User talk:Jpatt

Here

[1]

[2]

[3]

Good job stopping him.JonM 14:40, 11 January 2012 (EST)

Hi Jpatt, what did you mean by "AdamBro is clan but keep on eye on him. Sock puppets of BL4NK3R; NoohWicky, UtterMuppet, Maggie, B0LLL0X". Is he a sockpuppet ? --PhilipN 17:04, 11 January 2012 (EST)

AdamBro is clean, as far as socks are involved. He might be what Tony has said, so follow his future edits.--Jpatt 17:10, 11 January 2012 (EST)

I will, thanks for the info. --PhilipN 17:15, 11 January 2012 (EST)

Thanks for the welcome and reverting vandalism on my user and talk page! I don't understand that vandal --- it was my first day and I don't think i wrote anything controversial, why would anyone do that to me? Lansing 12:02, 12 January 2012 (EST)

Get used to liberal intimidation. We can block their ideology but they counter with vandalism. --Jpatt 12:15, 12 January 2012 (EST)

What a shame, indeed. Lansing 14:35, 13 January 2012 (EST)

I think KendallP/BostonBakedBeans23 realized he wasn't following the name rule, and so changed it so he wouldn't get blocked. DynaboyJ 14:17, 16 January 2012 (EST)

You would like to see Kendall unblocked?--Jpatt 14:24, 16 January 2012 (EST)

Yes, and thank you for unblocking him. DynaboyJ 14:28, 16 January 2012 (EST)

Also, Thanks! --Joaquín Martínez 20:03, 12 February 2012 (EST)

I'm curious as to why you reverted my edit? Everything I said was true and sourced. Ayzmo :) 13:18, 20 January 2012 (EST)

Calling him a liberal is just tit for tat namecalling, but his support for PIPA is well documented. That should stay in the article.RachelW 13:20, 20 January 2012 (EST)

Add the PIPA stuff. Keep the liberal statement out. --Jpatt 13:23, 20 January 2012 (EST)

Thank you, I will. I don't apprive of name calling, either. RachelW 13:25, 20 January 2012 (EST)

It wasn't done in namecalling. It has been stated by several members, including Andy, that any Republican supporting SOPA/PIPA is a liberal/rino no matter their record and stances. I questioned it but it was insisted. So I added what I did to Rubio since he was a sponsor. I don't consider Rubio liberal but I don't consider Lamar Smith liberal either. Ayzmo :) 15:58, 20 January 2012 (EST)

Yes it is name calling. It was name calling when they did it to Lamar Smith and it was name calling when you did it right back to Rubio. Two wrongs don't make a right, and the proper response to an inappropriate edit is not another inappropriate edit. RachelW 16:01, 20 January 2012 (EST)

It's too early to label Rubio based on his supporting legislation. The Tea Party backs conservatives and Rubio. Also, I thought it was to early to label Scott Brown. I was wrong once. --Jpatt 16:37, 20 January 2012 (EST)

You do realise that you just reverted all my edits to the ones done by RickPeterson, who got blocked for inserting nonsense? Just saying... --GeorgeLi 16:24, 24 January 2012 (EST)

Yea, Oops--Jpatt 16:26, 24 January 2012 (EST)

Well, never mind. You fixed it now. I guess it gets confusing dealing with all those idiots. --GeorgeLi 16:27, 24 January 2012 (EST)

Just letting you know that it was federal court that overturned Prop 8, not, as implied by your latest entry, a Californian court. Cheers. --DamianJohn 17:23, 7 February 2012 (EST)

• (a) Archive 107 from here mistakenly brings up Archive 106;
• (b) Talk:Main Page/Archive index/108 need to be added. Thanks. Rob Smith 11:51, 12 February 2012 (EST)

Noted--Jpatt 22:02, 13 February 2012 (EST)

I wasn't aware I warranted vandalism :P Thanks for the reverts. Ayzmo :) 19:37, 25 February 2012 (EST)

You know what they say? Without evil we would never recognize good. --Jpatt 20:44, 25 February 2012 (EST)

You don't have the skills to edit an encyclopedia. Please go, you monumental idiot. --Sextertainer 13:47, 28 February 2012 (EST)

Really, your brain is way too small. You can't write properly. Really. --Sextertainer 13:48, 28 February 2012 (EST)

Your mom called, she said you are late for your LGBT counseling. --Jpatt 15:23, 28 February 2012 (EST)

Hi Mr./Mrs. Jpatt,

(Please accept my apologies on the ambiguous greeting. Gender is difficult on the web without further research) Could you please give me a description of this web site? I'm writing about online media interfaces for a course at my university and would love to learn more.

