Conservapedia

User talk:Dataclarifier

User page talk page
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Conservative (talk | contribs) at 07:18, August 2, 2020. It may differ significantly from current revision.
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome! God Bless + everyone who accesses this page! --Dataclarifier 12:18, 3 October 2014 (EDT)

Note: this contributor has permanently withdrawn from Conservapedia. See eyesight

Archive 01

Administrative warning

It has been more than 90 days since Andy Schlalfy has not responded to any of your trolling on his Talk page wherein you named names of specific users with false allegations of violating Conservapedia policies. [1] Please stop your incessant spamming and trolling of user talk pages and article talk pages. Please edit in good faith, and respond to legitimate inquiries about content you add directly without massive amounts of internal and external spam links. Please stop attacks on other users. Your repeated violations of these longstanding Conservapedia policies and guidelines can result in both removal of your spam and trolling postings on talk pages and short term blocks. RobSLive Free or Die 15:00, 15 May 2020 (EDT)

The above comment is a reaction to updated comments on User talk:Aschlafly#Block of RobSmith and VargasMilan regarding RobSmith denial's that he altered my links and pages, and to my answering response with evidentiary proof by providing there the very diffs he demanded. From his previous reactions and his recent responses to my most recent very brief postings as being "spam" I do believe he will say even this brief comment is spamming the page and will be used by him to provide a pretext for him to block me again, as he did a few moments ago when I attempted to respond and found this:
You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:
Your username or IP address has been blocked.
The block was made by RobSmith. The reason given is Spamming his own talk page and trolling a CP Administrator.
  • Start of block: 14:15, 15 May 2020
  • Expiry of block: 14:25, 15 May 2020
  • Intended blockee: Dataclarifier
You can contact RobSmith or another administrator to discuss the block. You cannot use the "email this user" feature unless a valid email address is specified in your account preferences and you have not been blocked from using it. Your current IP address is 75.162.35.23, and the block is #371198. Please include all above details in any inquiries you make.
The meaning and intent of this and all of the preceding extensive discussion thread by RobSmith extending back through to the top of the Administrator comments page and back into my talk page archive 01 is clear and plain evidence to anyone who has read it. The Conservapedia Guidelines clearly state that any user can manage his own talk page (which includes what he calls spamming my own page); and its paragraphs also describe forms of unacceptable persistent harrassment which violate the Guidelines of the 90/10 Rule and plainly set out every detail of Last wordism, which RobSmith has repeatedly demonstrated and exemplified. I am delighted that he has provided such abundant undeniable proof. (The Guidelines also provide and state that Administrators and Sysops can delete and block however and whomever they please.) Another block by only him or VargasMilan, and by no one else, in reaction to this will only serve to present further additional proof that this answer is not spam or a false accusation but fact. If someone else whom I truly respect, who is unprejudiced, like Conservative or Andy himself, makes the next block, then I will believe that I am truly in the wrong in this, and I will most heartily apologize and make what amends I can in reparation. In all sincerity I really do not believe they will, I believe the evidence in my favor is too strong to dismiss. --Dataclarifier (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
  • by only him or VargasMilan
Your grammar is atrocious. Few people have the patience to read through your stumbling bumbling nonsense. RobSLive Free or Die 16:37, 17 May 2020 (EDT)
While spamming your own talk with internal links may technically prevent a sysop from removing the spam or deleting the page, you still can be blocked for spamming your own page when asked by a sysop to stop. Further, forging any users electronic signature to any page in or outside Conservapedia is cause for permanent blocking and banning. RobSLive Free or Die 18:13, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
Dataclarifier, did you copy and paste here the block details that showed up on your screen? After all, now you disclosed your IP address on this talk page... --LiberaltearsJust say no to quid pro joe! | Free Roger Stone! 17:00, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
No. I didn't copy and paste the block details. I hand copied and posted. Transparency. Don't worry. I fully knew what I was doing. I store no vital information or IDs on my computer. I appreciate your concern. Thanks. Now if you were to block my account for the reasons given by RobSmith as valid, that would really mean something. Semper fi. Peace be with you. --Dataclarifier (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
If you store your Conservapedia password on your computer and post your IP, your CP account can be hacked and someone can start posting child pornography in your name. Do you seriously want to continue ignoring advice given for your own benefit? RobSLive Free or Die 00:28, 17 May 2020 (EDT)


Plus he can enjoy another 10 minute block for spamming and trolling. Dataclarifier: you realize everytime you cut and paste my signature you are forging my signature? RobSLive Free or Die 17:18, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
No. --Dataclarifier (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2020 (EDT)

18 incidents of forgery

There are no less than 18 incidents of forgery of my signature on User talk:Dataclarifier/Sandbox. There are other incidents of Dataclarifier forging signatures of CP editors on other pages in Conservapedia. No, you are not free to spam, forge, and troll CP sysops at will. RobSLive Free or Die 17:40, 15 May 2020 (EDT)

