Conservapedia talk:RobS's Idiot's Grin Stratagem

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Excellent strategy, I especially like the "stretch wide" quote, but I may have to use it in a very different anatomical context.--PalMD-yada yada 13:07, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

hmmm...Wonder if you are thinking about the same pic as I am. Pretty fucking sick.Prof0705 13:10, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

I'm not the goat guy. I was thinking of some creative uses.--PalMD-yada yada 13:14, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Ah ok. I've known quite a few crazy ass Army doctors, so I can never be sure about MD's.Prof0705 13:17, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Yes, excellent work. Say, perhaps you could do something on the RobS Snowplow Strategem, which involves doggedly piling on such a massive amount of irrelevant data, the librul enemy becomes frustrated and eventually gives up. For instance. --Kels 13:21, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Actually, you're misreading that example, and yes I am to blame. I acted hasty in my impatience. Let me explain.
Dmitri Volkogonov was my source. And I was begging them to trash my source, as is the well established WP method. And I truelly need Volkogonov discredited, because he is about the sole source Alger Hiss still defends himself with. Look at the overreliance on Volkogonov in the WP entry on Alger Hiss. I gave you guys everything you needed to trash Volkogonov with, but nobody wanted to do it. Too bad. As is said about Hiss, "this has been the intellectuial debate for a generation".
So, before you guys go off on the wrong track, please reconsider if you are not going down the wrong track on this. Thank you. RobS 23:13, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
Not quite sure what you are talkig about. This article is in reference to the brilliant work on the New Ordeal.Prof0705 06:54, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
Wipe that grin off your face, Rob! --Kels 07:38, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Kels brings up the discussion on my source for the claim V.I. Lenin invented the term "Concentration camp", and was the first to use it. My source is Gen. Dmitri Volkogonov. There is a dispute on that page, challenging my source. I invited a disputant to create a bio on Volkogonov, and abuse him at will. Mr. Alger Hiss & apologists have repeatedly used Volkogonov as a fig leaf to deny his guilt. It was disputed in WP, where I presented the identitical evidence against Volkogonov's credibility, only to get banned. Now, one and a half years later, I see in the WP Hiss bio, Volkogonov is trashed with the very evidence I presented (incidentally, the e-mail used to trash Volkogonov, reproduced in the box in the link Kels provides above, and cited in the WP Hiss article, was first made accessible by me). The link I provided here to the website entitled, The Alger Hiss Stroy, is essentially some Foundation Hiss personally had a hand in creating to argue his innocence posthumously, and was in fact used as the final kicker or trump card in the WP article up until very recently, despite having been debunked a decade and a half ago.

WP, in its zeal to slander living people, made a collossal error which requires only one mode of expiation. RobS 09:31, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Actually, they're challenging you, who made the foolish comments in the first place. You tried to derail the conversation by insisting it was about your sole source instead of actually supporting your argument. All the rest is just blue smoke and mirrors. --Kels 10:26, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
(A) I did not make a "comment"; (B) I did not make an argument. RobS 23:53, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
So if I'm understanding correctly... You made and are sticking by a claim you have good reason to disbelieve (convincing contrary evidence has been presented to you), when your only basis for the claim is a source you yourself don't consider trustworthy. You're doing this in an attempt to manipulate other people into writing an article on a subject they have no independent knowledge of or interest in, but which you could write if you chose (and have all but written in the talk thread where you're doing this), all as part of a long-running dispute with another group of people over yet another person's guilt of espionage. And that's your defense to charges of essentially showing lack of good faith in debate. Have I got that right? --jtltalk 20:08, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
I actually like the source. My problem was with Wikipedia not accepting the source's own deprecation of his own material. As to me manipulating other people to write the article, amen bro, you got that part right. I even gave them everything they needed. But rather than trash my source, which was their intention, they were incapable of it. Your analysis is pretty close to the mark. RobS 23:50, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

Contents

[edit] Please Feel Free to Contribute to this Article. Additional Examples are Appreciated.

-)

[edit] Misspelling in title

The correct spelling is 'Stratagem' 67.159.45.52 07:38, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, I fixed it. I also fixed the possessive thingie. humanUser talk:Human 18:55, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Rob's grnning idiot "source"

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Conservapedia:RobS%27s_Idiot%27s_Grin_Stratagem&curid=1249&diff=547546&oldid=500357#cite_ref-0

The guy can't even spell "labor" the red-blooded Amerrikan way! ħumanUser talk:Human 05:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed by Mei so copied here for entertainment purposes:

"Well of course, given censorship, oppression, and the Fairness Doctrine for 50 years."<ref>Earl Browder, Socialism in America in International Communism, St. Antony's Papers, Number 9, Edited by David Footman, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, III, 1960, p 101. "Entering the 1930's as a small ultra-left sect of some 7,000 members... rose to become a national political influence far beyond its numbers (at its height it never exceeded 100,000 members), on a scale never before reached by a socialist movement claiming the Marxist tradition. It became a practical power in organized labour, its influence became strong in some state organizations of the Democratic Party (even dominant in a few for some years)...guided ...the American League for Peace and Democracy that united a cross-section of some five million organized Americans (a list of its sponsors and speakers would include almost a majority of Roosevelt's Cabinet, the most prominent intellectuals, judges of all grades up to State Supreme Courts, church leaders, labour leaders, etc.). Right-wing intellectuals complained that it exercised an effective veto in almost all publishing houses against their books, and it is at least certain that those right-wingers had extreme difficulty getting published".</ref>--RobS 12:02, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

