Forum:End the War

The Proposal: Complete the Endgame
I consider that this topic has a nexus with our Boycott issues; that is, we want to move beyond Conservapedia, and tire of the continuous needless drama that erupts from it. Given our recent access and vignette into the inner workings of Conservapedia, via the Special Discussion Group, I think we also realize that Conservapedia sysops, one and all, have blown our importance way out of proportion, and, given the recent events, may also be tired of the drama.

Given this fact pattern, I propose we capitalize on the catharsis. I'd like people's opinions. I think we've effectively ended the war, ourselves, since socking has come to a near halt, and, as far as I know, we're not responsible for the vandals anymore. But, do you think it's possible to bridge the gap in at least creating a mutuality of understanding? Is it desirable? How could it be done, if at all? Perhaps the deranged ramblings of a tired, tired man... - 02:54, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Why It's Not Going to Work
After 12 hours or so, I don't think this is going to work. I know we can do it, but absent some attempt at dialogue, and the complete departure of an unnamed, pernicious little trollish kharacter, I don't know if it can work.- 15:37, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Hello!
I like it!- 02:55, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Nixon-like....because?
Maybe it's because you have lived too long in New York City?

Your post on the topic page is loaded. Perhaps you would agree to open the Cabal, all of it, without any deletions, so that others can truly judge if CP Sysops were over-reacting? No, of course you won't. So perhaps you would agree to making your premise and "peace overture" more neutral? I don't have a dog in this hunt, because most here know I don't have much use for how RW has and is conducting itself, and everyone should know by now I don't have much use for how CP is and has been run. Just a thought. --TK/MyTalk|undefined 05:01, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Pro
I'd say that we've focused on that site and its weird ideas for too long anyway. I'm not too sure about your creating a "mutuality of understanding" though. What's to understand?--Bobbing up 05:57, 1 December 2007 (EST)


 * We agree, Bob. I never could figure out why liberals would go to a self-proclaimed conservative site, and for what?  To settle the arguments that have been raging for 200+ years?  That Jefferson and Adams (in spite of their eventual deep respect and friendship) couldn't resolve?  I mean are their conservatives going to Daily Kos or Huffington Post and arguing ad infinitum over their being liberal?  I have never seen much of that!  I have never agreed with Andy's obviously wacky ideas about child immunization, and as a Catholic of course don't agree with his silly ideas about the Earth being 5,000 years old, or tracks of the Ark's keel being visible today.  But I never felt the need to confront and argue with him over it, because I knew he (supposedly) truly believed that.  Knowing what I do now, I realize he isn't a bit different than Jimmy Swaggart or the rest of the long line of evangelicals into what he is for the ego satisfaction.  That isn't enough to make the original idea of CP wrong, or people wrong for wanting an encyclopedia with a particular POV.
 * His ideas are certainly not so unique in this crazy world to warrant unceasing war or argument with him. Does he falsely present CP as Conservative & Christian friendly when in point of fact he tolerates only a small, very fringe outlook in articles?  Yes.  Does he falsely claim to be Christian-friendly when he is indeed tolerant to the extreme and extremely biased to anything but a YEC POV? Yes. Does he allow anti-catholic, anti-Gay information to be presented falsely as accepted Christian doctrine?  Yes.  I think anyone past the 7th Grade will know that. So why bother with what is more his personal blog, a sysop blog, than an encyclopedia?
 * Maybe I have too great a faith in people, but I think 95% will realize his enterprise is based on hate, not redemption, an Old Testament kind of place that has been repudiated by the New Testament and man's own developed understanding of the Universe. Schlafly doesn't need to be "exposed", as his own actions and words, like all misguided "prophets", do it better than anyone else could!  --TK/MyTalk|undefined 07:08, 1 December 2007 (EST)

What's this? TK? Making a convincing and well reasoned argument? =p

Seriously, though, I think that TK has a very good point here - we can easily condemn Schlafly with his own words. Also, good call on the NT stuff - 1 Corinthians 13:1-13 seems to have utterly slipped his mind. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!


