User talk:RobSmith/Archive 03

ArbCom

You know all this leaking of secret intel lately reminded me of your ultra-secret plan to take me and RW down using WP ArbCom. The biggest ArbCom case since EssJay? How is that going? Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Naw, the idea was to (a) enforce WP:OWN on articles w/editors w/a COI; (b) hold WP contributors in good standing to account for off-wiki behavior, where applicable; (c) build NPOV in CP related entries. It got tricky dealing w/WP editors who edit under their life identity--a problem WP has not been fully able to address going back to the the Siegenthhaler, Brandt, and Essjay controversies (and the Nobs case, too). It seems WP would prefer editors not use real life identities, despite earlier claims to encourage accountability (this is something you should consider as a WP editor, given you edit under your real name, yet have a documented history of, let's say, less than credible editing activities.) nobs^{don't bother me} 01:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Whatever happened to the disasterbate.com idea? Did this eventually evolve into RW 2.0? If so, shouldn't that be written into RW's historical narrative? nobs^{don't bother me} 01:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, you know we have read all the e-mails you guys sent back and forth about the WP think, right? You were making some pretty grandiose claims, and the running narrative of your victories was...entertaining. But I won't gloat to much. You should let Karajou know the war is over though he still seems to think your doing something there.

Disasterbate was a personal project/idea, some of the content wound up on RW, and it was my first experiment working with MW, certainly wetting my appetite and appreciating how various things that could be done with it. But no there is no direct relationship between them other than I was involved in founding both. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well thanks. So there is a link between the two, and Disasterbate, to my knowledge, never got off the ground. As to the leaks, I recently returned from assignment where I was incommunicado. Got any links to the material? My guess is TK may be the source. He got pissed off over personal attacks & stalking, and moreless faded away, thinking his efforts at CP weren't worth the price he and his family were paying at the hands of ratvandals. He's probably trying to buy some peace of mind, credibility, and friends, ala the Kevin Conley affair, by leaking material. Only a theory, though. nobs^{don't bother me} 14:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Rob, just how out of touch are you? TK passed away in December. Sheesh, you sysops have enough secret chatrooms, don't you talk to each other in them? --Ψ GremlinKhuluma! 14:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you wanted a link? --Ψ Gremlin講話 14:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Passed away? You mean like died as in like wp:Megan Meier dead? nobs^{don't bother me} 14:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he had a heart attack. I have no idea who Megan Meyers is, but if she'd dead, then yes. Seriously though - have Andy and the other sysops said nothing? Is that how much they care? --Ψ GremlinFale! 15:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

And to reinforce just how much Andy cares about his sysops, it was RationalWiki that found out and Karajou and Jpatt read about it here. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 15:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I've had trouble with this laptop for a few weeks, but will try to access my email on another unit today. In mid-December, TK emailed me & Andy privately apart from the ZG group and complained of the personal, emotional turmoil defending CP had caused him and his family, and was considering leaving. Andy thanked him. I responded that unless he favored internet censorship, this was the price we pay. If I can locate the series of emails, I may release portions (unless I get Andy's consent for the entirety). This was my last communication with TK. nobs^{don't bother me} 15:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

(EC)No Nobrot, not dead like Megan Meyers, dead like someone who had a serious health condition that the sysops at CP knew about, but obviously didn't care enough about to keep in regular touch with TK to makes sure he was okay, dead as in died, no doubt because of problems related to his medical condition, dead as in nobody at CP gave a shit at not hearing from him in 6½ weeks, dead as in when the sysops did find out about his death your Dear Leader decided not to recognise his passing on CP or post anything mourning TK's passing or recognising his contributions. That kind of dead.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 15:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Fuck me Rob, you really are a pathetic little man. You just find out that someone you considered a 'friend' died of a heart attack over two months ago, and your response is a very very cheap shot using the tragic suicide of a young girl. You truly disgust me, DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Like the scene in Hoffa with Bobby Kennedy:

Senator Kennedy. All right. All right. Well, then, why don't we talk about Joe Holtzman. - He was a close friend of yours?

Jimmy Hoffa. I knew Joe Holtzman.

Senator Kennedy. He was a close friend of yours?

Jimmy Hoffa. Now, just a moment, Bob. I said I knew Joe Holtzman. He wasn't any particular friend of mine.

Your turn, Bobby.

But read Conservapedia:TK and User:RobSmith/Rational Wiki - Death By Google Search Tactics and tell me he wasn't in an emotionally agitated state as a victim of cyber-bullying at the time of his cardiac arrest. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Rob, he had far bigger legal issues with his extended family at the time, I can assure you. --Ψ Gremlin話しなさい 21:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Cyber-bullying? No Rob, that had gone on months before his death. He was having other issues well outside of RW. Ace ^{of Spades} 21:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Stalking, for instance. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You know Rob, if I didn't know you better, I'd say that rather than feeling anything for a dead colleague, you're trying to score cheap points and somehow blame us for TK's death. Oh wait, I do know you better. --Ψ Gremlin話しなさい 21:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well Psy, TK names you by name in his Conservapedia:Parthian shot at Rational Wiki - Death by Google Search tactics. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

TK knew what game he was playing but then starts crying about when he starts losing? You can do better than that Rob. Ace ^{of Spades} 21:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

TK aside

Yes TK was the leak, the CP vs. RW "war" on WP I believe is being worked on for public release and should be up shortly. It provided a lot of interesting perspective to what the heck was going on, because, it was nearly impossible to figure it out passed on what you were saying. Still wasn't very clear. Karajou's plaintiff e-mail saying your refusal to get into specifics was making me appear "almost reasonable" was a point I repeatedly brought up myself. No real point to this, merely your constant assurance that we were running scared and all the claims that we had lost major battles, well it is just not true. I, at least, was never running scared and quiet enjoyed the episode, some good cop bad bop online RP. Again this is merely bad sportsmanship gloating.

As for Disasterbate, the connection is merely the commonality of the me and a similar time period, it was not some ideological predecessor of RW. But it taught me a lot about the software, and gave me some clearer understanding of community management. It is true that disasterbate never got off the ground but it was a project doomed to failure. I now know a lot more about what will work and what will not work. RW was a collective effort, and that is the "first rule of making a new wiki" one person can not do it, it requires a core group of dedicated people to bootstrap it to the point it becomes more self-sustained in terms of attracting editors and users. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Terry_Koeckritz#Behaviour_on_Wikipedia this narrative is incorrect -- TK actually undermined my objectives with his behavior and confusing the issue over his personal concerns. It is true, TK never did learn to play well with others. My "refusal to get in to specifics" was because both you, and Lipson, edit WP under real life identities, and some of the charges I was trying to make were very serious charges. So more than WP:CIVIL & WP:NPA applied. In the case of Lipson, possibly BLP, too cause he was granted enough notability to be given a subhead. Then the RW article was recreated, catapulting other founders to prominence & notability. I did get some enforcement of COI, though. On balance, TK's interference did more harm than good.

Yep, I've followed your career & development since the Disasterbate proposal, and it seems some of the recruits ended up here. Some of this should be part of the narrative on RW's history. As JzG (User:Boutros Boutros Boutros) said, CP suffers from MPOV, rather than NPOV, and that can be seen clearly in the CP/RW wars over the years. nobs^{don't bother me} 16:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I gotta have something left for my tell-all book for people to buy it. Did you really believe this stuff? or were you just grand standing? I can promise you that I never once was remotely worried about WP or the CP trolling taking place there. It didn't stress me out, in fact, it was stress relief, it was an entertaining game to stone wall and shut down the various machinations you guys brought to the table.

The one I really want to talk to is Geoffrey Plourde, I gotta know if he actually bought all the BS TK was shoveling at him or if he was playing along. It is really hard to tell who is trolling who. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No but I think TK may have been a victim of wp:cyber-bullying. Here's what I'm fairly certain is among my last private communication with TK : User:RobSmith/Rational Wiki - Death By Google Search Tactics. This title is the original subject penned by TK. nobs^{don't bother me} 19:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Have to say one thing for him, he was always good at protesting his "innocence." I notice how nobody questioned why he had to "make it up" in the first place. Lol, and a "fake" Yahoo account - created in 1999. We were really ahead of the game there. It's more like his past caught up with him and he couldn't keep up the conservative façade anymore. --Ψ GremlinKhuluma! 19:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

TK's dying words:

“”it is simply not worth my efforts to be humiliated and abused for blocking some little internet trolls...my family doesn’t deserve that kind of bull.

And Tmt, remember Hoji, the guy who planted anti-semitic crap in CP? Remeber your comment in RW 1.0, "Hoji's on our side". That's the stuff a fair minded Arbitrator would need to review, to determine the good faith and veracity of a WP editor, regardless of whether he edits under his true life indentity or not. nobs^{don't bother me} 19:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Be that as it may, he kept up "blocking some little internet trolls" for nearly a month after that, up until he died. As always he was doing what he did best. --Ψ GremlinTala! 19:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

When discussing his online antics TK said to me, on several occasions, Hate the game - not the player. So when the game starts turning on him he calls foul? I don't buy it. Ace ^{of Spades} 19:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

TK's dying words? Months before he died! Bring it back to WP, I am ready for another go around. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It was only three weeks before he died. And there was a noticible change in his attitude and activity. Conservaleaks being the biggest change. I imagine he wanted a full record of his side of the story for the permanent record. And he blames me for not standing up for him and his family here in Rationalwiki. And this should put to rest the fiction that I was working with him to rehab his reputation:

“”I would expect that since you are not blocked from that place, IP and user name, as I am, that I could at least depend upon you for a modicum of fairness, but I guess not....I think I have taken more than enough crap for Andy’s project….and it is simply not worth my efforts to be humiliated and abused for blocking some little internet trolls, with absolutely no reciprocating support.

nobs^{don't bother me} 20:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Rob, there was much more going on with TK's family and trust me - it had nothing to do with RW or CP. His anticvs were catching up with him, both online and in real life. You reap what you sew...just sayin... Ace ^{of Spades} 20:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, how would you know anything about TK's personal life? I never knew diddly, ceptin what I read here or some tidbits he divulged occassionally. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we knew certain aspects of it, mostly thanks to the people at Hot or Not whom TK had abused. Also, Conservaleaks wasn't a recent thing. He'd been passing on info to me since before JessicaT became a sysop. And long after that. The mutual animosity was a good shield so that nobody would suspect the link. --Ψ GremlinHable! 20:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, TK couldn't hide from all the people he fucked over forever. Things were bound to come full circle sooner or later. Ace ^{of Spades} 20:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Never speak ill of the dead -- unless it's Richard Nixon or TK. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not a liberty to discuss with you Rob how I know or exactly what it is but if TK's demeanor had changed it was more to do with personal life (including the courts) than anything RW could muster. Ace ^{of Spades} 20:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Say, after you said "... the only [thing] we as individuals, or CP as a project can do, is build credibility." did you feel betrayed when they continued to do just the opposite? --Kels (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

And my MMORPG article got moved to "fun:". How sad are we when we ignore the simple truths? Hi Rob! Get Trent kicked out of school yet? Hi Trent? What's your next move? I bet it's as brilliant as always. ħuman 08:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

TK specifically

Rob, did you believe that the person with the conservapedia username "TK" was not Terry Koeckritz? If not, why did you perpetrate such a long (and de facto deceitful) campaign claiming just that? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Huh? nobs^{don't bother me} 22:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I'm not as well versed in the history of all this as some of the others; I thought that you and Terry were trying to claim that TK wasn't Terry Koeckritz, was that not the case? (As in trying to claim the the LA Times wasn't an RS, thus WP shouldn't cite them, thus RW could say that the arsehole on CP is a guy named Terry Koeckritz.) I am genuinely sorry if I've got the wrong end of the stick on this one, counter-counter-counter-intelligence is not my strong point. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I never made the claim. I was never active in WP in the Spring of 2010 on behalf of TK for any purpose. In fact Conservaleaks supports my claim TK's intervention in WP in the Spring of 2010 ruined my efforts to improve Wikipedia's CP related entries. nobs^{don't bother me} 23:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The CP/RW war Spring 2010 campaign

My efforts were to gain enforcement of WP:OWN, WP:COI, WP:NPOV and WP:CITE in CP related entries to improve WP and the articles, not any payback or personal vendetta. And my citing here in RW the fact that off-Wikipedia conduct can be considered in WP:Dispute Resolution, I should have been thanked for my meticulous research habits, not de-sysoped. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Thanks for your meticulous research habits. Nob. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Robert.