In your doing the same with my link on other sites including Andy's talk page I was unaware that this was forging and therefore assumed that your practice of doing so (and other Administrators as well in multiple discussion threads) as an example demonstrated the practice as acceptable and legitimate. I verily believe you have come up with another pretext to block. --Dataclarifier (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
Stop spamming my page with your redundant edits which add nothing new but only reiterate and underline your own hostility and bullying prejudice. You will only establish as true what I have said. --Dataclarifier (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
It is obvious that if I go ahead and copy to the Administrator comments subpage verbatim all of the recent comments above that were made today to preserve them as an integral part of the current discussion thread you will charge me with forgery. It is clear that that very handily defeats the possibility of incidental preservation of the very clear evidence of your own ongoing and incessant spamming hostility and prejudice. You just won't quit having the Last Word. You have demonstrated that again and again. You have an evidently pathologically compulsive need to do so. My own long-established expertise in mental health demonstrates this to me very clearly. I do believe that you will never let up until you have built up as a specious pretext what you consider a compelling case for permanently blocking me as Pharisaical cover for your own prejudicial hatred of the honest historical statements and articles I have made grounded on firmly verifiable facts and established sources of documented research. I fully expect outraged wrath on your part because I tell you the truth. If you can get Andy or Conservative to block me, I will believe you have a clearly established case of malicious editing against me. If you can't you fail, and that should prove I am innocent of your allegations, and that you have been wasting my time and energy in a futile effort to be honest. Yes, you can do as you please with the authority you have here. But that doesn't prove you are in the right, or that what you have asserted has any ground in facts corresponding to reality. Let's see what happens. Will you prove me right about you? Your call. --Dataclarifier (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
Twice edit conflict occurred when I attempted to post the above, no doubt because RobSmith's two edits below preempted it. --Dataclarifier (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
The two edits below by RobSmith were not posted in response to the above. --Dataclarifier (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
When you perform your wholesale cut's n pastes, as you did with adding a category, you capture another user's signature making it look to an outside observer that the user had indeed edited that page you paste it to. I have for months asked you to stop spamming. You typically respond by spamming, including forgery, unwarranted categories, redundant links and passages that any wiki editor can access themselves without your redundant spam.
I have been extraordinarily patient with your rookie errors, and am being extraordinarily patient right now explaining how you routinely violate site policy which would get you permanently banned on any wiki project.
Please, beginning now, when offered advice or instruction, do not respond with spam. RobSLive Free or Die 18:39, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
Back when you recommended that I go to the edit box and scroll down to see "Send page", I went to edit mode and never located "Send page". Where is it located in the edit box? --Dataclarifier (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
Send page is the upload key, the button you press to post a comment or add content. It's right before "Show preview" and "Show changes".
P.S. Don't be discouraged. I'm just as hard-headed as you and I had to learn the rules of wikiettiquitte the same way from a few patient Admins willing to engage with me, versus the hordes of biased and intolerant Admins and Moderators. Here at CP most editors who contribute share the same goals. We all value your constructive contributions. By nature, you and I both seem to be drawn to controversy, and are willing to take on some of the most difficult subjects and pages - which indeed takes courage. Keep in mind neither of us likely will have the final say or definitive exposition of a subject, and the best we can hope for is a convincing and persuasive presentation of whatever point of view we're writing on. RobSLive Free or Die 19:22, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
Uh-huh. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Past consistent performance tells. I have no illusions about you however pleasant you attempt to present yourself. For my part I will be honest and truthful and when challenged will back up and support what I say with solid evidence providing unimpeachable substance. Semper fi --Dataclarifier (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
"Send page" ? The three posting buttons at the bottom of the edit mode page are
[Save page][Show preview][Show changes].
There is no "Send page" there right before "Show preview" and "Show changes". You obviously don't know what you're talking about. --Dataclarifier (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
Sorry. "Save page" is correct (when you "save page", you are doing an electronic transmission like "send" on a telephone). RobSLive Free or Die 19:50, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
The postings to this page are already preserved in the histories and user contribs. I don't feel like hunting through my contribs in the future to prove that some comment or edit made somewhere was indeed forged and not posted by me. Your laxness with the rules and common editing courtesies makes you a prime suspect for nefarious conduct. It's best not to give even a shadow of illusion that you are an uncooperative or problematic editor.
Personally, I get no joy for out of blocking anybody, or advocating a good faith user's permanent banning. Blocking is intended to modify behavior, and not really as a punitive strike (although most Admins on most wikis are probably guilty of such behavior). You may dispute what I'm about to say, but when I give a short term block to a good faith editor, it is intended to make a better editor of them.
History is indeed my subject and what I went to school for. My contributions to Wikipedia's Historiography article and Historical method have survived the test of time. I've been dedicated to accurate historical reporting (what you call "honest historical statements and articles") is at least a half century old. I admire very much your research and knowledge of church history and Roman Church history. Church history however, is not the Word of God; but that is a discussion for another time and place. RobSLive Free or Die 19:50, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
"God is truth". This includes factual, historical truth, true history, factual Church history, the history of Christianity. Firmly established historical truth is based on reality. Reality is rooted in truth, and is based on truth. All that is true is authored by God. The orderly functions of the universe, the manifest physical laws of existence, the accurate recording of actual events by human historians without prejudice who seek above all to be truthful. Rejection of truth is rejection of God. Factual, documented Church history, like all other factual, documented history, being true, is part of the Word of God. Romans 1:18-20. Rejection of any of the established historical facts of Church history is rejection of the truth. Confirmation bias rejects the truth. Cafeteria Christianity rejects the truth. Hypocrites reject the truth. Truth is of God, and God is Truth. Research and articles which distort the truth of actual history reject God. --Dataclarifier (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
All of the above comments are copied to the Administrator comments page, whole and entire, verbatim, without alteration, without change, without forgery. All comments accompanied by links to their contributors are the actual contributions of the user. No user link will be appended to anything not authored by the user. All including this message and the message immediately below will be displayed here until 23 May 2020. From that date they will all be retained on the Administrator comments page, and on this page will be replaced with the message "See messages at Administrator comments" where they will be readily accessible. --Dataclarifier (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
RobSmith you have made your position abundantly clear. You have had your say. I know where you stand. Nothing new has been added. All that you have submitted to me to this date and time will be retained unchanged.
You have dominated my pages to an extent I have not seen displayed elsewhere on Conservapedia. You have also dominated other talk pages of articles I have contributed with which you strongly disagreed and demanded continued response.
In complete accordance with Conservapedia Commandments and Conservapedia Guidelines, in particular the 90/10 Rule and Last wordism, I am exercising my right as a User having Administrator privileges previously granted to me by Andy, and the general rights of Conservapedia users, to manage my own talk page, subpages, and Archive.
No more responses. All other administrators' messages and comments are welcome. They will be posted, displayed and also copied to the Administrator comments subpage.
All future messages from you on this page will be deleted immediately. You are not welcome here. --Dataclarifier (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
There is no word "ettiquitte". You don't even know how to spell "etiquette". --Dataclarifier (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
Thank you. That was very gracious of you. I'm a better person for it with your assistance. RobSLive Free or Die 06:07, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

You have been unblocked

Time served. RobSLive Free or Die 18:13, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

Factual, documented Church history, like all other factual, documented history, being true, is part of the Word of God.

Show me in the bible where this is true. RobSLive Free or Die 06:10, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

Romans 1:18-20 18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Doesn't say a thing about church history being added to the Word of God. RobSLive Free or Die 06:14, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

This statement is so absurd it stands as a model of the difference between the Word of God and words of men. Grammatically it says "like all other factual, documented history" is part of the Word of God. It says all documented history is God-breathed, or the Word of God. Hitler ordered destruction of the Jews, a documented fact; Stalin ordered destruction of the kulaks, a documented fact; Mao ordered destruction of rightists and landlords, a documented fact; Bill Clinton lied under oath, a documented fact; Obama aided and supplied the Islamic State, a documented fact. Since all this factual, documented history, is true - and Satanic in nature - you are espousing an absurd position that historians and other writers add to the Word of God on a daily basis.
By virtue of this absurdity, you are espousing the position that the Koran is the Word of God, since it too is "factual, documented history, being true." RobSLive Free or Die 17:44, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
What about Das Kapital and Mein Kampf? That too, is factual, documented history, being true. Are Das Kapital and Mein Kampf part of the Word of God? RobSLive Free or Die 19:05, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
What about Wikipedia? in 50 or a 100 years time, Wikipedia will be "factual, documented history, being true." Is Wikipedia the Word of God? RobSLive Free or Die 21:18, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

Continuing the absurdity

  • All that is true is authored by God. The orderly functions of the universe, the manifest physical laws of existence, the accurate recording of actual events by human historians without prejudice who seek above all to be truthful. Rejection of truth is rejection of God. Factual, documented Church history, like all other factual, documented history, being true, is part of the Word of God.