ħumanUser talk:Human 05:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I am considering putting it in a new section. Like 'three years later, he's back to explain everything confuse us further'. -- Mei (talk) 05:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Sure. I left it because I thought it was funny, but perhaps it should be timestamped. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
What, more commie/lib censorship and anti-intellectualism? Figures. RobSmithdon't bother me 05:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty much convinced you're a parodist. -- Mei (talk) 05:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
He's for real, but he sometimes displays a sense of humor beyond his straitjacket. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
So you call preserving your input "censorship"? That's an interesting perspective. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Removing it from mainspace. Commie General Secretary's words support my contention. And Browder wrote that when most of you were a wet spot dripping down your mommies ass. RobSmithdon't bother me 05:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I just put it back in mainspace because it is fun. And I had to use annoying mini templates that hurt my head. -- Mei (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. That's the true collaborative spirit. We've given balance and avoided COI. Thanks again. RobSmithdon't bother me 05:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Nice work Mei, although that isn't "mainspace", it's the article. Nice work all! ħumanUser talk:Human 06:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Outstanding dialogue!

I wasn't around on RW back-in-the-day when Rob made such a total arse of himself on the talk page at CPimg, so if anyone's not read it yet, I'd highly recommend it now. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 15:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow. If someone can mirror that (I expect CaptureBot will choke if we try to CaptureBot it, so don't do that), it would be wonderful. It's a perfect example of how Conservapedia became what it is today - David Gerard (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I remember that! A perfect example of just how bullheaded and out of touch with reality Rob can be. Certainly it makes his current foolishness at WP a lot less of a surprise. --Kels (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Very classic stuff. Thanks for bringing it up. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 16:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, New Ordeal & Reparative Therapy were classic troll bait. CP sysops were on the rampage to stomp out that latest sockpuppet, whereas I argued privately Rationalwikians needed to be engaged. They weren't going away. So if you could find someway to engage them, that would end the game of cat-n-mouse and leave the sysop in control of the situation. Maybe something constructive would come from it (Gay bomb also fits this genre).
And tho Flippin will never believe it, I really did accidently hit the wrong button when I meant to hit Mark as Patrolled. This occurred in the midst of a massive vandal attack. nobsdon't bother me 17:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Who justified the detection of trolls by the proffering of nonsense? Is the "In the News" section on the CP mainpage similar "troll bait"? — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Not as much as the Hugo Chavez/Iran terrorist connection in blowing up the Gulf oil rig so they can raise oil prices and increase US dependency on foreign oil, but there's a lack of sources on that. nobsdon't bother me 17:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Wait, wait, wait.................so the New Ordeal page, was a conspiracy? tmtoulouse 17:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Truth is, I was about to connect the dots with a reference to Haynes/Schrecker debate which was much the subject of an earlier dispute in Wikipedia with a quote from Ellen Schrecker: "Haynes overlooks other sources that may have been just as significant in shaping our understanding of American communism and anticommunism: FBI files, in particular, but also the many memoirs and oral histories of American Communists. Neither set of materials is without its problems, but they are both, in their very different ways, utterly indispensable, as valuable for giving us insight into the _mentalite_ of key players as they are for the factual information they contain. Sophisticated historians know the need for a critical reading of a memo from J. Edgar Hoover or the memoirs of a longtime party leader like Peggy Dennis. But they also know the need for using as many different kinds of sources as possible. [1]
Later Schrecker flip flopped with this: "it is now abundantly clear that most of those who were identified as Soviet agents in the forties and fifties really were." As I said on my user page in RW, "I've seen the genesis and policy development of wp:WP:BLP closeup, [3] improvements to wp:WP:DR, wp:WP:V..."; WP:Verifiability now does not allow "obsolete and deprecated" sources (Schrecker deprecated herself, [2] but the user I was in dispute with insisted on using her obsolete yet verifiable citation). But I hit the wrong button, and the rest is history. nobsdon't bother me 18:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
"the Hugo Chavez/Iran terrorist connection" What?? You really do believe anything, don't you Rob. The Queen is a shape-changing lizard btw. And how do you know it was Chavez and not Obama's soopah seekrit Maoist Mulsim Conscript Healthcare Army that did it? I heard that he sold all his shares in BP the day before the accident. Makes you think and connect the dots, doesn't it? I have a feeling we're going to see a Coen brothers movie about you one day. --PsyGremlinPrata! 18:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Uhm... So Rob, you are saying that aynone who corrected your ramblings must have been an liberal Rationalwikian as conservatives at Conservapedia don't correct errors or care how crazy their articles sound? On second thought, i think you might be actually right on that... Timppeli 19:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
So the CP definition of a troll is 'person who objects to stupidity'? EddyP (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I was just doing my job dealing with abusive editors who were at a minimum highly educated. So you milk em for what it's worth to build content. nobsdon't bother me 20:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