If I make you a sysop so that you don't leave ugly red exclamation points everywhere (BTW -- for that reason alone, being a CP sysop must be a giant pain in the ass -- so many exclamation points, so many edits to patrol. A bit of trust goes a long way, baby....) will you be cool with it and not, you know, go around deleting shit and whatnot? P-Foster (talk) 02:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I humbly accept this gracious honor, and wish to thank my fans, my agent, my producer, and most of all, mom and dad. This one's for you.

And you know, I got no record of vandalism anywhere. In fact, I can't think a single sysop function I ever performed in RW, other than unblocking myself. nobs^{don't bother me} 14:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't do it P. Rob doesn't know the meaning of the word 'trust'. Whilst I am not saying he will start sysoping around all over the shop, there is simply no reason to demote him to sysop (I'll do my part in patrolling the diffs) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Rationalwiki needs balance, and not a reputation for persecuting opposing voices and dissenters. nobs^{don't bother me} 22:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

unlike CP? Ace ^{of Spades} 22:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Is that like when TK threatened to sue me and turn me in to the legal ethics board? Or all the times he and Geoffrey Plourde talked about personally interfering with Ames' law license in New York by having Andy do whatever magic only Andy can do? Or how about when TK threatened to sue Trent? What about all the times on your email lists when Brian MacDonald talked about fucking with Trent's personal and professional life? Are any of those kinds of things part of building a reputation for balance and not for persecuting opposing voices and dissenters? User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 22:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Or that time TK reckons he reported me to homeland security so I'd get thrown in jail if I ever went to the USA again? Ace ^{of Spades} 22:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Rob, in what possible way is not making you a sysop "persecuting opposing voices and dissenters"? Blocking you (and maybe rangeblocking your ISP (and maybe 403 blocking your whole country server side)) would do that, but we're simply not that kind of wiki, thank you very much. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

(EC)The Conservaleaks material supports everything I've said at that time, and now. See for example, my posting Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 12:08 AM:

He's [Sid] citing something in the WP:RS (LA Times) which is can't be changed....etc.

TK would not listen and cooperate, rather went to WP himself, without knowledge processes & procedures, mad an ass of himself, effectively got the focus off the issues I was discussing, and on him and his bellicose methods and behavior. He could give a rats ass about NPOV for the CP entry, only his own personal problems. His intervention ruined my case. See his response to me Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 1:15 AM: "STOP". His issues were more to him than what I was trying to do for CP at WP.

I know little of his banning from RW or other issues other than what was disccussed at the time. All it was was a distraction for me, and everybody else from what I was trying to do in WP. Typical TK. nobs^{don't bother me} 22:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

And the CP discussion lists are for content & policy discussion, AFAIK, and I rarely get involved in personal dipsutes. nobs^{don't bother me} 22:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

And yet TK was one of the Fab Five, and you just a peon. Do you suppose they don't respect the counter-intelligence services you provide over at CP? It must be hell having to sit at the kids table with Kendoll while the adults make the decisions. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘There's much here at RW on this, see I was a Conservapedia Administrator for example, or the opening of Appendix C of that document:

this was initially dismissed as fabrication, but discovering that E.Wig was TK convinced me that it was genuine.

Mr. Schlafly, I hope you will read this, as I will not write again. TK is a member of Rationalwiki, using the name "EWig". He has been banning good CP users and installing subversive "socks" from rationalwiki, and passing information from the CP sysops "special-discussion-group" mailing list and copies of your emails to rationalwiki members, and is trying to frame Rob S for it. [1] nobs^{don't bother me} 23:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

So did you or did you not take any of this or the other evidence to heart? If you did take it to heart, what, in your capacity as CP COINTELPRO officer, did you do about it? User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 04:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit break

Rob, you seem to have missed my question, so I shall repeat it here: in what possible way is not making you a sysop "persecuting opposing voices and dissenters"? Blocking you (and maybe rangeblocking your ISP (and maybe 403 blocking your whole country server side)) would do that, but we're simply not that kind of wiki, thank you very much. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Give him a fucking bucket already. Hell he can have mine. C®ackeЯ

Ehh Cracker, been a long time. Howyadoin? nobs^{don't bother me} 23:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocking and Sysops

I am not saying you have blocked me but you openly endorse a site that Can't handle a little well rounded criticism of your valued beliefs?. Now you answer my question - How does not being a sysop here in any way impinge on your ability to criticize RW? Ace ^{of Spades} 03:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, so a high-level trusted Bureaucrat endorses guilt by association. Whatever happened to the right of free association? Does RW penalize people for holding dissenting views? You've never made a credible case for desysoping me. Why is the burden to prove my innocence placed on me? Why do I have to endure second-class status and ride the back of the Rationalwiki bus? nobs^{don't bother me} 03:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see - you were just trolling and had no intention of answering anyone else's questions - you merely moaning about not being a sysop on a site you profess to dislike. Sounds like commie agitprop to me....If you had told me you were merely trolling I would rolled this out earlier.... Ace ^{of Spades} 03:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for dragging you in to this Ace, I just rather liked your succinct "there's no reason for him to be a sysop"... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 03:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, there isn't any reason. He can edit just like everyone else. Non-sysopness just identifies him as a cunt. Ace ^{of Spades} 03:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so the whole world can see what a petty vindictive little prick you are, unable to stand by your vaunted beliefs, so you persistently resort to ad hominems. Doesn't reflect well on a site you endorse. nobs^{don't bother me} 03:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Ace ^{of Spades} 03:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Reason for block: Foul and abusive language towards an administrator I apologize to Massa Ace and Massa Delta. nobs^{don't bother me} 03:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Apology accepted Rob. But please, try to watch your language, this is a family friendly site. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 03:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

HEY! Rob, you are neither qualified nor worthy of using the term "Massa." SirChuckB^{El...ipses are Cool...} 18:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

To paraphrase Jimmy McNulty from Season 1 of The Wire; "Hey, maybe he's a black guy." P-Foster (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

All I gotta say 'bout that. --Kels (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

And I apologize to Missy Kels too for whatever I did to to cause her to have such a shit-ass attitude toward me. nobs^{don't bother me} 01:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It ain't what you say, honey, it's what you can prove. Don't want a shit-ass attitute? Then don't be a shit-ass. --Kels (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Doan whup me, Massa. nobs^{don't bother me} 01:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Playing to the stereotype much there Nobski?-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 01:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Terry Koekritz death may be latest attributable to cyber-bullying

Can we just perma-ban his ass now? He'd do the same to any of us at CP.--Thunderstruck^{You've Been...}

Do it my man, ban me for ideological reasons; show the world what an intolerent bigot you are. Make that part of RW history, and the permanent record. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, Rob, might I venture that if the RationalWiki brass were into ideological blocks, I would be in no position to make this talk-page post? ListenerX^TalkerX 04:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

So, Rob, if blocking for ideological reasons makes one an intolerant bigot, then what is Conservapedia? DickTurpis (talk) 04:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Are we gonna have that debate once again? the cyber-bullying/harassment/stalking/vandalism killed TK. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

What the fuck are you on about, Rob? Junggai (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

RW faked a Yahoo profile from the late 1990's? Amazing! Ace ^{of Spades} 21:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, don't underestimate RW Ace; we are Anonymous, we DDoS sites (including our own!), we maintain numerous secret cabals, and even kill people! Have I missed anything out there Rob? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh that's rich. Blame the victims of TK's years of outrageous personal abuse. TK was one of several people at CP who have no compunction whatsoever about getting right up in their ideological enemies' personal business simply because they disagree. TK, Brian Macdonald, and your former butt-boy Geoffrey Plourde (he really is a nasty little shit when you read the chat sessions TK leaked over the years) are all very clearly on the record for conspiring to reach out into several RW editors' personal business. You think I'm going to let a lying piece of human excrement like TK get away with telling me he's going to turn me in to the ethics board for my participation on RW? You think for one second he gets to pretend he's anonymous on the internet when he tells me he recommended to Andy Schlafly that RW bureaucrats be sued for whatever it is he thinks "we" did, since he believed without the least legal basis that (a) we're a monolith and (b) have personal legal liability for whatever it was he didn't like about RW? You're a loon, Rob. You're nuts. You know damn well TK dished out far more than he received. I know what killed him and it has nothing to do with RationalWiki or Conservapedia. Get fucked. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 21:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

NR, this is a CP sysop you're talking to. When a person dies the first thing they think is "How can I use this to further my agenda?". EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 22:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Rob, TK died of coronary artery disease, caused by 40 years of 2 pack a day cigarette smoking, overuse of alcohol and at times drugs, excessive weight, age, a 'type A' personality, and a sedentary lifestyle.

He was no more or less concerned than usual before his death about the (factual) information that was posted about him online, but did play up that angle in his ongoing bid for 'cratship at CP.

However, what may have stressed his already weakened heart was his anxiety over his almost certain impending doom at his upcoming mandatory court appearance in California, (scheduled for 4 days after the date of his unexpected death) where he would have been proven to have lied to the court and embezzeled money yet again from family members. The court documents that were filed are public record. Andy is an attorney, have him verify this.

In fact, TK's health had been very poor for quite some time; he had been virtually housebound for years, and he did not improve his habits even after his emergency leg surgery 2 years ago for collapsed blood vessels, caused by sitting in a chair in front of his computer for hour after hour, day after day, for years.

