If you need anything, please feel free to ask! Regarding your efforts on Ropen, you might want to try using
<ref>Reference text here</ref> to add the citation. Thanks! --David B (TALK) 20:32, 2 May 2017 (EDT)
Hello Snoopy2, thank you for your contributions to CP -- I enjoy seeing your edits. While this may be a relatively small issue, please use proper punctuation when editing, such as by putting periods at the end of sentences. I have corrected many of your more recent edits. Thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2017 (EDT)
Mokele-Mbembe : mystery beast of the Congo Basin by William J Gibbons. Publisher: Landisville, Pa. : Coachwhip Publications, ©2010.
Misuse and ambiguity of the word "evolution" harms understanding and honest debate. Often a definition of "change over time" is given for this term (that I and nearly every person accept). Then, in a slippery, unacknowledged bait and switch acceptance of change over time becomes belief that "the Cosmos is all there is and of that we are certain." In today's world "evolution" is an ambiguous term with each of these definitions considered valid (and therefore as imprecise a term as you could get). The suggested remedy is to use only "Darwinism" when discussing Naturalism or its stepchild Methodological Naturalism. Comments? -- unsigned comment by Snoopy2
- Your argument makes sense. I would add to that the fact that there is a difference between macroevolution and microevolution. There is empirical evidence that microevolution takes place--this is obvious. Everything is designed to adapt to its environment, but this is within the confines of its species. (i.e. Darwin's finches adapt their beak lengths, but they never loose their beaks.) I dislike the usage of the term "evolution" in reference to Darwinism because it lumps both real and fake evolution together in an attempt to make the fake more credible. Starting a war over verbiage (i.e. "you mean macroevolution not evolution, right?") is not going to help the ignorant, so using a term like Darwinism or at the very least evolutionism is probably the best option. --David B (TALK) 14:36, 12 October 2017 (EDT)
Theistic Evolution advocates answer a Conservapedia dissenter
watch:  I pray this becomes only a joke (and have done so for 12 years).
The greater difficulty with Theistic Evolutionists disbelieving Moses is their "Thou shalt not murder [unless the victim disbelieves Darwin]." Ditto for "Thou shalt not steal," and "Thou shalt not bear false witness."
Snoopy2 indefinite suspension from Conservapedia
see Just watched "God's Not Dead 2" again and feel Yucky. All of southern MN appears to feel Yucky. My eviction is on January 31 and no place to go. Any practical suggestions are welcome.
Snoopy2 indefinite suspension from Conservapedia enforced again
If bad things happen it's never the fault of the one who murders, steals and destroys: instead blame the victim they accuse. That's the moral order of the Judeo-Christian God, isn't it? No need to reason, torture the accused. That'll solve it.
- What are you talking about? If you're claiming CP has suspended you, we've not (and the fact you're editing is proof of that). You may be referring to that fact that CP doesn't allow anyone to edit during night hours (EDT or CDT), unless they've been granted a special right (which not many editors have). See: Conservapedia:Edit. You have not been blocked. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2018 (EDT)
The problem is pervasive stalking and abuse including cyberbullying (in some instances deliberate distortions of conservapedia pages before they reach my terminal).
Snoopy2 has survived murder attempts twice, had hundreds of veiled death threats, victimized by dozens of thefts and vandalisms and pushed out of his previous half-dozen employments he got and otherwise did very well at. See UK Researcher Establishes Link Between Threats and Abuse in Cases of Domestic Partner Violence By Elizabeth Adams April 14, 2017 
This is relevant also (especially Biderman's chart on pages 70-72) 
Twice I tried with police to get a restraining order but I know so little about the person (name only [LdV] and no birthday, address, phone #) that they won't know where to send it. Incredibly this person claimed a romantic relationship as recently as 2017 though the naïve infatuation (encouraged by family I relied on) was over more than 12 years ago.
Conservapedia is in no way to blame: it's enemies who have and abuse the power. I wish this was a nightmare I'd wake up from but God help me/it isn't
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snoopy2 (talk)
- Huh???? What are you talking about???? I'm really sorry for your personal problems, especially if they involve death threats, murder attempts, and the like. But the only aspect of this that seems in any way related to Conservapedia is the complaint about "deliberate distortions of conservapedia pages". Are you saying that someone is performing some kind of internet vandalism that corrupts CP pages on their way to your computer? I've never heard of any such activity, and I've been around for quite a while. Can you give examples? SamHB (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2018 (EDT)