 * I've sorta been saying that all along, honestly. Parody and rebuttal over here, don't send socks over there. --Kels 09:47, 1 December 2007 (EST)


 * Well, except when you whined about your IP being blocked for making one. But who is counting, eh? :-O --TK/MyTalk|undefined 09:51, 1 December 2007 (EST)
 * Now now, TK, it's not nice to lie. I hit the edit button instead of the history button next to it, and the block info comes up if you do that.  I never, ever tried to make an account there, ever.  But hey, way to make us trust you, eh? --Kels 10:03, 1 December 2007 (EST)
 * End the war when someone finds about the FBI investigation. AMA88 09:48, 1 December 2007 (EST)

TK is making the point Andy makes all the time: CP is for conservatives and liberals are not welcome. Oh, Andy doesn't say that directly (nor does TK), it's always "liberals are welcome here but..." followed by an anti-liberal rant showing how liberals are not welcome at CP. I don't any of us ever edited over there with a sincere belief that they would see the light and join our rational little world. While I can only speak for myself, when I edited over there it wasn't to try to remove all conservative tilt, but to try to get them to remove, balance, or at least justify the downright untrue or libelous information. I may have had a little bit of success here and there before I was banned (by TK) merely for editing over here, even though what I was doing was little different from what Order and some others do. (Later I signed up again to question why Phelps was a liberal, and TK privately admitted he wasn't, then added more references to his liberalness and banned me for sockpuppetry.)

As for the "war", well I see no reason why we should stop pointing out their consistent ridiculousness at WiGO and such (besides, it's fun), or halt any debates that might happen over there when they print downright false information (if any of us have socks that do that still). Petty vandalism is useless and probably counter-productive, though parody can have a purpose as a barometer of their insanity (I've put in some that has been sanctioned by Andy and remained for months, which is suppose is hardly surprising; some that was removed I was gd to see go, as it shows there is some semblance of sanity over there). There are still some deep-cover socks that seem to be getting the trust of the establishment, and the individual users should decide if they want to keep it up, and what their eventual goal is.

I think the reason why we should treat this as more than Andy's personal blog is because Andy sees it that way. He presents it a an encyclopedia, and there are probably a few people out there who actually think it is one. They need to be disillusioned of this fact. Andy is perfectly free to believe that the earth is 6000 years old, but when he states that this is scientifically proveable, it's good to counter him on that. I don't suppose it matters much; TK is probably right, give him enough rope and he'll hang himself. Anyone with half a brain will see him for what he is, all others are beyond hope. Quod volumus facile credimus, we readily believe what we want to believe, and rational rebuttals to biblical fundamentalism will almost never have an effect, but that does not mean we need to throw in the towel.

Ames is right in that wandalism is probably not done by many of us, and is useless anyway. Catharsis could be beneficial, but I jut don't know what sort of "mutual understanding" we can expect from two lines of thought that are so diametrically opposed. Sure, we can find some understanding about some things, baseball perhaps? If anyone even tries to present a counter-argument based on religious grounds over there, they get shouted down with a "shut up, you don't believe that, you atheist!" If the goal of the Pax Rationalwikia is to move beyond CP as the sort of raison d'etre for this site, that's fine, but I fear it will lead to a drain on activity here unless we can decide exactly what the focus of this site should be. If we want to present factual articles on rational and scientific subjects there are other sites that do that better and more completely (Wikipedia comes to mind). If we want to be a discussion group, well, there are other sites for that as well, and it might help to try to get a broader range of opinion. I don't know. CP is what brought me here and it has been the focus of most of my edits. I imagine the same is true for several others. If the goal is simply to end RW wandalism over there, well, I think that's largely been done. I think the whole idea of a "war" plays into their hands; it gives the impression that our goal has always been to destroy them by any means necessary, which is simply not true. DickTurpis 11:14, 1 December 2007 (EST)
 * Dick's right on a lot of things. My idea of "mutual understanding" was nothing of the sort, like, "we should all agree on everything, and dance, and play in the posies."  No, that's unrealistic.  So is abandoning WIGO.  I love that thing.  But, I think we should move towards establishing a civilized dialogue with them, somehow, some way.  I don't know how that could happen, but if it did, it would not involve us abandoning our counter-CP ethos, nor would it involve CP abandoning its wacky beliefs.  It just would encompass, maybe, no more fraudulent FBI threats, and open discussion on both wikis.
 * Also, I would very much like for us to move beyond CP as a raison d'etre. It's dangerous because it is such a binding force, and we all have roots there.  But our roots there are based on deeper beliefs that, deep down, I think we all share.- 11:45, 1 December 2007 (EST)
 * I think civilized dialogue would depend on Andy growing a pair and de-sysoping the likes of Conservative and RobS. He could then turn all the YEC nonsense over to PJR for a sugarcoating of eloquence and Uncle Ed could be left to rework the anti-gay stuff into something less hysterical and anally fixated. In such an environment, it might even be possible for us to add some meaningful content again. Whether providing this fig leaf of respectability would be a good thing or not is, of course, another question entirely, and one that is probably moot as I can't see Andy having either the sense or the balls to do any of the above. --Robledo 12:45, 1 December 2007 (EST)