TK hadn't worked for many years, he lived his life in front of his computer. Believe what you may about his tales of business/employees/connections/spouse/travel etc., none of it was true. Sorry to burst your bubble. It was his fantasy, and the things that members of RW uncovered about him were, for the most part, accurate.

You could pity him, but I have more compassion for his victims, for TK was a very troubled person who got pleasure from doing terrible things to others. I will not recount the many things he has done to hurt innocent people, both online and in real life, and cannot make you privvy to the information that I base these statements on, so you will continue to believe as you wish - but for you say that people from RW were responsible for causing his death is wrong, and I cannot let such statements stand. 193.200.150.125 (talk) 02:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Quite a dossier you compiled there on TK. And NR, I'll review the dialogue you & TK had last April. Got a link? nobs^{don't bother me} 01:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you'll find the dossier was complied by people not associated with RW but other sites where TK made his presence known. Ace ^{of Spades} 02:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You know me. I'm Nutty Roux! User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 02:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If I recall the alleged legal threats were not made on Rationalwiki at all, so why was TK blocked for two yeares, then? nobs^{don't bother me} 00:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

So... if I say I'm going to kill you here, you won't sic the cops on me in real life?

Oh - and how did the biggest spy in CP history, one Mr Terry Koecritz manage to escape your rigorous McCarthy-esque investigations, Rob?

Are you going to come clean now?

Since you're already a member of a vandal site?

'Fess up, you commie bastard. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Rob, cyber-bullying/harassment/stalking/vandalism killed TK. Where I differ is that it was TK's cyber-bullying/harassment/stalking/vandalism that killed him. If he hadn't been a colossal dickhead he'd probably still be alive today. DickTurpis (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Breaking

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Well, here's more facts you guys all missed in chronicling the TK saga. Phillip Rayment resigned after I brought the following information to the Conservapedia:Special Discussion Group.

From: Rob Smith
To: Special Discussion Group
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 12:58 AM
Subject:3056 Question to TK

TK created his user account 19:29, 13 March 2007; two days later, as a non-Sysop, TK cut and pasted Aschlafly's signature (basically forged) to a posting on the cp:Ronald Reagan/Talk page. My question, Do you have a habit of doing such things?
http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Ronald_Wilson_Reagan&diff=next&oldid=39973^img

Philip at first didn't want to b eleive it.

fromPhilip Rayment
dateMon, Jul 2, 2007 at 9:10 AM
subject3059 Re: Question to TK

Sorry, Rob, but that one is a weak argument.
TK didn't just copy and paste Andy's signature, but Andy's entire post, with signature and date included, presumably to show who he was quoting. Here's Andy's post that he copied: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=39994^img.

TK lamely tried to defend himself.

Terry to special-discus.
show details 7/2/07

Are you a moron? I pasted, in its entirety, Andy’s statement about using Wikipedia, Rob. That was the point.

I urge you to stop, as each post of yours shows a hatred and personal animosity that point to you as the source for the email.

--TK

Months later Andy and I returned to the same discussion thread.

Rob Smith to Aschlafly
show details 12/1/07

As to the TK controversy, my position is unchanged from when I asked this question -- and never received a satisfactory answer. While his technical knowledge and contributions have been helpful, there's been a pattern of deception from the beginning, of which opening the special-discussion list is only the latest. So I'd be inclined to vote no against bringing him back, but I don't really want to discuss it publicly.

Andy replied,

Reply |Aschlafly@aol.com to me
show details 12/1/07

Rob, you and another Sysop alerted me long ago about suspicious activities by TK.
Perhaps I gave TK too much of the benefit of the doubt. Regardless, it's water over the dam now. Other elder Sysops are furious at how he opened the discussion group to public view (he later closed it in response to the objections). I don't expect a majority of our Sysops to want TK back any time soon.
God bless,
Andy

Sooooo, I was on the job before TK ever got sysoped. nobs^{don't bother me} 02:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah! So what you're saying is that nobody at CP values your opinion! Thanks for clearing that up. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 02:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

We know about TK from the git-go. Nevertheless, he was willing to devote endless hours in mindless & meaningless debates with ratvandals, so God Bless him. The rest of us have lives to live. nobs^{don't bother me} 02:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The rest of us have lives to live. Have you ever met Ken? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 04:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Hell, have you ever met Andy? --Kels (talk) 04:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You guys still missing the point: TK abused his editing privileges and forged Andy's signature to win an argument before he ever got sysoped. After lo these many years, and countless enumerations of his many crimes, it take me to cite the fraud he committed^img before he ever fooled Andy into granting him Sysop powers. Jesus H. Christ. What a bunch of nitwits you all. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Just because you think that this (I looked through TK's shenanigans early on) is the point doesn't mean that any other wrong statement by you (The rest of the sysops have live to live) will not be challenged. --larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Jesus H. Christ. You'd think me citing chapter & verse where TK committed fraud, Andy was warned, and made TK a sysop anyway woulde be breaking news and the TK en try, Gang of Four, UC entries, etc. would need to be rewritten. A similiar pattern occurred in the Lenski Affair; but you all arew such partisan hacks with a shit-ass attitude toward me personally, your mindless bigotry blinds you to facts. nobs^{don't bother me} 19:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Eh? So TK fucks around with Conservapedia and somehow that's RationalWiki's fault?? 67.159.5.242 (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's his point. Seems like he's just sore that despite revealing that he was secretly on the anti-TK bandwagon his dick won't suck itself. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 19:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Rob's trying to say here. 'I saw TK do something bad early on" What's your point Rob? WIGOCP is filled with bad stuff TK did, not that any of you took any notice. And this new 'I hated TK all along' tack is remarkably different from your earlier 'RW KILLED TK' tack. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 20:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I do like how it illustrates how innefectual a counter-intel officer Rob really is. He exposes this horrible crime in what, July? And he doesn't get de-sysopped until November, over something totally different, then gets it back a while later with no trouble. Not sure why Rob would want to highlight his incompetence, I suspect he can't help it. --Kels (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

So I bring forward primary source, eyewitness information that clears up longstanding mysteries and dispels many Ratwiki editors misinterpretations. Some of this material does not reflect well on either Andy or TK. These cites reveal innaccuries in several RW (& Encyclopedia Dramatica) articles. Now if I were to try to edit any of these articles, my work would be instantly reverted. Screw all of you with your harassment of anyone who challenges your ignorance and bigotted stereotypes. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you seen this, Rob? It's nothing new. And what would you want to add to the article about TK, that he deceived his supposed fellows at CP and worked against them behind the scenes? It's not like nobody realized that particular part of his personality before. You had an early hunch that he shouldn't be trusted, OK. But still, it was to no avail because Andy and the others chose to listen to him instead of you; they even let him back in after he had demonstrated beyond any doubt what his agenda was. Makes it all the more frustrating to defend that site, no? Röstigraben (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

TBH, Rob, if that's your best argument it's not a very good one. TK put the whole post in quotes, so it's pretty clear he isn't trying to BE Andy. I ag.... agr... agre... DAMMIT I AGREE WITH TK!!! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's the thread from Conservaleaks; Philip Rayment initially reacts the same you just did, but later resigned and wrote his critical expose, I was a Conservapedias Administrator. And facts are, cutting & pasting anothers statement & signature to a wiki page as TK did, is forgery in the legal sense of the term. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

So what you're saying here is Philip took a principled stand while you knuckled under like a little bitch and kept supporting the site even after he came back. You're a hero Rob, and that's the truth. --Kels (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Rob, PJR did not leave because TK quoted Andy on a talk page. He left because his fellow sysops were, almost to a man, blind, ignorant, arrogant and power-mad, because of Andy's insistence on trusting TK (ideologically pure) over honest characters such as TimS (who dared criticize CP) and because of Andy in general. But as others have noted, Rob way to have taken a stand over TK. Though I suppose we need to take into account that archconservatives are better at dealing with imagined threats (they can't fight back) than real ones. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 22:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The CP Timeline states for this day (Jul 3 07) "fighting between RobS and TK continues at a riotous rate"; on his deathbed he blames me for his problems: "I would expect that since you are not blocked from that place, IP and user name, as I am, that I could at least depend upon you for a modicum of fairness, but I guess not...I have taken more than enough crap for Andy’s project….and it is simply not worth my efforts to be humiliated and abused for blocking some little internet trolls, with absolutely no reciprocating support"[2]

So I think some of the material on this site about my & TK's relationship is grossly in error. nobs^{don't bother me} 23:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you train to be that stupid, or do you just hit your head a lot? --Kels (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Rob, there's nothing wrong with quoting a post in full. It was all quoted - TK wasn't pretending to be anyone else. Admit you're wrong or lose all credibility! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrong!

Rob, you claim "Sooooo, I was on the job before TK ever got sysoped" in Jul 2007. But TK was sysopped in March 2007 (and stripped in Nov 2007), so just when exactly were you on to him before he was sysopped? --PsyGremlinZungumza! 09:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Utterly Arbitrary break

Hey Rob, why not try this act on ED too? I'm sure they'd be more receptive to it. --Kels (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Umm guys (gender inclusive guys that may in fact include female ones) . ^NoodleDick_SissyPants^{Noodle with me!} 21:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit break so my obese atheistic fingers don't get tired from scrolling

Rob, you ought to know, I am an actual editor, not just an insult to you (or a sock of Ace). ^NoodleDick_SissyPants^{Noodle with me!} 21:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

HEY ROB

CP is broken again. P-Foster (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This webpage is not available The webpage at http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:RecentChanges might be temporarily down or it may have moved permanently to a new web address. Error 324 (net::ERR_EMPTY_RESPONSE): Unknown error. . Seriously, dude. Fuckin' call Andy up and tell him to get his shit together. This is embarrassing. P-Foster (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

TK article

The TK article is now unlocked for your editing pleasure. Are you planning on editing it? Let me know if you aren't going to make any changes. --Damo^Hi 22:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

FER FUCK'S SAKES, ROB.

Can you please tell Andy, the independently successful lawyer, when he comes back from arguing cases before the Supreme Court and has finished making humanitarian contributions to knowledge and future generations that the website that he doesn't charge access for is fucking broken again. Thanks.

"This webpage is not available. The webpage at http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:RecentChanges might be temporarily down or it may have moved permanently to a new web address. Error 324 (net::ERR_EMPTY_RESPONSE): Unknown error." P-Foster (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith...

