Difference between revisions of "User talk:SamHB"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(You should face reality and accept there is more than one editor who uses the User: Conservative account)
(You should face reality and accept there is more than one editor who uses the User: Conservative account)
Line 921: Line 921:
::::SamHB, a majority of my online work has been related to atheism (or related issues such as [[evolutionism]]). Now that the [[atheist movement]] in the Western World has been burnt to a crisp and has been soundly defeated (see: [[Decline of the atheist movement]] and [[Decline of militant atheism in the West]]), my desire to have a protracted discussion about how many users use the [[User: Conservative]] account has waned. One thing I can say with absolute certainty, there is more than one editor who uses the User: Conservative account.  
::::SamHB, a majority of my online work has been related to atheism (or related issues such as [[evolutionism]]). Now that the [[atheist movement]] in the Western World has been burnt to a crisp and has been soundly defeated (see: [[Decline of the atheist movement]] and [[Decline of militant atheism in the West]]), my desire to have a protracted discussion about how many users use the [[User: Conservative]] account has waned. One thing I can say with absolute certainty, there is more than one editor who uses the User: Conservative account.  
::::Second, unlike Conservapedia editors whose accounts will remain inactive after they meet their Maker, the Conservapedia account I created will live on. "Old soldiers never die, they simply fade away".[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:47, 8 April 2019 (EDT)
::::Second, if the owner of Conservapedia decides to bequeath control of Conservapedia in his waning years, unlike Conservapedia editors whose accounts will remain inactive after they meet their Maker, the Conservapedia account I created will live on. "Old soldiers never die, they simply fade away".[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:47, 8 April 2019 (EDT)

Revision as of 11:50, 8 April 2019

User talk:SamHB/Archive 1 User_talk:SamHB/archive_2 User_talk:SamHB/archive_3


Red telephone for Cons

Cons: Thank you for dealing with the matter of Special:Contributions/Cal_Um. I know that you recognize that you are not an expert in relativity and know better than to get into the technical details of these discussions, and I appreciate that. (I wish more people recognized their limitations in this area; you can look up my recent controversies.) But this was a clear case of you recognizing that this guy was a troublemaker, and coming to my aid.

And now I see that there has been another case, with Special:Contributions/Bobbillyman69, taken care of by Andy. Vandals look at the Recent Changes log: "Oh, look! Relativity is on today's dinner menu!" We old-timers know all about that phenomenon.

SamHB (talk) 12:21, 7 March 2017 (EST)

Your welcome. I just happened to see it. I am guessing that for the foreseeable future that you and Andy are going to have to maintain the article as far as keeping it in accordance to compromise you two reached as far as the wording of the article. I don't think I will be of much help in the future. Again, I just happened to see that particular vandal.Conservative (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2017 (EST)

A liberal is wanted for an online dialogue

A liberal is wanted to have a single online dialogue. Please let them know at http://opposing-views.org/ if you are interested. Conservative (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2017 (EDT)

Here is their contact page: http://opposing-views.org/contact/ Conservative (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2017 (EDT)
Well, I'm somewhat flattered, but significantly puzzled, by this. From looking at the web page, it looks like some kind of general liberal/conservative debate site. Currently focused on Obamacare, but with a wider outlook in general. My guess is that they are looking to increase their "contributor staff", particularly liberals, and they came to you. Or, more likely, you discovered them.
I'm not interested in contributing to such a site. And one thing puzzles me about it. There are thousands of liberal/conservative discussions/debates/controversies that take place every day. I find myself in such discussions several times per day. So these people want to create yet another one? With nothing noteworthy about it? They will be (already are) totally drowned out by the discussions already going on around the internet. I have about a dozen such web sites already bookmarked.
Now, about your choice of correspondent: I'm flattered, of course. But, when you needed to find a liberal friend, you came to Conservapedia? Well, perhaps you contacted 97 other liberal acquaintances, besides EJamesW, AlanE, and myself. Actual liberals are a rare and endangered species here.
About my politics. You put in some question, that you seem to have deleted, asking whether it's really true that I'm a liberal. Well, compared to most people, especially the admins, here at CP, I am way far left of the norm. But relative to the outside world, I am rather middle-of-the-road. (I can't speak for EJamesW or Alan, but I would guess that they are similar.) I actually hold a lot of conservative and "traditional" views, though that doesn't seem to mean much at CP. For example, I am appalled that we have a President who is a serial adulterer and is on his third marriage. And, all through the cold war, I was on the side of freedom, not the side of the murderous Communist thugs who were out to conquer the world. I believe in American exceptionalism, and believed that the United States was a beacon of liberty to the whole world. I was relieved when the Soviet Union collapsed. But now Russia, the descendant of the Soviet Union, is ruled by Vladimir Putin, a descendant of the Communists, one who invades other countries and fairly openly has his political opponents murdered. I am appalled that our current President doesn't have a problem with this.
SamHB (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2017 (EDT)
OK. Thanks for letting me know your decision promptly. Conservative (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2017 (EDT)
I hope that it is possible to be a social conservative, a fiscal conservative, a political conservative, but still believe in rule of law, quantum mechanics, special relativity, and recent advances in machine learning/artificial intelligence. I never thought of SamHB as being a "liberal." JDano (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2017 (EDT)

OK. SamHB is less on the left spectrum that I thought. Conservative (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2017 (EDT)

Doesn't help him though, does it, when some petty tyrant of the field decides to burn a conversation and give him a day off just because they can. AlanE (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2017 (EDT)
Sigh. Semper idem. --AugustO (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2017 (EDT)
Well, actually, he can't. No, to be precise, he can, but he may not. It's interesting that this happened shortly after I complained about abuse of block power here, and his reply seemed to acknowledge that it was not within his authority to block me—"That's not up to me at this point, but to one of the admins".
I suspect that Northwest is probably feeling a bit guity about having violated his position of trust so blatantly by blocking someone over a content dispute. He may not realize that I am well respected by the admins; I've been around a while and they know me well. I've had some run-ins with Ed Poor, and he blocked me a couple of times for my abrasiveness, but we have since made peace. If Northwest looks at my block log, he will see that, until this week, none of my blocks involved "liberal POV". Mostly they were by people who had a rather checkered history of honesty, or for totally bogus claims of sockpuppetry with people I had never heard of.
It's ironic that all this happened only 2-1/2 hours after I put the lyrics to America on my user page, specifically calling out the lines
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law!
That was aimed at Donald Trump, who seems to have little self-control, little respect for law, little knowledge of American history and traditions, and little knowledge of, and respect for, the teachings of Jesus. But, as we say in this country: if the shoe fits, wear it.
In a few days I may go over to his talk page and try to make peace. To try to convince him that we can make CP a better place if we all work together. And that it would be better not to toss around the words "liberal" and "leftist" with such wild abandon, because it just makes CP look less respectable and trustworthy to do so. And that one doesn't need to be a "leftist" to oppose murderous thug Vladimir Putin.
SamHB (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2017 (EDT)
To make it short and to the point: You were warned before about your behavior on CP and you didn't want to listen (specifically regarding numbers 9 and 10 - especially number 10, which you violated several times before - at How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia), so that's how you got the day off. To read how both you and AlanE are talking about this, you both come off sounding like the liberal media pundits who complain about Donald Trump's travel ban against specific Islamic countries and his proposed illegal immigration ban.
Your comment "And that it would be better not to toss around the words "liberal" and "leftist" with such wild abandon, because it just makes CP look less respectable and trustworthy to do so" also reflects exactly the type of things liberals say regarding CP (at the Liberal Style article, under Debate and rhetorical tactics):
"Like to use the phrase 'reflects poorly on the site' when talking about the liberal articles on Conservapedia."
And numbers 5 and 6 under Liberalism in the same article:
"Calling the use of the term liberal when used in a derogatory context 'stupid'"
"Will often deny being a liberal, or will claim to be a 'true conservative', while spouting liberal and Democrat talking points and criticizing basic conservative beliefs and principles."
And under Personal traits (again in the same article):
"Concealing one's liberal views rather than admitting them"
But at day's end, this is still Conservapedia, not Liberalpedia. Northwest (talk) 09:11, 14 April 2017 (EDT)
I could parody being a liberal, but when pressed to the wall all my inner contradictions and stupidity would come out, which might then just seal the deal. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 13:15, 13 April 2017 (EDT)
I puzzled by several aspects of this. By "parody being a liberal" do you mean make fun of liberals with over-the-top humor, the way Stephen Colbert used to parody conservatives on his "Colbert Report"? (He shows his politics in a different way in his present show.) Or do you mean "Convincingly pretend to be a liberal, in a way that would trick one into believing that I am sincere?" Any intelligent and well-informed person (which you are) can do that. What do you mean by "my inner contradictions and stupidity would come out"? That you would have a hard time convincingly imitating the stupidity of liberals (liberals and conservatives both have consistency problems) so that your ruse would be unsuccessful? Or that your personal "contradictions and stupidity" would make you unable to do the job? And what do you mean by "seal the deal"? Succeed at your imitation? Or let others succeed at unmasking your attempts? SamHB (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2017 (EDT)
You covered all bases quite well. Parodying a liberal is not hard. If you come to a juncture where you're at a loss, and you have to think "What would be the appropriate liberal response?", you just say something nonsensical and contradictory, and it would pass. That's what I mean by seal the deal - there would be no question I'm a liberal speaking from the heart. Poe's Law. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 19:07, 14 April 2017 (EDT)


(No, I'm not referring to E-cigarettes.) Cons, please do not vape other people's talk pages, OK? I know that what you recently vaped here was insignificant, but please don't do it. SamHB (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2017 (EDT)

9th anniversary

Congratulations on your 9th anniversary here! Despite disagreements, edit wars, and 19 blocks, you are still around! I know a number of people don't agree with you on various topics, and even I disagree on some things you believe (most notably, macroevolution) but I appreciate that you have "stuck it out" and are still trying to make CP better. I also appreciate your insights on matters which have been influenced by things long before I was here. You were also the only one when I first joined who seemed to be making an effort to help me learn the ropes and how things work here (an effort I am trying to pass on to others now). Thanks for your efforts! --David B (TALK) 11:49, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

Re: Claims of familiarity with CP guidelines

Since you claim to be familiar with, and "well versed in", Conservapedia's guidelines (per your edit on 1990'sguy's talk page), here's a refresher from the Member Accounts section:

  • Conservapedia is a politically conservative, Christian encyclopedia project. We welcome opposing views, but are not interested in users who come here only to change articles to their ideology (as you've insisted on doing with selected articles here as of late to change them to fit liberal POV, despite your claims otherwise - ed.), or disrupt by constantly arguing on the article talk pages that we are "wrong" (likewise - ed.). Trolling comments, incivility and personal attacks can be removed from discussion pages.
  • We are not a debate forum, but a project. If you contribute, where you can, by adding substantive content, abiding by our Guidelines, we welcome you. If not, remember it is a big Internet, and you should go where you can support the goals of that project.

Northwest (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

Go write up a Popeye episode, son. JohnZ (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2017 (EDT)
This applies to you too, JohnZ, just so you know. Northwest (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

re: Liberal article

I made some revisions to the liberal article to make it more accurate. And made some talk page edits indicating my reasons for the changes. For example, liberalism is not communism or Nazism. Attila the Hun was not a liberal, etc.

If you want to review the article periodically to make sure my changes stick, it would be appreciated.

