User:RobS/Archive2 (21 June 2007 - 26 October 2009) non-contiguous, excerpted

Conspiratorial?!

Everything sounds conspiratorial to you.-AmesG 07:19, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Conservative

Well, at WP, the evolutionist thumpers are known to assume anybody who seems to support ID or questions aspects of evotionary theory is conservative at CP. Heart♥Gold ^tx

Source? I think good old Conservative's discussion method should stick out easily:

1. Make idiotic claims based solely on (mis-)quoting scientists to make it look like they have severe doubts or like they have to guess and believe without any sort of scientific basis
2. Wait for others to challenge said idiotic claims
3. Declare that said idiotic claims are valid quotes and ask the others to prove that the quotes have been directly refuted by other scientists.
4. Ignore all arguments as long as there are still quotes that you have not yet accepted as having been refuted.
5. Make occasional snide remarks about clueless evolutionists and mention how they can't handle the fact that even other evolutionists gave these "candid quotes"

So I'd be surprised if people actually mistook others for Conservative. --Sid 05:52, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

Take my word for it, they do. Also, your method ascribed to Conservative is similar to the method used by evolutionists thumpers, except, the evolutionists thumpers:

1. Classify anybody who attempts to bring balance to evolutinism related articles and a "fundie".
2. Accuse anybody who attempts to bring balanace to said articles of being a sock.
3. Use procedural loopholes to summarily ban new users deemed to be Creationists as socks of other previously banned users to avoid time consuming WP due process.
4. If that fails, pile on new users deemed to be creationists via RFC, in a process similar to one used by zealous communists during the cultural revolution in China. (This is, as opposed to, seeking mediation from other less ardent evolutionist thumpers to mitigate new user behavior and help the new users become a more productive contributor.)
5. Engague in name calling on user talk pages, and deny that bias shown on user talk pages is affecting behavior on article talk pages.

So, in short, evolutionist thumpers on WP behave worse than conservative is alledged to have behaved on WP. Heart♥Gold ^tx 12:56, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

I think the "problem" (if you want to call it that) with Conservative (and Ken) is that he/they didn't stay put. He was/they were like nomads, trolling forums and such, always with the same routine, often enough with the same source text.

And the behavior you listed is simply mob behavior. It's simple targeting and potentially eliminating, possibly with false positives and false negatives. I've seen such behavior in Wikipedia AFDs and such, and it's not pretty. However, I'd say that the similarity to Conservative's style is fairly... abstract, if not minimal. I'd rather compare it to the behavior you can see on CP (Night of the Blunt Knives, 90/10, declaring people to be socks, etc.) these days.

Conservative is not really mobbing or trying to eradicate, he's just tying up resources with his gig, slowing down the opposition and preventing them from doing whatever they want to do. On CP and CreationWiki, he found a sort of home. A place where he can build his argumentation in peace, with the power to lock out people who argue against him. So I'd guess that he's not really active outside that circle anymore. Other than that, mobs will be mobs, and that's a problem both WP and CP have, not just in the evolution/creation field. --Sid 13:23, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

Edit: Good call with the subject split. --Sid 13:24, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

I don't know what you mean by the "subject split". But the mob behavior describe sounds accurate. It is the same mob behavior I have read and interviewed people about as occurred during the Cultural Revolution, and I suspect it is similar to the mobs who hung blacks in American and the same mob behavior that resulted in heads rolling during the French Revolution. It is kinder and gentler, perhaps, but it is still loathsome. Heart♥Gold ^tx 18:06, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

The subject split referred to the new headline ("Conservative"). I think it hadn't been there before. --Sid 18:47, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

What evolutionists don't seem to understand is that many people question evolution, and it is not just one or two individuals or organizations causing all of the problems. Actually, I think they do understand this, but would rather just suppress and marginalize dissenting viewpoints. Heart♥Gold ^tx 18:06, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

In my eyes, it's just a case of pinpointing the loud ones because they influence the small ones.

Of course, quite a few people "question evolution" (Heck, give me almost any topic and I'll give you people who oppose or question it). It's their right to do so, and nobody doubts they exist. And if/when they make a good case, that's awesome. But the loud ones (for example, AiG and, to a lesser degree, people like Conservative) stick out and make the larger waves overall. It's sorta the same reason why we're here, poking CP and its inaccuracies. Somebody will read the potentially flawed arguments and will accept them as truth. That's "dangerous", and it spawns more people like Conservative who simply repeat these arguments and link to the flawed sources.