...you weren't trying to delete another users's comment, right? P-Foster (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No. Sorry. I had an EC & cut and pasted my edit a second time. Sorry. nobs^{don't bother me} 22:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Phelps as a liberal

So let's open up the "reasons Fred Phelps is a liberal" argument again. We'll try to keep the discussion off the term "leftist" this time because it's distracting and it seems that much has been removed from the article. So, let me begin: CP has Phelps in the category "liberals". CP defines liberal as generally supporting a couple dozen ideas (see cp:liberal). You have not been able to identify a single one of those views that Phelps holds. So, is Phelps a liberal? If so, how? Is CP's definition of liberalism flawed? Please stay on topic here. It's a very simple and straightforward question. Please don't introduce accusations of cyberterrorism or McCarthyism or any other irrelevant bullshit. Just explain to me what views Phelps holds that can be described as liberal (views plural, holding a single view that may potentially fall within the category of "liberalism" is hardly sufficient). DickTurpis (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

"Trying to impede the freedoms of others" would be a good start, Rob. So would "implementation of affirmative action," "promot[ing] arrogance through what they consider superior lifestyles," "opposition to Operation Iraqi Freedom, a major part of the War on Terrorism," "withhold[ing] support to our armed forces fighting overseas to protect their freedoms," and, of course, "opposition to the Bible and God." ListenerX^TalkerX 23:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone disagree Phelps and Westboro Church are "promot[ing] arrogance through what they consider superior lifestyles"?

I'll put cp:Liberalism on my reading list. I havn't reviewed it since Dr. Lipson came to CP to offer his expertise and allegedly "moderate" its content. nobs^{don't bother me} 00:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Just taking a wild guess, I would say the disagreement is whether "liberals" are doing that. It could of course be argued that some number of them are, since from Conservapedia's right-wing populist perspective most snobs are "liberals," but it would be affirming the consequent thus to conclude that most "liberals" are snobs. ListenerX^TalkerX 00:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I would agree. And I would add that of the 17% who self-identify as liberal, many are not liberal at all, or cannot define what liberalism is other than, "a liberal is a leftist and a leftist is a liberal". nobs^{don't bother me} 02:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

So you take the approach that mroe people say they're liberal than actually, are? You realize you're contradicting Andy the Great here, who believes most liberals don't admit they're liberals? Are you calling his Infalliableness wrong? DickTurpis (talk) 05:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice job, Nobby. You brought up "leftism" before answering the question, as requested to not do. ħuman 04:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That is, in fact, a problem; pinkos hid behind the cloak of "liberalism" during the Red Scare, causing everything to get so mixed around that even well-meaning people today are confused as to what the word means. But this is hardly a unique "liberal" problem, as is evidenced by the laughable caricatures of "liberals" that are so popular with wingnuts, and also by the many people who think that "conservatism" involves gathering in mass protests, committing civil disobedience, and, as Newt Gingrich put it, initiating "explosive" legislative action. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Did't Phelps just win a First Amendment case with ACLU backing? Why, I thought only right-wing conservative fascists wanted to restrict people's rights and liberals stood up for free speech? nobs^{don't bother me} 04:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he did. That's how the ACLU rolls, after all. Your second question... I don't know what it means, if anything. ħuman 04:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Liberals (the real ones) mostly support Phelps in his First Amendment cases. It is his proposals to execute people for a bit of the wrong sort of hanky-panky that they dislike.

Traditionally, the ones who wanted his mouth closed were on the left; but if you will observe the record, you will note that the campaign against him in this country only got really serious when he started picking on the families of dead soldiers instead of the patrons of gay bars. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Traditionally that would include Al Gore. Did Gore once want to excute homosexuals, in addition to burning Rap music as Tipper advocatged? nobs^{don't bother me} 12:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This is why people uniformly don't take you seriously. Wherever you go online. You come off like a buffoon. Nutty Roux (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No, he didn't. Don't ask such ridiculously stupid questions, if you can possibly help it. DickTurpis (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, I like your reference to ex-cute homosexuals. No I think Gore always preferred the ones who were still cute. DickTurpis (talk) 02:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Rob, if you are using hyperbole to refer to the time Phelps hosted a Gore campaign event in his church, that was in 1988, before Phelps started making all the anti-gay noise. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Cp:liberal and cp:liberalism are 2 entirely different articles. The former lists several dozen alleged liberal traits, of which the only ones that might fit are opposition to the Iraq War perhaps, though that is questionable as he seems very fond of dead soldiers, which he wouldn't have without the war, so I'm not even sure I can grant you that one. The promotion of arrogance through alleged superior lifestyles might fit, but that describes Andy perfectly, so that might make him a liberal too, just like wanting to restrict the freedoms of others. You're apparently a liberal because you support efforts to rehabilitate criminals, do you not? So Phelps fits maybe 2 or 3 of these, and is the polar opposite of many of the rest, and that makes him a liberal, eh? Very convincing. I could give him "tolerance of wrong-headed idea" for being an anti-gay bigot, but that's also Andy, so right now I think he's scoring higher on this rubric than Phelps. And Andy's also closer to a Nazi than any liberal I've ever known, so he's doing quite well here. Do you want to break the bad news to him that he's a closet liberal, or should I burn a sock to do it myself? DickTurpis (talk) 04:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Not to get sidetracked, but you guys totally missed the difference beween Andy & my conservativism in that article. When it was written, my only contrib was about opposition to an interventionist foreign policy (or words to that effect). I come out of the the Vandenberg/Eisenhower internationalist wing of the GOP, which supored FDR & Trumanh's intervention. Andy comes from a more isolationist, America First tradition (remember, Phylis authored Kissinger on the Couch, a critique of US foreign policy under Nixon). So truth is, Andy has more in common with the anti-Bush, anti-Iraq War scumbags than you guys ever realized (or were willing to admit, assuming your powers of analysis & observation are stronger than your blind hatred & partisanship).

Oh, and are you gonna dust off the old "Nazis were bible thumpers" canard, too, now? nobs^{don't bother me} 12:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

"Not to get sidetracked" he says, as he completely sidetracks the conversation. Anyway, all of Andy's statements about the Iraq War while Bush was in charge completely contradict your "anti-Bush, anti-Iraq War" assertion, so unless you can come up with some statements from him backing this up, you're again full of shit (and that's statements from before Jan 20, 2009, when the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan suddenly turned bad; oh, and did you just call Andy a scumbag, or just say he was a lot like one?). He always considered Kissinger a liberal, anyway, and mommy opposed him for being too much like McNamara. Admittedly, since 2009, Andy has moved somewhat into the Pauls' camp, but I'm pretty sure he's called them both RINOs when they've opposed things he liked. His commitment to them is only on the economic side; their social libertarianism in anathema to him. This all has nothing to do with Phelps, whom you have still yet to defined as a liberal on any grounds, other than perhaps the vague "arrogance" and "is a dick", which, let's face it, aren't political views and don't hold any water. Care to actually try to stay on topic and describe what makes Phelps a liberal, or are you going to effectively give in by changing the topic with every reply? because, you see, that's a win for me.

As for the Nazis, bible thumpers perhaps not so much, but they were Christians, and certainly Hitler was. Not very good Christians, sure, and less committed to Christianity than Nazi ideology, but hardly left-wingers, and hardly atheists (I suppose some individual Nazis here and there could have been atheists, but it was far from normal). DickTurpis (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's try to put this another way

Why don't I just reformulate the question in yes/no form:

Would you agree, Rob, that CP's definition of "liberal" actually just boils down to "anyone who we see as reprehensible and evil"?

Junggai (talk) 08:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Not unlike many RWers understanding of conservatiism, I presume. Let's take te Presidential oath of offce, for example, it reads, "preserve, potect, and defend", it does not read "transform." Now, what is the difference between "preserve", and "conserve"? and what is the difference between "preserve" and "transform" (or "change")? and which, conservative or "change", more closely adheres to the directive to preserve? nobs^{don't bother me} 12:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

...Was that the idiot's grin? Occasionaluse (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Your ability to use non-sequiturs in place of an answer is breathtaking. It takes a rare skill to be able to give an answer that is totally unrelated to the question. Congratulations. --Damo^Hi 19:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to keep trying until you answer yes or no

Would you agree, Rob, that CP's definition of "liberal" actually just boils down to "anyone who we see as reprehensible and evil"?

Junggai (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

hiya robs

Could you maybe use whatever influence you have at CP to get the four-o-three blocks lifted? Also, why is everyone here so dickish towards you? What did you do? Did you write one of those disparaging "satire" essays calling people fat?--Brxbrx (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

nevermind, I came upon the Wherein Rob demonstrates the CP understanding of Community thread. I know why everybody hates you now. But srsly, you should petition for the ending of the IP range blocks. Conservapedia is quite dear to me (for different reasons than it is to you, though).--Brxbrx (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Well if I knew what a 403 block is, or how its done from the sysop side, maybe could discuss it with Andy & the others. Sid explained a little bit, but I'm just not proficient in technical crap, and can't pretend to be. nobs^{don't bother me} 04:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, neither is Ed, but it doesn't stop him pretending. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Rob, you don't need technical knowledge for any of this. No one is asking you to fiddle with switches and trip doohickeys. If you could just say to Andy something like "many ip address all over the world apparently are unable to even access Conservapedia. Is this beneficial and should this policy be reversed?" that would be a great start and you needn't even know what those pesky numbers 403 mean (nor do you even need to be able to count that high, which no doubt may be another problem). DickTurpis (talk) 04:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

They are aware of the problem, it's just that they don't see it as one. Karajou seems to think that not being able to view the site is worse for us than for them. No answer from Andy himself, but the recent expansion of blocks couldn't have been done without his knowledge. Rob, maybe you could just relay to Andy that it's true that this is hurting our ability to view and mock Conservapedia, but at the cost of turning the site invisible, which is definitely not a good thing if you're in the public advocacy business. You either try to get your awesome insights out there and endure criticism, or you might just as well pull the plug for good and not waste any more money and time. Andy isn't exactly the kind of guy who's open to rational arguments, but then, he never seemed to care as much about RW as people like Karajou and Ken, so maybe he'll listen to it. Röstigraben (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Been quiet for a while

You seem to have disappeared without addressing any of the questions asked of you. I can't say I'm surprised. Anyway, if you'd care to discuss the Phelps matter (or anything else) I've made an convenient essay exploring CP's definition of "liberal" and how it relates to specific people. I suppose you can always take the approach that "this isn't my definition, it's Conservapedia's" and fair enough; I imagine you didn't write any of it yourself. Still, I have to admit a fair amount of the examples given, while not phrased in an NPOV manner, are common traits of liberals (though specific to contemporary liberals in the USA), although quite a few are complete bullshit. Spoiler alert: neither Phelps nor another guy come off as very liberal, even by CP's skewed definitions. Anyway, it's all there. Feel free to comment.