I will pay you the courtesy of not having all or most liberals equated with Attila the Hun, Adolf Hitler, Mao or Stalin. I would ask you, however, to have the decency to not publicize private emails.

By the way, I have been to Framingham, MA and got along with all the people I met. The people I met in Framingham did not give me Nazi salutes. And I did not see any Nazi flags on front lawns. Nor did I see any statues of Lenin while on Massachusetts thruways or while in Framingham. Conservative (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

No Nazi flags? No Lenin statues? Not one? I guess Massachusetts is going soft. It must be all the political correctness or something.  :-) I haven't seen any of that stuff in my trips to upstate New York either. Or in my trips to Iowa, Arizona, Arkansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Virginia, Alabama, Tennessee, or Missouri. What's the world coming to?
Seriously, I have noticed your recent attempts to inject some reasonableness into certain articles, and I appreciate that. (I'm serious this time!) In fact, I have recently noticed some rather decent articles here. But plenty of awful ones, like "liberal" and its ilk. I'm trying to improve the good ones, while ignoring the awful ones. But you need to know that my ability to "make changes stick" is very limited, though I'll try. See my block log, the history of the Pussy Riot article, and the last half of the "A liberal is wanted for an online dialogue" section above (as well as a paragraph below), to see what I'm talking about. So someone might undo anything I do (and block me in violation of policy). But I'll try.
I don't consider "not having all or most liberals equated with Attila the Hun, Adolf Hitler, Mao or Stalin" to be a courtesy to me personally. It's a courtesy to Conservapedia. But I appreciate it in any case.
About the email: Perhaps I should have redacted the email address, but I considered that the name was so nondescript that it must have been a garbage gmail account that you created. If you have gotten spam on that account, I apologize. However, I think the general content of emails can't be considered private. (Just ask Hillary Clinton!) And most of the message was just hawking your own pages right here at CP, along with one link to a vimeo clip to an old Star Trek thing.
Peace, my non-Nazi non-Communist friend, SamHB (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
Follow-up: I have redacted the email more thoroughly; I assume from Cons's vaping that that is what he wanted me to to. He can't possibly have wanted me to conceal the fact that he sent it, since he openly announced it in advance on this page.
But if you do anything that goes against Conservapedia policy (as you've done repeatedly over time, and even recently), you will stand a chance of being blocked again (and despite what you otherwise think, blocking someone for violating CP policy is not "illegal"), so don't go thinking you can game the system just so you can get your way and get liberal POV imposed on this site. All you're doing every time you bring this up is that you're showing you prefer to ignore the rules of this site (and your history here, once again, proves that). Northwest (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
SamHB, I look at your restoration and its skepticism that more than one person has edited using the User: Conservative account.
The edit log shows that the User: Conservative account created the Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals article. The edit log shows that the User: Conservative account created the Gay bowel syndrome and Homosexuality and Parasites articles. No intelligent person believes that these articles are the work of one person. The footnoting style is radically different for the Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals article and frankly the article lacked machismo as soon as it used the alphabet soup of LGBTQ. Frankly, I don't even know what all those letters stand for. Why is the Q even used? It seems redundant.
You still not reconciled this blaring incongruently which was even noticed by a non-fan of the User: Conservative account. There must be some reason why you are not coming up with a reasonable explanation of the incongruity? What is it?
By the way, the explanation is so simple. More than one person has edited using the User: Conservative account.Conservative (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2017 (EDT)

re: "I'm going to organize this in broad categories. That's the right thing to do for articles about scientists"

Bill Nye is an engineer. He is not a scientist. Stop engaging in credential inflation! I realize that evolutionism is exceedingly weak. But try to not engage in desperation tactics and make efforts to control yourself. :)Conservative (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2017 (EDT)

Well, it's the right thing for articles about science popularizers too.
Sorry, I should have said "science popularizers". The fact that he's an engineer is irrelevant.
I think the suggestion that I need to make efforts to control myself is a little harsh for such an infraction as calling him a scientist instead of a science popularizer. It doesn't strike me as anywhere near as great a failure of self-control as spending years pretending to be multiple people, or spending years making tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands? millions?) of edits, deletions, renamings, cross-links, and ineffably pointless changes to image sizes, mostly for an utterly obsessive corpus of foolishness.
But we're still friends. I enjoy sparring with you. And I've got more stuff to do in reply to your previous edit on this page. But first, I need to change an image size.
SamHB (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2017 (EDT)

talk page second archive

You user talk page is insanely long. I think you are overdue for User talk:SamHB/archive 2. Conservative (talk) 09:03, 2 June 2017 (EDT)

You're right. Done. Thank you. SamHB (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2017 (EDT)

Nice job

I read your user page archives - really entertaining, and they made me realized how wretched I was to write articles for Cons, even if they did get on the Main Page. Please, don't stop believing in relativity. Hold onto that feeling.--Nathan (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2017 (EDT)

re: well-intentioned and level-headed people

You wrote: "You need to know that user "Conservative" is not in any way typical of the people we have here. There are a lot of well-intentioned and level-headed people here, and you could have been a member of that community."

First of all, User: Conservative is not merely one editor. So your petty personal attacks are lamer than you think. It is readily apparent that User: Conservative is more than editor. For example, the glaring topical/footnoting/writing style differences in the Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals article and some of the other homosexuality articles by the User: Conservative account. You have never explained these glaring differences.
Secondly, you have yet to find a single factual error in any of the articles written by the User:Conservative account. You merely dislike some of the articles because they conflict with some of your errant/miscreant, liberal notions. Conservative (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2017 (EDT)
Actually, I've been meaning to rip you to shreds, yet again, over that weird fantasy of yours. But there's usually something more urgent to do. Especially now, with the "abcqwe" issue. Trying to keep him on board is much more important than yet another go-around with you. SamHB (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2017 (EDT)
Your name is <name redacted>, everybody who has ever posted on this site knows your name is <name redacted>, people who died 100 years ago know your name is <name redacted>. People who will not be born until the 22nd century knows your name is <name redacted>. Insult your own intelligence(not hard to do I know) but the rest of us are not falling for it.
Actually, that's not my name, assuming that you were referring to me (SamHB) when you wrote "you" above. Maybe you are confusing me with someone else.
In any case, it is considered poor form to "out" or "dox" someone on a wiki. And the identity and personal info about the person you are perhaps referring to are well known. I suspect that you are about to be blocked, if you haven't already been blocked as I write this. And what you wrote above will likely be vaped, though I will restore it (with the name redacted) if that happens. SamHB (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2017 (EDT)
SanHV, why is the footnoting for Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals different from many other User: Conservative articles?
I found out this month what the Q is in the acronym LGBTQ stands for. Why does the article Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals use the term LGBTQ, but the other homosexuality articles created by the User: Conservtive account not use that term?
Probably because you are a klutz with your keyboard, as indicated by your spelling of "Conservtive". It stands for "queer", by the way.SamHB (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
Is the term LGBTQ one that I would likely use? For example, how often does the word "gay" appear in Conservapedia's homosexuality articles?
I wouldn't know. I'd have to read them. SamHB (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
Is the term "persecution of homosexuals" one that I would likely use? Why was there an internal battle within the User: Conservative account about the title of the article Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals? For example, why was the title of that article changed/moved?
Because you like to do that kind of thing, as anyone who looks at your contributions knows. SamHB (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
Liberals dominate the field of psychology. Do liberals excel in the field of psychology in order to be able to discern that more than one editor has used the User:Conservative account?
I doubt it. I doubt that, by and large, they give a hoot about the size of your "collective". SamHB (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
If liberals do excel in the discipline of psychology, why do so many psychology experiments and journal articles have an inability to be replicated? See: Over half of psychology studies fail reproducibility test, Nature, August 27, 2015
RobS, 1990sguy and Karajou have been told privately that more than one editor has used the User: Conservative account. There was an attempt to make one of these editors an editor of the User: Conservative account, but Aschlafly would not permit it.
Can you send me the email in which Andy said that? And, by "one of these editors" do you mean one of RobS, 1990sguy and Karajou? All you would have to do is privately send them your CP password. Andy would not know. In fact, if you mail me your password, at sam4557@gmail.com, I could become a member of your collective! The "sockpuppet" rule prohibits one person from having multiple CP accounts, but there's no rule about giving out your password. SamHB (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
Lastly, you couldn't rip a wet paper bad to shreds, let alone rip of member of the User: Conservative account to shreds. Conservative (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2017 (EDT)

By the way, a 2006 international survey reported that 30% of the Swiss reject evolution which is one of the highest national percentages in Europe.[2] Switzerland has one of the very highest standards of living in Europe.

Denmark has one of the highest rates of belief in evolution in Europe (See: Jon D. Miller; Eugenie C. Scott; Shinji Okamoto (11 August 2006). "Public Acceptance of Evolution". Science. 313 (5788): 765–766.).

The Swiss are known for yodeling.

I'm extremely fascinated, delighted, and enchanted to hear that. SamHB (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2017 (EDT)

The Danes are known for bestiality! A 2015 Jerusalem Post article indicates "Copenhagen has for long been the bestiality capital of Europe and has attracted many tourists mainly visiting to have sex with animals. Legislation against this practice was only enacted this year."[3] Conservative (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2017 (EDT)

There are some worthwhile projects that I want to accomplish. I am not going to continue this latest battle between us. It doesn't make sense to respond to every slight someone directs your way. I am moving on. Conservative (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2017 (EDT)
I regret using the word miscreant above. It wasn't necessary.
No hard feelings. SamHB (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2017 (EDT)
I also agree with you that it would have been nice to retain the editor who recently departed. Conservative (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2017 (EDT)
What??? To whom were you referring??? The one who was "showboating" and annoying Karajou and VargasMilan2 [sic]? I assumed you thought it was abcqwe, and I could find no evidence that he communicated with Karajou or VargasMilan. Who was it? Seriously, I'm curious. I'd like to know whether it was someone that I also disliked. SamHB (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2017 (EDT)
I just discovered that someone blocked User:Abcqwe. He made a number of posts to talk pages that irritated people. It seems as if he was spoiling for a fight and/or trying to gain attention. Conservative (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2017 (EDT)
You just discovered that now?????? Really? SamHB (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2017 (EDT)
For the record, he blocked himself indefinitely, but I changed the block to five years because indefinite blocks are problematic. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2017 (EDT)
OK. He was a provocateur at the end. No great loss. Conservative (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2017 (EDT)
But, was it necessary to delete his user and talk pages? Or is this just CP policy? --1990'sguy (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2017 (EDT)
No, it is not policy. Please restore them. SamHB (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2017 (EDT)

In terms of webmaster best practices, deleting low value pages is a beneficial thing to do. In 2017, Conservapedia is going to delete abandoned user pages and their respective talk pages. Andy has given the green light about this matter and he is not changing his mind about it. Conservative (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2017 (EDT)

