Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,778
edits
Changes
→Project
:::It is the same as with your dummy account of [[User:Historybuff]]: you know whether you acted immorally. For me, it just seems so - and in the internet, appearance is quite important, as we are not able to prove much.
:::It is the same as with your dummy account of [[User:Historybuff]]: you know whether you acted immorally. For me, it just seems so - and in the internet, appearance is quite important, as we are not able to prove much.
:::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:40, 31 December 2014 (EST)
:::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:40, 31 December 2014 (EST)
AugustO, as far as the inconceivability of User: Conservative being multiple editors, your lack of imagination and [http://schnitzelrepublic.blogspot.com/2010/07/seven-personality-traits-of-german.html germanic stubbornness] is not a serious objection.
Second, how would you know if one person or persons using the User: Conservative was using the preview button? Have you done an analysis of the edits concerning this matter? How would you know if persons using the User: Conservative do not use the preview account? How would you know the reason or reasons why "User: Conservativedom" sometimes does not use the preview button?
"User: Conservative" has edited during the day and night. And the illness affecting one of the editors of the User: Conservative account has largely been conquered. For example, a full eight hours of sleep occurred today for the person affected.
Do you believe that one person largely wrote the [[homosexuality]] and the [[Atheist actions against homosexuals]] article (the title of the article was originally Atheist persecution against homosexuals" if memory serves, but one editor within "User: Conservativedom" objected to this title) and that one person wrote both articles. The article [[Atheist actions against homosexuals]] was a shock to those obsessed with the User: Conservative account and the footnoting style is different than the [[homosexuality]] article as well. What are your thoughts on this matter?
Have you read C.S. Lewis's article entitled [http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/SUPLEM/CSLewis.html Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism]? It should give you pause on psychologically analyzing a writer/writers and his/her/their intentions, etc. etc.
Why don't you ask User: Karajou if User: Conservative is merely one editor? We can guarantee you that User: Karajou will not claim that User: Conservative is merely one editor. Why? Because User: Karajou was informed that more than one person has edited using the User: Conservative account. And User: Karajou has checkuser and could certainly verify this matter.
In addition, we know you were successfully rebuffed about the "historybuff" matter and that you most certainly do not have the moral high ground. You did not prove the identity/identities of the mysterious historybuff. And you acknowledged (after you shown to be acting in an unbecoming manner) that no Conservapedia rule was broken if a person using the historybuff account was an Conservapedia admin (Of course, the same would apply if persons using the account were admins) so you failed again!
Furthermore, has the User: Conservative account edited the [[Sun Tzu]] article? If so, then at least one editor with User: Conservativedom understands the strategy/tactic of stealth and keeping the opposition guessing (User: Conservativedom does not agree with all of Sun Tzu's actions/writings by the way). And we know that the left/liberals such as Alinsky use the tactic of attacking people before attacking institutions/groups (Rule #12 of [http://www.bestofbeck.com/wp/activism/saul-alinskys-12-rules-for-radicals Alinsky's rules for radicals]). But, User: Conservative is more than one editor! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:04, 31 December 2014 (EST)
:By the way, German evolutionists did not think that American creationists would land on the beaches of Normandy. But that is exactly what happened!!! (And [[Dwight D. Eisenhower|Dwight D. Eisenhower]] appears to have been a creationist [http://www.icr.org/article/presidential-support-for-creationism/]).