Oh, and do you know if the DMorris who was here briefly is the real DMorris? He refused to do a simple act to establish he wasn't an impostor, and I believe he has been banned under he assumption that he is until he proves otherwise. Someone should let him no edits have been made here under his name. DickTurpis (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Confession time: ok, I'll admit to a fight-fir-with-fire approach to dealing with liberal deciet (remember, you did just above admit to using sockpupetry in violation of the website owners rules). And once bad faith is established, the substance of the issue is moot. Id rather contrast my fight-fire-with-fire approach to TK's (and some others, and you can probably find numerous instances of me arguing on Conservaleaks that blocking RW editors is fruitless, and arguning RW must be engaged at some level directly. Establishing good faith editing practices is the only way to build balanced, constructive collaborations; blocking trolls and vandals only leads to an infinite game of cat'n'mouse, which evidently, TK enjoyed (TK masterbating to CP's block log is one of the funniest things in RW). nobs^{don't bother me} 02:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

OK then Rob, time to put your actions where your words are, you should unblock my user:DamianJohn, who never did any vandalism on CP and could hardly be called a sockpuppet since that is in fact my name. Damo^Hi 02:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I admit, "fight fire with fire" is a much more sensible approach than your usual "fight reality with stupid". --Kels (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Damo:I'm impressed with this edit [3]; did you know the connecdtion between the Indian Removal Act and the extermination of ative Amricans, and the notorious racist founder of the US Democratic Party, Andrew Jacksaon? Did your know modern Democrats still honor thier racist killer founder with Jeferson-Jackson fundraising dinners in every county of America to this day? If Bush & GOP congress can be critcized for thing it would failing to remove that racist-Democratic icon's picture from the $20 blll and replacing it with Reagan. I'll look into the Damo account further.

Kels: were you the User:Canadianliberalcommiegay (or whatever) account I just blocked? nobs^{don't bother me} 02:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Damo:Done. nobs^{don't bother me} 02:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope. I've never had an account there, sock or otherwise, and no interest in doing so. Although both TK and Koward have blocked accounts claiming they were mine, total lies of course. --Kels (talk) 03:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Rob. A very positive step in the step towards better understanding between differing political ideals. --Damo^Hi 02:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

But, but... You're a member of a vandal site!  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, Rob, to try to respond to some of what you said there, let's assume for the moment if my initial account were not blocked by TK merely for being a member of this site (a clear violation of CP's rules, which state that they do not block users for what they do on other sites; a laughable assertion) maybe I wouldn't have needed a sockpuppet? Then again, I did still use more than one account at times, mostly because I wanted to see if an decietful, sycophantic asshole would get better treatment than someone who legitimately questioned some aspects of the site. Guess what the result was. In any case, having used more than one account at CP several years ago has little bearing on Phelps' political stance, or is it policy at CP that something must remain in an article forever if someone who wanted to remove it at one point broke the rules? Your unwillingness to defend this issue basically says to me you can't defend it, which is what I assumed all along.

As for your contractually obligated non-sequitur about Andrew Jackson, what is your point? We have a racist on our $20 Bill? We do on our our $1, $2, $5, $10, $50 etc. So our early leaders, even the founding fathers, were dickheads. So what? I'd be all for removing every face from every bill and replacing them with polyhedrons. Nothing to do with anything. Anyway, Andrew Jackson's views are more in line with conservatives than liberals today. DickTurpis (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

So, there there may be redemption after all? or are we all condemned to the hell of Rationalwiki or Wikipedia by our actions? And is the "Andrew Jackson is more in line with consrvatives today" merely a variation of the "Hitler is more in line with athiest liberals of today" arguments which seems to have made inroads of greater currency and acceptance lately? nobs^{don't bother me} 21:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

What does this have to do with RW and WP? Can you try to stay on topic for at least 5 or 10 seconds? I guess I deserve some blame when you go off on these tangents and I follow you. Anyway, Jackson was a proponent of a strong executive, much like neo-cons today. Also he tended to favor laissez faire policies and states' rights. (Also, he was a general, and according to CP, liberals hate the military.) Obviously politics has changed greatly in the last 175 years, so there's no sense in trying to pigeonhole issues of today into Jackson's time and vice versa. I was just making a relatively broad claim there that Jackson is probably a bit more conservative than liberal by today's standards. Not meant to be a smear. As for Hitler, well, I explored Hitler's liberalism by CP standards and didn't come up with much. I notice CP oddly doesn't include immigration policy on its list, or else we'd have another issue wherein Hitler is more in line with conservatives. You'll never address this, of course, because that would involve staying on topic for at least one reply. I'm just wondering what you'll bring up next. So far today I've seen you inject topics with Andrew Jackson, Pinochet, Peter Lipson, Wikipedia, and other subjects not relevant to the discussion at hand. I'm guessing we're overdue for an Alger Hiss reference. DickTurpis (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Well we did have a link to the Hiss page from the Smith Act reference at WIGO, but I could rewrite my rebuttal to Jpatt (cp:Talk:Essay:Impeach_Obama#A_dose_of_reality) to read, "Michelle Obama did not serve on the House Judiciary Committee as Hillary did, so there's no notion of payback for promoting oneself as Watergate was payback for Algew Hiss." nobs^{don't bother me} 02:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's been what, a week now? and you have been dancing all around the issue as to Phelps' alleged liberalness. I'm taking this as an admission that you cannot defend the assertion that Phelps is a liberal. Care to remove that from his article then? DickTurpis (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere in the text is h called a liberal. He's a nut, more in keeping with traditional radical liberalism.Your objections must be about the two Catergory tags & the Liberal traits template tags. The traits cdertainly fit, although some might consider the policy & ideology links questionable; this is more a question over the template itself and not Phelps. I'd be inclinded to agree maybe the Catgegory tags could be removed, ut if it is to be interpreted by default that Phelps then can be molded to fit Repuiblican, GOP, Religious Rioght, Christian fundementalist, or conservaive, I'd have to oppose that, and I'm just don't feel like fighting a battle like that with other CP users & sysops right now. I'm not motivated to defened liberalism from false slanders -- I'm been victimized too many times myself personally with slanders and smears by self-described liberals. I understand to well what liberalism is. I don't understand why you feel the necessity to crusade on Phbelps behalf to defend him from this terrible smear nobs^{don't bother me} 05:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere in the text is h [sic] called a liberal. He's a nut, more in keeping with traditional radical liberalism. Perhaps I am mistaken, due to that load of buckshot you appear to have dropped in your keyboard recently, but in those sentences you appear to be saying, "He's not a liberal; he's more of a liberal." ListenerX^TalkerX 06:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

So basically what you're saying is "he's not politically a liberal (even though liberalism is a political view), but, like liberals he's stupid and smells bad and is ugly and is a big jerkface and poops his pants and those are all liberal traits so the category fits regardless." I'm not asking that you replace them with conservative templates or anything (I know that would never happen anyway), but since you seem to agree that he isn't a liberal I see no reason why this smear on liberalism (not a smear on Phelps, as you well know) should stay. Of course, you're inherently dishonest, as you claim he is not politically a liberal, and that the article never says he is, but you're the one who initially inserted the description as "leftist" into the lead (and before you go on your "a leftist is not a liberal" BS sidetrack again, let me refer you to CP's own definition of cp:leftist which states they are "on the far left side of the political spectrum, not merely a liberal, but more radical"). So Phelps isn't a liberal, but he is a radical liberal? Are you really this stupid, or is playing dumb just your way of trolling? DickTurpis (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Does this mean you will now unblock my username, since I never once vandalized CP - ok, "except" for that one time I removed "is probably a Muslim" from the BHO article, for which Andy blocked me for a day or two. Oh, and undo the 403 thing for SE NH Comcast users? ħuman 05:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The latest madness @ CP

So does the call for a military coup represent an across-the-board editorial consensus for the website, or has JPatt gone rogue? P-Foster (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't know a thing about it other than what you posted above, and why should I? nobs^{don't bother me} 02:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

"I strongly believe the President needs to be removed from office by the U.S. Military..." Makes for interesting reading. P-Foster (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as Rob holds a position of trust and responsibility at the site, I expect he'd be interested in just what he's attaching his name to. Always assuming he's earned such an exalted post and not just made it up. --Kels (talk) 04:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Two comments: (a) the essay is Original Research which appears at firstsight to be a criticism of WP's policy against OR; and (b) User:P-Foster fundementally misrepresents what the author flatly states, "Am I advocating a military coup? No I am not." Now, you could discuss the extra-constitutionalty of this question, or the whackiness of the idea, but it is a little disengenuos to bait me into reviewing the material when you yourself obviously have't reviewed it, or lack reading comprehension, or blatantly misquote & misrepresent statesments. These elements make it difficult to have a "rational" discussion with the questioner. nobs^{don't bother me} 12:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

That caveat makes no sense. He calls for the military to oust the President, and then says he's not calling for a coup. What the hell else do you call it when the military removes an elected official from office? But, don't listen to me, read what JPatt wrote on the talk page:"Technically, yes I am calling for a military coup.". Let me state that again; he said: ""Technically, yes I am calling for a military coup." . Sedition isn't nice, Rob. P-Foster (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm following the discussion at WIGO. nobs^{don't bother me}

Do you take a position on whether this latest outburst of Jpatt's deserves the attention of law enforcement? Nutty Roux (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm analyizing the content & context. I definitely do not like the phrase, "At Conservapedia, we ....", and need to see how that fits with CP's Essay policy. But I'm not sure the author has any great pull with Bob Gates or at the Pentagon, or even with Stars and Stripes magazine. nobs^{don't bother me} 22:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Without captures some of us can't follow the fun :( ħuman 05:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This should interest you.

Here's a question for you and your sleuthing counter-intelligence skills. Please find out how Andy goes from:

RobS said:As to the TK controversy, my position is unchanged from when I asked this question -- and never received a satisfactory answer. While his technical knowledge and contributions have been helpful, there's been a pattern of deception from the beginning, of which opening the special-discussion list is only the latest. So I'd be inclined to vote no against bringing him back, but I don't really want to discuss it publicly. (12/1/07)

ASchlafly responded: Perhaps I gave TK too much of the benefit of the doubt. Regardless, it's water over the dam now. Other elder Sysops are furious at how he opened the discussion group to public view (he later closed it in response to the objections). I don't expect a majority of our Sysops to want TK back any time soon. (12/1/07)

to:

TK has ruffled feathers on our side, but mostly on the other side. He's never vandalized the site and his self-initiated "double agent" work (which Philip documents in another thread) was merely that. It was not a sincere effort to harm the site. TK was defrocked by Conservapedia and yet returned to volunteer more, something very few people would do. (12/31/08)

when he promoted TK, over the objections of most of his fellow sysops, including Karajou.

Definitely something fishy there, given how all he actually did on his return was run off virtually the entire CP editor base. How about finding out what hold TK had on Andy? Maybe he was blackmailing him? --PsyGremlinRunāt! 09:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually TK held several sock puppet accounts at CP and did commit some vandalism which he later reverted. Furthermore he also engaged in his own clickbotting, something that he admitted in the SDG.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Now, what was the question? was it on my sleuthing skills or your editorship of Consrvaleaks? I've founded numerous instances of you altering or removing content that some may consider embarassing for Rationalwiki and Rationalwiki editors. nobs^{don't bother me} 12:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks for fixing that. Now, the question was - how did Andy - who is never wrong - suddenly do a complete 180 re:TK?