So, on this page, THE SIGNING OF THE KATYN MASSACRE (MARCH 5, 1940), we have the signatures of Joseph Stalin and Lavrenty Beria ordering the murder of 25,700 Poles. All that is true is authored by God. Dataclarifier, are you going to deny that (a) Stalin and Beria signed this document? (b) that Stalin and Beria ordered mass murder? (c) that the Katyn Massacre took place?

All that is true is authored by God. So Dataclarifier alleges God (i.e. the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) authored the mass murder of Poles through his agents, Stalin and Beria. Dataclarifier, you are either incredibly naïve or have gone completely crazy. RobSLive Free or Die 17:03, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

Perhaps I've been too hard on you. This clip uploaded today brought everything into focus: We choose truth over fact. RobSLive Free or Die 18:38, 18 May 2020 (EDT)

On whether Baptism regenerates or is to be understood as merely symbolic

Hi DataClarifier. Hope you are well. If you have time, please look through this page. It is a non-polemical exploration of the question of whether baptism justifies or is meant to be understood as symbolic: https://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_Does_Baptism_regenerate_or_is_it_symbolic%3F I would like to compile and collate 10 texts in all - and currently have mentioned 5 - so please let me know if any Scriptural passages skipped my mind. Opposing views are welcome as well, so we can all arrive at a deeper understanding of the Word. God Bless.

I posted on the talk page there a link to my Essay: Water baptism cannot save, the Church cannot save, Born again by faith alone as a resource, along with a link to Infant baptism which also includes several supportive Bible texts linked and quoted. I see you have used several of the texts I cited in both those articles and on their talk pages. Well done!. I do not know if you actually used these or if the other 5 texts occurred to you apart from them. The result on the Debate page has been impressive. Thanks for your work. --Dataclarifier (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2020 (EDT)

IndependentSkeptic user account

Hi Dataclarifier, I'm just curious, did you create the IndependentSkeptic account after having been temporarily blocked? --LiberaltearsJust say no to quid pro joe! | Free Roger Stone! 01:26, 20 May 2020 (EDT)

Looks like it according to CheckUser. RobSLive Free or Die 19:39, 21 May 2020 (EDT)
Dataclaifier has a habit of cutting n' pasting the Bible and CP rules without ever reading them (the letter killeth, but the spirit gives life - please note spirit gives life, not water). So in addition to spam and trolling, we now may have Conservapedia:Sockpuppetry to avoid a block. RobSLive Free or Die 19:44, 21 May 2020 (EDT)
Ah, I see. Maybe I was right about Dataclarifier's favorite meat being Spam. --LiberaltearsJust say no to quid pro joe! | Free Roger Stone! 21:52, 21 May 2020 (EDT)
You know, if he focused on straight forward historical reporting, he'd be a valuable editor. Unfortunately, his mainspace and talk page edits are always tinged with "if you disagree with me you are a child of Satan and headed to hell, per church authority". Condemnation. Salvation, the free gift of God (not "water" or "baptism") is the opposite of condemnation. When asked about this, he doubles down with more condemnation rather than explain what the Gospel of the Goodnews of the grace of God and salvation is. He cannot tell what it means to be saved. He cannot explain the grace and forebearance of God. He can only preach wrath. He doesn't know the difference between law and grace. He thinks law mandates baptism - which totally contradicts the entirety of the Word of God. RobSLive Free or Die 22:51, 21 May 2020 (EDT)

CP Guidelines

Hi. This is my quick response, "What is written in the Bible". I have always responded with Scripture, and judged it unnecessary usually to keep trying to give the same response in answer to your demands for a response. You call it spam, vandalism, refusal to answer. And you just constantly won't simply accept my response with Scripture in the words of Scripture. That's because you can't hear the words of scripture and reject them even when they are clearly given. --Dataclarifier (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2020 (EDT)
It's a simple yes or no question. If you respond with "yes", we can move forward; if you respond with "no", we can discuss and debate that one particular point. Spamming and vandalizing to avoid a simple "yes" or "no" answer is incivil and can result in a block. RobSLive Free or Die 16:53, 4 June 2020 (EDT)
This is nothing less than a pretext for harrassment and bullying. "Moving forward" with you is pointless and futile, redundant and tiresome. You constantly remind me of John 9:27: He answered them, "I have told you already, and you would not listen. Why do you want to hear it again?" --Dataclarifier (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2020 (EDT)
Spamming a page with links that are not relevant to a discussion is not "responding with scripture", it is trolling. Pasting blocs of text irrelevant to a discussion is not "responding with scripture", it is spamming and trolling. Reposting personal commentary over and over again that has been refuted by scripture is not "responding with scripture", it is spamming and trolling.
And you have posted in more than one place a pointed denial of the authority of scripture (diffs available), so your basic argument that you have responded with scripture and/or speak with the authority of scripture is nonsensical, if not outright trolling. RobSLive Free or Die 18:40, 4 June 2020 (EDT)
I see you did not post the diffs demonstrating "pointed denial of scripture". Why? Posting simply the links here takes up only a few characters of space. I have never denied the actual words of scripture. So, post your demonstrative diffs, and we will see if your assertion is true or false on the face of the actual evidence, if you have not deleted and altered my comments which I made in support of what the scripture of the Bible itself says against your false doctrine. --Dataclarifier (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2020 (EDT)
I didn't post them cause it's wasting my time right now. Wasting my time is trolling. RobSLive Free or Die 18:57, 4 June 2020 (EDT)
Posting large nonsensical, easily refutable blocs of text wastes readers time. Wasting readers time is trolling. RobSLive Free or Die 18:59, 4 June 2020 (EDT)
And for all this, you still haven't answered yes or no, Was the gospel preached to Israel in the wilderness? If you don't know, ask God. If God doesn't answer, your probably not saved. RobSLive Free or Die 18:55, 4 June 2020 (EDT)
I told you, because I do know. It did them no good. And for those who had faith to believe, "they did not receive what was promised, but had to wait." Hebrews 11:39-40. "I have told you already, and you would not listen. Why do you want to hear it again?" John 9:27. I can refer you to what I already said before as a completely adequate answer on the talk page of the Talk:Debate: Does Baptism regenerate or is it symbolic?, which you trolled as denial of scripture. --Dataclarifier (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2020 (EDT)
Hebrews chapter 3 and 4 talks about Israel in wilderness; Hebrews 11 refers to Israelites who had entered into promise. Look, it's never my intention to create or enter into a personal dispute. But the bottom line is, you Dataclarifier are hardly an authority on scripture. When questioned because of a mistake or error, Do Not Respond With Spam. RobSLive Free or Die 19:23, 4 June 2020 (EDT)



