SamHB

So I want to discuss my past contributions to the multivariable calculus course.  There may be some problems with integrating my material with that of others (Specifically JacobB, of course), since my approach to vector components in curvilinear coordinates was somewhat unorthodox.  See my talk page, at the bottom.

So I want to discuss my past contributions to the multivariable calculus course.  There may be some problems with integrating my material with that of others (Specifically JacobB, of course), since my approach to vector components in curvilinear coordinates was somewhat unorthodox.  See my talk page, at the bottom.

==March, 2015, On the Curious Matter of Putting ''Ferris Bueller's Day Off'' in italics==

==Early December, 2015, On the Curious Matter of Sex With Horses==

At 15:04, 28 March, [[User:ConsMovies]] made an edit to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&diff=prev&oldid=1142798 the "Greatest Conservative Movies" page] correcting the italicization of the title of ''Ferris Bueller's Day Off'', along with 3 other movies (''The Goonies'', ''God's Not Dead'', and ''Man of Steel''.) Cons blocked him 1 minute later.  ConsMovies' edits in general were of a somewhat provocative and snarky nature, but movie titles are generally in italics on that page, and his edit was correct.  Cons reverted the edit 3 minutes after that, so that those movie titles are no longer in italics.

I'm not an expert in poetry, atheist or otherwise, but I found [[Atheist poetry]], and its talk page, to be a welcome contrast from most of the topics Cons<ref name="cons"/> writes about.  Cons got into a spirited discussion of the topic with [[User:JohnSelway]] and [[User:JohnZ]] on the [[Talk:Atheist poetry|talk page]].  So I congratulated him on his good taste in this matter, with a note on that talk page.  But I also expressed disappointment that he had seemingly grown tired of the poetry topic, and had gone back to writing about bestiality.

I complained about this on Andy's talk page on March 12.  There was a long discussion on this topic, as seen [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=1144784&oldid=1143334 here].

At about that time, he went on an editing binge, making 43 edits on the subjects of "Atheism and bestiality" or horses, including the creation of the article [[Essay: I say NAAAAAY to atheism and evolutionism!]], complete with a picture of a horse, which clearly suggests a particular interest in the topic of sex with horses.

An interesting (to me, at least, as a "Cons-watcher") thing to note about that discussion is that, from looking at the history log, Cons twice '''burned down (completely deleted) Andy Schlafly's talk page, and recreated it''', once at 23:21, 12 March, and once at 14:21, 13 March!  He had apparently made some edits that he realized were inappropriate, and needed to cover his tracks.  He has since then learned to use more sophisticated techniques to "vape" embarrassing material.

For some inexplicable reason, Cons moved my comment to the talk page for [[Atheism and bestiality]], and wrote a long reply about bestiality.

As of this writing, the errors in the 4 movie titles are still there!

Not having [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AEpistle_to_the_Hebrews_%28Translated%29&action=historysubmit&diff=1183335&oldid=1183317 VargasMilan's vocabulary], I am at a loss for words to express how revolting I find that topic, and Cons's extensive writing about bestiality in general.  Conservapedia was originally intended as a learning resource for home-school students, presumably in the junior high and high school age range.  Everyone is encouraged to watch [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvT5YuDovHI this video] to see Conservapedia's original mission, as explained by Andy Schlafly himself.

:Breaking news:  At 22:03, 7 February 2016, the page finally got fixed.  Congratulations to [[User:Northwest]].

Now, to reply to Cons's remarks:

==Early September, 2015, in which Cons exhibits his expertise in computer network behavior, gets shot down, and then claims he is right and asks me to apologize==

:>> SamHB, because you are an evolutionist and a defender of evolutionary pseudoscience ...

The exchange is [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&action=historysubmit&diff=1170098&oldid=1169987 here].

I believe I pointed out to you, at [[User talk:SamHB#Daily Beast evolution article]], the significance of a comma in distinguishing a "restrictive clause" from a "nonrestrictive clause".  By not using a comma after "theology", you are saying that, of all liberal theologies, I hold to one of those that "often tends to be anti-supernatural in character". You're right; I do. But perhaps you meant to say that ''all'' liberal theologies often tend to be anti-supernatural in character. If that is what you meant, you should have used a comma.

