User talk:RobSmith

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, RobSmith, and welcome to Conservapedia!

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

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

Thanks for reading, RobSmith!


Welcome back.--James Wilson 16:28, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Contents

quick note

The Conservapedia article on the Soviet Union ranks pretty well at the the search engines of Google, Yahoo and Bing. I spruced up the Soviet Union article via some pictures and now it ranks #5 at Google for the search term Soviet Union as can be seen HERE

Bottom line: Your Soviet Union and communism related material plus any future material you create in that genre will now have a bigger audience.

Lastly, I think it is best if we put aside our past differences and work more cooperatively in the future. Best wishes on your future editing. Conservative 16:45, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Hey!

Nice to see you back--CamilleT 19:27, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Thanks! Rob Smith 15:59, 21 November 2011 (EST)

So, are you trying to whitewash Gingrich and his personal history? He's an adulterer several times over. --SharonW 18:58, 22 January 2012 (EST) Edited to add - every bit of what I added to the article was referenced. I thought we didn't censor truth? --SharonW 18:59, 22 January 2012 (EST)

No. Information needs to carefully vetted. There's a lot of lies and misinformation out there about Newt, his first wife being served with divorce papers on her deathbed being for instance. This material needs to be handles carefully. Rob Smith 19:01, 22 January 2012 (EST)
I didn't add anything to the article about "deathbed" papers. However you deleted everything - looks like a whitewash to me. --SharonW 19:05, 22 January 2012 (EST)
In fact - you were the one to add something in about the deathbed papers. SharonW 19:06, 22 January 2012 (EST)
You're right -- and the message is proceed with caution. For decades now liberals and MSM have published blatant lies about Gingrich. You need to show credentials your intentions are not the same. Rob Smith 19:09, 22 January 2012 (EST)
I need to show credentials? What kind of credentials are you looking for, Rob? --SharonW 19:18, 22 January 2012 (EST)
That you're not a God-hating commie out to destroy Newt Gingrich. Rob Smith 19:31, 22 January 2012 (EST)
Gingrich did that pretty well on his own, as far as I'm concerned. Everyone has hot buttons - Andy's is abortion, yours is communism, mine is adultery. Gingrich is a creep, and what he does in his personal life tells me a lot about him. --SharonW 19:35, 22 January 2012 (EST)

Also, quick question - why is it important to add that the Clintons had an "open" marriage but not to add that Gingrich had at least 2 affairs, and forced his first ex-wife to appeal to the courts for money in order to support their two children? Both are very telling about the individuals. --SharonW 19:24, 22 January 2012 (EST)

Should we include allegations Hilary is a lesbian? her formal and public denial during the 2008 Presidential contest doesn't mean it's necessarily untrue. Especially given the Clinton's record in matters of sex. Where should we draw the line? Rob Smith 19:31, 22 January 2012 (EST)
Court records aren't allegations, Rob, they're public records. Mrs. Gingrich filed for support because Gingrich didn't pay. What does that tell you about him? --SharonW 19:35, 22 January 2012 (EST)
I don't know, that she's vindictive? that she and her lawyer tried to embarrass and blackmail Gingrich? What do Gingric's daughters, for whom the support is intended, say about it now? Rob Smith 19:45, 22 January 2012 (EST)
Oh, good one, Rob. The soon-to-be-ex-wife is vindictive when her bills were two to three months past due because Gingrich didn't pay any support. What did the judge think - oh, wait, he agreed with her. So I can only think you approve of adultery. --SharonW 19:49, 22 January 2012 (EST)


Gingrich

No more edit-warring. Please provide evidence that what has been added is false before removing it. Thank you, babe. --SharonW 22:14, 22 January 2012 (EST)

Rugby World Cup comparison to Superbowl

User:ScottDG informed me that, according to you, a comparison to the Superbowl is important for the Rugby World Cup page. I think it's inaccurate and slightly misleading, but I'm unaware of the reasoning as to why it is important. Here's the discussion. Cheers.

Mugshot

I uploaded the poser pic at Conservapedia:Image_upload_requests --Jpatt 23:10, 27 January 2012 (EST)

Fine

Working hard? --Joaquín Martínez 19:12, 28 January 2012 (EST)

Yes. Thank you. Good to hear from you. Rob Smith 19:18, 28 January 2012 (EST)

Insults

Your gratuitous insulting behaviour might be tolerated on other sites, but lets keep the conversations civil here. You do not see me going around insulting your country do you? --DamianJohn 20:49, 28 January 2012 (EST)