It is a "best practice" only because you have the technical permission, as an administrator, to do whatever you please. You can delete whatever you want, vape whatever you want, and block whomever you want, at any time. You even burned down this page on 10 January, 2015. I was never under the illusion that you would honor my request to restore his pages. And I can't help noticing that, shortly after you explained this "best practice", you deleted a few pages just to make the point. SamHB (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
Re: annoying Karajou and VargasMilan2 - see: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Karajou&diff=1351118&oldid=1350637 He sometimes signed his posts "Nate". As far as VargaMilan2, see conversation I moved to the community portal. Conservative (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2017 (EDT)
I think User:Abcqwe began to be more of a provocateur after I posted this article American liberalism and 21st century political losses. Given that he is an American liberal, it probably triggered his backlash/bitterness/resentment.Conservative (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2017 (EDT)
I don't think Abcqwe annoyed Karajou or VargasMilan while he actually edited. They wrote what they did in response to the news that he was leaving. On top of that, it seems that Abcqwe uses a lot of sarcasm and sarcastic humor, and I think his "confession" displayed some of it. He also seems to have overexaggerated. Personally, I think he should have been more frank in his post, and I don't think his sense of humor helped at all. Many people probably got the impression that he was a parodist/liberal, while I think it is more believable that he was a more moderate person who originally joined in good faith. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2017 (EDT)
I seem to be the invisible man regarding Abcque. I was the one who tried to keep a lid on his vandalism. Did I need help? Yes. Did I ask for it?Yes. Did I get any from the lads wallowing in their anti liberal groupthinkfest, not giving a stuff for truth? No I did not. Do I still think that CP should be vehicle for information for homesckoolers? Yes. Is it ? No. Do I give a damn? Strangely, yes I do.
Sorry Sam. I have tried other forums to change an article title to allow me to correct the article. I want Joseph Belloc changed to Hilaire Belloc. Its simple really but the lads are too busy doing what they like doing. AlanE (talk) 03:08, 9 June 2017 (EDT)

Border fence for the unfree state of Massachusetts

Border fence for the unfree state of Massachusetts designed to keep people from leaving the state. See also: Free States Movement

Actually, I haven't seen any fences like that, except at MCI[1] Concord, where I go to visit my cousin (you know, the one who is a member of your collective; they let people edit Conservapedia from the slammer), who is serving a 5-year stretch for not being a "svelte Bible believing young earth creationist like Chuck Norris".

Joking about TAR

Question: Will TAR return? Conservative (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2017 (EDT)

I will consider it only if he agrees to completely stop link-spamming and adding categories. If not, I or someone else will be forced to block him. I agree that he made some good changes, but the bad far outweighed the good. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2017 (EDT)
I don't believe TAR is coming back. I was merely joking. Conservative (talk)

That joke is not the least bit funny. I doubt that 1990'sguy appreciated the humor. As I'm sure you recall, during the period when TAR was being removed from the site (which is chronicled at User_talk:DavidB4#Cleaning_up_after_the_blocked_users and User_talk:Aschlafly/Archive60#Re:_Cleanup_work_post_TheAmericanRedoubt, you repeatedly implied that you were somehow in private communication with him, and that, because of this, you could reassure everyone that he had no intention of coming back. But since you have a reputation for pretending to be in secret communication with people, just as you pretend to be multiple people, no one believed you. So Andy had to revoke his rights.

I don't believe he's coming back either, but not because of some private communication. It's because he would be shown the door instantly.

SamHB (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2017 (EDT)

At this point, I really am not concerned if you believe I have had various private conversations with people or if you believe more than one person has edited using the User: Conservative account.
It is probably best if we keep our communications cordial, but very limited in the future.Conservative (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2017 (EDT)
OK. The "ripping you to shreds" that I had planned will not occur. SamHB (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2017 (EDT)
A few points:
1. You called my liar and I have never lied at this wiki. More than one person has edited using the User: Conservative account. You may not accept this fact as being true, but that is your problem and not mine. Aschafly is certainly aware that the User: Conservative account has had more than one editor use it and Karajou is aware as well. I did a checker user on the User: Conservative account and at least one other editor has used the account in the last 3 months.
2. I should have been more cordial in my last communication with you. After all is said and done, I have decided to communicate far less on talk pages due to competing priorities. So any absence of communication with you isn't personal. Conservative (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2017 (EDT)

From warrior to diplomat

"Warrior to Diplomat

In his previous roles, Harald had focused primarily on marshaling the troops to defeat the competition. Now he found himself devoting a surprising amount of time to influencing a host of external constituencies, including regulators, the media, investors, and NGOs. His support staff was bombarded with requests for his time: Could he participate in industry or government forums sponsored by the government affairs department? Would he be willing to sit for an interview with an editor from a leading business publication? Could he meet with a key group of institutional investors? Some of these groups he was familiar with; others not at all. But what was entirely new to him was his responsibility not just to interact with various stakeholders but also to proactively address their concerns in ways that meshed with the firm’s interests. Little of Harald’s previous experience prepared him for the challenges of being a corporate diplomat.

What do effective corporate diplomats do? They use the tools of diplomacy—negotiation, persuasion, conflict management, and alliance building—to shape the external business environment to support their strategic objectives. In the process they often find themselves collaborating with people with whom they compete aggressively in the market every day.

To do this well, enterprise leaders need to embrace a new mind-set—to look for ways that interests can or do align, understand how decisions are made in different kinds of organizations, and develop effective strategies for influencing others."[4]

Harald made the transition. The Apostle Paul made the transition. I wonder if someone else can? :) Conservative (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2017 (EDT)

I think you are making some good points in what you say, and it's certainly true that my ways of interacting with people on the internet (and in real life too) could use some improvement. But I'm having a hard time following your examples. I don't know who "Harald" is/was. Some ancient Nordic king? I know who the Apostle Paul was, but I don't see his situation as being relevant to business, the media, investors, or NGO's. And my situation isn't relevant to those things either. At least you didn't bring in Sun-Tzu. SamHB (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2017 (EDT)
SamHB, I was merely saying that I have decided to be more diplomatic.
Oh! I was reading way too much into what you were saying. (I often do that.) So you were saying that you want to "make the transition" and do a better job of persuasion and conflict management. OK, I will try to do the same.
As an example, I will try to calm GinnyS down. I think she may be cruisin' for a bruisin'. I will try to explain that you are an acquired taste, and that personal attacks are never allowed. And I'll try to make that same point to JohnZ, for when he comes back. He is in a situation that is similar in some ways but different in other ways. I think that, due to my longevity, I have gotten a certain amount of respect among the young-uns, and I can use that respect to get them to behave better.
SamHB (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2017 (EDT)
As an aside, as far as Trump, I have never seen a president attacked as much as Trump and with such venom. On the other hand, I have never seen a president counterpunch as much too (and sometimes in a very personal way). It is nothing new though. Burr/Hamilton had many exchanges of words before their duel. And Lincoln was viciously attacked by his critics if memory serves. Conservative (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2017 (EDT)
Trump deserves every bit of what he gets. He knows next to nothing about American government, institutions, history, or traditions, seems to know very little about Christianity (though I realize I'm suppose to remove the plank from my own eye before making accusations like that), and seems to know very little about the Christian notions of generosity, forgiveness, humility, and contrition. SamHB (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2017 (EDT)

If you know of any good faith editors who have edited in the last 5 years and...

If you know of any good faith editors who have edited in the last 5 years and they are not on my list at User talk:Wikignome72, please let me know.

I relied on: the recent changes list, my memory, user talk page edits for some of the active or formerly active editors. Conservative (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2017 (EDT)

Actually, yes, I could contribute a lot of names of people to keep. As you may know, I do a lot of "homework" or "research" here at CP, and I have a pretty good idea of who's who. Perhaps second only to you. But I think it's an unnecessary exercise to delete the old pages. And I sure hope your current deletion binge (well, deletion suggestion binge) isn't a reaction to my complaining, above, that you should not have deleted abcqwe's page.
By the way, I have been trying to make an addition to Wikignome72's page, saying essentially the same thing, for over 3 hours, getting edit conflicts each time. I'll wait until you come up for air.
If you actually want me to come up with a list of people that should be protected, I could do that. I would probably do it by going through the edit histories of all the articles that I have worked on and think are good, and noting everyone who contributed (who isn't a jerk).
SamHB (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2017 (EDT)

Some people our friend ought to keep

First preliminary, your quizzes are cute.

Second preliminary, I really think he ought to be welcomed, even if he is just you. I don't know why you keep deleting my attempts to welcome him. I like to keep up the pretense that he's a real person.

Third preliminary, I had no idea there was so much garbage in the user base. But I hope you don't think you are saving disk space; you aren't. Nothing ever really goes away in a computer database. Except "vaping", which you aren't doing.

I see the purge is in full swing. I've gone over the list, and there are a few people I recognize as having been, one way or another, significant people in CP's history. I'd like you (him, her) to consider restoring them. Some people left in anger (and at least one had some serious criticism of you personally.) But they are nevertheless part of our history. People won't know how we got here if they can't see our history. I've argued in the recent past that we should keep the "Parthian shot" of someone who has been blocked, so that, if they try to come back, we will know why they were kicked out and why they should not be allowed back in. But it's more than that. We need to remember the conflicts that have gone on in the past. Well, some of them; many people were just losers and deserve to be forgotten. Heck, isn't there a page called something like "Examples of censorship by the 'tolerant'"? I haven't looked at it lately, but we may be damaging it. We need to keep at least some of those examples around, don't we?

So here are a few people I've found so far. Is it possible to bring them back? I think it is, unless they have been "vaped", which I don't think they have been.

  • DanH Wasn't he a sysop and well-respected person? Wasn't he the chess player? I may misremember the details [I sure do!], but he was an important part of our history. I seem to have confused him with ...
  • DeanS Wasn't he a sysop and well-respected person? Wasn't he the chess player? And the Mormon who was concerned about whether there would be intolerance of Mormon? (Answer: none at all.) Wasn't he the person whose wife died? Wasn't he the geologist whose user name was originally "crocoite" (an interesting mineral), and then changed it in order to comply with the username policy? I may misremember the details, but he was an important part of our history.
  • MatthewQ I see there's been some back-and-forth on this. He was a somewhat interesting science contributor.
  • StaceyT Yeah, she was unhappy. But we need to see what sorts of things made people unhappy.
  • Ymmotrojam He was a big player at one time.
  • Coolguy Yes, he was recent, and p*ss*d some people off and was shown the door. But we need to see that history.
  • And, of course, you won't delete Philip J Rayment, right?

There are others that haven't been deleted (yet).

Did you know that DeborahB created her account when Conservapedia was only 6 days old? She was a true "founding mother".

SamHB (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2017 (EDT)

I will restore DanH.
MathewQ mere had "useful links" on his user page so there is no need to restore that, but I kept his user talk page.
StacyT was contentious and probably a sock of a man if I recall. Definitely a loser. Not restoring.
Ymmotrojam deleted his own user page and talk page. I am respecting his wishes and keeping those pages deleted.
Coolguy was a person who was not willing to engage in dialogue. Like many on the left, he was ignorant of history and/or wanted to engage in revisionism. He just wanted to pontificate. There are plenty of reasons to believe that various founding fathers were not Christians. But when you look at the state constitutions and various other important historical considerations, it is very apparent that Coolguy was pushing a very ignorant/false narrative of American history. I not going to bother to restore his user page or talk page. Conservative (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2017 (EDT)

Re: restoration of DanH and PJR. Looking into other restoration

The user pages of User:DanH and User:Philip J. Rayment (PJR) were so boring, it gave me an excuse to delete them. But I really shouldn't have deleted them. And I just discovered that TK made those pages boring with his revisions to those pages.

So I restored those pages to their former glory. I did add a link to my atheism article from PJR's talk page by adding a bracket around his use of the word "atheists" on his user page. I am still in communication with PJR and his wife, and I know that PJR would not mind my small change.