Conservapedia's server experienced a serious storm of sporadic server outages.  Cons weighed in with the advice "get a faster browser", and was totally shot down by knowledgeable people&mdash;AugustO, Bringreaganback, MelH, and myself.  I explained in great detail why Cons's theories were incorrect.  Cons thrashed around for a bit, and then cited an article in [https://askleo.com/whats_an_internal_server_error_and_how_do_i_fix_it/ the "askleo" web site].  He attempted to make that web site seem authoritative by citing its Alexa rank of about 25,000.  This isn't necessary; any technically literate person can look at the web site and see for himself that Leo knows what he is talking about.  Alexa ranks don't make a site more authoritative.  And that's a good thing, because Conservapedia's rank is about 105,000.  (By the way, ritionalwaki's rank is about 23,000, a little better than askleo.)

:>> I can understand why the evolutionary belief and bestiality and Atheism and bestiality articles are upsetting to you

No, those articles don't upset me at all, except insofar as they make a mockery of Conservapedia's goals.

Leo says that he is very familiar with the error.  In the article, he ''repeatedly'' says that it's a server error, not affected by anything the user might do.  Finally, in the "some straws to grasp at" section, he mentions some things that a user might do, including trying a different (not faster; different) browser.  But he makes clear that those are very far-fetched scenarios.

:>> especially since you cannot find a single factual error in these articles.  

::::''In late January, Cons changed the phrase "including trying a different (not faster; different) browser", from the paragraph above, to use boldface and a large font, and gave the edit comment "VICTORY".  I am baffled by this.  The "askleo" site mentioned using a different browser, not a faster one; what Cons had suggested was a faster browser. He still seems confused about browser speed and server errors.  Why he considers it a victory to call attention to this confusion by putting it in boldface and a large font is a mystery.''

We've been through this before, relating to various other things you've written.  Find a factual error? I can hardly find a coherent sentence!

So, no, Cons.  There is no need for me to apologize.

==Mid-October, 2015, another vape-a-thon by Cons, over Pat Tillman==

Disclaimer:  I am not familiar with the case of Pat Tillman, except that it was apparently a tragic friendly-fire battlefield death in Afghanistan.  I have absolutely no information on whether he was an atheist, and apparently no one at Conservapedia does either.

Now one of the things that I pointed out in the exchange was that Cons was writing "word salad" (or should I say "file attribute salad") in what he wrote.  The attribute specification that he gave, "-rwxr-", makes no sense, and does not appear in the page that he cites.  I suggest that this "calls into question the veracity of Cons's internet research on other topics as well."  The significance of this is that it shows that Cons ''can't even cut-and-paste accurately from another web page.'' He just makes things up.  Why does that call his veracity on other topics into question?  Because he writes very prolifically on a number of subjects (atheism, homosexuality, bestiality, Richard Dawkins, etc), pretending to back up what he is saying with references to things on the internet.  I rarely look at the cited articles; I just take Cons's word for it that the person said that.  And I'm not an expert on these topics (especially bestiality).  I have to take the author's word for it. But if Cons just makes things up, I can't.

But that didn't stop Cons from getting really worked up in a giant kerfuffle with some people (mostly user "Ebionite") over whether he was an atheist.  Now Ebionite was obviously a troll, and a foul-mouthed one at that, and deserved to be blocked.  But he really got Cons worked up.  Cons vaped (oversighted, "burned the evidence") the discussion '''23 times in 51 minutes'''.  I didn't save the stuff (I no longer log Cons's goings-on in detail) but the gist of the argument was the idea that Tillman could not have been an atheist because Cons knows that "No atheist would do [XYZ]." All this in spite of statements by ''people that knew Mr. Tillman personally.''

Postscript:  In late September, Cons added a note to Talk:Main_Page, thanking Andy for fixing the sporadic outage problem, and pointing out that he no longer gets the errors.  The rest of us had noticed that things were working normally weeks earlier.  For some reason, Cons must have had second thoughts about his note, because he vaped it.  In fact, he committed 8 acts of vaping of this page in late September, some of them probably to other people's edits; I didn't note them in time.  One of the vapings was of a routine archiving.

Sorry Cons, but whether someone is an atheist does not depend on, and is in fact totally unrelated to, '''what goes on inside YOUR head'''.  And the fact that you say "there are no good reasons to be an atheist" does not mean that there are no atheists in the world.  It just means that you have not thought this through.  There are atheists in this world.  I know a number of them.

 

PostPostscript:  At 12:59, 26 September, Cons put the note thanking Andy back in again, this time on Andy's talk page.

==September 23, 2015, in which Cons leaves a note on my talk page about "User: Math" and then vapes it==

==September 23, 2015, in which Cons leaves a note on my talk page about "User: Math" and then vapes it==

In any case, no, I don't think user "Math" at the bible discussion forum web site has anything to say to me on the subject of the generalized linear model.  But my debate offer still stands.  One thing you might do, short of a debate but still demonstrating some degree of mathematical erudition, would be to edit the Generalized linear model page and say, in your own words, what binomial distributions and Poisson distributions are.