You can stop trolling right now by answering yes or no. RobSLive Free or Die 18:59, 4 June 2020 (EDT)
Dataclarifier: " I have never denied the actual words of scripture."
RobSmith: Then what does as well as mean in Hebrews 4:2? RobSLive Free or Die 19:03, 4 June 2020 (EDT)
"I have told you already, and you would not listen. Why do you want to hear it again?" John 9:27 --Dataclarifier (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2020 (EDT)
  • John 9:31 - we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.
  • James 1:5 - If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
If you troll me one more time you will enjoy a one hour block. Now ask God what as well as means. RobSLive Free or Die 19:37, 4 June 2020 (EDT)
"I have told you already, and you would not listen. Why do you want to hear it again?" John 9:27. --Dataclarifier (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2020 (EDT)
It means exactly what it says. See the interlinear text of Hebrews 4:2 at https://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/4-2.htm which tells what God has to say, and the multiple commentaries on Hebrews 4:2 at https://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/4-2.htm . --Dataclarifier (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2020 (EDT)
So then, would you agree, the gospel was preached to us as well as unto them [Israel in wilderness]? RobSLive Free or Die 20:12, 4 June 2020 (EDT)
Still waiting for a response. It's been been more than 7 months and 5 days. See again the top post, "respond quickly to queries." You're going out of your way to label yourself as a troll, troublemaker, and pain-in-the-butt. RobSLive Free or Die 23:00, 4 June 2020 (EDT)
Here's the full context of John 9:27-31

27 He answered them, “I have told you already, and you would not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you also want to become his disciples?” 28 And they reviled him, saying, “You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses. 29 We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he comes from.” 30 The man answered, “Why, this is an amazing thing! You do not know where he comes from, and yet he opened my eyes. 31 We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does his will, God listens to him.

It is the same speaker who says,
  • We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does his will, God listens to him
whom you mimic and mock in responding to my query. So per this same speaker, only one who is declared sinless will God answer under the directive of James 1:5,

“If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.”

Yet in response to my query, the best you can say is, "I don't know." You apparently are still dead in sin and trespasses. RobSLive Free or Die 23:44, 4 June 2020 (EDT)
Pardon me, you actually said "I do know" and I mistakenly misread it. Enjoy a three day block for spamming and trolling. RobSLive Free or Die 00:22, 5 June 2020 (EDT)

And for the record, you have never answered that simple question. You pointedly lied twice, on this thread, using scripture. I'm fed up with your nonsense and may even begin nuking some of you mainspace contributions if I find you using the Bible again to promote your lies. RobSLive Free or Die 00:32, 5 June 2020 (EDT)

"I didn't post them cause it's wasting my time right now." You didn't post them because there are none. Put up or shut up. Stop wasting my time. --Dataclarifier (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2020 (EDT)
No response. You have nothing. --Dataclarifier (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2020 (EDT)
You had plenty of time for composing and submitting all of the preceding commentary here and on the talk pages and laying in wait for my responses, but now when challenged to prove your contention with substantiating diffs you say you have in plenty you say, "I didn't post them cause it's wasting my time right now." --Dataclarifier (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2020 (EDT)
First instance: diff

Analysis

The argument seems to be:

The Bible, or Word of God, is not authoritative;

.RobSDe Plorabus Unum 05:57, 2 November 2019 (EDT)

Datatclarifier response (at the conclusion of a lengthy spam posting) diff

Your analysis of the argument is a fairly accurate summary

--Dataclarifier (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2019 (EDT)

I have at least three other denials of the authority of scripture, two related to the authority of Paul (the Apostle of Catholicism), and probably more if one began reviewing your mainspace edits.
Here's the real shocker:
  • Matthew 12:36 - But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
That applies to your wiki postings, as well. RobSLive Free or Die 01:20, 5 June 2020 (EDT)
Dataclarifier Final reply to RobSmith
Your quote of what I said (above) is incomplete and a misrepresentation.