I think Robledo is right; what I'd like to see is a way for us to civilly debate each other on one site or another. I think that'd be conducive to all our goals, and would over time make them realize that we're not so evil. I don't know if that can happen; it does depend on Schlafly.- 13:20, 1 December 2007 (EST)
 * TK. I have a question for you. You write above: "I never could figure out why liberals would go to a self-proclaimed conservative site".  As it happens, some time ago we had a debate about the morality of vandalizing third party sites and you, in your persona as Night Train, were most adamant that vandalism was a good thing. For instance you wrote in the forum:  I support vandalization of evil sites like CP. A previous incarnation of yours said similar things. Could you explain these apparent contradictions?  Will the real TK please stand up?--Bobbing up 15:01, 1 December 2007 (EST)

I jut don't know what sort of "mutual understanding" we can expect from two lines of thought that are so diametrically opposed. They'll stop lying about us, and we'll stop telling the truth about them? Calling this a 'war' is giving that pack of clowns at CP vastly more credit than they deserve. What they're trying to 'fight' is Reality, which they expect their delusional little 'pedia to act as a bulwark against, but Reality always wins, eventually. --Gulik 23:13, 1 December 2007 (EST)


 * Conservapedia will eventually die if no one pays attention to it. CP's traffic always dies down to a steady state after a media event, and has never really grown after its first burst of interest. From this filter, RW probably has done more do promote CP than to destroy it (and I think even some CP-ers would agree there.)  Let's face it--the only people who care are maybe 25 people "over there" and 25 people "over here."  The rest of the world could care less.  I say ignore it, and work on other projects. Sterileminichatroomthingy 17:23, 3 December 2007 (EST)

We are a Wiki
As a wiki we are ultimately an expression of the will of our active user base. We have never had an "official policy" on conservapedia, we provide tools for disseminating information but the information we disseminate is the product of what our users want. I continue to advocate for not having an official policy one way or another, if our active user base gets sick of CP then we will stop talking about it, if they wish to continue to talk about it then that's okay too. I would just say that there are many other aspects of this site that could be developed and worked on and many other enemies to talk about. As far as reaching mutual understanding? That is not going to happen an I am not interested in trying. We do not negotiate with fascists at CP anymore than we negotiate with the racists that come here. 24.141.169.227 10:09, 1 December 2007 (EST)
 * Our anonymous IP obviously makes a good point.--Bobbing up 10:16, 1 December 2007 (EST)
 * Personally, I've never understood the fascination with CP--and so I tend to keep out of CP related stuff. I'm here for the other stuff, the debunking of conspiracy theories, the real understanding of politics, etc.  I agree that as a wiki everything is basically up to how the editors here act--however, I'd like to see them care less about CP and more about the important wing-nuttery out there.  Researcher 12:57, 1 December 2007 (EST)
 * The fascination is due to many of our editors meeting there, or being invited to RW from there. So there is great familiarity (and its lover, contempt), see below for more on that.  I have noticed that on RW we also have several editors like you - no CP crap, into the mission, doing the work, hopefully enjoying the serious and the silly aspects of what RW is.  If CP went "off the air" tomorrow I think RW would still be fun, and probably better for it.  Hence our periodic boycotts (I'm gonna kick tomooooorrow...) - but we never get past attempts to detox, let alone get into rehab.  Researcher, the kick start we need, as I say below, is for people to start really good, easy to work on articles on details at places like CW or AIG.  Remember the amazing flurry of activity on the Behe interview refutation?  It seemed like every active editor joined in, and in 36 hours it was a great article.  And all that took was Tmt finding it and telling me we should do something, and me setting up the side-by-side table and one or two comments. human  15:19, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Irrelevant
"do you think it's possible to bridge the gap in at least creating a mutuality of understanding?"

