User talk:HeartOfGold/Archive001

This is an archive page, last updated 24 May 2007. Please do not make edits to this page.

Welcome

Welcome HeartOfGold, we are still in construction stage of things, so hard hat maybe required. But glad to see you here. Tmtoulouse 23:46, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Thanks. What is the idea here? I am a conservative. (Strange combination of Christian and libertarian ideas.). Are people like me welcome here? HeartOfGold 23:48, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

No you are not welcomed here. But we do encourage you to make edits and contribute to discussions. --Staple^? 23:49, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

I disagree, i think all are welcome. the goal is to create a dialog, a debate, to celebrate ideas and thought. You will find you are out numbered here, but you have a place to express anything you want. You can respond to essays posted, create your own. Snipe at us from talk pages, whatever you like. Or nothing at all..........ah the wonders of choice :). Tmtoulouse 23:51, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

I was joking when I said that you were not welcomed. I guess Tmtoulouse doesn't understand sarcasm. ;) --Staple^? 23:57, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

I am sorry, I am burnt, gotta get sleep :). Tmtoulouse 23:59, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for clarifying, Staple, I still don't know what this site is about, so I was not clear that you were joking. HG_HeartOfGold ^talk 00:20, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

You are definitely welcome here. Im not sure how much you will like this wiki but we don't bear a grudge against you. -Icewedge 23:58, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Thanks. A variant of your user name was associated with much vandelism at conservapedia. Given your tone here, I assume it was others exploiting your name. I mention this only because I was personally disrupted (chasing it down) from time to time by the vandalism. HG_HeartOfGold ^talk 00:20, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Oh, he started it alright but he doesn't do much of the actual vandalism. Helios^{-speak to me!} 03:16, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Hi, and welcome, HG. Of course you are welcome here, everyone is. I think RationalWiki would be a good place to start figuring out what this site is for. Yes, we do have a Conservapedia namespace, which is over-represented at this point, since we all pretty much "met" while getting beaten up by some strange people and ideas at CP. But, CP is not the intended focus of this site. It's good to already have an honest-to-goodness conservative (of some stripe) signed in already, I hope you feel welcome enough to participate. As Andy says (!), "debate keeps us honest". I also noted that on CP you found difficulty with some of the approaches the site took, and probably discovered that you, just like us, were not really allowed to question "why?" Well, I hope things are different here. For instance, if you want to save that Consitution Party UXB as a template, we won't delete it. Anyway, I am getting long-winded for a simple welcome. I hope you enjoy your time here! human^{be in} 11:39, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Reply regarding inquiry

Yes, I think you've seen me on Conservapedia. I've mainly given up with them as well. May I ask what prompted you to resign? You seemed like one of their more sane and productive editors? JoshuaZ 23:53, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for the compliments. I resigned for a number of reasons, one of which you hit on. They are more concerned about quantity than quality right now. Understandable. It is "their" site. Need to build a critical mass and all. I'll withhold my other assessments of conservapedia for now. HG_HeartOfGold ^talk 00:05, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Welcome!

Is this really the real Heart of Gold? If so, I'm thrilled to see you. The site needs people with differing perspectives. I look forward to talking with you. Please don't be offended if we disagree (we will, a lot, I think!) but that's part of the fun. I hope you enjoy the site.-AmesG 23:58, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Yes, it is me. I set up the same email here and there if you want to check it out. I'll poke around and try to figure out the premise of this site. Thanks for the welcome. HG_HeartOfGold ^talk 00:08, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

I think you're our first "conservative" editor. Accordingly, I'm interested in making sure you feel comfortable. If you feel like you are not being treated fairly, please let me know and I will try to work out a conflict... but I wouldn't expect anything like that until we grow a bit. Welcome!-AmesG 00:24, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

On the nature of RW

I think our raison d'etre is less to counterbalance CP as a neutral wiki, then to provide a neutral debating ground & platform for refuting what we (the Cabal) believe are crazy CP ideas. We hope others will, in turn, debate us freely on them.-AmesG 00:52, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Okay. But does CP really have the critical mass to warrant this project? In any event, I think what I would like to see is a project that has a chance of success and also has multiple entries each with its own POV (and perhaps a refutation). I'd probably participate in that, especially if it were family friendly. Either that, or a Christian world view encyclopedia, without fear of "the other side" presenting relevent information in a collaborative (not subversive) effort. CP is trying to build a family friendly encyclopedia. The future will tell their success. But even if they have ideas that you, or others who do not share their world view, hold, I don't think it is right to disrupt their project. Likewise, if I decide that this project does not line up with my own world view, I will not intentionally disrupt it. If I start a "Christian World View" encyclopedia, do you think I can expect the type of response CP is getting (periodic sustained disruptive attacks?) HG_HeartOfGold ^talk 01:01, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

