User talk:Pious

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Useful links


Hello, Pious, 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, Pious!

--Jpatt 06:32, 16 July 2016 (EDT)

quick note and thanks

Thanks for all the content you are creating. It is much appreciated.

The contest rules were changed on August 1, 2016 which was the day the contest was launched. Because the contest is geared to quality/informative articles, it was felt that the threshold of 5 paragraphs was needed.

Otherwise, a lot of stub articles could potentially be created which wouldn't be fair to the people who created more informative articles.

I wanted to let you know this to avoid any misunderstanding.

Sorry that the rules were not finalized before the contest started.

Again, thanks for all your contributions. Conservative (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2016 (EDT)

I added two paragraphs to your article, but consider those two paragraphs yours. Conservative (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2016 (EDT)

Thanks for the heads-up and donation to my article. My plan so far is to create pages, put them on my Watchlist, research the topics more, and reach those five paragraphs before the end of the year. --Pious (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2016 (CDT)

re: Pedophilia and homosexuality

Re: Pedophilia and homosexuality

There's definitely a link to the two. I know of a certain photo-hosting site on the open web that I discovered via reverse Google image search back when I was busting pedophiles in chat rooms that displays results 100/page. I just did a sweep of the first two pages of the barely-legal pedo section of that site, and 11.5% were of boys- well beyond even the liberal estimate of the number of homosexuals in our population. I don't really have much free time lately, but I feel this is certainly something to research. --Pious (talk) 00:54, 7 August 2016 (CDT)

Please see: Homosexuality and pederasty
I am going to be busy, but if you want an admin to give the article a new title, I would not object. Conservative (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2016 (EDT)
Most people don't know that pederasty is a synonym for male homosexual pedophilia, so a simple redirect from "Homosexuality and pedophilia" to "Homosexuality and pederasty" should suffice for anyone searching for information. --Pious (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2016 (CDT)
I moved the page for you: Homosexuality and pedophilia
I also made the changes to the pages that linked to the former page. Conservative (talk) 07:54, 7 August 2016 (EDT)
Greetings Pious. I noted that you wanted an article on Sodomy and said you had knowledge of the law on it. That sounded good to me, I also being interested in such an article. However, I think that my wish to use plain, frank anatomical language, would find opposition, though I think such language (not slang) is essential to exposing Sodomy for what it is, an abomination. So I may hold off, not wishing to offend the powers that be here. As to pederasty and pedophilia; as a Greek student, I have long regarded "pedophilia" as a misnomer in modern English, -philia I take as refering to fondness, affectionate love (where the object merits the affection like loving a new car), while -erasty refers to eros, sexual pleasure. So IMHO, I prefer to use pederasty to describe the abuse of children by adults sexually, rather than pedophilia. However, I also realize that a word means primarily what it means in historical context. (Thunkful2 (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2016 (EDT))
You're entirely right. Pedophilia literally translates into "the love of children", and not in the erotic way. I agree that pederasty would be the better word to describe this in an etymological context, but pedophilia is the more commonly-recognized word when it comes to people searching Google or Conservapedia for the topic. My goal here is to get the most web traffic as possible to Conservapedia's articles on sex with children.--Pious (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2016 (EDT)

Trump's Christianity

Do not do attack pages on this site. If you have issues with whether or not Trump is a Christian, then write him directly. What you posted was removed, in part because it's a baseless charge. Karajou (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2017 (EDT)

I respectfully disagree on the baseless part, otherwise, so noted. His mailing address isn't exactly hard to find. --Pious (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2017 (EDT)
And I'm going to disagree with you. Your "fact" came from Politico, which is a left-wing website with a history of distortion and lying; I wouldn't trust them to write a sequel to a Dick and Jane kids primer let alone a newspaper article. Karajou (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2017 (EDT)
I'd agree with you 99.9% of the time. I read it through though. Sometimes even left-wing sites get it right, albeit by pure accident. --Pious (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2017 (EDT)
Shouldn't that- the fact that liberals unknowingly argue against themselves- be a testament to the righteousness of Conservatism and Conservative reason? --Pious (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2017 (EDT)

Account promoted

Your account has been promoted to SkipCaptcha. Congratulations!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2017 (EDT)

Re: "I don't understand" - Dataclarifier

You asked me a question that I am unable to answer because I do not know anything about recently changed articles linked to your name. Your entry on my talk page was wholly unexpected. Another administrator could probably help you resolve the issue. Who that might be I cannot speculate. The marginal links to the left of your page under the Conservapedia logo includes "Recent changes". Clicking that link might be a good place to begin. Also you might obtain the information you need if you click on the "View history" of those pages you have found mysteriously linked to your name, to determine the identity of the user who linked your name. If neither of these operations presents you with a reasonable answer, simply make a "Help" request and wait for an answer. At the top of this talk page is a listing of useful links, including "Report problems". That might be a better place to begin.

I wish you well. May God give your mother eternal rest and let eternal light shine upon her. May her soul and all of the souls of the faithful departed rest in peace. Amen. +
Semper Fi!--Dataclarifier (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2018 (EDT)

Thank you for the blessings. I'm not overly concerned about the nature of the edits. So long as they serve the one true God, I'm okay with them. --Pious (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2018 (EDT)

Please explain

Hello, would you please explain this edit? Thanks! --David B (TALK) 01:07, 20 December 2018 (EST)

I do apologize for the blasphemy, and for the lack of reference, but that is literally what the scientist at the time called the particle.--Pious (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2018 (EST)
I've never heard of Lederman calling it that, and cannot find any references either. Everything I'm finding simply calls it "god particle." How about you find some kind of source for that. If that's what he said, then fine, but it sounds unsubstantiated and questionable to me. --David B (TALK) 01:29, 20 December 2018 (EST)
That is reasonable. Here you are. (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2018 (EST)
It was a physicist named Leon Lederman who coined the anti-God phrase, because he didn't like it. Typical. Karajou (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2018 (EST)
Exactly. I wanted to throw a monkey wrench into the liberal scientific community. I didn't think I'd have to defend myself this much.--Pious (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2018 (EST)
I for one am glad you threw that wrench; the more it's exposed about liberalism, the better, and that includes idiot scientists who think God is a fairy tale. Karajou (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2018 (EST)

I see, okay. Sounds like it should actually be called the "Higgs boson" particle, but I see the basis now. Thank you for backing it up. I apologize for pouncing on you--it sounded odd. I was actually a little concerned that your account may have been compromised. You shouldn't get blocked again for making such edits.
It seems to me that you might want to explain a little more than just dropping it in. This article makes it sound like this is more rumor than documented fact. While it might be fun to push people's buttons, we should try to make education a priority.
Anyway, carry on. --David B (TALK) 02:23, 20 December 2018 (EST)

I think this subject should be placed within the article as a subtopic. Even scientists show contempt for their own work at times. Karajou (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2018 (EST)

This account has been hacked

Some troll has hacked into this account and is using it to vandalize CP. I'd hate to block an honest user, but we can't just allow this. Shobson20 (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2019 (EST)

You really should have blocked it. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2019 (EST)