For example, AiG and the Starlight Problem. I had a lengthy discussion with Conservative (cp:Talk:Speed of light) about some theory about the speed of light slowing down by a massive degree over time. The killer: AiG both supported and opposed it, depending on which article you checked. The older article (supporting it) gave no explanation that a newer article presented extremely strong arguments against it. Conservative had stumbled over the older article, I had stumbled over the newer one. If it hadn't been for that discussion, Conservative would have accepted the older article (and the quasi-discarded theory) as truth (because AiG said so) and might not have found the newer one.

As such, it makes perfect sense to ignore the small people (or to put them in the same category) and to limit the group you're dealing with to the few, big people (at least most of the time). Of course, this applies to both sides. Supporters of Creation and Evolution will focus on the big dudes: AiG, Talk.Origins, CreationWiki, etc.

So in a way, they know that there are many people supporting a certain idea. However, many people get their background information from just a few bigger sources. The thing to keep in mind is that this is fairly rational behavior (in my eyes) and happens on both sides and in other issues.

Okay, I hope I managed to get some sort of point across. It's late and hot, so I'm running close to a headache - a bad starting scenario for discussing group/mob behavior abstractly. If the above block made no sense, you'll have to wait until tomorrow or so for a correction, sorry... :/ --Sid 18:47, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

Kindergarten

I got it, he's right. Ever read the book "all I ever need to know in life I learned in KG"? The things we teach KGers are commie ideals (case in point: sharing). His point has leaked through my tinfoil hat! human^{be in} 20:33, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Robby!

Inever thought I'd see the only and only Rob Smith on this humble wiki. It's my honour to welcome... wait, what's that behind you???...

JESUS CHRIST, IT'S A COMMUNIST SPY GET IN THE CAR!!!!!!! --Offeep 20:03, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

By the way, how's the hunt going for a source that uses "The New Ordeal" to describes the '30s?--Offeep 20:40, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Provided that years ago Other People's Money, John T. Flynn, The New Republic, February 20, 1935. "the New Deal is threatening to become the New ordeal" RobS 20:52, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

And that qualifies as a "common expression"? ....Hey, did that goalpost just move? I could swear is was further away before. --SockOfGulik 20:55, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Sources are all there, and I got more. Hey, look at this for example FDR biographer Robert Sherwood (let me explain; FDR dropped dead in office, Harry Hopkins who ran the show the last few years while FDR was on a 4 hour work day because of his health, dropped dead two years later. Neither left memoirs to explain the personalities involved, or the momentous decision in WW II. Robert Sherwood was a speech writer who worked closely with FDR & Hopkins, and headed up the commie infested Office of War Information, a Kremlin directed mouthpiece. So in lieu of FDR or Hopkins memoirs, Sherwood's biography, Roosevelt and Hopkins is the closest thing we got). Sherwood names 4 special Administrative Assistants to FDR whose job was, "to get, information and to condense and summarize it for [Roosevelt's] use." Now considering one of those four went nuts and jumped out the 16 floor window of Walter Reed psyche ward, and two were KGB spies, seems it is time to rewrite the history books, hmmmm? 21:05, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

RobS, what kind of person spends this much time researching long-dead, half-imagined communist conspiracies in a vain attempt to rekindle such a bleak era in American history?-αmεσ (!) 21:10, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

See the Moynihan Commission Report, "The first fact is, there was a Communist conspiracy." (lk provided upon request). I think we've presented well enough in our Election of 1944 the CPUSA, determined by an Act of Congress to be an agent of a foreign power, effectively took over the Democratic Party. So this is nothing new, it didn't happen during the 60's, it happened well before your or my time. RobS 21:18, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

When was the Commission Report written, Mr. Palmer?-αmεσ (!) 21:20, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

