User talk:BrentH

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Useful links


Hello, BrentH, 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, BrentH!

DMorris 20:43, 25 August 2011 (EDT)


I am watching your edits on the mainpage talk and I note your sarcasm. Please desist. MaxFletcher 21:43, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

PETA and stuff

It's not that i don't think they are liberal, or that they want to redefine the word, the problem is the size of PETA and supporters is insignificant in the literal world, making the "redefinition" of a person a pipe dream at best--SeanS 10:24, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

The overwhelming majority of Americans are pro-life and believe in the Biblical account of creation instead of evolution, and yet a "insignificant" number of liberals "in the literal world" have worked to marginalize those points of view. The numerical size of a movement is irrelevant. BrentH 10:40, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
And they have pretty much failed at that goal obviously if a overwhelming majority don't believe them. I see why you want it in, i just have a different standard of what counts as a real and possible attempt to redefine the word--SeanS 10:46, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
I'm with SeanS on this. Even most liberals think PETA are crackpots and the vast majority of them share the same definition of "person" as we do. --SamCoulter 10:55, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

Tell me

How does capitalization make me a parodist or not? I honestly don't think god cares if I type it Heaven or heaven.--SeanS 18:15, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

You mean "God," I presume? BrentH 18:36, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
yep.--SeanS 18:41, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
You never actually answered my question btw.--SeanS 13:44, 21 September 2011 (EDT)


No offence, but the seniority of admins sdoesn't determine the facts; the facts themselves do. Severe earthquakes are not increasing and the statistics to prove this are widely available. It's not a matter of opinion or unfounded claims like evolution; anyone with a copy of OpenOffice can plot a graph and see for themselves. --FindlayT 13:02, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

The statistics are available here: [1]. Please check them against the reference and see for yourself. --FindlayT 13:05, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
Aschlafly's reference is sufficient on this website. But thanks. BrentH 13:09, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
Even if it's demonstrably wrong? Does Aschlafly know that the numbers on that reference are incorrect? As he seems to be busy marking history homework I doubt he's had time to check it. Go have a look; the evidence is clear. --FindlayT 13:11, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
BrentH, please stop knowingly adding false material to an article. For centuries scientists have studied the mysteries of the universe, but as it turns out all of their efforts were for nothing; their findings weren't approved by a sysop. DavidZa 13:26, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
I have to agree. This is an encyclopedia and people don't automatically have superior knowledge just because they're a sysop. As I said though, I doubt Aschlafly and Karajou have had time to check the validity of the reference and I have faith that as soon as they do they'll remove the false statement. --FindlayT 13:44, 21 September 2011 (EDT)