Since October of last year I have consistently cited the authority of scripture, as do the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, who maintain that scripture is authoritative but not all-sufficient, a position that even the vast majority of adherents of sola scriptura admit, according to the Conservapedia article of the same name. The fact of the need for preachers to explain the Word of God, the plethora of Bible commentaries and dictionaries and articles printed and online, interpreting in contradictory ways difficult passages misunderstood, whole portions of the Bible presented with confirmation bias using principles not even in the Bible, on which variant and dissident theologies and churches and sects and denominations are founded is proof of this.
You have demanded repeatedly that I state what is salvation. I have repeatedly stated in articles and on talk pages with more than abundant proofs from the Bible itself the biblical doctrine that salvation is deliverance from the bondage of sin and death by the blood of Jesus Christ through the regenerative washing away of sin by His blood in the baptism of water and the word by the Spirit of God by which he saved the Church by washing of water with the word so that He might present her to himself pure and spotless: that baptism by water and the Spirit washes away sins in the blood of Jesus Christ, which saves us now by the water-washing of regeneration, and unites us to the death and resurrection of Jesus into the Body of Christ Himself manifest as the Church and built as the Temple of God sent by Jesus as He was sent by the Father as the Savior of the whole world and making us priests to God the Father baptizing and teaching what Jesus commanded, because as Jesus Himself said in John 3:5, "unless a man be regenerated by water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God." You deny the clear evidence of the Bible Itself in the prefiguring of Moses and in the New Testament that baptism saves, washes away sins, and regenerates to everlasting life, giving us the Holy Spirit to be with us for ever leading us into all truth and revealing more than what Jesus told his apostles.
The Gospel that was preached in the wilderness was the good news of deliverance from bondage, which is the Gospel that is preached to us in Christ in the Church, not what you have been saying, "Believe by faith alone in Jesus Christ as your personal Savior and you will be saved"—there is no such passage in the Old Testament, but there is the promise of One to Come like Moses, whom they were to believe, the very One Who said, "unless a man be regenerated by water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God."
NishantXavier said it well on the Debate talk page, "What else can be said?"
You have repeatedly slandered, libeled, and calumniated me as a blasphemer and heretic and vandal (reasons you gave for blocking, as evident on the record of the Block Log), and you have deliberately and knowingly misrepresented my position and statements by careful omission in quoting only parts of what I said to make it sound the very opposite of what I actually said, in explaining my position, which is simply the position of the Catholic Church. But even more than that, you have actually represented me as saying that God is too stupid to make himself understood, an appalling blasphemy I would never utter or print, but which you yourself did. God makes His Word clearly understood by the Bible and the constant centuries-old Tradition of interpreting the Bible consistent with its text and the Teaching Magisterium of the Church defending both as handed down from the apostles, so that we may not be led astray into the error of unprincipled men and fall from true stability in the growing grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who washes us from our sins in his blood by the regeneration of washing by the water and the Spirit which saves us now.
You have constantly violated the Conservapedia Guidelines of Civility in making your particular religious doctrine the litmus test for acceptance on Conservapedia, in insulting remarks, in deleting material by vandalism, in your intolerance of "divergent points of view", and in every way making a mockery of those stated standards developed by Andy Schlafly, which you have turned into empty hypocrisy. Either he does not know what you have been doing, or he totally agrees with your intolerant and persecuting behavior of a well-informed Catholic Bible scholar and historian who has consistently presented fairly the whole spectrum of opinions on controverted topics, and defended Catholic doctrine.
You will not hear from me again. As of this moment with this posting I am totally withdrawing from Conservapedia. [2] [3] --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2020 (EDT)

RobSmith response
TLDR; bottomline: (1) you vandalized a mainspace talk page to hide embarrassing evidence which I restored just days ago; and (2) you forged other users signatures in your relentless spamming.
Both are infractions of policy. No one can say Sysop's have not been patient with you, trying to teach you the rules. Instead, you obstinately spam and thumb your nose at editors who have only tried to help you. Your response above only looks like more spam. If I'm ever bored in life, I may actually take time to read it. Let's hope CP readers don't take the same approach to your mainspace spamming. RobSLive Free or Die 15:48, 9 June 2020 (EDT)

A question on Dataclarifier's vandalism of mainspace discussion pages

In reviewing User:Dataclarifier's spam response to the question,

"God didn't mean what he said, or he was too stupid to clarify himself. He needed human scholars and teachers to set it straight, huh? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:59, 30 October 2019 (EDT)

why is my question dated 15:59, 30 October 2019 when there is no entry for that date in my contribs, and in trying to reconstruct Dataclarifier's vandalism of that page (and here, I still have no idea what portions of the original discussion he omitted or changed) the closest entry is dated 15:21, 30 October, some forty minutes earlier? [4] Laying aside the subject matter of that discussion, can we say "bad faith" editing at the least? Never mind his deceptive reponse "I did cite scripture" [5], when in fact he referenced, John Eck, Martin Luther, and Hippocrates?

In reviewing this spam response, How does a diff dated at 16:04 contain an entry fifty-five minutes later at 16:59? It is amazing this troll was not permanently blocked there and then. RobSLive Free or Die 15:22, 12 June 2020 (EDT)

Ok, I'll confess, out of curiosity I reread the section on God being too stupid. Thanks to my Catholic upbringing, I understood most of it. Here's two questions [Lord, Please don't let Dataclarifier answer with spam. Please somehow give him guidance to KISS (keep it simple, stupid) with as few words as possible that a fool like me can understand. Amen.]
  1. "the Bishop and his authorized representatives" - by "his" I assume this refers to "the Bishop". Can the Bishop be impeached?
  2. "Sacrament of Salvation" - there is no "Sacrament of Salvation" in the 7 Sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church. I do not doubt you can support this claim with 5,000 bytes of text and quotations from Roman Catholic doctrine or scholars. Either way, it is a doctrine of men, built upon earlier doctrines of men. RobSLive Free or Die 16:31, 9 June 2020 (EDT)
Let me answer this question for you: The teaching of 7 Sacraments is false. There actually are more sacraments. Thankfully, to avoid confusion, none of these teachings are bible based. God is not the author of confusion (assuming that scriptural verse is true, Who then is the author of confusion?) RobSLive Free or Die 16:44, 9 June 2020 (EDT)
I'm not entirely sure if Dataclarifier (or IndependentSkeptic for that matter) would necessarily be responding this time. If he and IndependentSkeptic have already made their last edits for good, then I would personally be sad that another longtime CP editor has left; I had already been really disappointed when 1990'sguy had left on January 15 this year. --LiberaltearsFlip the House red! 16:38, 9 June 2020 (EDT)
Ah, that's at least the third or fourth time I've heard him say that. It's one reason I have trouble believing anything he says. He's welcome back anytime. I just wish he can learn to stop answering legitimate question with enormous blocs of spam. RobSLive Free or Die 16:44, 9 June 2020 (EDT)
Personally, I have high doubts that Dataclarifier might respond back. Also, why does he have a disdain for VargasMilan? I know that the latter was the one who initially blocked Dataclarifier for 3 months back in February this year, but is there any other reason beyond that? --LiberaltearsFlip the House red! 16:57, 9 June 2020 (EDT)
I think it was a 10 day block that Vargas reduced to 3. Dataclarifier didn't bother informing himself of the facts however, before whining about it.
I don't know the details, but I can imagine Dataclarifier was just as uncooperative in responding to questions about his editing, which in this case, may have even involved edits in a mainspace article (I've only had one such dispute with him in mainspace which, believe it or not, was resolved to both our satisfaction).
The problem is he won't answer specific questions and bombards readers with tons of texts and links. In trying to make sense of his responses, he makes twisted and exaggerated claims about scripture. Read Ratwiki's article on The Gish Gallop, cause that somewhat describes his discussion style. I simply describe it as uncooperative, from which he then takes a hostile tone claiming the Gospel of Grace is really a Gospel of Wrath and anyone who disagrees with him will burn in hell. In fact, he often misrepresents teachings of the Roman Catholic church to make this point. He's too quick to make judgements. In his screed above, he accuses me of all sorts of things. It opens:
I have consistently cited the authority of scripture, as do the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, who maintain that scripture is authoritative but not all-sufficient, a position that even the vast majority of adherents of sola scriptura admit, according to the Conservapedia article
This opening thesis is so problematic I don't know where to begin. He of course, likely wrote whatever horse-hockey he put in sola scriptura. Being that I never discussed that article with him, I have no idea what he's talking about.
I asked him a simple question on October 28, 2019 which he refuses to answer ("Was the gospel preached to Israel in the wilderness?). Instead, he's uploaded probably a few hundred thousand bytes, vandalized discussion pages, and gave me an infinite block. It's a simple question, either 'yes' or 'no' or 'I don't know'. A few days ago he finally said "I do know", but won't say "yes" or "no". He's just toying with me on a simple question that he knows will destroy his entire faith in Roman Catholic doctrine (IMO). I have patience, I learned from God. When Paul said, We know not what we should pray for as we ought, God eventually revealed to me what to pray for - patience with other human beings. RobSLive Free or Die 17:54, 9 June 2020 (EDT)
What a joke. Look at this gem piece of nonsense:
"The fact of the need for preachers to explain the Word of God, the plethora of Bible commentaries and dictionaries and articles printed and online, interpreting in contradictory ways difficult passages misunderstood, whole portions of the Bible presented with confirmation bias using principles not even in the Bible, on which variant and dissident theologies and churches and sects and denominations are founded."
How is that relevant to anything being discussed? [I'm not even gonna ask what it means, cause I'm afraid he'll answer with spam and BS]. The question is, Was the gospel preached to Israel in the wilderness? The question is not "How did they react?"
For someone who purports to understand Greek, Hebrew, and hermeneutics, Dataclarifier seems to have difficulty with the English language. RobSLive Free or Die 23:16, 9 June 2020 (EDT)