True conservatives don't call out the errors of other true conservatives in public. Anyone who does so obviously isn't a true conservative, no matter how sincere they may appear. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Rob. Rob Rob 'ROB!' What on earth are you talking about? That whole debacle was simply that you made up a term ("New Ordeal") but then refused to admit that when pushed for a source. It reminds my a lot of the Assfly's tactic of painting himself in to a corner with a ridiculous statement, then steadfastly refusing to back down. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 20:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
And it worked as troll bait. Flippin convinced Andy to make it an essay, but now it lives on as Original Research. My only regret after being prodded to do it is to find time to finish it someday (same as the [economic planning] entry). nobsdon't bother me 20:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
(EC)How are editors who object to irrationality 'abusive'? EddyP (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not hard to understand. CP is a despotic site. Public dissent is verboten, even if sincere. Fall in line or fall off the face of the earth. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I do like Rob's refreshing honesty, though. Anyone who's smart or educated is seen as the enemy, and is there solely to be exploited or abused, never accepted. His post-facto lie about the "New Ordeal" being a deliberate fake is a bit more shameful, but not out of character for Rob. --Kels (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm truelly hurt, I've always been upfront, and those are the facts. Now....
none of you guys ever caught this, Andy overwrote my contrib here with this [3] this; and none of you ever caught our subtle differences on the subject of Henry Kissinger and other issues. Sheesh... and you guys think your gonna make it in the world of operational political intelligence.... nobsdon't bother me 21:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
This is just fucking amazing. Rob is the embodiment of the liar's paradox. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 21:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
OK Rob, for the moment I let your "I made it up but pretended I didn't to attract trolls" line slip by, because I think this is a more significant question: In the world of conservapedia, is an editor who questions made-up information and asks for sources considered a 'troll', and thus someone to be removed? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 21:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Look at my block log, probably the lowest of any CP sysop. Somebody has to be pretty much a nonsensical pain in the ass to get blocked by me. Sid, AmesG, I unblocked both.
Let's talk about troll bait again. Gay bomb, New Ordeal, and Reparative therapy all originated as troll bait. Flippin's LA Times interview says how the original idea of cyber-vandalism was to waste sysops time. I turned it productively and got in control of their time and what pages they edited. And there is a remarkable success story in all this: cp:Homophobia, No.3 on Yahoo of 18 million, and this article origniated as troll bait. When AmesG thought wanted to write it, me & Roger Schlalfy took it over and made it absolutely clear that CP wasn't gonna be a mirror of commie agitprop. And today we have a remarkably well written article with unique content, and I challenge anyone to refute the scholarly or factual basis of that article.
The only draw back on that Homophobia entry was (1) the trolls still dictated to us what to do with our time, and (2) because of the absolute inflexibility to see any other position other than the bullshit talking points Ames & others came to that article discussion with, they were kept out completely. And in this case, it paid off. nobsdon't bother me 23:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
"Look at my block log, probably the lowest of any CP sysop" - Thats like saying "Look at my rash, I have least herpes than any infected!" Acei9 23:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The funniest part is that Rob thinks anyone believes him. --Kels (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC
Kels, a little less cynicism, please. Let's not become secure in our prejudices. That's usually when they turn around and bite you in the ass. nobsdon't bother me 00:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
If you want to indulge your fascination with asses, I recommend Ken instead. --Kels (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I am confused by the second line he removed. Was he agreeing with himself? - π 00:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Rob, please answer the question: Does CP consider people who ask for sources for made-up information to be 'trolls'? Thanks. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 07:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Would this include a sock identified by checkuser? nobsdon't bother me 16:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
It's inarguable that identifying the enemy is more important than establishing the facts. Does CP consider unknown persons who ask for sources for made-up information to be 'trolls'? Of course. Real conservatives would not publicly enter into a dispute with another real conservative. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 16:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
It's an issue of AGF. If an editor is legitimately asking for a source, the sources are not going anywhere; if an editor is attempting to control another editors time and priorities, good faith rapidly goes out the window. nobsdon't bother me 17:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Rob, it would be easier to abandon my prejudices about you if you didn't keep confirming them. --Kels (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
In all of this over the past several months, many of your thumbnail observations and summaries were sharp and concise. However, it's the constant assinging of nefarious motives that miscolors some of your statements. 198.175.175.250 (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Rob, would you admit that good faith is "earned" rather than "assumed" at CP? — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. Exactly. I wanted to add that to the previous post, but tried to keep it short. 198.175.175.250 (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Of course, NU - the SDG and ZB is full of discussions along the line of "ZOMG a new user just signed up! Watch him like a hawk!" EddyP (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
It's tragic. And I can do little about it (again you notice I generally don't block users). But it's much the result of happened several years ago. 198.175.175.250 (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
As always, Rob is the most forthright CP cabalist and he's not afraid to try and explain himself. Thanks for your time, Rob. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support