Third World is not an insult. Rob Smith 16:19, 29 January 2012 (EST)
Yes it is. Don't get cute Rob. Can't you go about editing an encyclopaedia without hurling insults at everyone? Or is that beyond your capabilities? --DamianJohn 18:12, 29 January 2012 (EST)
If the term "Third World" is a pejorative, blame the United Nations, not me. Rob Smith 19:21, 29 January 2012 (EST)
No. I blame you Rob, because the word no longer has the meaning it used to have. Also, you could not say with a straight face that you were using the word in the anachronistic sense. In any case, even under the older sense of the word, New Zealand was a first world country. Every post you make you look more and more foolish. --DamianJohn 19:33, 29 January 2012 (EST)
New Zealand is a Superpower? don't think so; New Zealand's not even a member of NATO or the European Union. New Zealand may be among the developed nations, which could earn it Second World status, dependent upon the level of its foreign debt and trade surplus/ deficit. But even if it has a fairly decent living standard by world standards, adjustment must be made for its military and defense contributions to maintaining a stable international trading system. And if it spends .01% as Japan does of it's national income on defense, leaving American taxpayers to pick up the slack (and thus, suffer a lower standard of living) no way does New Zealand under any circumstances equal First World superpower status of the US. Rob Smith 19:56, 29 January 2012 (EST)
I know of no person, except you, who claims that first world means superpower. Even your cite doesn't argue for this. In fact your cite explicitly calls NZ a first world country. Now if you want to make up a definition for a term, at least have the decency to let everyone know that. I don't know if you are just trolling, or you seriously believe what you are saying, either way, I suggest you go have a long hard look at yourself in the mirror. I'm done with you. --DamianJohn 20:15, 29 January 2012 (EST)
Congratulations, welcome to the First World. You'll see, it's no big deal. Rob Smith 20:32, 29 January 2012 (EST)

I hear your country got the beginnings of a health-care system, I see America is rapidly approaching first-world status :), glad you could join us. Cmurphynz 05:37, 20 October 2012 (EDT)

Expansion of the universe

Yes, Rob, if you look at a star today, and then 500 years from now, you will notice a difference in distance of 500*rate of yearly expansion. RachelW 20:59, 30 January 2012 (EST)

The rate of expansion is about 73 km/s/Mpc. What that means is that for every megaparsec you are in distance from a point, you will be moving 73 km/s away from that point due to the expansion of the universe. So, 1 megaparsec away means you are moving 73 km/s, 2 megaparsecs away and its 146 km/s, and so on. For your reference, a megaparsec is about 3,261,636 light years, or 20 billion billion miles. This is why we don't really notice the expansion of the universe without high powered telescopes. Its a very small rate of expansion relative to the sizes involved. Hope this helps. RachelW 21:21, 30 January 2012 (EST)

It does. So the gravitationally bound objects likewise are moving with the expansion at the same rate? Is matter in the universe likewise expanding? Not to sound absurd, but am I actually becoming more obese as the universe expands? Rob Smith 22:01, 30 January 2012 (EST)

It is not the matter itself, expanding, but the space between it. Think about a lump of bread dough with raisins in it, as it rises in the oven. The raisins don't expand themselves, but if you stand on a raisin and look at the other raisins, you'll see them moving away from you, and the farther away they are, the faster they move.

The thing is, any two objects close enough to be bound gravitationally are not likely to be far enough away for the expansion to matter at all. Although, actually, since the rate of expansion is increasing, some scientists believe that in many many many billions of years in the future, the expansion may rip apart every atom in the universe. It's called the "Big Rip" theory, and yes, it is a little kooky. RachelW 22:13, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Oh, and as to the question of scale: You basically have to look at objects in other galaxies for the expansion to become noticeable. I won't see any expansion looking at stars in the Milky Way galaxy, but I will if I look at a star in a galaxy much farther away. And actually, the galaxy closest to us, Andromeda, is being drawn into our galaxy by gravity and so is not rushing away from us like most other galaxies are. RachelW 22:19, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Thank you. So I got it wrong, the theory states expansion is accelerating, not decreasing. Question: Will an observable object 13 billion lights year away be 13 + y billion lights years away in y billion years? Rob Smith 23:16, 30 January 2012 (EST)
Well, as we said before, for every 3.2 billion light years away you are, the speed increases by 73 km/s, or 45 miles per second. So, for an object 13 billion light years away, it will be traveling at about 180 miles per second relative to the earth, or 5.7 billion miles per year. So, in say, 1 billion years, that object will have traveled approximately 5.7 billion billion miles, or 970,000 light years, a change in distance of much less than one percent. RachelW 23:34, 30 January 2012 (EST)
Not quite. There's a bit of a compound interest effect involved. Every second another 73.8km gets added to the distance, and that's expanding as well. Over a few billion years that can add some real distance. --GeorgeLi 00:27, 31 January 2012 (EST)
The distance equation wouldn't be exactly linear, of course, but the change in distance really is so small that you can treat the speed as constant and it makes a very good approximation. RachelW 10:23, 31 January 2012 (EST)

Good work on Paul

I am very much liking what you are saying about St Paul. Very well put. Paul saw the light and stopped being a rule-obsessed Pharisee, yet people today try to turn him back into one. We shouldn't let them!--CPalmer 09:58, 23 February 2012 (EST)

That's right; User:Conservative is preaching a Gospel which basically says, "Ye must be circumcised and not be obese." Rob Smith 14:24, 23 February 2012 (EST)
Personal tools