As for your second point, please provide examples of such editing. I have the original html downloads on my pc, so I'm more than willing to compare notes with you. --PsyGremlinTala! 12:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It's been noted here, Forum:Conservaleaks_III#RW_in_a_Panic, these inclusions for context shbould me added immediately, User:RobSmith#Inclusions_to_be_merged_in_Conservaleaks. Also, TK did have a have a habit of private correspondance outside the discussion lists; some emails from TK may have been published which were only recieved by one, two or three other sysops, as well as thier responses. This may not be accurately noted in the editing, as all e-mails are represented to have been posted to all members of the list. nobs^{don't bother me} 13:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You'll find I answered that directly below where you raised it and it doesn't add or remove anything from the total post. Also examples of the 'e-mails to indiviuals' please, as mails were extracted according to their heading, not to whom they were sent.

Now back to the original question. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 13:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You appear in this instance, RW in a panic, to have deliberatly cropped the contents of an email, not simply expunging whole emails from vartious theads. And whom emails are addressed to give much context, as many members of the list have not been privy to some of Tk's correspondence until Conservaleak. nobs^{don't bother me} 13:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Rob, your examples of removed content were never in the original leaks. The Icewedge Archives were an attachment that (AFAIK) wasn't downloaded along with the leaks. To my knowledge, no attachments were ever downloaded. "Questions to TK" is in the SDG - except for your private mails to Andy that happened after the SDG was leaked and shut down. And "Death by Google Search Tactics" were private mails between you and TK. Weak examples, overall. Are you saying that all my mails between me and CP sysops should be included on the site, too? --Sid (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The Icewedge Archives were not an attachment, they were a cut and past to the same email reproduced on my RW User subpage. Earlier on that same thread I asked for readmission to the SDG group by an SDG mananger. TK didn't readmit me, but cut and pasted that material to the ZG group thread. The Watchdogs from COINTEL was a googledoc in the SDG I created but didn't have access to, and TK noted it may be redundant. The rest of the Icewedge Archive and other Ratioalwiki 1.0 mateial (some supplied by Karajou), has all been expunged from those threads in the Conservaleaks editing by Psy and whoever else edited Conservaleaks. nobs^{don't bother me} 14:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The more I look at it, the more it looks like you're accusing us of deliberate cropping when in reality, the examples you hold up were apparently just eaten by whatever mass-editing action removed the quoted parts of mails under the regular messages. That would definitely explain the "RW in a Panic" and likely the Icewedge archive. You could call it a bug in the conversion. But hey, that's not as much fun as accusing us of some sort of conspiracy again, is it? --Sid (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

No. I'm saying Conservaleaks conveniently edited out any material that was embarassing to Rationalwiki editors. Full disclosure by Conservaleaks editors would fix that damage to thier credibility. nobs^{don't bother me} 16:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

"Full disclosure by Conservaleaks editors would fix that damage to thier credibility." Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Good one Rob, considering how the other 2,000 posts tear the CP sysops a new one. However, looking at the original post I see what you mean - it was actually removed by accident as being extraneous text. I'll asked MB to add it in. Will it make you happy if it's restored? Still won't change the overall impression though. In fact, your claiming their action to be cyber terrorism or vandalsim only makes you look silly when compared to the actual quotes. But hopefully it'll put an end to your concern trolling and now you can get back to the original questions. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 17:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Sooo...after the doctored text of TK's Apr 8, 2010 9:53 PM posting, my next response reads:

Rob Smith, Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 11:29 PM:
Excellant, TK, excellant. We have PalMD coordinating with Icewedge. Tmt has already brought up Icewedge in discussion. We [have] PalMD using socks. Most importantly, we have PalMD on 28 March posting in RW 1.0, weeks before the Breast cancer dustup reported by Sgtephanie {sic) Simon in which [she] says, "after thier accounts were blocked, Lipson and others founded RW." Where can we find a webhosting facility to post this content?

which of course, is corroborated by the now fully disclosed RationalWiki 1.0/Icewedge Archives. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

(ex x 3) Rob, I'll make it easy for you. Answer my original question first and then I'll get back to you on the one instance you've highlighted as a diversionary tactic. Or just man up and say you aren't going to answer my question. Either / or Rob. Anything else, and I'm doing a Ken and declaring myself the winner. --PsyGremlinTal! 13:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way Rob, getting a lecture from you on credibility is akin to getting a lecture from Michael Jackson on the ills of paedophilia. --PsyGremlinParlez! 12:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Or Michael Vick on how to care for your dog. Nobs, you're insane on your bad days, you know that, right? But you're funny on your good days... ħuman 10:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Watchdogs

Rob, I'm don't want to call you a liar to your face, but here is the actual page of the actual post made to the SDG. There is no copy/pasted list of Icewedge's talk page or whatever. Instead you (assuming you're Cointel) you posted a link to a 40-page booklet on Anti-Racist “Watchdog” Groups by Laird Wilcox.

Also, ZB didn't exist in 2007, so what are you on about TK posting your mails to it? Really, it's pathetic that you need to flannel so much instead of answering a simple question. --PsyGremlinHable! 14:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hell, Rob, I'm in the original SDG now. Why don't I add you as a member then we can go through the mails together. or even better - I'll make it public again, so everybody can have a look. --PsyGremlin講話 14:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The Icewedge Archives were copy pasted to ZG by TK, Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 9:53 PM, below his boldened text (in original), Rob, I assume you still have The Watchdogs, and don’t need it pasted here. I have the original TK email and will forward a copy if necessary. The Conservaleaks version crops this email. Here is the exchange in context:

Rob Smith, Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 8:19 PM:

• From Human's RW 1.0 page:
  
• .PalMDtalk 11:41, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
  

We need the earliest date we can find. Can an old special-discussions-group Manager readmit me to that group? (my bold) I don't have access.

Karajou, Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 8:37 PM:

I don't have access to the original SDG anymore; it's possible Andy or TK might. (my bold)

TK did not readmit me, rather copy pasted the Icewedge Archives from SDG. The Watchdogs has no material whatsoever relating to my request for the earliest date we can find of User:PalMD's involvement with Rationalwiki 1.0. The Icewedge Archves, retrieved from SDG by TK, and directly relating to the entire Wikipedia dispute that was ongoing at that moment, provides one of the earlist dates of PalMD's involvement with Rationalwiki before time PalMD told the LA Times he was involved. Further, the Icewedge Archives show PalMD & Icewedge "coordinating" sockpuppet attacks, i.e. "cyber-vandalism", prior to the time Stephanie Simon reported Lipson engaged in "cyber-vandalism".

Point of fact is, Lipson (user:PalMD) was not banned for ideological reasons, but rather for coordinated cyber attacks with User:Icewedge evidenced by the Icewedge Archives. Both Stephanie Simon, and Wikipedia, have consistently been hoaxed by Rationalwiki founders and editors. nobs^{don't bother me} 16:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I suspect Rob is like Ken in his weird little way. Somehow convinced that what he's doing is somehow hurting us, and his refusal to answer even the simplest question without (as above) smears, lies, guilt by association, and distraction are all a part of that. Add in some maliciousness (the actual desire to see the site/members' reputations harmed, and you've pretty much got what we see on this very page. Just a guess. --Kels (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

e-mail from the late Terry Koeckritz

Rob Smith <nobs03@gmail.com>

---

Google Groups: You've been invited to Special Discussion Group 1 message

---

noreply@googlegroups.com <noreply@googlegroups.com> Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 8:40 AM To: nobs03@gmail.com TerryK terry.92270@gmail.com has invited you to join the Special Discussion Group group with this message:

Come on in Rob, let's go through these together

Here is the group's description:

This is a special discussion group, set up for private, group discussion of items of mutual interest: chiefly the security of the CP site, but also including matter of site policy, membership standards, and editorial direction

PsyGremlin: I am assuming this invitation came from you? nobs^{don't bother me} 20:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Rob, why are conservatives getting a hard-on for a boring book written by a pro-choice atheist? --PsyGremlinSermā! 12:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey Rob

Thanks for sharing with us your thoughts on Jpatt's CP essay. I find your opinions interesting and am always looking forward to hearing what you have to say, especially about the various ideas that CP stands for. With that in mind, I was wondering what you think of Andy's assertion that conservative insights increase at a geometric rate, and that this pattern heralds the inevitable triumph of conservatism? ^{ONE / TALK} 14:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't know. Do you have a link? My specialty is humanities, and can't speak well on gemetric proportions other than metaphorically. I'd guess he's talkin ab out the narrow mindedness and close mindedness of liberalism versus tghe ability to expand your mind (without hallucinogenic drugs) of conservativism. nobs^{don't bother me} 15:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"Do you have a link?" - Are you seriously telling me that you don't recognize Conservapedia's Law?^img Looks like a sign that you need to spend a bit more time reading up on CP's antics. Between perfect geometric rates, Dawkins' professorship that never was, young mass murderers that aren't young or aren't mass murderers, and of course Quantum Jesus, you seem to be missing out! ;) --Sid (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

lol...Andy got his fantasy dismantled on the talk page. Occasionaluse (talk)

A Yes or No Question, Rob.

Is Fidel Castro dead or is Fidel Castro alive? (Check one)

__x___ Fidel is alive. nobs^{don't bother me} 02:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

_____ Fidel is pushing up the daisies.

P-Foster (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. A follow-up, if you will. CP currently makes a pretty strong insinuation that Fidel is dead. Why not fix this? P-Foster (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This line of interrogation is unfair. Rob does not have to agree 100% with everything that Andy says. Its just like here, not everyone at RW agrees completely with the majority on everything. Damo^Hi 02:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been following that discussion. nobs^{don't bother me} 02:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Damo. This isn't a question of opinion or interpretation. Show me somewhere on RW where there is meaningful dispute over a matter of fact. Rob: "On May 1, 2007, Castro did not attend Cuba's annual celebration of May Day, leading many to believe that he had died. While Castro allegedly met with Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva on February 25, 2010, there is no independent confirmation that this was not in fact a body-double." Also--"Date & Place of Death 2009(approx.) Manner of Death unknown." Also-- "is presumably no longer alive as of December 2009." P-Foster (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that if Rob came to us and said "will you address this on RationalWiki?" we'd oblige. I think that's the difference we're getting at. The thing is, Rob surely knows it's not a tree worth barking up if he wants to languish at CP, but Rob wants to languish at CP. It's not like he claims CP represents him, so I don't think it's a big deal. There's plenty of shit I don't want to fuck with here. Occasionaluse (talk) 02:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

A senior admin at an encyclopedia project should be interested in an error of fact that makes the project flat-out wrong about a simple question. P-Foster (talk) 02:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

@PF Yeah but he can't change Andy's opinion (nothing can - not even the facts) so why should he just try and piss him off for no good purpose. Damo^Hi 02:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

'Cause it would be the right thing to do? To show he has a pair of balls? To help the homeschoolers whom Andy gets to use this thing as a resource? P-Foster (talk) 03:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If Rob felt it was a matter of principle then perhaps he should (like CPAdmin did over the 'Obama is a muslim' crap) but I suspect that its really not a big issue, and not one worthy of taking a stand over. Damo^Hi 03:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice to hear what ROB has to say about the question of CP's Big Mistake re: Fidel. P-Foster (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Fuck you

Did you actually read what he posted you insensitive fucktard? He mentioned that he had family with medical problems. You have no decency you degenerate piece of shit. - π 06:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow. I'm speechless. My Christian ethics tell me to be kind, loving and sensitive, but I just can't the Docs words out of my head. nobs^{don't bother me} 06:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You have no ethics. You lie continuously to further your partisanship and you have no compassion for people you view as "enemies". - π 06:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Pi, don't rise to it. You know that just turns him on. ADK^{...I'll sink your vomit!} 06:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This conversation is about to go badly downhill, inevitably ending in comparisons to Hitler, and hurt feelings all around. Stop now. Step away from the keyboard. Go pet a jerboa, or milk a goat.