In 1993, when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, and the White House, creating this Statutory Commission and vesting it with special extroardinary subpeneoa powers like a Congressional Committee, was one of the first Acts of Congress passed. They could now do what many wanted to do for a long time. The intention was to get to the bottom of much government secrcy which had shrouded several extremely partisan domestic debated for a half century (the Rosenbergs, Hiss, Nixon who built his career on Hiss, etc.) It's finding were published in 1995. RobS 21:29, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Uh.... huh. Then why is it that both parties jumped on the Anti-Communism bandwagon the instant the ashes cooled in Berlin? --SockOfGulik 21:22, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Funny you should mention that, I just wrote exactly the answer to that today RobS 21:29, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Can you explain it in small words, please? Because I'm not quite gettin' it. --SockOfGulik 21:40, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Ok, succinctly, the War started over the right of self-determination of the Poles, Czechs, the Slovaks, etc. By May of 1945, it was pretty obvious it all was a fraud. The Poles, the Czechs, the Slovaks in fact did not get liberated, win their freedom, enjoy the right of self-determination, or however you wish to phrase, until the Administration of President George Herbert Walker Bush.

IOW, all those noble causes FDR took us to war for, Ronald Reagan & GHW Bush finally accomplished. As to the matter of Hitler's WMD, how we had to build the bomb first cause Hitler was working on weapons of mass destruction, turns out that was a big fraudulent lie, too. Only the US spent $4 billion (multiply that by at least 20 to arrive a comparable amount in today's acounting), countless sacrifices, only to be lied to, and then have that same $4 billion investment handed to the commies by your fellow American citizens. Then came the insane nuclear arms race (which by some extimates cost 25% of the GDP of the planet for half a century), all thanks to several KGB agents, the most famous of which is code named "Liberal." RobS 22:00, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

• • Note, this is not a de-clonoization, it's a reply to a comment waaaay above here. TK out human^{be in} 21:47, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

That's a joke and a clever grammatical trick; not a real academic suggestion.-αmεσ (!) 20:54, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Well, what nobody's noticed is....it was published in that commie rag, the New Republic (see our entry on New Republic, Clinton's teacher, Prof. Carroll Quigley, says its a commie rag). RobS 20:56, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Goddamn, Rob, not everyone who disagrees with you is a commie spy secretly working to cripple the government. Come on, it was funny reading it the first few times, now it's getting pitiable.--Offeep 20:59, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

These days, if the Commies really wanted to cripple the US government, they'd vote Republican. --SockOfGulik 21:00, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Actually I have strong evidence the RNC has been infiltrated. RobS 21:20, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Provide links.-αmεσ (!) 21:20, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Rob, who hasn't been infiltrated?--Offeep 21:23, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

The RNC. I personally heard Ronald Reagan, in his speech to the 1992 GOP convention several times speek of "the sin of racism." All those references have been expunged from the published version of the speech on the RNC's website. RobS 21:29, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Golly, is there anyone around who ISN'T secretly plotting to flouridate our water? --SockOfGulik 21:22, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

How does your Reagan thing prove infiltration?-αmεσ (!) 21:37, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Well duh, somebody, in the RNC, sanitized the original version of the speech. Now, it could be argued, it may have been by a racist. This itself is infiltration and subversion. Alternatively, someone from outside the party likewise could have infiltrated at that high a level to remove that information. All we know is, it has been done. RobS 21:43, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Well, it might have been the Commies. It could just have been the GOP pandering to the Bigot Vote. It certainly wouldn't be the first time...or the last. --SockOfGulik 21:46, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Apparently, thinking racism is a sin is COMMUNISM. I'm sure the Ku Klux Klan will be delighted at their vindication. :-P --SockOfGulik 21:41, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Im on ur site fuxing ur bla<!------------->cklist!-αmεσ (!) 21:03, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

How about taking the blatant lie off of your userpage?

I N A C T I V E

This user is no longer following discussions in Trationalwiki.

That statement appears to be non-operative as of this point in time. --SockOfGulik 21:43, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

You also misspelled "TrashionalWiki"! human^{be in} 21:48, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Friendly advice

Speed kills, man. --Kels 19:08, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Poorly educated?

Let's throw down here. My bet is that RW credentials >>>> all CP credentials. Aaaaaand go.-αmεσ (blackguard) 22:53, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Only liberals use credential based education...real education is the kind you get reading Ann Coulter. 24.141.169.227 22:56, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, dude, I forgot.-αmεσ (blackguard) 22:58, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Hey, Rob, Guess What?