Sooooo, I am going to speculate why Dataclarifier refuses to answer a simple question he claims to know the answer to, but won't say. If Dataclarifier knows the answer is "yes", the gospel was preached to Israel in the wilderness, the next obvious question is "What do we mean by gospel?", which blows his whole Great Commission gospel out of the water. He knows it, I firmly believe. That's why he plays these stupid games and won't answer. His faith is truly being tried. RobSLive Free or Die 23:34, 9 June 2020 (EDT)
It is the rebellious heart of man. I see it everyday. I know countless Christians of every stripe - Catholic, Protestant's, etc. - who think they understand the teaching of Israel in wilderness, and claim they are not like them whose carcasses fell in the wilderness. Who were these people? These people were eyewitness to God's mighty power in the plagues of Egypt, they were witnesses to God's power when he parted the sea (a baptism of sorts). They saw God destroy their enemies who were pursuing. These weren't stories handed down over generations. They knew who God was, yet still bowed down to worship the Golden Calf. Many people today who claim greater faith make me laugh, cause they do not understanding the teaching here.
Dataclarifier hints at knowing the gospel was preached to Israel in the wilderness, but still bows down to the Golden Calf because of a rebellious heart. That's all I can conclude. He knows the gospel. He's heard the gospel. But won't repent and clings to idols. Out of the treasure of the heart the mouth speaketh and he's treasuring up wrath, not grace.
Strong meat belongeth to them who have their senses exercised to discern good and evil. RobSLive Free or Die 23:54, 9 June 2020 (EDT)


For the record, I knew "Dataclarifier" as a co-worker in health care. After he had a TIA and brain-bleed in June/July 2018 and recovered, then resumed contributing to Conservapedia, he still needed a home health care companion. I offered him after I retired to move in as a private pay companion. We shared the same devotion to Jesus Christ. I got interested in his project of harmonizing the New Testament and asked if I could contribute a narrative version of it, since I had worked with the state commission for the blind. He was enthusiastic. I got permission to use his computer and signed on as IndependentSkeptic. Well, after I had done a lot on an audio adaptation, I had a chance to take a 4-week vacation. I just got back. After I finished what I had already done on the audio narrative pages, he told me what had been going on. I have read what RobSmith and VargasMilan have done. I also read the great support by NishantXavier. So I told Dataclarifier to make his final rebuttal under my ID. I agree with him on everything he said here above. Completely. You won't hear from me either, "as of this moment". I quit. God have mercy on your souls. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2020 (EDT)
I'm sorry if you think that some of us here treated Dataclarifier harshly. I'm just wondering though, what was it that you think Vargas did wrong specifically? --LiberaltearsFlip the House red! 16:02, 9 June 2020 (EDT)

As you sow, so shall ye reap

  • Dataclarifier: "You have repeatedly slandered, libeled, and calumniated me as a blasphemer and heretic"

I cannot allow this charge to go unanswered. In our very first interaction, I cited Romans 10:9 and 10, finding it odd that there was no mention of this verse in a very lengthy article purporting to be scholarly and informative. We had a pleasant exchange until it concluded with Dataclarifier's remark "You are badly misled". I was misled for citing scripture which he failed to do in an important topic regarding how a sinner finds salvation. Over coming weeks and months this habit continued, not only denying the authority of scripture, but ratcheted up to referring to interpretations of scripture as "heretical" and "blasphemous" (if that logic makes any sense; apparently the church, rather than God, can be blasphemed and scripture either supports or does not support this view).

Never once did Dataclarifier preach the gospel of grace; he had a persistent pattern of calling critics heretics and blasphemers. When enough evidence piled up that Dataclarifier was misusing scripture to attack people with faith in God, as well as his simple, sloppy, and bad faith editing habits to promote this view, the Holy Spirit led me to repay his sins in kind and I shoved his own garbage in his face.

The simple truth is, the law of reaping and sowing is a law that God himself can't break. If I have offended, my apologies. God is not a respecter of persons, but I am or at least should be. I pray that the Spirit of God working through me wil bring others to the Gospel of Grace and Salvation.

And Dataclrifiers claim "you have repeatedly" is again provably false. RobSLive Free or Die 19:21, 14 June 2020 (EDT)

God is too stupid to make himself understood

You essentially say that twice in your screed above:

  • "scripture is authoritative but not all-sufficient"
  • "using principles not even in the Bible"

Since you supply absolutely no context about whatever it is you're talking about, I assume these words are yours. What's so hard about saying:

  1. The gospel was preached to Israel in the wilderness; or
  2. The gospel was not preached to Israel in the wilderness; or
  3. I don't know if the gospel was preached to Israel in the wilderness.