ListenerX^TalkerX 06:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Rob, you know nothing of PalMD's approach to his work, and to titillate us with any thoughts otherwise is... is just bogus. So please, just shut your fat fucking mouth. SJ ^Debaser 14:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You have to understand - Rob has learnt his sense of community from his peers at CP - treat everybody like a cunt. At least his true colours are out now. Not just a moron, but a malignant turd to go with it. --PsyGremlinSermā! 14:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘You don't know what I know. See here, for example:

Lets coordinate. Do you have MSN messenger? -Icewedge 18:46, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, but i can't do it from work...i won't be home for a few hours. If we have enough of us doing random edits at the same time...Maybe we can even set a time for coordination.PalMDtalk 18:46, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

This proves (a) the good doctor was involved in coordinating cyber-vandalism; (b) the good doctor mislead Stephanie Simon of the LA Times; (c) the Conservapedia entry in Wikipedia contains false inforation placed by Rationalwiki hoaxsters. nobs^{don't bother me} 14:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

OMG Rob that was 4 years ago. Are you really gonna hold a grudge while his wife is gravely ill? What kind of a person are you? Really? Damo^Hi 14:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I see no evidence of cyber-vandalism. Can you show the vandalism that PalMD committed? Attempting to post a different POV is not vandalism.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Here, for example, the good doctor identifies one of his sockpuppet accounts -- User:JoyousOne.

Wow, how did you do that giant ICEWEDGE across the screen??? That is fucking great! Oh, and im trying to build some cred by deleting some of your shit, sorry.PalMDtalk 18:11, 14 May 2007 (CDT) aka JoyousOne.

and the context is in learning from User:Icewedge vandal techniques, like writing across the screen, similiar to this vandal attack I revert just last night. nobs^{don't bother me} 15:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Nobody gives a shit, Rob. P-Foster (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Rob. I know you're mentally challenged, so I'll make this easy for you:

WHAT. THE. FUCK. DOES. ANY. OF. THAT. HAVE. TO. DO. WITH. WISHING. A. FAMILY. MEMBER OF. HIS. RECOVERS. FROM. ILLNESS. YOU. MONUMENTALLY. IGNORANT. INSENSITIVE. FUCK? --PsyGremlinParlez! 14:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Who even cares? I mean what the fuck is going on, where a guy makes smart alec remarks at a guy whose wife is gravely ill, and then excuses himself by pointing to some alleged vandalism from 4 years ago. You should be ashamed of yourself Rob. Damo^Hi 15:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Well Damo, to give context, begin reading here: Rationalwiki#History. Note the date May 22, 2007. The leaked material above predatees RW 2.0, B.C.E., and is of interests to students of the Rationalwiki history. nobs^{don't bother me} 15:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

What the fuck does the four-year-old history of a goofy wiki have to do with the "context" of a man and his seriously ill wife? P-Foster (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Well Rob, how that justify you mocking him for having an unwell family member? I know you have trouble staying on topic, but this is a new low even for you. And you haven't even the decency to apologise for what might have been a faux pax. You cannot possibly justify yur actions in any way. What he posted has nothing to do with CP - which makes you an even bigger cunt.--PsyGremlinParla! 15:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this perhaps fallout from some perceived ill will when the tables were turned, or was that not RobSmith and I'm thinking of someone else? ADK^{...I'll jostle your hitman!} 15:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Mocking him for an ill family member is a stretch; I should have posted to his talk page, but the doc is so rarely available I may ave acted in haste; will fix that now. nobs^{don't bother me} 15:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh and what would you call it? Conservative values, maybe? You acted like a dick and you aren't even man enough to admit it. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 15:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, from the purely human decency thing, you guys are right. Unfunny. Insensitive. I'm sorry. and I won't mention anything anybody has every said about the Phyliss Schlafly and her health, etc., nor that a bureaucrat on this site's claim to fame is wishing cancer on me, nor make pitiful excuses for my behavior. It's all about the credibility of the poster, and in this instance I will accept for the first time, that what Dr. Lipson posted is true. Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners--of whom I am the worst. I wish the best to Dr. Lipson him and his family. - nobs

If you are going to apologize, do so. This is not an apology. Damo^Hi 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Without the small text that would have been an apology. With it, you're a fucking passive aggressive jackoff. --Kels (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Calm Down Rob.

Here Rob. Look at this for a while until you're feeling calmer. P-Foster (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Show a pic with titties, then God can smite Rob for having impure thoughts. --PsyGremlinFale! 15:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

God invented titties, in case you didn't know. nobs^{don't bother me} 17:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

He might have made them, but he doesn't approve of you enjoying them. --Kels (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Proverbs 5:19, may her breasts satisfy you always. nobs^{don't bother me} 17:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

In fact, one of God's name is wp:El_Shaddai#Shaddai_meaning_fertility, which being interpreted could mean, "The Mighty Breast", (or "the all sufficient one", as one Hebrew scholar has said). nobs^{don't bother me} 17:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. God is a big tit.--Brendiggg (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

So wait, God approves of me looking at, and fondling tits, but I can't knock one out afterwards? God is a sadistic cunt really. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 19:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Not really; God may be pissed off at ingrates, though. See Rom.1:20-26. "His invisible attributes (el Shaddai, or the Mighty Breast, for example) ...have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made...though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks...For this reason ...their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural..." nobs^{don't bother me} 19:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You mean buttsecks??? Kewl. ħuman 04:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it means we must give thanks everytime we get to second base. But what do I know. I never did understand this Shakespear talk.--Thunderstruck (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

CP needs your help!

While you've been over here bitching, a wicked vandal has created a libellous redirect. It's been there for almost an hour. Fly, Wobbert, and save the day. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 15:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia. A very fine internet resource that is too often vandalized by Rationalwiians.

...oh, sorry. That should read "too often vandalized by its own senior admins." Ratwik is the least of your problems, there, boyo. P-Foster (talk) 04:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I was going to say much the same - instead of tilting at 4-year-old windmills (hey, Rob, here's a suggestion - instead of bleating that Pal lied to Simon, which isn't going to change anything on WP because it's OR - contact Simon and make her print a retraction. let's see how much power you have) how about cleaning up CP's ills - you know, the fact that it's led by an apostate, hosts seditious statements, has no genuine editor base besides the 6 sysops, is covered with Ken's essays, etc, etc. That should keep you busy. If you actually care about CP, that is. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 10:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey fuckhead

Good to see blogs are still reliable news sources on CP. Also, can't wait to see you reporting on how the GOP candidates are travelling to their meetings via horse and bicycle. Stay classy, you prick. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 12:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah

It's "their" not "thier", okay? C®ackeЯ

Stay classy (Godwin fail)

Wow Rob, open up by comparing abortion clinics to Auschwitz on your user page. Way to stay classy, you prick. --PsyGremlinPraat! 11:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

They're my neighbors; it's "the largest cp:Partial birth abortion clinic in the free world". nobs^{don't bother me} 20:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"Free license"

Er, no... actually it's not a "free licence"

If you read directly below the image you stole, it says, "This Stock Image can be obtained by: Credit Purchase / Subscription"

Be a dear and delete it. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 14:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Stealing from another small businessman/self-employed artist. That's a great example to set to your community.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Greedy son-of-a-bitches. Next you're gonna tell me governments are instituted among men to protect property rights and the capitalist system. nobs^{don't bother me} 18:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

At this point I have my doubts whether Rob is even capable of mustering coherent and topical responses to questions like "how are you?" or "hot out, huh?" While you're deleting stolen images, why don't you get to this one and this one, which your resident art thief stole from a mom and pop stock image outfit in Minnesota that got put out of business partially by thieves like Joaquin stealing from them. Fair use my ass. That's fucking window dressing like 95% of the other bullshit fair use claims your snot rag webshite makes. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Not my job. Are you familiar with the concept of the Division of Labor? or as Apostles said, "It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables." nobs^{don't bother me} 19:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Again and again...Rob doesn't care. Why do you guys persist in thinking he does? Occasionaluse (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I do care; but I ain't a maintainance man, I'm an author of content. I appreciate, very much, help when somebody points out my fuck-ups, but I ca't responsible for everybodies fuck-ups. Why don't one of you guys contact the "resident art thief" (whoever that is) and tell him about his fuck-up? Oh wait, maybe you can't cause your blocked, or maybe you can't cause they learned not to respond to your e-mails thinking you'rr a troll. Well, whose fuck-up is that? I can't fix everybodies fuck-ups. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

If you ain't the maintenance man, then WHAT THE HELL GOOD ARE SYSOPS OVER THERE? --Kels (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

If you do purport to care, I agree with everyone else that knowingly allowing such property theft is not kosher. If a specific instance is raised, you should be willing to address it. If there are so many issues to raise, then yeah... you have issues. "I do care" is a lie if you only care if you did it. Would you change that to "I only care if I did it?" Then I think I can understand your position. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Resident art thief Joaquin Martinez isn't worth talking to. And I've tried. He drank that stale CP Kool-aid about justifying any conceivable use as "fair use" simply because of how you all self-servingly identify the website as an "educational" "non-commercial" "encylopedia". Clearly nobody over there knows or cares about copyright except when someone you're actually afraid of like Reuters makes noise. I sincerely hope there are legal ramifications for that. Nutty Roux (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Jesus H. Christ. Since when are a bunch of liberal leftist rational communists concerned about the private property rights of individuals? Take up the tax cut issue, and you might have some credibility. nobs^{don't bother me} 02:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Shorter Rob: Hey! Look over there! A shiny thing I don't have to answer questions about! --Kels (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyright vios that Rob uploaded.

" I appreciate, very much, help when somebody points out my fuck-ups". and away we go...P-Foster (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• This is from here. "This site and all of its content are protected by copyright pursuant to U.S. and international copyright laws. Unless otherwise noted in a specific location on this site, you may not copy or download any of the material contained on this site in whole or in part without the express authorization of API.."
• This is from here, and not in the public domain.
• This is from here,, not in the public domain.
• Editorial cartoons are "© each artist. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited.
• Graph from the WSJ. "Copyright ©2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved."
• From Redstate. "© 2011 REDSTATE, INC., 2008 EAGLE PUBLISHING, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED."
• Last I checked, Arianna doesn't give it away for free.
• This one says copyright right on the god damn picture.