We totally posted that diff, even though you vaguely threatened us not to. I liked your general tone there, something like, "Yes, post the diff, RW, if you dare!"--Offeep 00:02, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Yea, that's right, we went there. Locke ^{Always Watching......} 00:05, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Uhhh uhhhhhhhhhh (snaps fingers in a "z" pattern).-αmεσ (blackguard) 00:07, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm so proud. All I did was add an entry and it culminated into this. You reinserted the peice yourself, nobody forced you to. In that meaning, with your statement, "placed by trolls", you just called yourself a troll. Norseman^Wassail! 01:00, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Rob: when conservative says "frog" you better jump.

Hey Rob!!! Somebody just sent you an IMPORTANT e-mail: [1] (just in case you'd er... ignored it) Susan_{... purrrrrr ...} 22:05, 11 November 2007 (EST)

I just sent you an important email, about making our site the uberkelzzzzez on teh innertubes!!!!!

I just sent you an important email, about making our site the uberkelzzzzez on teh innertubes!!!!! human 00:04, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Hey Rob, thanks for dropping by! You know we are having a party for Conservapedia's anniversary, right? Feel free to come on over and enjoy the festivities!

Hey Rob, thanks for dropping by! You know we are having a party for Conservapedia's anniversary, right? Feel free to come on over and enjoy the festivities! human 22:56, 20 November 2007 (EST)

RobS, do you frequently see concaine addicted prostitutes where in reality there are none?

If so, you may want to seek out the advice of a health care professional. 76.105.223.232 22:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Present for you

Although you might have the original. --Kels (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you (incidentlally, did you know the biographical information for cp:Allen H. Belmont came from Mad Magazines internet archives site? I kid you not. RobS (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't surprise me. Bill Gaines set a good standard back when he ran the magazine, and I would imagine his successors kept that up. --Kels (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Mad Magazine was the subject of Congressional Hearings during the subversion-comic-book hysteria. Mad published a form letter to send to the FBI for draft resisters. This of course brought them under FBI scrutiny, Belmont, who was a longtime field investigator in the Venona project, headed up the investigation. The whole Spy vs Spy stuff is moreless based on this episode. RobS (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't the first time Gaines had been before Congress. Back when he ran EC Comics, of which only Mad survived in the long run, he was trying to defend the right to publish horror and crime comics in the midst of the controversy that Fred Wertham and his crowd had stirred up. Sadly, being on appetite suppressants at the time, he didn't handle himself nearly as well as he could have, and made a lot of the same missteps that Frank Zappa would make decades later at the PMRC hearings. --Kels (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an area I'd like to delve into if ever I get the time. The mad magazine archives have much more interesting stuff, and they clearly did do thier research seriously. They got the Belmont stuff from the Warren Commission Report. It is very interesting because the 1956 Belmont to Boardman Memo is one of the key documents that has led to Cold War history revisionism (read D, E, & F here. It's very short) It would be nice to know alittle more about the author who set much of it in motion (see for example the text in WP Chip Berlet & I collaborated on this, one of the few things we agreed on, and it virtually is verbatim from Belmont's memo, the section entitled "Prosecution"). RobS (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, these days I'm more interested in the art itself (Mort Drucker alone influenced easily hundreds of modern professionals, to say nothing of geniuses like Kurtzman), but I used to be pretty into comics history. Never let it be said that it's "kid's stuff" by definition, there have been some pretty sharp cookies in the field and still are. --Kels (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sysop

In the interest of fewer red exclamation points, you are now a sysop. Our guide, if you're interested. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I am fattered and fumbled. RobS (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Rob

Why have you guys let TK take over your wiki with his heavy handed and dishonest nonsense? I can see a few of you guys really trying to write your articles and do your news entries, but he just spews hyperbole and blocks users. What gives? 22:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

TK

Is killing your project: alienating what few well-intentioned, good-faith editors might come by (and when was the last time CP attracted any to begin with?) range-blocking most of the country and the world (especially colleges and universities, where smart people may sometimes be found) and now locking random pages from editing (the Beach Boys? seriously?) --why do the rest of you let him get away with it? Why not drop an e-mail on Andy telling him just how much TK is doing to undermine CP? Surely even Andy isn't so stupid as to think that the guy is helping out? JustThisGuy,Y'Know? (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Conservative

Is a moron--a mendacious, self-serving idiot. Why the hell do you all put up with that twit, who is obviously using the project for his own ends? Did the "Gentlemen" shout-outs end on their own, or did Andy finally get sick of Conservative taking advantage of his bandwidth? JustThisGuy,Y'Know? (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

TK... again...