I am looking into the DeanS restoration. I did not delete it. Conservative (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2017 (EDT)

User:DeanS user page history has been restored along with TK's replacing of the blanking by DeanS with a retired template. The retired template looks better. I don't think DeanS would have minded.
DeanS deleted his user talk page. I am going to keep it deleted.
I think DeanS left due to ill health, but it could have been due to disputes with evangelical Christians on the website (He was a Mormon) or some other reason. I have no idea. Conservative (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2017 (EDT)
As far as DeanS, I did a little detective work and restored his talk page to the version I think he would have wanted. Conservative (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2017 (EDT)
Thanks for attending to these details. As far as leaving the last version of something up, when it just says "retired", there's nothing wrong with that, as long as data squirrels like myself can look through the history and see what led to the retirement. That's what we should have—a historical record. (Excuse me, an historical record.) SamHB (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2017 (EDT)
I think PJR left due to a battle over gun owner rights/public safety controversies. But perhaps that was merely the final straw. Conservative (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2017 (EDT)

I restored the user page of User:JacobB as well. Conservative (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2017 (EDT)

I removed the striked out text from PJR's user page. It looked sloppy and I didn't see any real purpose in it. Next time I talk to PJR, I will see if he is fine with the edit. Conservative (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2017 (EDT)

Taking some of your advice

Greetings, Cons!

The long message you left for me yesterday was extremely interesting. I had to go back a long way (June 29, 2015) to find what you were referring to and refresh my memory of the issue. It's too bad that yesterday's message was lost in a wiki server malfunction.[2] The "advice" that you seem to have been referring to was that you should direct your persuasive energies into ways that are more likely to have an actual effect on people, such as human interaction, rather than writing Conservapedia articles. And you mentioned "opportunity cost", that is, the cost of one approach versus another in terms of actual payoff.

You ended with your usual argument against evolution, giving two web references. The first was to a page that had a religious web site in its name. As you know, I totally ignore any arguments about scientific topics appearing in religious web sites or religious publications. If one can't make an argument about a scientific topic (as opposed to, say, a topic of morality or ethics), without saying "because the Bible says so", I'm not interested.

The second web site was this. So I had to look. Though it was clear right from the start (though not from the URL itself) that it was a religious web site—it was from the PNN News and Ministry Network, and it also had front-page references to http://www.hickoryhammockbaptist.org and http://creation.com. It had five "questions for the evolution believer". I had to sit through a guy with a very irritating voice listing the questions. (Aren't there 15 questions elsewhere? This guy isn't even trying!)

The first was about abiogenesis. We all know that the question of abiogenesis, while interesting and having no known solution at present (or perhaps ever), lies outside of the issues of evolution/Biblical creation and young-Earth/old-Earth cosmology. So I had to sit through 55 seconds (opportunity cost!) of that nonsense.
The second one was about "language", making the point that the DNA code satisfies all the accepted criteria for being a language, yet is unique among languages in that it was not developed by humans. (Not true, by the way.) And so somehow this meant that evolution must not have happened. Huh?
It went downhill rapidly from there. The third was about sexual reproduction, and how "wasted energy" involved in this meant that evolution could not be correct. Or something. I stopped listening.

All things considered, sort of fun. But now, if you'll excuse me, I need to take your advice about taking my advice, and consider the opportunity cost of replying to you on my talk page. So long for now. SamHB (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2017 (EDT)

Essentially, I said that I am going to use my time better so I have a greater positive impact in life. Recently, I am more on track except for a comment on main page talk today.
In July of 2017, I will be working on a Conservapedia related project. But you will see no edits being performed by the User: Conservative account in relation to this project.
“Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate.” - Sun Tzu
Well, that's some advice I am not going to take. But if you think it works for you (I disagree) go right ahead. SamHB (talk) 10:58, 8 July 2017 (EDT)
此(译注:用间)兵之要,三军之所恃而动也 Conservative (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2017 (EDT)
I sent you a sour email recently about you publishing one of my emails recently. Looking back, I shouldn't have sent it.
No hard feelings. Enjoy your summer. Conservative (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2017 (EDT)

OK, I got the email. I want to apologize for any behavior that may have led you to believe I can't be trusted with private information. Let me assure you that I am a trustworthy person when I know what information is being kept confidential.

The email that you are referring to is presumably the message listed above somewhere (or maybe it's been archived by now), in which I divulged both the sender and the content. Of course I divulged the fact that you sent the message--you had already said publicly that you were going to send it. I assumed that the email name of the sender was not secret because it looked like a "throwaway" name of the sort that people often create. In fact, you have sent other emails to people with various names. I assumed that you don't consider them secret. If I harmed you by revealing the name, I apologize.

After you complained, I redacted everything in the email listed above except the content. I believed that the content was typical of the things you write all over the place at Conservapedia. It was largely references to your various articles, as is your writing style. If the particular content of that message was something you wanted protected, I apologize.

If you wish to vape the redacted message above on this page, go ahead; I won't complain or restore it. (As you know, I usually oppose vaping, especially on users' talk pages, and sometimes restore the vaped material.)

So I need to know just how much secrecy you desire:

  • Do you want me not to reveal even the fact of having received a message? Even if you said, here on this talk page, that you are going to send it or have sent it?
  • Do you want me not to reveal the user ID of the sender?
  • Do you want me not to reveal the content?
  • Do you want me not even to say that I have replied, or otherwise give any general information about what was discussed?

At the risk of violating the last point, I suspect that the project you referred to (which you also mentioned above on this page) is something I wouldn't be interested in. I know that, in the past, your projects have been things like an anti-evolution pamphlet. Now if you want to collaborate on an anti-creationist pamphlet (you know, things like "15 questions that creationists can't answer") by all means, sign me up.

SamHB (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2017 (EDT)

At Conservapedia, I am not going to discuss any of the off wiki activities of the editors who use the User: Conservative account. This is the simplest solution to potential problems caused by the intolerant left.
The simplest solution to the email issue is for me to no longer send you any emails. But perhaps I will change my mind on this matter. I can certainly pray about this matter. If we were to communicate privately it would probably be Skype communication due to constraints upon my time. I am going to strongly endeavor to be more efficient with my time and communicating via email can be more time intensive. But you have indicated that you are not interested in Skype communications so in all likelihood, I doubt there will be future private communications between us.
Again, no hard feelings. I will certainly endeavor to keep my communications with you at Conservapedia cordial. And again, enjoy your summer. Conservative (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2017 (EDT)
I just sent you an email. Conservative (talk) 07:43, 15 July 2017 (EDT)
I sent you an additional email. Conservative (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2017 (EDT)
I will keep my promise of confidentiality. So let me just say that there has been some traffic on the sam4557 email account of late. SamHB (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2017 (EDT)
I just sent you another email. Conservative (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2017 (EDT)
I sent you a small request via email. Conservative (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2017 (EDT)

re: polishing up my grammar and writing skills

I sent you a private email. Conservative (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2017 (EDT)

For Cons

I normally find "listicles" ("The 15 worst beaches", etc.) on the internet to be extremely stupid. But this one was actually entertaining. I especially liked item number 8. SamHB (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2017 (EDT)

I am cutting back on entertainment. I made a couple of promises to people that require stricter time management.
In terms of time management, I shouldn't have done any Conservapedia editing today. But I decided to get back on track.
"Top performers make mistakes, commit errors, and get off track just like everyone else. The difference is that they get back on track as quickly as possible." - How to Build a New Habit: This is Your Strategy Guide by James Clear[5]
There are so many internet cat videos, but so little time. :)Conservative (talk)

I did a little bit of additional editing to reflect some significant changes relative to some of the articles I have created in the past. But I really shouldn't have done that.

But I am getting back on track in terms of some important promises.

However, I will not be editing Conservapedia for 66 days (see this interesting study: How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world). You can hold me to this. On October 7, 2017, I will let you know how things went in terms of new habit creation and bad habit cessation.Conservative (talk) 10:34, 2 August 2017 (EDT)

I find it odd that all the many members of the User:Conservative account are all going to be busy for the next 66 days, is this an admission that there is only one of you? Listed in the differences between Wikipedia and Conservapedia is the respect for a users talk page. So what is this about?

[6] Not a lot of respect for the rules here, but then again the rules have never applied to you have they?--JoshO (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2017 (EDT)

Those 66 days just flew by. If you cannot model your habits on your own, perhaps you should try to get help from others? --AugustO (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2017 (EDT)
Are you forgetting that more than one editor uses the User:Conservative account and it's the specific editor who said he was taking time off that would be doing it? Northwest (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2017 (EDT)
AugustO, I am going to get back on track. I will not edit Conservapedia until Sunday, October 15, 2017. Conservative (talk) 07:00, 10 August 2017 (EDT)

AugustO, I am going to get back on track. I will not edit Conservapedia until Sunday, October 15, 2017

  • 13:37, 12 August 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+96)‎ . . 2018 Global Atheist Convention ‎
  • 13:37, 12 August 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+125)‎ . . 2018 Global Atheist Convention ‎
  • 13:19, 12 August 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+30)‎ . . Atheist fundraising vs. religious fundraising ‎ (→‎See also) (current)
  • 13:18, 12 August 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-12)‎ . . Fundraising ‎ (→‎Religious fundraising vs. atheist/irreligious fundraising) (current)
  • 13:17, 12 August 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+17)‎ . . Charity ‎ (→‎See also) (current)
  • 13:17, 12 August 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+30)‎ . . Fundraising ‎
  • 13:16, 12 August 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-1)‎ . . Fundraising ‎
  • 13:15, 12 August 2017 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Fundraising ‎ (Conservative moved page Fund-raising to Fundraising) --IMcCleod (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2017 (EDT)
IMcCleod, do you also assume that only one editor uses the User:Conservative account (even though it has been made clear that it is used by multiple editors)? Northwest (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2017 (EDT)
IMcCloud, Christendom is playing a significant role in bringing the quarrelsome and socially challenged atheist movement to its knees and now atheists are shrinking in their global influence.
American atheist fundraising is now anemic. The atheist activist Lee Moore recently admitted concerning major atheist organizations in the United States: "Most of them are starved for cash. They're downsizing left and right."[7]
While I am pleased to see that the largely despondent atheist movement is imploding while Christendom is going one glorious victory after another (see: Atheist pessimism about the atheist movement and Future of Christianity), I have decided to broaden my horizons (And SamHB has played a role in this matter).
As tempting as it is to add further information about the current state of affairs concerning the atheism vs. Christianity topic, I have decided that I must do better in keeping my commitment to be more focused in some of my current endeavors. Therefore, I am going to be completely resolute in this matter and not edit this wiki until October 18, 2017. Conservative (talk)

"AugustO, I am going to get back on track. I will not edit Conservapedia until Sunday, October 15, 2017"

  • 18:01, 15 August 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+280)‎ . . Millennials, irreligion and obesity ‎ (→‎See also) (current)
  • 17:54, 15 August 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-25)‎ . . Millennials, irreligion and obesity--Jaris (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2017 (EDT) ‎

More about Cons

In a section above Cons asked for complete secrecy if we are to engage in an email dialog. I gave him that assurance. I have abided by it, and will continue to do so. He then wrote that he had sent me an email.

Other than to say that there has been some traffic on the sam4557 account, I will have nothing to say about any email. Please do not ask about it; I will not reply. Everything I write below is based entirely on material that is publicly visible on this website.