HoG, I think we've all abrogated our vandal past (I didn't have one to abrogate) in favor of constructive criticism. So we agree! We'd love to have you contribute, so we can bounce ideas off of each other, but it's true that CP may not merit this full refuation. In that case, though, we're still interested in the subject matter discussed :-) so we'll keep on pluggin away...-AmesG 01:15, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

I"d say CP itself is decidedly subcritical, but some of the ideas that make up the Party Line there (Creationism, Hussein had WMD, etc) are depressingly common. --75.71.78.212 12:04, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

This is a surreal coincidence. I don't know what to think of this post, but it is indeed conspiracy fodder. HG_HeartOfGold ^talk 19:46, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Does anybody know how to triangulate IP addresses? Does anybody know where the Shaffleys live? HG_HeartOfGold ^talk 23:51, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Please don't ask questions like that here. I bet someone knows how to figure out an IP source (if it's not a proxy...). But no stalking. Really. Take it to email or something. And their last name, if you mean Andy's family, is Schlafly. Often abbreviated for ease of typing by jerks like me. human^{be in} 00:02, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Okay, sorry. But even more creepy than the question is the answer to the questions I asked. True conspiracy fodder. HG_HeartOfGold ^talk 00:07, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Biased Encyclopedias

There is nothing wrong with having a biased encyclopedia. However, CP lies (or at least used to) and tries to say how they are not biased in their articles. Also, the way CP handles their site is quite corrupt. They ban users for adding factual information and will delete and protect articles (ex. Scientology) that they don't like. So biased encyclopedias are fine to have in the world as long as there are encyclopedias with the opposite point of view. If CP was the only encyclopedia we would be as dumb as the people in Idiocracy.--Staple^? 01:05, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

CP is not the only place to do that. I was harrassed and ultimately would have been banned at WP (had I not resigned) for adding entirely factual and accurately summarized material citing sources that conservatives usually deem to be liberal. I just moved on. To CP. It didn't work out there, either. But I do support the general right to control content that subverts a stated POV. In the case of CP, they are, I assume, conservative (though some CP contributors are caricatures, as some liberals seem to be caricatures).

The same criticisms you make of CP, I have for WP. But I am considering creating a Christian World View encyclopedia (at least I am thinking about it) which would either remove or marganalize material that subverts the purpose of the project. CP is going through some growing pains. They may someday acheive a better foundation. Ultimately, they will have to wrestle with various conservative factions, and what to do. Of course, a Christian World View encyclopedia would have to do the same.

Another alternative is to have a "family friendly" encyclopedia with articles having multiple entries representing different world views. Users would select the entries they want to read, perhaps having a default world view set up in their preferences. It would have to be a "parental guidance suggested" for some cut off age, or some world views would have to be excluded. (E.g., some articles on sex and sexual positions are consistently in the top 100 articles at WP, according to statistics I looked at earlier today). And I think the problem of figuring out who is a world view "imposter" (read: saboteur) would be difficult if not insurmountable to resolve--because sometimes, what appears to be a caricature is just the mis-guided real deal. HG_HeartOfGold ^talk 01:27, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

...you resigned?

Hello! We never interacted (I think I was banned WAY before you joined), but I've been watching CP. Kinda surprised that you resigned, though. You appeared to be the strongest sysop candidate, and now you're gone? (And if TK is consistent, you will be permanently banned for resigning.)

You don't have to answer my question of course. :) Just my curiosity at work. Hope you have a good time here! --Sid 02:07, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Yeah I resigned. I do wish them well. And I do encourage others (who may be monitoring both this site and CP) who do not agree with their project to start their own, or find another they agree with, and not disrupt theirs. This is my intention. (Not that I disagree with their purpose, just some of their maps on how to get there.) Of course, I could be wrong, there maps be exactly what is needed. HG_HeartOfGold ^talk 02:28, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Hello, HeartOfGold, good to see you here. And don't mind TK, he always assumes the worst faith possible, plus a little extra. ;-) --AKjeldsen 03:24, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Thanks. TK made a mistake in doubting me. He seemed to apologize with his "sour grapes" comment. I'll let it go at that. HG_HeartOfGold ^talk 19:59, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Welcome