In any case, no, I don't think user "Math" at the bible discussion forum web site has anything to say to me on the subject of the generalized linear model.  But my debate offer still stands.  One thing you might do, short of a debate but still demonstrating some degree of mathematical erudition, would be to edit the Generalized linear model page and say, in your own words, what binomial distributions and Poisson distributions are.

==Mid-October, 2015, another vape-a-thon by Cons, over Pat Tillman==

==Early September, 2015, in which Cons exhibits his expertise in computer network behavior, gets shot down, and then claims he is right and asks me to apologize==

Disclaimer: I am not familiar with the case of Pat Tillman, except that it was apparently a tragic friendly-fire battlefield death in Afghanistan. I have absolutely no information on whether he was an atheist, and apparently no one at Conservapedia does either.

 

The exchange is [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&action=historysubmit&diff=1170098&oldid=1169987 here].

But that didn't stop Cons from getting really worked up in a giant kerfuffle with some people (mostly user "Ebionite") over whether he was an atheist.  Now Ebionite was obviously a troll, and a foul-mouthed one at that, and deserved to be blocked.  But he really got Cons worked up.  Cons vaped (oversighted, "burned the evidence") the discussion '''23 times in 51 minutes'''.  I didn't save the stuff (I no longer log Cons's goings-on in detail) but the gist of the argument was the idea that Tillman could not have been an atheist because Cons knows that "No atheist would do [XYZ]." All this in spite of statements by ''people that knew Mr. Tillman personally.''

Conservapedia's server experienced a serious storm of sporadic server outages.  Cons weighed in with the advice "get a faster browser", and was totally shot down by knowledgeable people&mdash;AugustO, Bringreaganback, MelH, and myself.  I explained in great detail why Cons's theories were incorrect.  Cons thrashed around for a bit, and then cited an article in [https://askleo.com/whats_an_internal_server_error_and_how_do_i_fix_it/ the "askleo" web site].  He attempted to make that web site seem authoritative by citing its Alexa rank of about 25,000.  This isn't necessary; any technically literate person can look at the web site and see for himself that Leo knows what he is talking about.  Alexa ranks don't make a site more authoritative.  And that's a good thing, because Conservapedia's rank is about 105,000. (By the way, ritionalwaki's rank is about 23,000, a little better than askleo.)

Sorry Cons, but whether someone is an atheist does not depend on, and is in fact totally unrelated to, '''what goes on inside YOUR head'''.  And the fact that you say "there are no good reasons to be an atheist" does not mean that there are no atheists in the world.  It just means that you have not thought this through.  There are atheists in this world.  I know a number of them.

Leo says that he is very familiar with the error.  In the article, he ''repeatedly'' says that it's a server error, not affected by anything the user might do.  Finally, in the "some straws to grasp at" section, he mentions some things that a user might do, including trying a different (not faster; different) browser.  But he makes clear that those are very far-fetched scenarios.

::::''In late January, Cons changed the phrase "including trying a different (not faster; different) browser", from the paragraph above, to use boldface and a large font, and gave the edit comment "VICTORY".  I am baffled by this.  The "askleo" site mentioned using a different browser, not a faster one; what Cons had suggested was a faster browser.  He still seems confused about browser speed and server errors.  Why he considers it a victory to call attention to this confusion by putting it in boldface and a large font is a mystery.''

==Early December, 2015, On the Curious Matter of Sex With Horses==

So, no, Cons.  There is no need for me to apologize.

I'm not an expert in poetry, atheist or otherwise, but I found [[Atheist poetry]], and its talk page, to be a welcome contrast from most of the topics Cons<ref name="cons"/> writes about.  Cons got into a spirited discussion of the topic with [[User:JohnSelway]] and [[User:JohnZ]] on the [[Talk:Atheist poetry|talk page]].  So I congratulated him on his good taste in this matter, with a note on that talk page.  But I also expressed disappointment that he had seemingly grown tired of the poetry topic, and had gone back to writing about bestiality.