Alert observers may have noticed that I dropped out of sight at about the same time that Cons (first) did. That is entirely a coincidence; there was no "pact" or "challenge". I dropped out because it became clear, from the Pussy Riot article, that "assistants" / "junior sysops" have been granted absolute power to control editorial content however they see fit, blocking other contributors if it suits them, and that a few of those assistants are actively wielding that power.

Now, about Cons's "pledge" to refrain from editing CP and pursue more productive activities (I have no idea where the 66 days figure comes from), it is clear that, although there has been some good behavior, there has been some backsliding. Various other people have, quite understandably, chided him over this. Cons has apologized and promised to do better, only to have succumbed to temptation again. Longstanding bad habits are difficult to break. I would recommend that people show some Christian forgiveness, forbearance, and understanding as he struggles with this. (This would certainly be easier if Cons had shown more understanding and forbearance toward others in the past.)

But there is something quite revealing about what has been going on. He could easily have blamed the backsliding on other members of his "consortium". Instead, he owned up to it. This shows, the way nothing else can, that the business of Cons's account being operated by multiple people was utter nonsense. Most sensible people, including myself, saw through this all along. But a few people, as seen above on this page, including sysops who presumably had access to whatever non-public information there might have been, seem to have been totally taken in by this nonsense. Cons was man enough to admit to his failings, and other people should be man enough to accept that this "multiple person" fantasy was just that.

SamHB (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2017 (EDT)

I know you're referring specifically to me regarding the Pussy Riot article, SamHB. You were told on that and other articles (more than once) not to impose a liberal POV on them, but you didn't take heed of that advice and you went ahead anyway in violation of Conservapedia policy, following past behavioral patterns that led to you being blocked numerous times before by other editors. When you also say "various other people" regarding User:Conservative, what you really mean is the same poster using multiple accounts (most of which have since been blocked for sockpuppeteering) to hurl that accusation about the account just being used by one editor as opposed to more than one. Until Conservative says otherwise, I'm going to take his word for it. Northwest (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2017 (EDT)

Re: SamHB's recent post to his talk page

A few things:

1. The 66 days is based on a journal article in the European Journal of Social Psychology entitled How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world.[8]

2. Sysops/admins have been told that more one person has used the User:Conservative account and I have indicated this multiple times. Sysops/admins have access to the check user function of this wiki which has enabled them to see that the User: Conservative account has been edited from multiple geographic regions (sometimes the account has been edited from more than one geographic region in the same day due to the fact that the account has been used by more than one editor).

It has also been observed that the footnoting style of various User: Conservative edits has been radically different.

In addition, skepticism has been expressed that one of the users of the User: Conservative account would create an article entitled Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals.

3. SamHB is correct that longstanding bad habits can be difficult to break. While it is true that I had about a week long stretch without editing Conservapedia in early August of 2017, I ended my break from editing this wiki before the 66 days was up.

Since this habit is more entrenched than anticipated, more drastic measures are clearly needed! So this habit will be broken using multiple methods - including a tried and true Marine Corps and Navy Seal method (Push ups if the old habit reemerges!).

My next edit to this wiki will be on Tuesday, October 25, 2017.Conservative (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2017 (EDT)

There might be things I want to say here, but they will have to wait until the 66 days are up.
@Cons: You know what you need to do. Or, more precisely, what not to do. If you absolutely have to have some critical change made, feel free to send me an email.
@everyone else: Please stay away.
SamHB (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2017 (EDT)

Please check your email

SamHB, please check your email. Conservative (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2017 (EDT)

I have not looked at my sam4557 email since late August, and do not plan to look at it for 66 days. SamHB (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2017 (EDT)

Quick note

For the next 66 days, I may not strictly adhere to the 66 days editing total fast on Conservapedia editing, but I will at least be on a very restricted diet. :)

I may do a limited amount of main page posts. Conservative (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2017 (EDT)

I know I have to be very strict about this former pledge. The Apostle Paul says some relevant things about this matter. I am going to write to you about this matter.Conservative (talk)

More than one User: Conservative at Conservapedia

Note the footnoting and writing styles in these recent articles written using the User: Conservative account:

The footnoting styles are clearly different between the first/second works and the third work (which is an essay). Why are the footnoting styles different? Because multiple editors have used the User: Conservative account.

Clearly, the ad hominem attacks against "User: Conservative" and the armchair psychological analysis of "User: Conservative" should be reexamined.

There are scholars that speculate there are multiple writers behind the work commonly associated with Sun Tzu.

"Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate." - Sun Tzu.Conservative (talk)

A major search engine whose name begins with the letter G, recognizes that certain "atheist gentlemen" have been rattled and overwhelmed by the sheer weight of the "Atheism and ...." heavy artillery barage by the User: Conservative collective

Google recognizes COCD.png

For more information, please see:

Talking about obsessions:

My next edit to this wiki will be on Tuesday, October 25, 2017.Conservative (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2017 (EDT)

And no, I had no trouble waiting until Wednesday, October 25, 2017, to post this comment ;-) --AugustO (talk) 04:51, 25 October 2017 (EDT)

Which is nowhere near the level of liberal obsession with wanting to silence free speech for everyone but themselves (hence the regular attacks on this site by immature liberal vandals, and even attacks from within by the few regular liberal posters who think they know what's best for this site better than the admins do). Northwest (talk) 00:26, 26 October 2017 (EDT)

User: Conservative account

I had another member of the User: Conservative editor base change the password to the User: Conservative account.

In about a couple months or so, he will give me the new password.

Taking a break from editing for awhile. See you when you get back.

By the way, the 2018 Global Atheist Convention was cancelled due to lack of interest. Of course, this is yet another sign that Christendom has gloriously triumphed over the atheist movement! :)Wikignome72 (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2017 (EST)

Not impressed

Besides you seeking to provoke yet another fight on this site, you've also demonstrated two things by copying the user template I created for my user page (the one indicating that the user does not support the liberal media) and changing it into something else (accusing Breitbart News, a conservative news site, of being "fake news" even though it is not):

  1. You proved through your actions that liberals (like yourself) lack originality and prefer to copy and imitate others (per the Liberal Style article, in number seven of the Debate and rhetorical tactics section)
  2. You resorted to the notorious tactic made infamous by Marx, Lenin and Goebbels in accusing conservative media of what the liberal media (particularly CNN, MSNBC, the nightly network newscasts, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Huffington Post, Vice Media, etc.) is guilty of itself (propagating lies, bias and fake news)

Congrats, you just proved the point Conservapedia (and other sources) made about liberals and their tactics once again through your actions in trying to force a liberal POV here. Northwest (talk) 09:37, 21 November 2017 (EST)

Well, I am impressed. You say that "liberals [...] lack originality and prefer to copy and imitate others [...]", and yet I have this: [9] on my user page, from 03:52, 12 December 2017, and you made an interesting edit to your user page [10] at 16:58 the same day. SamHB (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2018 (EDT)
Which was in response to the false claims you made about President Trump, FYI. Are you really itching to start yet another fight here? Northwest (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2018 (EDT)

This page is not to be used for abusing, insulting, berating, or bullying cancer patients, or otherwise engaging in the kind of social, moral, or ethical depravity that people outgrow by age 10.

I didn't berate any cancer patients. I merely pointed out the unhealthy and anti-social habits of atheists which give the atheist population a higher cancer rate.

You most certainly did. A careful reading of your activities here at CP relating to cancer, as well as what's been going on over at RW, shows very clearly that you were engaging in abusive and, frankly, un-Christian behavior toward RW user "Mercian". It is completely obvious from a careful reading of this what has been going on. SamHB (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2017 (EST)

In 2017, I helped my friend by researching the best solutions to treat his loved one's cancer. He asked me to do it because he felt I had strong research skills. In 2018, I am helping an anti-cancer initiative. Conservative (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2017 (EST)

Congratulations. BTW, I'm also engaged in helping an anti-cancer initiative.
Also, your suggestion that left-handed people are somehow "mutant" strikes me as a bit more provocative than someone who is trying to win hearts and minds ought to be. You might want to tone down the negativity in the things you write. SamHB (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2017 (EST)
"A systematic literature review combined with primary research on handedness demonstrates that atheism and/or paranormal belief is associated with all of these indicators of high mutational load."[11]
Judging by THE VIDEO I saw where he explains his theory, the British anthropologist who published the article appears to be a person of high intelligence, but likely not as creative in his thinking as he ought to be (Maybe left-handedness creates otherness and people less prone to conformity), Nevertheless, he does appear to be smart enough to recognize what high mutational load is.Conservative (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2017 (EST)

Atheism and cancer

Some atheist (or at the very least someone who appeared to be an atheist) claimed an Atheism and cancer article was created in the past at this wiki. Yet, when I did a search using the search box, I found no record of such an article being created at this wiki.

That's funny. The article you cite was created, by you, at 14:39 on 22 December, before you wrote the above. It's still there now, having been edited almost continuously by you. SamHB (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2017 (EST)

Given what I know about Atheism and health and Global atheism and aging populations, I suspected there was a positive correlation between atheism and cancer. And lo and behold, there is!

By the way, you might find this to be interesting:

According to the American Cancer Society:

"According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 69% of cancer patients say they pray for their health. A recent study published in Cancer, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Cancer Society, suggests a link between religious or spiritual beliefs and better physical health reported among patients with cancer."[12]

The Christian apologist Gary Habermas wrote: "Double-blind prayer experiments: where people pray for others with terminal illness. Habermas admitted that most such experiments have not worked, but the three that he knows of that have indeed worked were cases of orthodox-Christians praying for the sick."[13]

See: Religion/irreligion and cancer treatment Conservative (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2017 (EST)

I've got the power!

An atheist/agnostic wrote about me: "These people get off on controlling you, on subjecting you to their power... I'm sorry that... mound of misery got to you."

SamHB, I thought Christians believed in free will, that people are free moral agents and that God can help people overcome various temptations? See also: Atheism and free will

Actually, we do believe that! Conservapedia addiction is a tough addiction to break, but people have broken even tougher ones. SamHB (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2017 (EST)

"When in reality no one can ever make you feel ANYTHING! That’s right; you heard me. No one can make you cry. No one can make you happy. No one can make you sad. No one can make you feel better. No one can make you feel guilty…but you." - Heather Wilson

Evidently, Heather Wilson has more machismo than the gentlemen of a certain atheist wiki!

I've got the power!

The truth often hurts. And certain gentlemen can't handle the truth!

Evidently, I am the puppet master and certain atheist gentlemen are my puppets!

Atheists obsessed with Conservapedia are like a dog with a bone. Their dogged persistence in thinking about Conservapedia, discussing Conservapedia and making forecasts about Conservapedia is quite prodigious and intense.

I've got the power.

I've got the power.

Like the crack of the whip, I Snap attack...

Bang the bass, turn up the treble.

Radical mind, day and night all the time.

7:14, wise divine. Conservative (talk)

I read this comment directed to me by a member of SJW atheist wiki: "What have you done but spiel hate...".
A best selling book declares that SJWs always project. It's so true.
Well cited and factual encyclopedia articles spieling hate. it such an absurd proposition. The British atheist EJamesW on Conservapedia's atheism related articles: "...they're very detailed, thorough and have lots of quotes and citations." (see: Essay: A British atheist on Conservapedia's atheism articles). Conservative (talk) 03:54, 23 December 2017 (EST)

Re: Online boxing match

Merician and I have been engaging in a bit of an online boxing match lately, but we have been playing by Marquess of Queensberry Rules.