I hope you feel free to contribute whatever you like. Want a good article on Christian Tenets of Faith? Do it! Want a history of Christianity in America? Do it! Want an article tracing the history of church-state conflict in America? It's wide open! I hope we get a few other Christian and conservative editors over here. It gets tiring having to do both sides of an issue. You WILL NOT be vandalized by anyone here, as the rest of us will hold them down and force them to watch Hee-Haw re-runs if they mess with you. Of course, you will likely find lively debate (I hope). Debating one's beliefs is always good. I saw a poster at an Episcopal bishop's office once, with Jesus looking heaven-ward, with the words "He had His doubts, why shouldn't you?" --PalMD^-Talk 08:36, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Thanks. I might be oblidged to stick around for a bit. I see what I deem to be strong reactions to Christian values (which are sometimes abused and misused, even by me.) Paul was present at and gave his tacit approval for the the stoning of Stephen (Ac 8:1). Paul was very anti-Christian, and turned out to be one of the most influential promoters of Christian doctrine by his end. Perhaps I can plant a few seeds here that will sprout some day. However, I am not much of an example, and am not very successful at planting seeds that sprout in the near term. Of course, according to my reading of the bible, faith is a gift from God, not a decision of man; the only decision a man has is to reject the gift. (Yes, this is a paradox in the sense of "a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true.") I am not afraid of debate, either, though I sometimes think it is pointless. It usually boils down to:

1. Those debating have different fundemental premises in their world view, and are unable to convince one another and are unwilling to question their premises.
2. One side or the other, or both, is engaging in debate for the simple pleasure of wasting another's time.

In any event, if at any time I am not a good example of what a Christian should be, please remember, this is my fault, not God's. And, recognizing my own need for growth in this area, I think I might try instead some articles on evolution. It would be a good experiment. I hope I can find an "evolutionist" who will take the time to do his or her own research. I often find that evolutionists take the easy route of cutting and pasting arguments found on pro-evolution websites (such websites mischaracterizing sources from time to time.) Personally, I think an intellectually honest debate about evolution should lead most to conclude that there are aspects of evolution that are not scientific. First, I might argue, using the Bible as a basis, for the Gap theory. My weakness in this argument, however, is that I am not a Hebrew scholar, and am constrained by the lexicons and concordances I have available to me. But based on these, and, most importantly, letting the bible interpret the bible (under the constraints of lexioncs and concordances), I believe that it is possible that the antiquity of the fossil and geological records does not contradict the Bible. HG_HeartOfGold ^talk 11:05, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

I don't know which branch of Christianity you lean towards, of course, but you might try to take a look at the Roman Catholic approach, which represents an attempt to reconcile the Bible with scientific results. (Maybe I ought to write an article about that, actually.) --AKjeldsen 11:11, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

I would read it, AKjeldsen. Don't forget to include mention of Pope Benedict XVI's Creation and Evolution. HG_HeartOfGold ^talk 11:22, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Yes, that one is definitely on my reading list. It's pretty complex and in German, though, so it'll probably take a while to get through it. ;-) --AKjeldsen 11:50, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Sorry, put this in the wrong spot: :Sure thing, HG, and welcome! Flippin^-shhh 11:11, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Thanks again. HG_HeartOfGold ^talk 11:23, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

I would love to see some good theological articles/discussions here, especially if they do not degenerate into uselessness. For instance, it might be nice to have an article that discussed the abortion debate in particular, and does not end up in a shouting match. A simple explanation of the point of view of the pro-life and pro-choice POVs, some discussion, allowing people to draw conclusions from the ideas rather than from the people who speak them.--PalMD^-Talk 11:50, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

From the desk of Rob Pommer

Hi, I emailed you a couple of times...the sig thing and one other...oh yeah the "scopes trial" thingy about Algore's loss in 2000. Originally, I thought you were a deep cover sock, sucking up to the PTB to obtain a sysopship (which, actually you should have gotten the coveted 10,000 article one, though I think WillN is known IRL Meatspace. Though the emails and my user name was Rob Pommer, originally I went by this nom de plume of Cracker but I lost my PW to that and the "webmaster" over there couldn't figure out how to get an email to me so I created the Rob Pommer sock...which is why I never complained much about my block over there since I was an out-and-out sock, which is verbotten over there. None of my edits were vandalism though as either account. Mostly I copy edited and showed TK how to do things. But please for to see Cracker as to my political bent and why I was there in the first place...That part is more toward the bottom. FWIW I'm probably the smartest high school only gradjeate you'll find and am funny beyond belief and no I don't write for Bill Maher (anymore). ~ ~ Cracker 11:52, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Thanks Rob. I was not sure who you were when I received your email, but I tried to take your advice on my user name. Is this what you meant? Your use of acronyms has me confused, but I think I figured out most of them (PTB=Powers that Be, IRL=In real life). What does PW mean? Regarding your level of education, I know high school drop outs that are smarter than 98% of the population. A few college drop outs too. While education is often correlated with intelligence, notable exceptions exist on both ends of the spectrum. I was not a deep cover sock. My first and only account at CP was HeartOfGold, and I did not exaggerate my political views. Andy has a right to choose who he wants as sysop, and I have a right to decide if I want to continue to chase carrots. CP's loss in my mind, (my loss in Andy's mind no doubt). HG_HeartOfGold ^talk 19:52, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Happy Block Day!