...strange he should crop up twice on the same talk page under negative pretentions, eh? He just went on a blocking spree and blocked about 3 or 4 new editors who hadn't done anything wrong. Two of them were even contributing properly.

Anyway, not to take out my frustrations on you (seriously), hope you're well! SJ ^Debaser 17:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Robby... talk to me darnit! I'm genuinely trying to be friends with you here! SJ ^Debaser 10:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Rob is too cautious to make friend. How does he know you are not a communist infiltrator? - π 10:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Because I'm as much of a communist as ListenerX is. SJ ^Debaser 11:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Back in the 60's a bunch of members of the Conservative Party (UK) turned out to be communist. You can't trick old Rob that easily. - π 11:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember that... but then again, I was in my negative mid-twenties. REDS UNDER THE BED! MCCARTHY, KILL THEM ALL! SJ ^Debaser 11:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Also...

How come Terry hasn't blocked you for belonging to a "vandal site"? God knows he's done it to basically every other user here. SJ ^Debaser 09:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify, Rob.

Who have you gotten to know? Megaten (talk) 03:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Frank, or "Pops" as young Barry called him. RobS (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

Here's one that's been bugging me for a while? Why doesn't Terry have your rights stripped and you blocked for being a member of a vandal site? After all, he did it to Helpjazz, Tim and even Jinx (although we all know that was deceit on Terry's part). Why doesn't he do it to you... or don't Conservapedia's rules (it is a block reason, after all) apply to the people who make the rules? --Psy - C₂₀H₂₅N₃O^{You know you want to} 18:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I asked him that one a little while ago Psy, don't expect an answer, although my guess is that as RobS is clearly against our output TK doesn't care. Technically, TK's still a member of this site. SJ ^Debaser 18:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, TK is keeping quiet until it serves his purpose to discredit Rob with Andy, of course. Plus, it's also a shining example of their double standards in action. --Psy - C₂₀H₂₅N₃O^{You know you want to} 18:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't TK trying to set up Rob as the one passing info to RW when in fact it was TK? I read it on the K. Conley transcripts PJR posted on his TK exposé, I believe. Perhaps TK fears attacking Rob because Rob can bring that up and present TK as setting him up (which of course he would be). EddyP (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Like it or not Rob contributes "content" for Andy's blog whereas I don't think TK has contributed a single original article to CP mainspace. While Ken does the same Rob's gat the balls to stand up for himself if challenged by TK, plus as you say there's the whole setting up issue, which hasn't just been confined to Rob or HelpJazz.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

TK did indeed try to "set up" Rob S over a year ago. PJR's expose shows this. He will definitely do it again. But right now TK needs RobS to back him up in getting rid of RJJensen, the only Sysop who currently contributes real, verified, factual material to CP and can possibly keep the wiki afloat. TK just can't have that. Once RJJ is gone, TK will continue down his list of Sysops to get rid of, eventually geting back to RobS.

TK's To-Do List:

Sysops to get rid of:

Hojimachong

Fox

DanH

CPAdmin1

Learn Together

PhilipJRayment

Kotomi

RJJensen

Jallen

DeanS

Conservative

RobS

Karajou

Ed Poor

No-one is safe. Not even his "friends". He uses the other Sysops in his manouevering to get rid of current ones, and they go along because they are pleased to be "insiders", trusted members of his elite group... until the time TK turns on them too. History has shown this to be his modus operandi, and he is following his previous patterns of behaviour. TK lies, falsifies "evidence" against innocent people, sabotages in secret and hides the evidence, denies his actions, and does everything he can to get what he wants to happen. Karajou, DeanS, Ed Poor, you "privileged" members of the "special secret sysop group" (not the generally known "Zeuglodon Blues" CP Sysops google group, I'm talking about the secret, private group TK made for select sysops, where he trashes the rest in private) don't for a minute think your membership in Tk's private, elite group makes you safe from him. The Sysops he is trashing now, WILL be YOU in the future. It's guaranteed.