See also: Talk:Essay: British atheist acknowledges the reasonableness of a User: Conservative editor. Conservative (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2017 (EST)

Addemdun: See my comments above regarding high mutational loads/left-handedness/socialization, otherness and less likely to engage in conformity (I expanded the Atheists and genetic mutations article to provide more in-depth analysis/commentary.Conservative (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2017 (EST)

Your edits

When you edited the Billy Graham article, you reverted my previous edit in addition to making the grammar fix. I didn't notice your fix, and with good reason, considering that your improvement was very small compared to what you reverted. Sorry for the confusion. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:21, 21 February 2018 (EST)

This refers to some stuff in archive #3

Actually, we did mark your words, in 2017, 2016, 2015, .... Your words were found wanting.

Incidentally, the deceptiveness of Cons's "as I watch it burn" quote was discussed at [14] on my user page.

Cons would do well to write original material, that the majority of Conservapedians won't feel ashamed of, on topics that the majority of Conservapedians would find worthwhile for this web site.

SamHB (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2018 (EST)

Didn't Conservative suggest the man in the picture was a cowardly unionized firefighter. Most of the firefighters on 9/11 were unionized and they rushed into those buildings knowing fine well that the odds of them coming out alive were slim. Horribly disrespectful.--RSturmer (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2018 (EST)
The global market share of atheist has generally been declining since 1970 (see: Global atheism statistics). So atheism has burned from 2015-2017. Please don't post counter factual rubbish/contentions on your talk page. Conservative (talk)

You're Cool

Just Sayin'. DaveSG (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2018 (EST)

Thanks. And I have 19 blocks to show for it. I think the powers that be have come to an understanding that I do not harm or materially dilute what Conservapedia is saying, and that what I say is generally rather thoughtful, so they don't generally harm me these days. Many other, far less thoughtful, users can be found in the permanent block log. SamHB (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2018 (EST)
Getting blocked 19 times for your misbehavior on this site is nothing to be proud of, and denying that you have tried to harm this site by repeatedly forcing a liberal viewpoint on it (including under the transparent guise of "essays") and provoking fights with other posters does not make what you've done here over time untrue or any less bad. That you would be praised for your behavior by a troll who has since been blocked says plenty. Northwest (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2018 (EST)
And incidentally, your recent snide edit summary comment in the Pussy Riot article, combined with your decision to ignore Conservapedia guidelines yet again by edit warring, insistently imposing liberal POV on that and other articles and by provoking yet another fight, just earned you a two-day break. Northwest (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2018 (EST)
Hi Northwest, you did not give a reason why the essay of SamHB is written from a "liberal point of view". Instead of arguing with him you simply started an edit war. I could not find any liberal tendencies in this essay and therefore there is no comprehensible reason for his block.--JoeyJ (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2018 (EST)
Again, Assistant SysOps are not allowed by the rules to block longstanding membersto resolve disputes--I agree with JoeyJ's response. That said, edit warring is also unproductive, and making essay versions of CP articles has already been discussed and generally disapproved of. (Yes, I know, I just used a trailing preposition....)
I do see the differences between these two (listed here: https://www.diffchecker.com/49fnIo4C), but in the long run, do they make that much of a difference? Can't we let the reader decide what view to take? I don't trust Putin either, but the fact these people are using obscene activities to convey their message still stands. Perhaps focusing on them and their activities rather than Putin's is the best idea? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DavidB4 (talk)

Northwest and Pussy Riot

User Northwest seems to have a spectacular disdain for me. This can be seen in many things he has written in a number of places, most notably here on this talk page, and on the Pussy Riot article and talk page. A particularly noteworthy case of this can be seen in the "not impressed" section above, where he takes me to task for copying material from another template (something that people do all the time) to accuse me of lacking originality, claiming that all liberals do the same, and comparing me to Marx, Lenin and Goebbels.

He also says, in the "You're Cool" section above, that my having been blocked 19 (now 20) times shows misbehavior. A few things:

  • I have been here much longer than Northwest, and most of those blocks were before his time. He knows nothing about the circumstances.
  • Other than a few that naturally expired, all of those blocks were later rescinded, either by the blocking party directly, or by being countermanded by an admin.
  • One of those blocks was by someone who was later unmasked as a parodist.
  • One of those blocks was for a completely bogus accusation of being a sock of AlanS, whom I never knew. (That incident has led me to have no confidence in the process of identifying sock accounts.)

As far as I know, I am respected at least to some extent by virtually everyone that I have had contact with here at Conservapedia. Even someone who had earlier gotten the wrong impressions and blocked me. I have had my work praised by a number of admins, including the site owner. So I do not know why Northwest takes such a strong attitude against me. I have mostly ignored him, but the Pussy Riot issue did not admit a solution other than making an "essay" alternative article.

I agree with DavidB4 that having an alternative "essay" article is not a good idea. I only did that because Northwest's insistence that only "leftists" and "Social Justice Warriors" (SJW's) oppose murderous thug Putin. I simply could not stand for that implication.

In further response to DavidB4, yes, these people use obscene activities (I've seen the youtube videos; some of them are appalling). But the article is almost entirely focused on them and their activities. There is only a small portion about the international protest of Putin regarding their imprisonment and pardon. That is a small, but nevertheless important, part of the article. The protests in support of Pussy Riot were an international phenomenon, and was not limited to leftists and SJW's.

I would have no problem with getting rid of the essay (it was admittedly picayune, and the change was extremely minor) if it were permitted to mention the international protests. We would either have to have the article locked by an admin (this has been done on several other articles that were subject to edit warring) or we would need a clear statement from Northwest that the article reflect a consensus of the Conservapedia community.

SamHB (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2018 (EST)

Ignoring the truth about those protests - that they were staged by leftists (regardless of nationality) with an anti-Christian animus like the band itself has - does you no favors. As for the past blocks against you, regardless of what you think about those blocks, they were justified because you saw fit to violate Conservapedia's guidelines more than once, including imposing a liberal viewpoint on that article and on the Nazi Party article (and your attitude toward the blocks also reflects your attitude toward the rules of the site itself), and ignoring that fact does nothing for you either.
And about your claim of "being respected at least to some extent by virtually everyone that I have had contact with here at Conservapedia", your attitude toward User:Conservative and other editors here who don't necessarily agree with your viewpoint here and who counter or refute your claims with counterpoints supported by non-liberal-sourced, reference-backed evidence (which you've shown to get offended by in at least Conservative's case, and has led you to provoke fights against myself and other posters in other cases and to make false claims of conservative media like Breitbart being "fake news" in response to the fact that the liberal media itself purveys fake news) appears to show that that respect is not a two-way street when it isn't convenient for you (as part of that, I've even noticed that in this edit in Conservapedia proven right, most of your sources in that edit come from liberal media websites, specifically NBC, CBS and the BBC - all of which have been discredited due to being exposed as fake news creators, and all of which you put back in the article in response to Andy Schlafly removing them because he noted that the sources were from multiple liberal sites all reporting the same thing and that your claim of "gravitational waves being convincingly detected" was itself implausible and claimed by liberals, whose claims you used via those sources). Those are some of the things you really should keep in mind. Northwest (talk) 04:29, 28 February 2018 (EST)
  • My relationship with Cons is far more complex and nuanced, both publicly and privately, than you seem to be aware. If we didn't actually have a cordial relationship beneath those gruff exteriors, he wouldn't post pictures of concertina wire on my talk page. You would do well not to assume that you understand the situation correctly.
  • On the anti-relativity bandwagon? Really? Please do your homework, as outlined in the "People who write about relativity but don't know what they are talking about" section of my user page.
  • The Nazi Party article? You really follow me around, don't you? That stuff was from a year and a half ago. Do you keep similarly detailed dossiers on other people? Or is there something about me that fascinates you?
  • I am actually well aware of the rules of the site, having read them many many times. You don't seem to be.
SamHB (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2018 (EST)
Your comments still don't excuse your behavior on this site, or the fact that you not only continue to manipulatively deny any wrongdoing you've done here (including your use of liberal sources for your science article edits and claiming them as "fact" despite Andy stating otherwise) and shift the blame to everyone else (a hallmark liberal tactic), you even claim to be "well aware of the rules of the site" yet continue to violate them when you see fit. I'm actually more aware of the rules here than you realize (or care to admit), so don't go making assumptions (including about the reversions of edits in which you imposed a liberal POV). Northwest (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2018 (EST)

John McCain

Rob Smith: I have reverted your additional negative comments about John McCain.

"I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," -- Gen. Wesley Clark, June 30, 2008 as a surrogate for the Obama campaign.
"They want us to forget the insults we've had to endure. Intolerance. They've made us feel marginalized in this country we love so much. John McCain and his Republican friends have two faces," -- 2008 Obama campaign ad.

It's well known that people say negative things about their opponents during election campaigns. And I'm not aware that Mr. McCain ran on a platform of having been a POW in North Vietnam, though I'm sure it got mentioned. My recollection is that he ran mostly on his legislative record. The two comments that I put on my user page were simply pure evil.

Feel free to take the material and put it into some kind of "McCaingate timeline" article, or whatever you want. SamHB (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2018 (EDT)

My apologies. I thought I'd help you appear to be a fair minded individual rather than standing by Democrat race baiting and hypocrisy. Again, my apologies. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 04:16, 27 May 2018 (EDT)
Well, I thank you for your offer of help in keeping my talk page free of race baiting and hypocrisy. But I think the amount of race baiting that I do (zero) is just right. I'll be really careful not to engage in race baiting in the future. SamHB (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2018 (EDT)

Rob's finding that I engaged in race-baiting in the John McCain tribute on my user page piqued my curiosity. I wondered "What is RobSmith's writing actually like?" I hadn't read any of it in many months, since he has lately been engaging in manic editing sprees that would put User:Conservative to shame. And the edit comments and article titles indicate that the edits must be rubbish on a par with Cons's writing. Worse than, for example Atheists_and_physical_attractiveness? Hard to say. I'd have to read that stuff.

So I picked one of Rob's edits at random: this one. He essentially added "... as millions of misogynist white women went to the polls on election day ..." to the Trump transition article. Huh?? In an encyclopedia? One that prides itself on being trustworthy?

That edit was one of 211 edits, over a 30 hour period with just 3 breaks, of less than 5, 4, and 2 hours. That's the sort of thing that Rob considers worth spending his time on? By contrast, Cons made only 10 edits in that same time frame. Cons still has a long way to go, be he's making progress.