Now one of the things that I pointed out in the exchange was that Cons was writing "word salad" (or should I say "file attribute salad") in what he wrote.  The attribute specification that he gave, "-rwxr-", makes no sense, and does not appear in the page that he cites.  I suggest that this "calls into question the veracity of Cons's internet research on other topics as well."  The significance of this is that it shows that Cons ''can't even cut-and-paste accurately from another web page.''  He just makes things up.  Why does that call his veracity on other topics into question?  Because he writes very prolifically on a number of subjects (atheism, homosexuality, bestiality, Richard Dawkins, etc), pretending to back up what he is saying with references to things on the internet.  I rarely look at the cited articles; I just take Cons's word for it that the person said that.  And I'm not an expert on these topics (especially bestiality).  I have to take the author's word for it.  But if Cons just makes things up, I can't.

At about that time, he went on an editing binge, making 43 edits on the subjects of "Atheism and bestiality" or horses, including the creation of the article [[Essay: I say NAAAAAY to atheism and evolutionism!]], complete with a picture of a horse, which clearly suggests a particular interest in the topic of sex with horses.

Postscript:  In late September, Cons added a note to Talk:Main_Page, thanking Andy for fixing the sporadic outage problem, and pointing out that he no longer gets the errors.  The rest of us had noticed that things were working normally weeks earlier.  For some reason, Cons must have had second thoughts about his note, because he vaped it.  In fact, he committed 8 acts of vaping of this page in late September, some of them probably to other people's edits; I didn't note them in time.  One of the vapings was of a routine archiving.

For some inexplicable reason, Cons moved my comment to the talk page for [[Atheism and bestiality]], and wrote a long reply about bestiality.

PostPostscript:  At 12:59, 26 September, Cons put the note thanking Andy back in again, this time on Andy's talk page.

Not having [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AEpistle_to_the_Hebrews_%28Translated%29&action=historysubmit&diff=1183335&oldid=1183317 VargasMilan's vocabulary], I am at a loss for words to express how revolting I find that topic, and Cons's extensive writing about bestiality in general.  Conservapedia was originally intended as a learning resource for home-school students, presumably in the junior high and high school age range.  Everyone is encouraged to watch [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvT5YuDovHI this video] to see Conservapedia's original mission, as explained by Andy Schlafly himself.

==March, 2015, On the Curious Matter of Putting ''Ferris Bueller's Day Off'' in italics==

Now, to reply to Cons's remarks:

At 15:04, 28 March, [[User:ConsMovies]] made an edit to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&diff=prev&oldid=1142798 the "Greatest Conservative Movies" page] correcting the italicization of the title of ''Ferris Bueller's Day Off'', along with 3 other movies (''The Goonies'', ''God's Not Dead'', and ''Man of Steel''.)  Cons blocked him 1 minute later.  ConsMovies' edits in general were of a somewhat provocative and snarky nature, but movie titles are generally in italics on that page, and his edit was correct.  Cons reverted the edit 3 minutes after that, so that those movie titles are no longer in italics.

:>> SamHB, because you are an evolutionist and a defender of evolutionary pseudoscience ...

I complained about this on Andy's talk page on March 12.  There was a long discussion on this topic, as seen [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=1144784&oldid=1143334 here].

I prefer the term "one who accepts the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution".  And I don't recognize the term "evolutionary pseudoscience".  Sorry.

:>> (along with holding to liberal theology which often tends to be anti-supernatural in character)

An interesting (to me, at least, as a "Cons-watcher") thing to note about that discussion is that, from looking at the history log, Cons twice '''burned down (completely deleted) Andy Schlafly's talk page, and recreated it''', once at 23:21, 12 March, and once at 14:21, 13 March!  He had apparently made some edits that he realized were inappropriate, and needed to cover his tracks.  He has since then learned to use more sophisticated techniques to "vape" embarrassing material.

I believe I pointed out to you, at [[User talk:SamHB#Daily Beast evolution article]], the significance of a comma in distinguishing a "restrictive clause" from a "nonrestrictive clause".  By not using a comma after "theology", you are saying that, of all liberal theologies, I hold to one of those that "often tends to be anti-supernatural in character".  You're right; I do.  But perhaps you meant to say that ''all'' liberal theologies often tend to be anti-supernatural in character.  If that is what you meant, you should have used a comma.

:>> I can understand why the evolutionary belief and bestiality and Atheism and bestiality articles are upsetting to you

As of this writing, the errors in the 4 movie titles are still there!

:>> especially since you cannot find a single factual error in these articles.  

:Breaking news:  At 22:03, 7 February 2016, the page finally got fixed. Congratulations to [[User:Northwest]].

We've been through this before, relating to various other things you've written. Find a factual error?  I can hardly find a coherent sentence!

==A note on the second law of thermodynamics==

==A note on the second law of thermodynamics==