TK's made great progress in his plan to kill off Conservapedia. He's still sending out information about CP sysops and recruiting "vandals" to destroy the site, while he has gotten rid of many good editors, calling them trolls, vandals, "the enemy", falisified info and cast aspersions on them, and succeeding in getting the wiki virtually locked to new editors most of the time. Next, he will probably push for even more control, perhaps requiring every edit to have his approval before being posted. That way he can destroy all good edits before they even make it to the wiki, while earning praise for his "vigilence". Just as he has people create obscene user names, then blocks them. Good job, TK! Does anyone really think it wasn't TK who made the remark about DeanS's wife's death, so he could copy it to his own user talk page, to further his goals?

Giving TK Oversight was a serious mistake. He is not to be trusted with this. He's already "disappeared" many things. After he claimed that he's been a CP Sysop for over 3 years, someone at RW researched this and found that he had only been a sysop for less than a year and a half. How did he solve the problem of his being shown a liar? Shortly afterward, he deleted the user creation log prior to his joining in May2007, getting rid of evidence as to when early members joined CP (can't look up when ASchlafly joined anymore, or other early members). If he asked for anyone else to be given Oversight also (Ed Poor perhaps?) you can bet it's only so he will have someone else to blame for things he's actually doing. So now Joaquin Martinez has been having trouble logging in? Anyone else? Look to TK. He sabotages and denies it. But if you look closely enough, it will always lead to him. 193.200.150.137 21:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a question in there? It seems you guys are speculating on water cooler gossip. Doesn't have much to do with building content, etc.

But here's an answer for you anyways. TK & my relationship is built on communication & good faith. Strange concepts I suppose to some Ratwikians, but as you grow up, you'll discover these elements are crucial to any working relationship. RobS (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, so you're undercover there too? Awesome. ħuman 05:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia Ūber Alles indeed. SJ ^Debaser 10:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocking

"TheoryOfPractice (Talk | contribs | block) blocked RobS (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) (Member of conservative vandal site, violation of 90/10, no substantive edits, talk talk talk, it's as clear as 2+4=4. 95% certain user is in favour of waterboarding those who oppose school prayer)"

"RobS (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked RobS (Talk | contribs)"

Glad to see you know your way around here. If you weren't a sysop and able to unblock yourself, I would have done so, emailed you, and chastised TOP. As it is, I commend TOP for his humorous block reason. ħuman 03:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as I'm the guy who sysopped this incredibly intelligent, erudite, fair-minded, compassionate, caring, decent human being, I knew the block would last only as long as he desired in his incredibly big and warm heart. TheoryOfPractice 04:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Such as I thought. Yet another liberal conspiracy to discredit fearless Communist-fighters. ħuman 05:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen

A friendly message for you and your fellow Conservapedians [2].

Goatspeed! SJ ^Debaser 11:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yipee!

I think I wet myself!

I am glad you are gone. Rampant bigotry? Pot meet kettle. Go back your website, the only place accepting of a piece of shit like yourself. From there you may engage in your own rampant bigotry against liberals, homosexuals, muslims, atheists and well, anyone that isn't you. You will not be missed. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 00:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Commies! You forgot commies Ace! How could you!!?!??!! --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 00:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

His appalling bigotry against spelling is rampant on the most recent incarnation of his userpage. 00:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Damn, and I went and fixed it. Please to undo, "castle and all". ;) ħuman 01:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL! That's the most appallingly stupid way to pretend you're leaving in high dudgeon I've ever seen. I guess it's your pants-pissing fear of TK talking, since he disapproves of CP sysops interacting with us. Don't worry Rob, we believe you. *wink* *wink* --Kels 00:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Serious question

While you're editing, what is the general conservative view about farts? Please answer, I'm not asking to make fun, I just want to confirm that you generally mostly think of them as juvenile and probably liberal/commie, yeah? Thanks SJ ^Debaser 00:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked that question, just to show how open, broadminded, and tolerant of divergent views conservatives can be. I was watching Oprah one time, and she had on some commie lib (Dr. Phil or somebody) and the question was raised, "How long does a courting couple have to wait before it is acceptable to fart in the others presence?" And indeed, this was an important question on the audinences mind. After some discussion about how, indeed, millions of people would like to have some insight on this subject, the renowned expert advised six months was a wholly appropriate time to wait. We all gasped a collective sigh of relief.