SamHB (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2018 (EDT)

USA Today: John McCain ran on repealing Obamacare. He broke his promise.
John McCain is a petty, vindictive and unreliable man. He is a war hero though. McCain let his anger at Trump get the best of him (Trump's comment on his military service). I suppose this isn't the first or last time that a person of Irish descent let their anger get the best of them. Conservative (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2018 (EDT)
Cons, my friend, a couple of points. (You know me well enough to know when I'm reaming you out and when I'm just disagreeing, right? This is the latter.)
  • It's true that McCain's recent vote on healthcare was the opposite of what you, and many others, had hoped for. But people change their position between their campaigns and their final votes all the time. If everyone was required to vote exactly the way they campaigned, they wouldn't bother to hold votes in Congress. On the first day of the session, they would just enact into law whatever people had indicated they would do while they were running for office, no? Then they could all go home. In reality, they hold committee hearings, they hold conferences, they try to reach consensus, they try to persuade their colleagues ("log-rolling", I believe it's called), they rewrite the proposed legislation again and again and again, trying to get it into a form that will pass the voting. What people vote on is often not what the issues were perceived to be when they were campaigning. You really shouldn't call McCain unreliable for this. (By the way, I'm kind of neutral on this issue, and I haven't compared McCain's vote with what the issue was when he was campaigning.) I'm sorry that his vote disappointed you, but these things happen. That's why we have a Congress.
  • Petty and vindictive? Are you suggesting that he voted that way because of personal animosity at President Trump? That his "anger ... got the best of him?" Really? His anger over the "I want people who weren't shot down" comment from a year before is what led to his vote? Can you back up that connection with some statements of his?
  • I know you are not a bigot, but the reference to people of Irish descent was unnecessary. People occasionally let their anger get the best of them all the time. And I doubt that it's related to being Irish. (Though, truth to tell, this isn't the first time I've heard a statement like that.) I don't associate irascibility with being Irish. BTW, I'm not Irish, and I'm pretty sure you aren't either. Just say that he let his anger get the best of him. Though I don't think it did.
SamHB (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2018 (EDT)

"The so-called Irish temperament is a mixture of flaming ego, hot temper, stubbornness, great personal charm and warmth, and a wit that shines through adversity. An irrepressible buoyancy, a vivacious spirit, a kindliness and tolerance for the common frailties of man and a feeling that 'it is time enough to bid the devil good morning when you meet him' are character traits which Americans have associated with their Irish neighbors for more than a century." - Dr. Carl Wittke, Chair, History Department, Western Reserve University, 1952-1962.[15][16] Conservative (talk) 01:15, 2 June 2018 (EDT)

OK, you win. I've also been told that the Irish are known for their humor. In any case, well played, sir! SamHB (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2018 (EDT)
My sincerest dream for America is that we can once again have a sane and realistic enough public discourse to admit that we can, at least partially, attribute somebody's temper to their Irish heritage. And that, yes, Valerie Jarrett really does look like that one monkey lady from Planet of the Apes. VargasMilan (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2018 (EDT)
You never cease to amaze me. Not well played. SamHB (talk) 10:08, 2 June 2018 (EDT)

USA Today (reprinted from The Arizona Republic, opinion piece):

"This is one instance in which President Trump’s criticisms of McCain are well-founded. McCain did run, as Trump is drumming, on a strong repeal-and-replace platform. In fact, it was the principal distinction he drew with his Democratic opponent, Ann Kirkpatrick.

McCain now says that Democrats made a mistake in passing Obamacare on a partisan basis, and that Republicans shouldn’t undo it on a similarly partisan basis. But that’s the equivalent of a Brezhnev doctrine on domestic policy. Democrats can enact legislation on a partisan basis. But Republicans can undo it only if Democrats agree.

McCain is undoubtedly correct that bipartisan policy changes are more enduring. But when one side acts unilaterally, it shouldn’t get a veto when the other side attempts to undo it."[17]


"An article on McCain in Prospect Magazine from August 2008 saw writer Anatol Lieven attribute many of Sen. McCain's traits to his heritage. Lieven wrote, "his obstinacy; his tendency towards unshakeable friendship and implacable hatred; his hair-trigger temper; his deep patriotism; his obsession with American honor; and his furious response to any criticism of the US.""[18]

"In the end, Irish American McCain took revenge for Trump's deadly attack on him last year calling him no hero because he was captured in Vietnam."[19]

The New York Times:

The New York Times admits: "It probably didn’t hurt that it was also a measure of cold revenge against Mr. Trump, a man who on the campaign trail in 2015 had mocked Mr. McCain’s ordeal as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. "[20] Conservative (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2018 (EDT)

Trump's blunder was that he did not know his enemy. In a divided country where U.S. Senate votes can be close, creating a bitter enemy in the U.S. Senate was definitely not smart. Trump should have merely said that military service should be respected, but being a war hero does not give someone a free pass to do whatever they want or make them immune from legitimate criticism. In the 2016 election, Trump may have gotten more votes from veterans had he done that. In addition, perhaps McCain would not have voted against ObamaCare.
The Independent: "When he arrived for the vote McCain, who could easily have pleaded ill-health and simply stayed out of the whole thing, told assembled reporters to “wait for the show”.(bolding added for emphasis)".[21]
McCain's vote was a showy vote of revenge. Had he not campaigned so strongly against ObamaCare previously, a more convincing counterargument could be made. Conservative (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2018 (EDT)
Well played again!! You do your homework on current events and contemporary U.S. politics as diligently as I do my homework on math and physics. I'd much rather read your writings on current events than on why potholes show that evolution didn't happen. SamHB (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2018 (EDT)
You make too many mistakes for that to be true. VargasMilan (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2018 (EDT)
Ireland, Scotland and the USA gave a significantly higher GDP than Britain.[22] It helps to have a fighting spirit that drives the British from your land! Don't get the Scotch-Irish or the Americans mad!Conservative (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2018 (EDT)


Your user page says you will be inactive for 66 days, until late August. Did something change, or did you forget about it? --1990'sguy (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2018 (EDT)

re: Having an article related to attractiveness and a segment of the human population

"Of course, we do not deny evolutionism itself."[1] - Kim Jong-il, an overweight, unattractive leftist, evolutionist and atheist who died of a heart attack. See also: Evolutionists who have had problems with being overweight and/or obese and Atheism and obesity

Truly knowledgeable individuals in terms of knowledge about biology and science properly regulate a basic function such as eating and also get an adequate amount of exercise!!!

Carrie Nation, a radical member of the temperance movement, used to go into taverns and wreak havoc with a hatchet. Since you appear to see no value as far as attractiveness when it comes to people's appearances, have you ever thought of going around beauty parlors and wreaking havoc with a hatchet? You could also lead protests outside of beauty parlors. You could lead a movement to ban beauty contests.

For thousands of years, cultures have valued beauty. Even the Bible comments on Sarah's beauty. Solomon's Song of Songs mentions beauty.

And yet, a petulant liberal complains about an article on Atheists and physical attractiveness. Conservative (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2018 (EDT)

By the way, given that the social science data indicates that right-wing individuals are better looking than left of center individuals, is the reason you take umbrage at the article due to jealousy?
Deny that Donald Trump is taller and better looking than the godless, leftist and evolutionist Kim Jong-un and lose all credibility!
"Of course, we do not deny evolutionism itself."[23] - Kim Jong-il, an overweight, unattractive leftist/evolutionist/atheist who died of a heart attack. See also: Evolutionists who have had problems with being overweight and/or obese and Atheism and obesity
Truly knowledgeable individuals, in terms of knowledge about biology and science, properly regulate a basic function such as eating and also get an adequate amount of exercise!!!Conservative (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2018 (EDT)

Meet PZ Myers, the overweight and unattractive atheist/evolutionist/leftist

The biologist and evolutionist PZ Myers in 2006. Myers is also a staunch atheist. See also: Atheism and obesity

For further information, please see: PZ Myers embarrasses himself at the Creation Museum and Professor PZ Myers fails his applied biology course

User: Conservative proven right again!

At the 2018 American Atheists convention, the ex-president of the American Atheist organization David Silverman declared:

It is a hard time to be an atheist activist. This has affected us. And it has affected our community...

...it has really affected us. We are suffering a level of defeatism that I have never seen before...

We feel the loss. And we feel like we have lost. We feel like we lost the election... We see this cascade of attack coming down at us over and over from all different directions and we feel like it's over. I have heard so many times it makes me sick. It makes me sad. It feels like we lost.

The apathy that follows. It doesn't matter. We can't win anyways. It's useless to fight. This apathy is infecting us. It's hurting us.

And people are reacting to each other now. And so that is causing a division. Lots and lots of division in our movement. Hard, bad division... And that has resulted in a splintering and factioning of the movement that I have never seen before and none of us have.

In other words, we're in a bad situation and it's getting worse. (bolding added for emphasis).[3]

Didn't I tell you that each successive year was going to be the WORST year for atheism? It's coming to pass! Conservative (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2018 (EDT)

Re: Religious people and Donald Trump

So, this article from a liberal-leaning anti-Trump website (as it makes clear in its About Us page) is your source in your latest anti-Trump attack on your user page (which claims in effect, "religiously observant Christians were least likely to be seduced by Donald Trump’s “post-truth” style politics in the GOP primary")? You do realize that liberal-biased websites like the one you linked, like the rest of the liberal media, are more likely to lie and make baseless and unsourced claims about the targets of their attacks, right? Northwest (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2018 (EDT)

Oh, my! I do seem to attract the attention of junior "assistant sysops". Ordinary contributors have better things to do than attack me, and actual admins do too. In fact, there are a few traits that I've noticed in assistants such as yourself and Vargas "embraces the pseudoscience that leavens science too tightly to be trusted"[4] Milan. An example was Vargas bringing me in to a discussion of FredJ with a comment that actually had nothing to do with me, simply because I had welcomed FredJ and advised him not to use "fact" tags. And, of course, there is your comment above.
A striking trait that assistants seem to display is the tendency to think that they, and apparently only they, can police the "ideological purity" of the web site. In fact, the admins can control the ideological content of CP; they don't need your help in this regard. Your efforts are plainly on display in the fight over the Pussy Riot article, in which you seem to accuse me of turning the place into "liberalpedia". Apparently because you believe that anyone who opposes a murderous dictator who imprisons, murders, and poisons dissenters, must be a "leftist", "elitist" or "social justice warrior". I can assure everyone that I have no intention of trying to turn this web site into "liberalpedia".
Now, to address the most recent claim (just above) that I am citing a "liberal-leaning anti-Trump website", I don't go searching for liberal web sites in order to post references to them here at Conservapedia. The web site that I was citing was taken from footnote number 4 of this. That was put in by Cons. So you'll have to ask him why he was putting in "left-wing" web sites. I figured that, if it's good enough for Cons, it's good enough for Conservapedia, and if he doesn't actually read the articles that he cites, that's his problem.
SamHB (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2018 (EDT)
Sounds more to me like you're trying to make this more about yourself (indicated by your pretended "offence" at the truth being pointed out to you in your reply) to distract from your history of trying to ideologically reshape Conservapedia to suit your tastes and those of your fellow liberals (as well as the liberal trolls who come here for the sole purpose of vandalizing the site, along with your denial of doing so), particularly regarding the Pussy Riot article (a fight which you started, by the way). All you're doing here is further proving the points being made in the Liberal Style article regarding what your type does and how they react (acting "offended", not taking responsibility, etc.) and what they resort to (denials, deflection, condescension, attacking those who catch them, etc. - all of which you've pulled on other editors and admins here before, in case you need reminding again) when caught at their actions. Northwest (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2018 (EDT)
Well, people do sometimes get accused of talking or writing about themselves, and seeming to make everything about "me, me, me", and using a lot of first-person pronouns in their writing. I've been accused of that myself on occasion, but it doesn't seem to apply in the case of the paragraphs above. You, on the other hand, seem to write about "liberals, liberals, liberals", and accusing anyone who says something you don't agree with of being one. This is most obvious in your claim that anyone who opposes murderous thug Vladimir Putin must be a "leftist", "elitist" or "social justice warrior". And must be trying to change this site into "liberalpedia". Anyone who has been around here for any length of time knows that, in my 10-1/2 years here, I don't do that. Feel free to ask any admin, like Andy or Cons, for example. Or, for that matter, any trustworthy and decent person that's been around for any length of time. They can also tell you that I have repaired a lot of vandalism and other damage, though probably not as much as I could have repaired if I'd been given sysop powers.
Now let's go through your paragraph above.
Sounds more to me like you're trying to make this more about yourself (indicated by your pretended "offence" at the truth being pointed out to you in your reply)
I'm not offended, just annoyed.
to distract from your history of trying to ideologically reshape Conservapedia to suit your tastes
Really? Give an example. Opposing Putin is not my taste; it is the taste of any decent person.
and those of your fellow liberals
(as well as the liberal trolls who come here for the sole purpose of vandalizing the site,
We are all aware that this site is the frequent target of vandalism. I've done my share of repairing this.
along with your denial of doing so),
I don't deny that there are vandals.
particularly regarding the Pussy Riot article (a fight which you started, by the way).
Well, actually, you were the one who started it, with your edit of 08:14, 13 February 2017.
All you're doing here is further proving the points being made in the Liberal Style article
No, that article has nothing to do with me. It's incredibly badly written, by the way.
regarding what your type does
My type? What type is that?
and how they react (acting "offended", not taking responsibility, etc.)
I fail to take responsibility? Given an example.
and what they resort to (denials,
those who catch them, etc.
You've "caught" me? You realize that everything on this site is public, right?
all of which you've pulled on other editors and admins here before,
Really? Give an example.
in case you need reminding again) when caught at their actions.
Really? Give an example.
SamHB (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2018 (EDT)
The rambling wall of text you posted (where you do exactly as I said you'd do on all counts, including deny your repeated past wrongdoing and refuse to take responsibility for it, and even try to push a liberal POV here while you simultaneously deny doing so - all liberal traits) is proof enough - and no, I was not the one who started that fight, you did by removing factual info from the article on March 2, 2017 (just as you're trying to provoke another fight even now). By even objecting to the Liberal Style article (by claiming it is "badly written" when it is nothing of the kind), all you're doing is further proving the points made by that article.
And incidentally, the reason you don't get given sysop powers here is because if that happened, you'd most certainly abuse them by misusing them to force a liberal POV on articles and blocking those you don't agree with here (which would mean just about every conservative-leaning editor here), which would result in even more fights here than you already cause and would only be disruptive to the site - and that's not needed here. Northwest (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2018 (EDT)
Your presumption to know the reason I don't have assistant ("sysop") authority is incorrect. I do not want block powers, and I have said so many times over the last 10-1/2 years. SamHB (talk) 00:57, 25 December 2018 (EST)