(In response to: In referring to my user name, I prefer either HeartOfGold, or HG. I do not prefer HoG, though I will not trivialize conversations I am in to point this out in those conversations. HG_HeartOfGold ^talk 22:03, 23 May 2007 (CDT))

Hey, HG, HoG may be cool, but it ain't Kosher. Happy Block Day! You have committed the crime of insufficient devotion to "the cause". It is a typical fascist trait to vilify those perceived as backsliding. Backslide all you want here.--PalMD^-Talk 21:58, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

It was this that did me in. The link shows TK deleting my support for Bohdan's wise move. HG_HeartOfGold ^talk 22:04, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

What about Gold? On my local wiki, Heart of Gold (nothing to do with you), I use "GOLD" as the shortcut prefix, not HOG. --Linus^{(Plot evil tech)} 22:05, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Okay, Gold is okay too. HoG is fine, just not appreciated. HG_HeartOfGold ^talk 22:06, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Hello

Hello again HG. Glad to see you. WHy did you leave CP? You were a good contributer.(Or however its spelled)Bohdan

Thanks, I know I was a good contributor--not perfect, but good. I left in part because the current effort is for quantity not quality. A simple difference of opinion in strategy. I also left because my time is too valuable to be spent chasing carrots (sysopships) amidst paranoid whispers that I was not what I claimed to be.

Since I left, I have come to learn or realize other problems:

1. Andy called a work of fiction full of lies, and mischaracterized my edit (I wrote "artistic license" he wrote "poetic licencse"). While the the general point that Inherit the Wind has been abused by others can be made (and was made well--and colorfully--by Ann Coulter in Godless: The Church of Liberalism), Andy's edits are just silly, in my opinion.
2. Also, while the evolutionary related articles at WP do misrepresent the compound theory of evolution, the article on the theory of evolution at CP is so far from being credible, that it is just goofy. The people gaurding that article at CP are at least as bad, if not worse, than the cabal at WP. I actually support the home school movement, but I do feel very very sorry for any homeschool victims students affiliated with CP. (My wife and I home school my children, after one of them gets home from private religious school, where I send him to gain social skills--my daughter is only three, so we don't send her to school yet, just home school).
3. RobS's attacks on the Constitution party, a truly conservative and patriotic party, are just insane. And to make the attack, he uses source material from an organization who has at least one member who has attacked RobS on WP, if I understand his user page on this site. Truly insane. RobS is acting like a manchurian candidate or perhaps Patty Hearst.
4. While I loathe the secular fundementalist's behavior at WP, this sort of behavior at CP is hardly a credible response. CP is a farce, a diversion, a gimic to keep christian conservatives from corrupting WP articles with a secular fundementalist POV. I am beginning to suspect that Jimbo funded Andy to keep conservatives and Christians off WP. It is a well known tactic used to fight groups that are considered subversive. Whether or not Jimbo is actually fundnig CP, I have no way of knowing, but it would have been a good investment.
5. CP looks to me like a classic case of animal farm. The medicine is worse than the original condition.
6. CP sysops are so busy chasing obvious vandels, and suspecting genuine editors like myself, that they allow articles like this to exist on CP. (It was changed after I pointed out that the secular fundementalists at WP were gloating over such articles. In case you don't know, Kent Hovind is an outspoken critic of evolution who for some reason has gone nuts on paying his taxes.)

Anyway, I hope I don't disuade you from continuing there. The task at hand is difficult. Whether or not it is impossible, time will tell. Thanks for saying hi. You should probably feign anger at me now less the paranoids at CP decide you are a mole.

Meanwhile, I am writing a project plan for a christian world view encyclopedia, with multiple article spaces to avoid doctrine disputes. If you're Christian, send me your email, and I will let you know when I make my next move. HG_HeartOfGold ^talk 23:38, 23 May 2007 (CDT)