So, now I understand why Oprah is beloved of millions. RobS 00:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Even though she's a commie lib? ħuman 01:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

She helping the President restore science to its rightful place. [3] RobS 01:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, although I was kind of wondering about farts as humour. Do you/general right-wingers find them juvenile? As your articles on Family Guy and South Park do tend to be quite disproving of their farty humour. SJ ^Debaser 20:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Rob (2)

Please enable email so I can send you a very important message. Alternately email me at nuttish <at> me.com 15:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't be silly - Rob's not going to allow a bunch of commies to see his e-mail address. Don't you know - today his inbox, tomorrow the world. --Psy - C₂₀H₂₅N₃O^{You know you want to} 12:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

But for cereal, Rob. I have a very important question for you. 20:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You talkin to me? you talkin to me? RobS 20:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

See. Slutty, I tole ya he has a sense of humor. ħuman 03:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Never mistake stupidity for a sense of humour. Silly twit 18:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Rob can be a pretty funny guy, even when he is trying to be. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Rob, We're Meeting In Chicago

Send me an email at nuttish <at> me.com if you're interested in meeting a few RW personalities and putting back a few pints of Point. 04:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

But watch out lest the Reds drop a quantum of fluoride into the brew in aid of ending your status as a useful idiot... ListenerX^TalkerX 04:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Go to User_talk:Nutty_Roux#Chicago for details. ħuman 05:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Serious Question

Rob, as somebody who knows a bit about Communism (especially the threat in the 50s and 60s) - who do you think the Fifth man was - Roger Hollis or Victor Rothschild? I'm personally leaning towards Lord Rothschild, because he was more of a manipulator and was able to have Hollis set up, as described in Spycatcher, as well as feed James Angleton false info. --PsygremlinTal! 17:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably Rothschild. There's still a lot of simple, fundemental work to be done in building internet sources on this stuff. In reviewing your question, I was looking at wp:George Blake, which says, "He was not one of the Cambridge spies, although he is often grouped with them." Ok, fine. Then at Spartacus on Blake [4] there's references to "Peter Kroger and Helen Kroger," with links to thier pages. Good, except nowhere does it state Peter & Helen Kroger's real names are Morris & cp:Lona Cohen, the spy couple responsible for the actions that the Rosenbergs were executed for--transferring to the Soviet Union the atomic bomb. RobS 23:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

If anyone "gave" the Soviets the Bomb it was Truman. Demonstration = proof that it can be done, and the Soviets were chasing that dragon on their own already. Knowing it could be done, and would work, makes the task so much easier. ħuman 01:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The Soviets were spinning their wheels on their nuclear program before they got information about how the U.S. was doing it. ListenerX^TalkerX 01:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Svetlana Chervonnaya who heads the Department of Domestic Policy Studies at the Insitute of USA and Canada in the Russian Academy of Sciences and WP counts among the Hiss deniers ("further testimonial of the absence of Hiss's name in Soviet archives was given by Russian researcher Svetlana A. Chervonnaya"), [5] had this exchange on PBS. Chervonnaya interviewed the Cohens on thier deathbeds at a KGB geriatric ward in Moscow in 1992.

• Interviewer: Now, a bit of a strange feeling you had about the Rosenbergs, did you say "jealousy about the Rosenbergs?" What was going on?
• Svetlana Chervonnaya: Yeah, that was my insight, and it's interesting that wherever I tried to talk with them about the Rossenburg story, I had a feeling that somewhere, very deep inside, they didn't want to show they had sort of jealousy that they did something for what other people got credit for--credit's bad word, because they got death chair--but still the Rosenbergs' is a landmark story, they were much in the limelight. [6] RobS 02:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Couple things

One - any chance you would do us the honor of pasting the CP Awards on user pages come Nov 21 or so?

Two - "member of a KGB front organization" - how can I become one?

Three - there was a third, but I forgot it. Perhaps you can remind me? ħuman 03:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

3 - Damn, I remembered! Can you archive some of the older parts of your talk page? Leave the funnier stuff though? ħuman 03:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(1) That would be vandalism. (2) hey, look what I just found, we've linked cp:Jake Golos to the cp:NLG (p.1). Golos is described (in WP and elsewhere) as "the main pillar of the NKVD intelligence network" in the United States. I'll see what I can do to hook you up. (3) Will do. RobS 04:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)