See? Simple as that. RobSLive Free or Die 02:35, 10 June 2020 (EDT)

Let's expound a bit on this Biblical truth:
  1. The gospel was preached to Israel in the wilderness;
  2. Nowhere does Moses preach, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock et seqq.
  3. They do in their hearts alway err, and have not known my ways. (Hebrews 3:10)

RobSLive Free or Die 12:34, 10 June 2020 (EDT)

Ahhh, no response, again (after 7 1/2 months). I guess your gospel and the gospel preached in the Bible (Old and New Testaments) must be two different gospels. This makes all your mainspace contributions citing scripture suspect, unless at some point you get the courage to defend them (without spamming). RobSLive Free or Die 20:19, 10 June 2020 (EDT)

I hope you come back, Data Clarifier. I've really enjoyed your Harmony of the Gospel writings, and other articles and edits on many subjects. For others, regarding Sola Scriptura, Catholics don't believe in it for good reasons, as is well known. We believe in Scripture+Apostolic Tradition as interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church, as the Apostles themselves command in many places. When the dispute in the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) over circumcision broke out, the Apostles didn't say "let everyone go home and read and privately interpret the Scripture according to his own private judgment", but rather they issued a binding decision of the Church in Council that all were to accept. In this way, St. Peter and the Apostles exercised the Power of the Keys that God granted St. Peter in Mat 16, to bind and loose, and the whole Church accepted one doctrine. We do believe all Scripture is the inspired and inerrant Word of God. But we do not believe it to be subject to unauthorized private interpretation, but only the Church is Authorized by Christ to interpret it infallibly, by the Power of the Keys. But regardless, inter-denominational differences should be discussed fraternally imho. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 17:36, 11 June 2020 (EDT)

So the question is ultimately, "What do you mean by gospel?" I can't find Moses saying "go forth baptizing", yet the same bible says the gospel was preached to us as well as unto them. As a supposed bible expert, you'd think this question should be easy to answer. RobSLive Free or Die 20:35, 11 June 2020 (EDT)
I explained alleged contradictions in the Bible, such as
  • John 1:27 No man hath seen God at any time
  • Exodus 33:11 The Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend
using scripture, to no one's objection. He neither affirmed nor denied it, yet uploaded about 5,000 bytes (with non-scriptural material) and 3 dozen external links that I cannot really tell if it supports or refutes the case I made for my position (using two or three other passages of scripture). You don't bring a knife to a gun fight. You don't argue scripture with non-scriptural information. He doesn't really know scripture, all he can do is tell me I'm going to hell for the grace and wisdom God has mercifully given me, coupled with a blasphemous misuse of scripture while he even denies the authority of. RobSLive Free or Die 20:53, 11 June 2020 (EDT)


Unfortunately, as I had mentioned a day or two ago, I have high doubts that Dataclarifier will come back, unfortunately. Since IndependentSkeptic just mentioned this on your talk page, I suppose it's just a matter of praying for them and hoping the best. I'll be probably be somewhat sad and disheartened for the next few days, as CP now just lost another long-time editor (I was already disappointed when 1990'sguy left on January 15 this year). And now I only have more suspicions toward some users such as VargasMilan, whom Dataclarifier initially blocked for an expiry time of infinity, and whom recently joked over blocking me because I made a funny nickname for a Democrat. I probably should've intervened sooner regarding the debates with RobSmith, Dataclarifier, VargasMilan, etc, although it's too late now. --LiberaltearsFlip the House red! 20:24, 11 June 2020 (EDT)

If Conservapedia continues to jettison our best editors just like that, we can expect traffic on our site to decline or diminish substantially. I hope we learn to live and work together in a collegial and fraternal spirit. I'm a Christian, but I can collaborate even with non-Christian conservatives for a conservative cause. It's important imo to learn to work past differences in a positive way and try to build consensus in areas we agree. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 02:33, 12 June 2020 (EDT)

I agree: I tried hard to build a consensus that by the term "gospel" we mean "gospel of grace". This editor stubbornly held to a notion of a "gospel of wrath" and would not even allow a contrast of the two. RobSLive Free or Die 07:20, 12 June 2020 (EDT)
  • I'm a Christian, but I can collaborate even with non-Christian conservatives for a conservative cause.
Illustration: Days ago on Youtube an alleged conservative was mocking white people for washing the feet of black people as part of a Maoist rectification process; I had to rebuke him and say, "No, this is a Christian service." RobSLive Free or Die 10:44, 12 June 2020 (EDT)

Well, let's all try to work together in a positive spirit going forward. God Bless. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 11:08, 12 June 2020 (EDT)

I'll even shamefully admit, a few years ago I was asked by a Christian group to participate in a foot washing service down at the Rescue Mission for homeless people. I couldn't bring myself to do it. But I have no doubt my black Christian brothers and sisters getting their feet washed (most of them) do not view white Christians washing their feet as Democrats groveling for votes or Maoist self-criticism, as some conservative bigots advertised it. I might have questions about the timing of this latest event, but that's for God to decide, and I'm probably wrong there. RobSLive Free or Die 13:58, 12 June 2020 (EDT)

It's good that race relations have improved today, although they could be better still. Yes, to wash the feet of others is a very good thing. Priests do it on Holy Thursday in remembrance of the Love and Humility of Our Lord and His Command. All racial hatred of others is gravely wrong. Promoting racial harmony and brotherly love in society is a Christian duty. There is in the end one race above all: the human race. And we must strive to promote the brotherhood of man under the Fatherhood of God in Christ Jesus Our Lord. Without taking seriously the commandment to love our neighbor as our self, civilization is impossible. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 23:04, 12 June 2020 (EDT)

Introducing Conservapedia's Own Project 150 Million Souls for Christ our King

Hello Michael. Hope you are well in the Lord. Thanks for all your efforts over the years in defending and promoting the Catholic and Christian Faith, the Full Gospel and the Holy Church. I pray for your health and well-being. I hope you are not suffering much, and you will always be in my prayers, dear brother.

I write today to introduce a project page for Conservapedia that Andy asked me to create: https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:150_Million_Souls_for_Christ_the_King It's about a prayer and action plan over the next 10 to 15 years to win 150 Million Souls for Christ the King. Please participate by sharing your testimony for our King. It can be as brief or as lengthy as you like. :)

The internet offers huge opportunities. It is predicted internet evangelism will be more successful in leading souls to Christ than all over forms in the next decade. St. Francis Xavier, my namesake, won some 3 million souls for Christ in India, my home country. If St. Francis Xavier was here today, with television, radio and internet, and buses, trains and planes, in his missionary journeys, he would win 300 million probably. But we can all play a part in leading at least a few souls to Christ, and Each Soul led to Christ will be like a Jewel in the Crown of Righteousness (2 Tim 4:8) laid up for each of us in heaven. There is hardly anything greater we can do for Christ than bringing souls to Him. Please participate and ask others also.

