Difference between revisions of "User talk:DMorris"
|Line 79:||Line 79:|
==[[Essay:Resisting Socialist Landfills]]==
==[[Essay:Resisting Socialist Landfills]]==
Hi, I just found this essay that you wrote. I was wondering if you based it off of my [[Essay: Real Environmentalism]], since it makes
Hi, I just found this essay that you wrote. I was wondering if you based it off of my [[Essay: Real Environmentalism]], since it makes of the same points.Thanks. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 10:55, 13 June 2011 (EDT)
Revision as of 13:57, 13 June 2011
- 1 typo
- 2 United Nations
- 3 Sissy punks
- 4 Thanks!
- 5 Anti-matter
- 6 Public Schools....."Much Less Impressive" ?
- 7 Please consider creating these articles
- 8 Thanks!
- 9 Thanks again!
- 10 What?
- 11 Pithy
- 12 Essay:Resisting Socialist Landfills
the charish on you page should be cherish.
Could you provide a cite for your statement that the U.N. supports mainly socialist, liberal ideas? It's not that I'm disagreeing, but statements like that typically need citations (unless things have changed in the past 3 months). -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 19:39, 6 February 2010 (EST)
- Thought it to be pretty much common sense, but I'll find a citation and add it. DMorris 19:40, 6 February 2010 (EST)
- I found three references and added them. I realize we usually don't reference Wikipedia, but I thought it wouldn't hurt to throw that one in there with the other references. When even Wikipedia says they're socialist... DMorris 19:58, 6 February 2010 (EST)
Those crybabies don't need additional attention, removed example of bias talk.--Jpatt 17:42, 22 March 2010 (EDT)
- It is never appropriate to reference non-notable vandal sources, either in articles or talk pages. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:55, 22 March 2010 (EDT)
- Okay. DMorris 19:00, 22 March 2010 (EDT)
- Absolutely. I think you took that the wrong way; I was arguing that the topic couldn't possibly be considered encyclopedic if ED and Uncyclopedia is. DMorris 16:08, 14 June 2010 (EDT)
Public Schools....."Much Less Impressive" ?
And your contributions to society would be? Palin directly enriched the citizens of her state by tens of thousands of dollars each, by changing the royalty structure that the oil and gas companies have to pay...that, in and of itself, ranks pretty high in the over-all accomplishments of any elected official, ever. And you should not have forgotten that she is also an evangelical Christian. What were you thinking? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 05:39, 1 October 2010 (EDT)
- I don't consider Sarah Palin "much less impressive," but she did attend public school. I did read the "much less impressive" part, but didn't quite understand that the list was only to consist of "less impressive" members of society since Medal of Honor recipents were also listed. I took the much less impressive to mean that the list was much less impressive, despite that list being longer (at the time) than the list of Before 1962 graduates. DMorris 15:48, 11 October 2010 (EDT)
Please consider creating these articles
Please consider Creating a feminism and obesity article
Please consider creating a Feminism and obesity article at Conservapedia and cite this material: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/02/feminism-is-good-for-children.html
In addition, have the web page list some overweight and/or obese feminists with some pictures of some overweight feminists. You can also have the article link to Conservapedia's atheism and obesity article and then have the Atheism and obesity article link to the Feminism and obesity article.
Also, you could also cite a thin Conservative woman (with her picture also featured) criticizing feminism! :)
I am going to take my 90 day vacation from Conservapedia so I won't be creating this article. conservative 19:06, 5 February 2011 (EST)
Please consider creating a chub (gay culture) article
Please create a Chub (gay culture) article. You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girth_and_mirth Then have that article link the Atheism and obesity article plus we can have the Atheism and obesity article link to the Chub (gay culture) article. See if you can find Chuck Norris saying something negative about homosexuality and then feature his pic on the web page. conservative 19:24, 5 February 2011 (EST)
- I will get on these first thing tomorrow. DMorris 21:08, 5 February 2011 (EST)
- Here is an article by Chuck Norris on homosexuality: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=59697 and here is another: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=81195 conservative 19:35, 5 February 2011 (EST)
Thanks for your edit to the worst movies list! MaxFletcher 00:08, 6 April 2011 (EDT)
- You're welcome. DMorris 00:29, 6 April 2011 (EDT)
Thanks for fixing up my blundered article on Ada Lovelace. If you're wondering what was going on, I couldn't get through from my home computer, so I had to use a proxy. The proxy was horribly broken, wouldn't let me get through the captcha so I couldn't do the external link, and it also kept breaking the picture link. Then it stopped even letting me see Conservapedia at all. And by then the damage was done and I couldn't undo it. :-( Even a reboot of my machine didn't help. So I contacted Andy by email; he fixed it so I could access CP from my computer, but then the connection went down again. Another round of email; things seem to be OK now. If I were superstitious I would knock on wood, as they say. SamHB 20:36, 6 April 2011 (EDT)
- There's a form at http://www.bugmenot.com/ that wanted me to make a specific URL come to life to verify my authority at Conservapedia.com to block people from posting their login credentials for CP on there, so I did that. Maybe I should have gotten Andy or somebody to do it, but I doubt they'll mind that I did it. Saw a scandal where somebody did that on another website, looked up Conservapedia.com just for giggles, and it turns out there's several vandal accounts listed there. But there won't be for long. DMorris 22:24, 29 April 2011 (EDT)
Let's not drag this into the realm of ad hominem insults. If I must change my name, then I will, but I assure you, this "Whiny Little Atheist" has a stack of facts and logic to back up his claims. Short and sweet, I don't want to cause problems with anyone, but you're free to call me whatever you like. Just know that any harsh words you levy will be met with equal recourse.
- You must really want to be blocked. DMorris 21:23, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
Why would I want to be blocked? As far as I can tell, I've done and said nothing contrary to the Conservapedia Commandments. Last I checked, the realm was open to opposing views (Not talk page debates, which is where this seems to be headed rather quickly). Let's not forget that you cast the first stone into the realm of personal attacks, and I had levied no complaints against any users. I only had an issue with the way atheists were unfairly represented, and with the lack of reasonable evidence to support the claims made in the thread.
But again, to be clear, I will not mince words. I do not want to cause problems, like I've already said; however, if you do choose to insult me in the future, I will not refrain from rebuttal. Let us hope we can both be civil about this and move past Religious differences. KiloByter 22:08, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
- You just need to familiarize yourself with our rules here at Conservapedia, and I recommend you refrain from religious debate. We are a drama free wiki, and we don't have time to endlessly debate about religion. By the way, you can sign your posts using ~~~~. I'm not trying to attack you personally, just trying to point you in the right direction. Otherwise I would have just blocked you. DMorris 22:16, 1 May 2011 (EDT)