Resurrection - The new and improved version of the phantom essay

I hope you find that the added content further clarifies matters.Conservative (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2018 (EST)

Well, I'm glad you have apparently decided that this "essay" should become a permanent part of your work. I was worried for a while that you considered it to be some silly "throwaway" thing. It's really one of your most charming things, mostly because of the really nice picture of the two kids. Though it's not clear to me that they are cheering over the victory of Christianity. They might be exulting over having won something in a computer game they are playing. Or maybe cheering over having posted something stupid, perhaps involving cats, or maybe gerbils, on social media. Or maybe they are cheering about having successfully vandalized Conservapedia.  :-) You never know.
But its not possible that your added content "clarifies matters". I'd have to read the article. You see, I don't read your articles. I just look at the pictures. And this was a nice picture.
Now, I have a bone to pick with you over your flippant use of the word "resurrection". I've never liked the use of that word other than in the context of Jesus. Here you are talking about having undeleted a file on a wiki.
And they gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.
And they did a "delete page" operation on him, and parted his garments. And they "changed visibility of 3 revisions" on him.
But on the third day they "restored his page".
Not right.
Be that as it may, have a Merry Christmas.
SamHB (talk) 00:57, 25 December 2018 (EST)
"The act or fact of bringing someone back to life, or bringing something back into use or existence."- Cambridge Dictionary[24]
I hope the Queen's English helps clarify things for you.:)Conservative (talk) 01:05, 25 December 2018 (EST)
Yes, I know English pretty well, and I did not need to look at your dictionary reference. I know that "resurrect" is often used in a secular sense. But it still sort of bothers me that you use it in a totally flippant and childish article. And I notice that you are continuing to mess around with that article, among other things, vaping/memory-holing 45 versions at a time. Can't you make up your mind? Is there something about those vaped versions that embarrasses you? Jesus was only crucified and resurrected once.
And speaking of childish, I speculated above on the possibility that those children "might be exulting over having won something in a computer game they are playing." Well, I was right. The picture is from https://pixabay.com/en/children-win-success-video-game-593313/. They were not celebrating "The thrill of Christian victory", as your caption says.
Do you think Christianity is a video game?
SamHB (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2018 (EST)

re: Conservapedia:Editing article and talk pages

This page Conservapedia:Editing article and talk pages at Conservapedia needs to have a section on how to create quotes.Conservative (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2019 (EST)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm busy just now, but I'll get to it. The usefulness of this was brought to my attention by some recent comments about the various templates or whatever. Something about one of the templates being changed. So I need to do some research into this. Do You by any chance know where that discussion was? SamHB (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2019 (EST)
I hope you don't mind me cutting in. The hubbub you heard in regard to quote templates was just that I added some documentation to template:Cquote but also accidentally added a category outside of the noinclude tags, so all the pages using that template were suddenly in Category:Quotation Templates. I have since fixed the issue.
We do seem to have three different quotation templates, so I have wondered if there is a specific policy or it is more a matter of preference, save the discussion about Cquote. Anyway, I hope this clarifies and saves you some time. --David B (TALK) 19:02, 11 January 2019 (EST)
Right. I'm awfully busy these days, but I'll get to it. I have a personal stake in having these quote templates documents, since I use them and typically have to look around for examples of my, and other people's, work to figure out how to proceed. SamHB (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2019 (EST)

I'm ready to go. Please unlock this page. SamHB (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2019 (EST)

I recreated the article and removed the duplicate content

I deleted User:SamHB/Cons Christian victory Dec+27+2018 because I recreated the article at: Essay: The thrill of Christian victory and the agony of atheist defeat.Conservative (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2019 (EST)

OK. I'm going to have to reorganize my "rogues' gallery of things you have vaped"; I have a significant backlog already. You could help by not vaping things, recognizing that The Internet is Forever, and perhaps not writing things you will later be ashamed of. Just sayin' SamHB (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2019 (EST)
It is not a matter of being ashamed, it is rather a matter of material being funny vs. non-funny or effective or ineffective.
One of the reasons why Chess computers can beat chessmasters is because the machines don't have big egos and can pullback from an ineffective chess attack.[25] Computers change course when it is warranted.
If I decide I don't like some of my material in retrospect, I delete/vape it.Conservative (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2019 (EST)

Vindication is sweet

Even the British New Statesman admits that the UK pothole crisis is a sign of national decline.

See also: United Kingdom's road repair crisis

I hope the New Statesman article helped clarify things for you.Conservative (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2019 (EST)

Right. The things you send me in the hopes that they "clarify things" for me rarely have the desired effect, to say the least. But keep trying.
I may create an article on causation vs. correlation. Including such examples as potholes vs. Darwin's homeland. SamHB (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2019 (EST)
[Some material was put in here and then vaped a short time later (before I could catch it), with the edit comment "I think I will be editing less at this wiki". That person then made 30 more edits within a fairly short span of time. People would do well not to make edits that they are going to be ashamed of later.]

Name-calling -- "making a fool of oneself"

I was recently accused of name-calling, when I told Cons to stop "making a fool of himself". According to Merriam-Webster, "making a fool of oneself" simply means "behav[ing] in a very foolish or silly way". That's not the same as being a fool—we all do foolish things from time to time. I intended no name-calling, and I apologize to anyone who took my comment as such.

I try to avoid name-calling, such as calling people

and so on. SamHB (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2019 (EST)

SamHB, a 2016 press release of a University of Minnesota study on atheists reported: "Survey data collected in 2014 shows that, compared to data collected in 2003, Americans have sharpened their negative views of atheists.."[26]
In addition, according to a study published in the International Journal for The Psychology of Religion: "anti-atheist prejudice is not confined either to dominantly religious countries or to religious individuals, but rather appears to be a robust judgment about atheists."[27]
For more information, please see: Views on atheists and Distrust of atheists
This section is not about atheists; it is about name-calling. It has nothing to do with atheists or atheism.
As I'm sure you know, I have absolutely no interest in the things you write about atheism. As I'm sure you know, this is because your writings about atheism, and nearly everything else you write, are simply the result of scouring the internet for anything you can find that might support whatever it is you're trying to say. As I'm sure you know, on a planet with 6 billion people expressing 6 billion opinions, you can find just about anything you want on the internet.
I realize that you take exception to my atheism content, nevertheless it is undeniable that my atheism content gets significant web traffic. For example, my atheism and stealing article is merely about a month old and already it has over 2,200 page views.
"All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved." - Sun Tzu
In all seriousness, I do plan on changing some of my priorities. There are a number of worthy endeavors that I wish to pursue.Conservative (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2019 (EST)
Yes, please do that. You probably have more worthy endeavors than vaping your own edits to other people's talk pages. SamHB (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2019 (EST)


  1. Massachusetts Correctional Institution
  2. This seems to happen a lot with your contributions.
  3. David Silverman - How the Mighty Get Back Up
  4. https://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Parrot#No_Credit_Where_Credit_is_Not_Due

You should face reality and accept there is more than one editor who uses the User: Conservative account

SamHB, you are wrong. Most, if not all, the active Conservapedia admins know there is more than one User: Conservative editor. So does the owner of the website. On one or more occasions, I have received an email from one of the fellow admins saying, "Why did you do such and such?" I then explain it was one of the other editors of the User: Conservative account. And then I either reverse that co-editor of the User: Conservative account's decision or I explain his/her (I say his or her to keep the veil of mystery thicker) decision to my fellow admins. By the way, your objections are not cruel, they are just misguided and/or haughty/vain.

I hope this further clarifies matters for you. Conservative (talk) 04:23, 5 April 2019 (EDT)

Just for further clarification: How many edits are done by the most prominent persona of your little posse: 90%? 99%? 99.9%? --AugustO (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2019 (EDT)
Whether it is a little posse or large posse, I will not disclose. I will merely say the decision to have more than one editor use the account involved more than one consideration.Conservative (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2019 (EDT)
I'll get to your outlandish claims of being multiple people, and the outlandish "proof" of this that you have been pushing (unsuccessfully) over the years, soon. Be patient. I have this thing called a "life" that sometimes gets in the way of any desire I might have to spend all my time writing stuff at Conservapedia. And a relativity issue has just come up, that needs to be attended to. SamHB (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2019 (EDT)
SamHB, a majority of my online work has been related to atheism (or related issues such as evolutionism). Now that the atheist movement in the Western World has been burnt to a crisp and has been soundly defeated (see: Decline of the atheist movement and Decline of militant atheism in the West), my desire to have a protracted discussion about how many users use the User: Conservative account has waned. One thing I can say with absolute certainty, there is more than one editor who uses the User: Conservative account.
Second, if the owner of Conservapedia decides to bequeath control of Conservapedia in his waning years, unlike Conservapedia editors whose accounts will remain inactive after they meet their Maker, the Conservapedia account I created will live on. "Old soldiers never die, they simply fade away".Conservative (talk) 12:47, 8 April 2019 (EDT)