May Jesus and Mary richly Bless you. In the Lord and His Mother, in the Angels and the Saints, in the Holy Souls in Purgatory and Holy Innocents, Nishant Xavier. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 02:54, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

Perhaps you're familiar with Christ Renews His Parish CRHP weekend retreats. I attended one somewhat reluctantly and was tremendously edified to discover that there is such a thing as Christian male community. I afterward joined the next men's formation team for the following CRHP weekend retreat schduled to occur 6 months later. Part of that formation was what is called "history and faith sharing" in which one by one we each were invited to tell our faith-journey, as much or as little as we wished, with the strict condition that nothing we shared was to be repeated outside to anyone else. When each of the guys finished his "testimony" and sat down we each responded with personal comments of support and appreciation for what they had said and what God had done in their lives and prayed with them briefly. However, when I gave my faith and history story and sat down, there was stunned silence. One of the men, studying for the diaconate, leaned forward with a shocked expression on his face and said, "Please don't misunderstand me, but why aren't you insane or dead?" I had been honest, and as my fellow Christian Catholic brothers they still accepted me. Reliving the details of what I had experienced and how Christ had saved me was a shattering experience. My hands trembled all the next day. But a week later, when we met again, one of the men told me that he'd had nightmares for 3 nights because of what I had said. A few years before my CRHP weekend I had been told by my spiritual director in private spiritual direction, "Mike, please do yourself and other people a favor: DO NOT give the details of your past. Most priests I know can't handle what you know. And I believe you." I promised I wouldn't. But I had been persuaded to disobey him when I told my story confidentially to these men with complete trust in the formation team for CRHP. I have firmly decided to never do that again. There is such a thing as "toxic knowledge" that once you have come to know it you wish to God with all your heart that you had never been exposed to that knowledge or experience. Abbreviated parts of my conversion experience I've posted in pieces on several CP talk pages. You're welcome to quote any of them. I hereby grant you for that project my permission to you to do so. Please understand that each time I posted parts of my story I left out a lot. Posting it was a spontaneous act. I could not actually sit down and compose my conversion story in response to a request. I have also told only some of it one-on-one during a friendly conversation. But as welcome as your proposal is, please understand that I would rather not participate. Believe me, it just simply would not be a good idea. I was once asked innocently "What were you before your conversion." I said, "I was evil." They thought I was joking. I wasn't. Jesus brought me from profound darkness into his own "marvelous light". That will have to be enough, along with what you can glean from my contributions to my own and other article talk pages. God be with you. Pax vobis Semper Fi! --Dataclarifier (talk) 05:34, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

I do understand, Mike, that some things are to be kept secret or not openly disclosed. But we know Our Lord said if we confess Him before men, He will confess us before our Father. For myself, I would really appreciate it if, as a favor to me, you could put it in just a few sentences of encouragement to other newer persons like "You can trust the Lord Jesus with your salvation. Believe in Him and be baptized and you will be washed from sins. Jesus changed my life and He can change yours." I really believe people need to hear that from multiple different persons. I hope I'm not asking too much. May Jesus and Mary bless you richly and comfort you for your pain and sorrows, and wipe away every bitter memory of the past. May God fill you abundantly with His Grace and pour out every blessing on your present and your future, and reward you with everlasting life in the world to come.06:19, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

Let it be enough that I have confessed Him before men, privately, and publicly at least twice before groups of people. After retirement I found a venue on Wikipedia until they blocked me indefinitely. After I found Conservapedia I gratefully used this ministry as my venue for confessing the Lord of Life and Salvation and Head of His Body the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. I did this primarily by notes and articles linking irrefutable verifiable sources of accurate historical facts and documentation of history, including the sharp contrast between the interpretive doctrines of the Church which glorifies Jesus and the Bible, and the interpretive doctrines of Protestants and Fundamentalists which damn the Church as the mouthpiece of Satan by misusing the Bible. The post I made to your own talk page early this morning while IndependentSkeptic was asleep is one of my primary confessions of Jesus Christ Our Lord and Savior as Head of His Body the Church. The readership of CP has been my audience.
Thank you for your prayers. Please remember in your prayers all of those unsung warriors for democracy and freedom who are covert operatives seeking personally in the name of Christ as highly trained military specialists to pull down every proud oppressor of human dignity and destroyer of human life, all those dedicated Special Ops who use all their skill and all of them who lost their lives in the effort to free all those enslaved by Satan and his angels (messengers, extremists, terrorists). God be with you. Semper Fi! --Dataclarifier (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

Thank You for Your Participation

Thank You so much, Michael Paul, for your wonderful contribution to Conservapedia's Project 150 Million Souls for Christ our King. There are some 1.33 billion Catholic Christians in the world according to latest Vatican Statistics, which is for the year ended 2018. That will grow to about 1.5 billion by 2030 at normal rates if nothing changes. But I'm hoping that, by much prayer from all of us, and a powerful move of the Holy Ghost, that can grow to 1.5 billion by 2025 itself; which means we will need many million converts over the next 5 years. Thanks, I'm very glad you decided to participate. Another great event to watch in the next five odd years is Catholic-Orthodox Re-Union, which could add more than 300 Million Christians to the Catholic Church. Please be assured that all your prayer intentions will be in my petitions all the days of my life; let us pray together for this also. Please see my article for Conservapedia on the future planned Third Ecumenical Nicene Council in 2025: https://www.conservapedia.com/Third_Ecumenical_Nicene_Council_2025 His Holiness Pope Francis and His Eminence Patriarch Bartholomew have invited all Christians to participate and I do really believe it will be the Council that brings about again the Full Re-Union of Christendom. God Bless you. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 05:00, 17 July 2020 (EDT)

What a thrill this news imparted to my heart. IndependentSkeptic was elated. Smiles all round! Outstanding! Good work! I may live to hear it, if not actually still be able to see it broadcast. --Michael Paul Heart--Dataclarifier (talk) 05:28, 17 July 2020 (EDT)

You made a double posting

You posted redundant spam here. This happened because you cut and pasted another users posting, long with the electronic signature, and added it to your posting. You need to be more careful when copy pasting other users comments. Do not attempt to repair it. I will fix it. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 00:00, 1 August 2020 (EDT)

Don't make me fix your errors like this again. You've developed some bad habits as a wiki editor, and I'm willing to help you overcome them. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 00:18, 1 August 2020 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Dataclarifier&oldid=1673385"