No. RW came about because of the presistent insanity at CP - some editors were trying to "create a mutuality", and simply got deleted and, eventually, booted. Here at RW we don't delete comments (though we sometimes edit really ugly language), and we go really light on the ole banhammer (we actually use a 3.14 gram blockhammer, and usually only on nazi trolls and obvious vandals - real vandals).

So what's the "war"?

The only issue I see is that we are so familiar with CP that we can describe things there very well, and we can discuss them without writing 20k of background. We could just as easily be all over creationwiki or AIG, but if someone says "Joe at CW said this, wow!", none of us knows who Joe is and what his deal is.

Personally, I think it would be cool to see us climb that mountain, or work that learning curve, and have a WIGO CW, and something like a WIGO AIG, and a WIGO DI, etc., but other than doing 90% of the work "myself" (substitute any eager editor for "myself"), I see no way to get that ball rolling.

Perhaps we could make an effort this boycott week to get to know CW better and build up some knowledge and understanding of their issues and editors? human  15:14, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Why it's not going to work
I hear one of the cabal members even chastised you AmesG, for your trolling posts at SDG, denying any and all vandalism on RW's part, yadda yadda. Without posts like the one above, and Bob's on the talk page trying to out others just to do them harm stop, dialog would be welcomed by most remaining sysops at CP. But never now with Andy. You can only blame yourself and your impatience. You went to SDG, immediately posted here at RW that you had changed your mind about putting up stuff from there here. Then evidently some unnamed others didn't like that, but too late....attempt at detente was already ended. No war ever happens without at least two parties. When one continually fails to admit current misdeeds, and continuously denies current ones, how can dialog proceed? When snarky posts like yours above are always made, but I and others refrain from doing that, what are people to think? What they think is, just another lawyer-type trick. Which is why lawyers are done there in public opinion like Members of Congress! --TK/MyTalk|undefined 18:50, 1 December 2007 (EST)
 * I copied this, um, stuff from the article. Wow, TK used a colon not an asterisk!  Cool. human  21:44, 1 December 2007 (EST)
 * I didn't mean to out your sock TK, but I thought it was common knowledge you were Night Train. It's mentioned quite openly at  Conservapedia Talk:What is going on at CP? under "Night Train" blocked". I didn't name any other socks as, to the best of my knowledge, they've not been outed. Sorry if I embarrassed you, but I'm still wondering about the contradiction I mentioned. --Bobbing up 02:55, 2 December 2007 (EST)
 * I assumed that Night Train was TK given the response to TK's not understanding IP address back with this edit. I can't think of anyone else that would back TK up without supporting evidence except TK.  --Shagie 01:18, 3 December 2007 (EST)
 * Yes, unlike you, Human, I do sometimes try not to piss others off.  You labeling my post to Ames bit of crappery is pretty insulting and moronic.  It shows how unwilling you actually are to see anything  from other than your set-in-your way mind.  Pity you are not at all as rational as you keep proclaiming yourself to be. Ames changed the rules for a the page when he came back and added mocking and commentary, so my post being there was appropriate.  Except you couldn't bear to have anything disagreeing with your made up mind, eh?  --TK/MyTalk|undefined 23:07, 1 December 2007 (EST)
 * Dood, go find another wiki to join, so you can ban some people. --Gulik 23:16, 1 December 2007 (EST)

It's not going to work because if we remove the component of trying to take down CP - then what are we? We can either be a second Wikipedia, which will never work, or we can be a leftist Conservapedia, which no one wants.--Danielfolsom 23:48, 2 December 2007 (EST)
 * You mean like Liberapedia? --Signed by  Elassint the Great Hi! 23:52, 2 December 2007 (EST)

"unlike you, Human, I do sometimes try not to piss others off." Ah yes, there was the episode back in '86. Good times....good times.... DickTurpis 01:05, 3 December 2007 (EST) I think we can find a good raison d'etre post-CP. CreationWiki? Ben Stein?- 01:16, 3 December 2007 (EST)
 * Whatever happens, we (Rational Wiki) will find another target for vilification --Shagie 01:21, 3 December 2007 (EST)

