annalen der Physik is a double peer-reviewed journal with a preceding editorial screening."

Anyone wishing to submit Conservapedia's Counterexamples to Relativity page to Annalen der Physik is welcome to do so. Let us now how it turns out. SamHB (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2020 (EDT)

Sam: Water? You mean like from the toilet? Sam's equivocations

I think it is unseemly to put a reference to toilets in a subheading, so that anyone looking at the table of contents will see it. This has nothing to do with the subject being discused. SamHB (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2020 (EDT)

He never said it, but it's almost if you'd've expected him to, the way he equivocates, which means only using a word's definition in the sense that is convenient to him as a conveyance to different subjects as pleasing as they are irrelevant. A vivid denunciation in a header and the lede, followed by interpretations that could mean almost anything and prove nothing. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 09:45, 23 May 2020 (EDT)

I'm sure SamHB knows nothing about embarrassment (see below), so he wouldn't understand why a peer reviewer would want to praise a paper of Einstein's, whether he believed it or not. Faking that 1919 paper is like winning the Heisman trophy and then later finding out the player had been taking steroids. To physicists on the "team", overturning the reputation of relativity scientists would have to be prevented at any cost! VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 09:54, 23 May 2020 (EDT)

Peer review is overrated. Scientific fraud is relatively high now and peer review doesn't seem to be making an appreciable difference in stopping its uptick. And right now, academia is filled with corruption.
There is much truth to what you say. There is a lot of dishonesty in the scientific field, as there is in all fields. But Einstein's papers have been informally but effectively "peer reviewed" thousands of times over the last 115 years. SamHB (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2020 (EDT)
My friend said that GPSs and atomic clocks confirm that Einstein was right because the technology confirms and/or is based on Einstein's work.Conservative (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2020 (EDT)
Louis Essen invented the atomic clock, and he didn't agree. Food for thought. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 03:13, 8 May 2020 (EDT)
People who cite Louis Essen against relativity ought to read his arguments on the subject. I have found them, archived on the "wayback machine", in this 1986 paper:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100619153007/http://wbabin.net/historical/waldron2.pdf
and, of course, this 1988 paper:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100619153007/http://wbabin.net/historical/waldron2.pdf
Many similar discussions from that era may be found in this archive:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100902134629/http://www.wbabin.net/ppreww.htm

Relativity deniers who want to take Essen seriously should read these papers and distill them down to brief explanations in the Counterexamples to Relativity page. I'll be watching, knives ready, for your additions. Until then, it is impossible to take people's reference to Essen seriously. SamHB (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2020 (EDT)

