And how exactly am I suppose to do that when none of them, none at all provide any means to contact them directly? Your seem the most decent active sysop on Conservapedia by far, yet you come down on their side, allowing that person to continue his never ending, psychologically damaged and damaging hatred filled bullshit--Patmac (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- You can't protect the conservapedia users from themselves, only enable them. Some users at CP secretly take amusement in enabling the poor decisions of the inner circle.
- As for reporting the site to some outside authority, the SPLC will look at CP and decide it's a nasty joke... the only way CP will end (or even change) is when Andrew Schlafly tires of it.
- Lots of wikis need more good editors, this one included! There are conservatives here, they often joke about being outnumbered. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 18:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- The SPLC know all about andy and his hate blog. They know all about terry, ken, andy and their bitter twisted bile fueled world. They have more important things to care about than a blog on which noone of any import posts and which noone of any import posts to. When he started CP andy seemingly really thought that it would attract the likes of Coulter, Beck, Pamella Geller et al. He's got ken, terry, anger bear and himself. Virtually everyone else there is a parodist and they all know it. The SPLC don't care about andy, because andy and his hate blog contributors are totally insignificant. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
In reply to your post on my page, there is a HUGE difference between the right in the UK such as UKIP (although it is debatable whether they are a right wing party as they do draw a lot of support from what would be called traditional left wing voters but that is another debate) and the right in the US. In the UK even the extreme right, like the bnp, try to project a face of intelligence. The US right have long since given that up, all they are interested in in their own warped kind of ideological purity. The closest grouping in the UK to what is now the mainstream right in the US as quite frankly the far right wing members of the bnp. The 'far right' in the US are more closely alligned to groups in the UK such as C18 and blood and honour. The only way to be noticed on the 'right' in the US is to out-crazy everyone else.
Sure andy is 'respected' in certain right wing circles but that is more to do with his mother than his legal prowess. They don't call it wing-nut welfare for nothing. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Greetings, Patmac: I've been following your story on CP, the way I follow most things at CP. Now people have different reasons for going onto CP and trying to talk sense. I don't know whether your interests go beyond getting angry at Ken and his enablers (that's Andy, of course), and perhaps into actually writing stuff on a wiki. Just normal stuff, on a normal wiki. Not arguing with morons. But if you are interested in such, and ready to leave Ken behind, may I recommend http://ameriwiki.org/ It is a refugee camp for CP victims that want to contribute to what CP, or any ordinary wiki, might have been. And, by the way, I have Andy's email. He does read it, but I wouldn't suggest just yelling at him about Ken. But if you want to make a calm request to have your account reinstated, rather than telling him why he is all wrong, you could give it a try. Contact me at email@example.com if you are interested. SamHB (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, it's Markman from conservapedia. I'm just curious, how would rationalwiki deal with a user who issues legal threats toward other users of this website? Patmac gained his block fair and square and there's no reason we should allow him back. Just accept that you were wrong and go another encyclopedia which better suits your liberal ideology. - 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
If you read CP, Andy's talk page, or the link on the news pages titled something along the lines of Liberal hatred of the 1st amendment(which does not apply to me) that will give you the jist. Tell me, why are you bothering even talk to me if my views are so abhorrent to you?--Patmac (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- I seriously doubt Mr. Schlafly cares about whatever the liberal SPLC will say about him. The dog barks, but the caravan moves on. As to why I'm replying to you, I guess it for personal amusement - 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Good, you'll report CP to SPLC for not allowing you to post your jibber jabber and I'll report RW to the SPLC for allowing holocaust denial. - 220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
RE:Are you Serious?
As I have already told others whose eyebrows have been raised by the Markman candidacy, check my resume. My conduct here has been good so far. Granted, some of my edits on Talk:WIGOCP were somewhat off-color, but so far I don't think any of them were in breach of what is acceptable on RW. In my view it's clear that they were meant in humor; I doubt that there's any ambiguity as to the tone of this edit.
When contemplating whether or not to vote for me, one should assess the history of the Markman operating on RW, not the similarly named banhammer-wielding Hun from CP. If Markman is one the biggest dicks on Schlafly's blog, he's the tiniest of baby penises on RW. The level of dickishness in our banter pales in comparison to what can be seen in the interaction of some other users, including sysops and potential moderators. Just look at these two lovely exchanges.
If the supposedly frivolous blocks given by me on CP are hindrance to you in voting Markman, than let me help you in overcoming your inhibitions. The general view here is that CP is a joke website, that other than a select few of true believers all the editors are trolls and parodists seeking nothing more than their own amusement. If that is the case, why is getting the banhammer on the infamous wiki is seen by some as the equivalent of murder? Shouldn't editing at CP be seen as a game, with blocks being the equivalent of getting shot on CounterStrike?
You should take things a bit more lightly
Hey Patmac, what's up?
I seems to me that you're taking all the Conservapedia related shit that's been going on way too seriously. I think that this edit best exemplifies what I'm talking about. I know it was meant to be tongue in chick, but it does look like that you're getting too upset over the shenanigans me, Ken and other are pulling on Schlafly's blog. And I'm not telling you this in a "RESPECT THE CP, TAME THE RW" kind of way, I'm telling you this for your own good. As Tim Bayliss said on Homicide "revenge is like swallowing poison and than expecting the other person to die". He was probably quoting someone else but I can't be arsed to find out who. - Peace, Markman
- Yes, I would. getting upset at such insinuations won't change a thing. I would be particularly nonchalant considering the source. - Vote Markman for a better tomorrow! (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Regarding your latest comments
Pat, if you'll explain to me how to put a link to my email on my userpage (I'm technologically illiterate and don't know how to do it myself) than you may send me a message with your address and then I'll give you mine. I won't give you my address on this talk page since I don't want this entire website to know it. I want to continue this conversation with you in private, I won't do it here for reasons that are more or less are explained by your comments on my talk page. It might take me some time to reply since I'm somewhat busy, but I'll try to be as quick as possible when replying to you. - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well. on my word anything said in confidence I will never betray even if we fall out, public domain of course is a different matter as it should be. I think if you look at my posts at CP or RW, some of I admit have been a little over the top I will think you will see I have never been dishonest in what I have written--Patmac (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)