Never
It has to be continued. Why are we (liberals) the ones who always compromise? Why are we the ones who always fall back? We've fallen back and compromised too much already. We are the front line against this craziness and the line must be drawn here. This far, no further. Look were our lack of resolve has gotten us and the world. I say that we have to keep pushing no matter what. --Edgerunner  76 08:32, 3 December 2007 (EST)
 * I think the problem here is the very notion of "war". There is no war and never has been. Contrary to what the powers that be may think, RW is not responsible for most of the wandalism over at CP, so if there is a war, we have no power to end it (just call us "Mahmoud Abbas"). We're clearly not going to stop poking fun at them, so there is little to be done. We can try to do it in a slightly more friendly way, but I don't think that's going to make Andy or Rob behave accordingly, so if we do it, it would be for the sort of Christian virtue of turning the other cheek; it would be quite ironic for the atheists to do this while the Christians don't. DickTurpis 16:27, 3 December 2007 (EST)
 * There is no war. The only war is about truth and rationality.  CP is an enemy of truth and freedom (of thought, religion, etc).  Rationalwiki, in its own snarky way, attempts to counter that.  Speech to counter speech.  There is no war.  As long as CP or its equivalents exist, RW and its equivalents will be necessary.  And there is nothing wrong with fighting for truth with a strident tone.162.82.215.199 16:30, 3 December 2007 (EST)
 * Despite the fact that I started and named the topic this way, I'm of the opinion that, on our side, there is no war. Having read heavily from the SDG, this was my attempt to point out to CP that if there is a war, it's not on our side.  The only "war" think we could or should end is vandalism but frankly, I think that's been gone since before July, aside from socks to invite new people to RW, or engage in random acts of debate (which is surely not vandalism).  So I think we have ended the war, I just want Conservapedia to realize that, and maybe they can work on ending their part of the war - that is, treating us as anathema on the site, the lies about the "FBI," etcetera.
 * I would NEVER, never suggest all of a sudden saying, "Hey, Ken, you're right, evolution did cause Hitler," etcetera, or in any way compromising our ideological principles.- 18:31, 3 December 2007 (EST)

SPARTAAAAAAAAA! Sorry, all of this talk of war made me jumpy ... -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
 * UP TEH REPUBLIK!- 18:46, 3 December 2007 (EST)
 * I never saw the SDG, but I get the feeling that they descended into paranoia?162.82.215.199 19:04, 3 December 2007 (EST)

Every third vandal was, "OMG AMESG AGAIN WHAT DO WE DO HE WILL DESTROY US ALL!" The other two were Human and Icewedge.- 19:05, 3 December 2007 (EST)
 * Gawd, that's hilarious. At least AmesG and Icewedge occasionally indulged in socking and some actual wandalism.  All I ever did was call TK names on RW. human  15:06, 5 December 2007 (EST)

Another Target
There's an encyclopedia that seems to be riven with strife and secrecy amongst it's higher echelon. There's secret mailing lists and abuses of power, along with blockings of users for little or no real reason. We should look into this and how the various interests and biases affect policy. Here's the story, with further info here. Thoughts? (It would sure confuse the hell out of that other bunch we love so much.) a i r d i s h 13:19, 5 December 2007 (EST)


 * Welcome to group dyanmics. Everywhere.  Here, Conservapedia, Wikipedia, Wikipedia Review, you name it...  Go poke about the comments and scroll down to 'Erm' by Francis Fish and you should the title of an article that was brought up here before.  A side note - the following post is by some CP user which got ridiculed.  As another side note, I wonder how RobS can simultaneously complain about sekret lists and hidden agendas on Wikipedia at the same time participate on the Special Discussion Group - they are one and the same (just he's part of one and not the other).  And TK cannot complain about invite only forums either.  Quite simply, they are par for the course of social software.  And if you don't understand that, go read A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy again - this time pay attention to "Three Things to Accept".  In particular Now, when I say these are three things you have to accept, I mean you have to accept them. Because if you don't accept them upfront, they'll happen to you anyway. --Shagie 15:06, 5 December 2007 (EST)
 * "And the site's top administrators seem more concerned with petty site politics than with building a trustworthy encyclopedia." LMAO! They said "trustworthy encyclopedia", TM & C teh assfly! human  15:09, 5 December 2007 (EST)