No wonder you think anyone who helps Andy is a sycophant; you can't bear the thought of ever disputing Einstein, so with your one-sided abilities, you get others to do it for you, so additionally you don't have to admit you sought out their arguments; they were brought to you.
Me, on the other hand, I often defend Andy's ideas whether they interest me less or more, as examples of the merits of his arguments, not in hopes of swaying his opinions simply because I can defend them, as could many other people if they were honest with themselves. It's none of your business which of Andy's articles I'm interested in, and those in which I have less interest. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 10:15, 23 May 2020 (EDT)
I had no idea. My high school algebra teacher was better than my physics teacher. One of the editors of the User: Conservative account went to a strict private school. I went to some good public schools, but frankly, most private, strict, religious schools are better than public schools in the USA. By strict, I mean they have higher standards including more homework.Conservative (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2020 (EDT)
Cons, I agree. A lot of schools have scandalously low standards, and many religious schools are bucking that trend. SamHB (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2020 (EDT)
The more you understand about this 1972 incident, the more embarrassing it gets. It's even worse than the 1919 star-bending fakery that made Einstein famous. The results were predicted from the theory of the nature of gravity as a field and motion path studies, but they used special relativity theory having to do with uniform relative velocity to solve the equations.
What are you referring to? To me, the phrase "1972 incident" refers to the Watergate break-in. SamHB (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2020 (EDT)
I'm not surprised you don't know! Just look how you messed up the heading hierarchy in your attempts to "be cool". VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 10:51, 23 May 2020 (EDT)
The atomic clocks were de-synchronized in the experiment by as much as 300 nanoseconds. But they didn't use all the data, so they could have cherry-picked them. And they use a kind of statistical renormalization on the data, but they never give the details, and the de-synchronization may actually represent a place within the margin of precision that is statistically insignificant.
The journal Science apparently refused to make a retraction, and the journal Nature definitely wouldn't publish a report of the anomalies, but a Creationist journal did. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 10:22, 8 May 2020 (EDT)
The embarrassment continues to this very day. The gravity wave detector project claimed to discover gravity waves, but why did they first leak the results to a non-scientist atheist activist that you profiled who couldn't authenticate it? VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 10:29, 8 May 2020 (EDT)
What "embarrassment" are you talking about? To whom was the discovery leaked? Was the leak improper? Does it invalidate the discovery of gravity waves? See Gravitational waves for our article on the subject, by the way. Is it significant that this person was an atheist? An "activist"? A "non-scientist"? SamHB (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2020 (EDT)
It's a pity that someone like you, from whom we see undeniable glimpses of genius, is so uneducated. You seem as though you know virtually nothing about creationist science. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 10:26, 23 May 2020 (EDT)
I believe I'm actually fairly well educated, though you are certainly welcome to disagree. And you are right in that I know nothing about "creationist science". There is no such field. SamHB (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
That's peculiar...the six laws of Statics were proven in the Middle Ages before the widespread rise of empirical science centuries later, the only kind of science many recognize, yet few of those same people would say that Statics is not a physical science just because it appeared in the Middle Ages, mainly because it's not attached to any questions of Ultimate Justice. Other medieval sciences are and reason to conclusions with articles of faith, sacred history and theology with hierarchies in authority drawn out as their hypotheses, because there may be no other way of approaching the ultimate truths...yet saying as much isn't good enough; it still won't be allowed as a science; if we were to read into your motives, we might discover it needs to be maintained as having no existence whatsoever, and at any cost! VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 21:41, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
A Google search for the phrase "six laws of Statics" leads only to a CP article on Mechanics here at CP, with that phrase added by you two days ago. With no explanation of what those six laws are. In any case, the validity of a scientific notion is not affected by whether it was established in the Middle Ages, or whether it relates to "Ultimate Justice".
And you might do well to stick to the topic, rather than engaging in general speculation about my education. SamHB (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2020 (EDT)
See above about your learnèdness (do a browser text search for "learn"). The topic was, you said creation science wasn't a field. If you say you know scientific notions were, or could have been, established in the Middle Ages, why do you think you know creation science isn't a field? Do you think any field is contained under "theological science"?
If you're still interested, search ("Six fundamental principles of mechanics" Newton). VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 21:05, 26 July 2020 (EDT)
What follows in quotation marks has to do with what led to that topic—answering what you asked about the leak of gravity wave detector results to someone who couldn't authenticate them before I mentioned creation science (which had to do with the fact that other bad relativity-related experimental results being refuted and appearing in a creation science journal rather than larger journals who refused to retract what the author of the refutation disproved) three sections up and five days ago.
"Yes, and, without prejudice to the existence of Relativity, field theories of gravity of whatever source call for such things as gravity waves. You seem to think its fairly tolerable exercise in Physics to 'frame a guilty man' [earlier suspicious discrepancies in gravity wave experiments and published experiments of other relativity topics earlier in history] and then go on to expect (insist that?) others to continue to regard those methods with the same esteem. I don't think that needs an extended commentary to indicate room for honest doubt even among the disinterested. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 20:47, 21 July 2020 (EDT)"
VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 21:53, 26 July 2020 (EDT)

Sam HB, I worked for a company based in Framingham, Massachusetts

SamHB, I worked for a company based in Framingham, Massachusetts. Here is a news story for you: Strange accent leads to Framingham arrest.

Thanks for that story. I had expected it to be about the "pahk the cah in Hahvahd Yahd" accent that people wrongly ascribe to Massachusetts folks. But instead it was about a police officer who was so knowledgeable about Spanish that he picked up on someone not having the Puerto Rican accent that he should have had. By the way, the "pahk the cah in Hahvahd Yahd" canard is way overblown. Most Bostonians/Cantabrigians don't talk that way, because (a) mass communication (i.e. television) has homogenized the language, and (b) most people other than the elderly came to the area from elsewhere in order to attend college, and are still there. SamHB (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2020 (EDT)

By the way, a message to all people from Boston, Massachusetts: Stop pronouncing the word car wrong! Conservative (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2020 (EDT)

OK, suh. I mean OK sir! SamHB (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2020 (EDT)

66+ day challenge

I am taking at least a 73 day sabbatical from editing Conservapedia (possibly longer). And I have asked the other editor who uses my account not to edit Conservapedia for 66 days as well. So the soonest I would edit Conservapedia is November 4, 2020. It will be interesting to see who wins the presidential election, but I am not counting on American politicians to make my life better.

As you may recall, I shared with you this social science study about habit formation/changes:

I see a lot of foolishness happening in American politics from both aisles of the political aisle and I can only watch so much foolishness without it adversely affecting my disposition.

In addition, there are some excellent things happening right now with me and I want to do my best to capitalize on them.

The Apostle Paul said, "Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win. Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air; but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified." - The Apostle Paul, 1 Corinthians 9:24-27

I am involved in some very competitive endeavors and there are some nice things happening in my personal life as well. In addition, I made some promises to people and it is always good to be stickler when it comes to keeping one's promises to others.Conservative (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2020 (EDT)

References

  1. Massachusetts Correctional Institution
  2. This seems to happen a lot with your contributions.
  3. David Silverman - How the Mighty Get Back Up
  4. https://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Parrot#No_Credit_Where_Credit_is_Not_Due
  5. Deleting another user's page would get one instantly banned at just about any other wiki.