Thank you, Sarah

Hi Sarah, try this Conservapedia:About and read about the wiki founder Andy Schlafly Andy_Schlafly. --Jpatt 09:05, 2 March 2012 (EST)

Thank you for the information. I will be in touch with Mr. Schlafly shortly. Sarah

Please show them to me. If there are none, please revert my editing of the United States of America page. - Rdsmith 10:42 (EST), 8 March 2012

"all men are endowed by their Creator," In other words, the same era of people that wrote the Constitution, ratified the Declaration of Independence. I will not remove Judeo-Christian principles from the United States of America page. The Founders put us on the Gregorian calender. This means the Judeo-Christian.--Jpatt 11:04, 8 March 2012 (EST)

That is the Declaration of Independence, which is not law, it is a deist reference, and to cite Jefferson for Judeo-Christian values is moot (at least) as he created his own Bible where he cut the New Testament to present Jesus as good moral teacher who died. The Gregorian calender was the prevailing calender at the time, and creating a new calender would have been folly. Again, please show me exclusively Judeo-Christian principles in the US Constitution. Rdsmith 11:35 (EST), 8 March 2012

Why create a new calender when the Farsi and Chinese calenders already existed? Again, please stop trying to split hairs on the subject between secular and religion. We were not founded as a theocracy and we were not founded as a Godless nation either. The overblown "Jefferson was not religious" lovefest has been debunked already. Your "moot" point that nobody talks about is that Jefferson founded the American Bible Society and paid for the importation of 20000 Bibles. Look at the opening preambles of the 50 state constitutions and their references to God. [4]. --Jpatt 12:06, 8 March 2012 (EST)

I understand that this story has been circulating for many years in many forms but none of this is true. Jefferson did not found the American Bible Society. Neither he nor Congress paid for 20,000 Bibles to be imported. The 20,000 number comes from a proposed resolution in Congress to import Bibles because there were no printers in the US during the revolutionary war and we were obviously embargoed from importing Bibles during the war. After the war there was a real shortage. Jefferson really wasn't Christian in any sense: he may have believed in his own idea of God but he absolutely didn't accept the divinity of Jesus Christ, his resurrection, the triune person of Christ, etc. These beliefs are central to Christianity as far as I am aware. I may be wrong about whether evangelicals accept the various personages of Christ. Jefferson accepted none of them. I understand the desire of Christian men to associate important figures with their faiths but we wouldn't do this with a villain or a blasphemer and we oughtn't do it with a man who didn't adore Jesus Christ as his lord and savior but only as some random guy who lived in Palestine a long time ago. Nate Nate 13:06, 8 March 2012 (EST)

I fixed my quote above. Jefferson did respect religion and is quoted praising the Bible. --Jpatt 13:16, 8 March 2012 (EST)

The people living in the colonies were primarily accustomed to a European (therefore Christ-based) calender so using the Farsi or Chinese calenders would be of equal folly. I'm talking about the government of the United States and since the Articles of Confederation has been godless, as for America the nation, I'll agree it is has a strong Christian heritage (then again to question Christianity openly has been taboo until contemporary times).The "godliness" of the constitutions of the colonies range from freedom to religion to religious requirements for office (the latter being specifically opposed by the Constitution in Article VI). You can fixate on preambles all you want, all they state is ends, while I'm look at means, but I looked at the preambles of the constitutions of the states when America was founded, not very Judeo-Christian to me.

So, for a third time, in the context of " the United States Constitution was written; grounded on republican political principles and Judeo-Christian values," show me the specific Judeo-Christian values in the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution. If not, then I can show you the Enlightenment principles the government of this country was founded upon. The Declaration of Independence was based on Locke, but even Locke uses the term "God" as opposed to more deistic references of the Dec. -- Rdsmith 11:42 (EST) 9 March 2012

I told you once but you didn't listen. You asked me three times but I will not respond. Is gay marriage in the Constitution?--Jpatt 11:59, 9 March 2012 (EST)

Would the "exclusively Judeo-Christian (or republican) principles in the US Constitution" include chattel slavery and the fact that people of African descent counted as 3/5 of a human being? HarveyG 12:51, 9 March 2012 (EST)

White men may have purchased slaves but it was black men that sold them. It is liberal to belittle the Founders. With God in their hearts [5] the Founders set in motion the most powerful nation on the planet. Liberty, honor, and human rights central. They risked everything and got it right. --Jpatt 16:31, 9 March 2012 (EST)

Thank you so much for your great work and for the welcome message. I am so encouraged to see this truly excellent encyclopedia representing what wikipedia could have been some serious intellectual honesty.

A few suggestions: 1) Human Life International has a new president and is undergoing some great improvements in their ministry, including updating articles and resources. Perhaps they could be added to your top pro-life websites. 2) lovefacts.org is a veritable gold-mine of good medical references documenting the harms of induced abortion and contraception, which we need mine to improve many articles on the subject. 3) pop.org is the Population Research Institutes homepage; it is a pro-life alternative to PP's Guttmacher Institute, and they expose the myth of overpopulation and the numerous human rights abuses throughout the world in the name of "population control." Perhaps "overpopulation myth" or something similar would be a good page to refute these widespread errors driving the culture of death and its devotion to abortion and contraception.

I look forward to contributing in a forum where my input is appreciated and allowed to benefit the souls of all who may read the articles. Frankgyn 16:12, 29 March 2012 (EDT)