So shoot me. I know I know <waves arms> I'm gonna be shipped off to a re-education gulag when Comrade Obama appoints you Minister of State Security. Let me have some fun while I'm still enjoying my freedom. nobs^{don't bother me} 02:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least you admit to being fundamentally dishonest. Not many others at CP have the balls to do so. --PsyGremlinSprich! 08:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you know the difference between articles and opinion pieces or understand WP policy?

You're either a moron or an artless troll. Nutty Roux (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a reputable mainstream publication with a record for fact checking. We had this debate when Paul Krugman wrote in the NYT It's Obama's Fault" about the Gulf oil spill. nobs^{don't bother me} 02:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers.

WP:WP:Identifying_reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion Occasionaluse (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That's what we did a year ago, "Paul Krugman writing in the NYT's said....bla bla bla"; of coarse after weeks of debate it was enough for User:AceMcWicked to call me "a proven liar" and desysop me at Rationalwiki. How is it a RW bureaucrat becomes a bureaucrat without knowing the basics of Wikipedia citation policy? nobs^{don't bother me} 03:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It is very difficult to assume good faith considering the tone and context of the statement in question. Do you think that the author was implying that the birth certificate actually said that? Occasionaluse (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Knowing Rob's comprehension skills, I'd say yes, yes he does. DickTurpis (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, I think we are discussing a talk page posting, and ummm, not mainspace. If a quote from a commentary by a reputable journalist in a mainstream publication were ever to fit into a Wikipedia, Conservapedia, or even RW mainspace, in all liklihood it would read "bla bla bla said Quinten Taranto in WSJ op-ed".

Oh, and hey Dick, I managed to fit Alger Hiss into the Birth certificate which the White House claims was retrieved from Hawaian archives at the Saloon Bar. nobs^{don't bother me} 03:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Didn't know the Hawaiian archives was at a Saloon Bar, but that is probably the best thing I've heard about it. DickTurpis (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Without any indication that the author was being facetious, it would be dishonest (improper?). If you see something like that on RW, please let us know or make whatever changes you see fit. Occasionaluse (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice Hiss quote, Rob. So tell me, do you believe the birth certificate is real or a forgery? Let's try to make it easy for you:

___ real

___ forgery

_x_ undecided

Please check one. DickTurpis (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

All I know is the White Hoiuse produced a document they claim to the original from Hawaii, but then again, the credibility of those making the claim is the most important issue. I was never a birther, but after these recent revelations, the credibility of the White House makes me more uneasy. nobs^{don't bother me} 06:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying that you weren't a birther until today when the birth certificate was released, and now you're not so sure? So, in your mind, the White House has no credibility, therefore when they released the certificate it ipso facto has no credibility either, but if they hadn't released it, you would believe it's genuine? Not really following, but that's hardly anything new. DickTurpis (talk) 06:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It differs from previous narratives; it lists Barack Hussein Obama as Father. Earlier versions stated an angel was sent to a virgin and said thou shalt concieve and bring forth a son, and he shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Messiah, Prince of Peace and the girl said how shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel said with God nothing is impossible. nobs^{don't bother me} 10:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Rationalize (talk) 11:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

And once again Rob proves that trying to talk to himis the literary equivalent of feeding pearls to swine. (await response claiming Obama has turned the pearls of US culture into swine feed) --PsyGremlinSnakk! 11:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It's too bad that Rob is not important and that this blog is not a reliable source, otherwise we could have put that quote in a Wikipedia article without any indication of Rob's sarcasm. You know, just to slur him, because we're horrible people. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Help

I was told you could help me. my sockpuppet account on CP, "Conzervative1" was blocked after this conversation:

The last line got me blocked for "Negative personal comments" by Joaquin. Could you please help me get unblocked if it's not too much to ask? Lairju1 (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I kinda doubt it; CP sysops generally don't override each others blocks and I generally don't get involved in that kinda bullshit anyway. nobs^{don't bother me} 22:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Rob doesn't debase himself to that kind of level, overriding other administrators blocks, dead or alive. Apart from here of course. Possibly the first time you've ever made me chuckle Rob. Well done. SJ ^Debaser 10:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, how about unblocking my sockette over there :) You know everybody liked her and she was great with handling disputes. And CP needs a Far East section again, seeing as Douglas deleted all my other (perfectly good) work. Or alternatively, just un-delete it - it's all good work, no parody at all. --PsyGremlinParla! 13:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Human asked a year ago [4] and I wanted to unblock him then but didn't have the time to help. With TK awaiting the resurrection I have one less battle to fight. In your case, I'm not certain of details, and I may be able to help based upon a belief that my time spent would help you become a reasonably constructive and successful contributor. If you're on a search and destroy mission, you're pissing in the wind. Gimme a list of all socks, and I can review and determine to what degree there may be a reasonable expectation of becoming a civil member of the community, as my time allows. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, you have a long memory. Nice work. ħuman 06:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

A list of socks? I think you might have better look unicorn hunting or trying to have Psy put the moon on a stick. This isn't the centralised control hub of vandalism you think it is. It's not like a spy drama where we have a file of undercover agents that needs to be protected. ADK^{...I'll seize your extension cord!} 20:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

What I'm saying is, I'm not certain what his main account is there, I'm not familiar with his mainspace contributions, there needs to be a reasonable degree of belief in success. Sockpuppetry will not be tolerated. And if the whole idea is to argue with Andy, that might not work either. Good faith contributors are always welcome, I beleive in repentence and redemption, so despite RW's & CP's differences, can we move forward as neighbors and friends that don't necessarily always like or agree with each other. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but Andy's one-minded style of thought ("I'm right, you're wrong, so suck it") makes him impossible to work with. And while TK's kicked the bucket, you can count on Karajou to come along and block anyone who gives the slightest indication that they don't believe every word of half-assed contributions and parody which make up the greater Conservapedia content. And Conservative... well, you know. He's happy doing what he's doing. SJ ^Debaser 09:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

If you mean that, have a look at JessicaT's contributions - what's left of them anyway, after Douglas' vandalism. That's my only sock - so technically it's not a sock. It's as valid a user name as Karajou's is. --PsyGremlinPraat! 13:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Conservaleaks isn't a lot of help on JessicaT, I'll have tgo look at the contributions themselves. Remember now, it took nearly a full year to unblock Human (and not without some splaining to other sysops); we may need to see how RW's new & improved look works. I really not certain if the other CP sysops (or myself for that matter) are ready for wholesale unblocking of the RFW Old Guard. They wanna see results that RW really is serious about rehabing itself and we can live in a world of wp:Peaceful coexistence or wp:Detente. nobs^{don't bother me} 02:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Mobocracy

You might think a mobocracy has outlived its usefulness at RW; be real, the meritocracy at CP isn't working either. It's now a static oligarchy. When was the last time a user was made sysop? Are you saying no active user has merited a promotion since Geo.Plrd? Danielfolsom (talk) 06:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but who is there to promote? Andy can only promote True Conservatives to the position these days, and short of Reagan coming back from the dead, there aren't many candidates. Also, the current sysops are turning against him, his bosom-buddy TK sold him out, at least 2 current sysops are parodists and yet they save their vitriol for the one who actually did no harm to CP at all. Go figure. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 11:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

There was never a meritocracy at CP, WTF are you talking about? --Kels (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You're forgetting someone. DMorris2 (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

And we're all rooting for you. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 14:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, Kara suggested this to reward him for contributing to the WP drama last spring... --Sid (talk) 09:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's another example of doctored Conservaleaks. That thread began 1/20/10, yet no record of it. We do, however, have the public record of what TK was reporting on. nobs^{don't bother me} 13:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You really need to learn the meaning of "doctored." It means "edited, thus not the same as the original" If we never received it, we can't have listed it, so therefore it can't be doctored. It's simply missing. Also, are you sure you don't mean this post about DMorris? --PsyGremlinParla! 13:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)\

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ No, the first posting from the thread cited by Sid above reads as follows:

[6776] DMorris

TK to ZB 1/20/10

Rob, the thread Sid cited is from April, not January. Vastly different conversations. --PsyGremlinHable! 08:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This so-called “strong conservative” is editing from Sweden, Wisconsin and the Broward County (Florida) Public Schools. He sure gets around!

I left him a warning on his talk page that the jig was up.

--TerryK

Nope nothing in the archive. And yet now he's a sysop? Hadn't you better do something as Director of Counter Intelligence? --PsyGremlinPraat! 08:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

While I dont expect a straight answer...

...I'd still like to ask a question. I have seen you bitch and moan about Obama and the current price of oil. Compliants amounting to little more than "Who cares if he got Osama/produced his birth certificate! Gas is xxx a gallon!. I wanna know why this is Obama's fault. The price of petrol has risen all over the globe, not just in the US but everywhere. Is it Obama's fault and if so, why/how? Ace ^{of Spades} 12:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It's the economy, stupid. nobs^{don't bother me} 19:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

So Rob, are you saying that all the world leaders are bad because they can't keep the economy running and therefor the prices went up? Or are you saying that all of the world leaders should involve themselves more in economic issues? - In other words are you a dirty socialist? Or do you actually believe that loosening all governmental entanglement in the economy and therefor giving people less money which they can't spent and giving big companies more money which they won't spent but give back to their investors who will then in return be able to buy another villa or yacht? Or, Rob, may it just be the case that you don't have any bullets against Obama anymore and so you're just moaning against something that isn't right? I wonder what would be the next thing if the economy repaired? These dirty teenagers kissing on the streets? There's still crime in the USA? You've got a headache? Until I get some answers I'll leave you with the satanic verses of alternative rock band Bloc Party's song "Price of Gas": "The price of gas keeps on rising / Nothing comes for free". --ǓḤṂ^³ 22:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Simple facts are, short of nuking one billion Chnese, nothing can be done to hold world demand down in the foreseeable future. But I, like candidate Barack Hussein Obama, and most Democrats, and am not beyond demogoguing the issue. In addition to high gas prices, Obama also is responsible for the Haitian earthquake, the Fukishima nuke meltdown, poverty, starvation, disease, floods, hurricanes and tornados. As all Republican office holders likewise are responsible. Probably AIDS, too. And child obesity. That's Obama's fault, and he hasn't done diddly-fuck to fix it nobs^{don't bother me} 23:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

While I don't believe that people can be responsible for earthquakes but only for the destruction they cause (hey, if they tried the best they could it's still okay with me), there's a giant problem with what you just said: We elected those people or some of use keep them in power. Also as a matter of background philosophy they only represent us, so we are the actual problem. That means you are a murderer. Just as me. And Ace. And Andy. And Ronald Reagon. And Jesus Christ. And we're all going to hell for it! --ǓḤṂ^³ 23:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually I agree with you. I'm from Wisconsin where there is no capital punishment. When wp:Jeffrey Dahmer was murdered in prison, I felt responsibility for it. It is rather cruel in inhumane, to lock somebody up with other killers with no defense. If society does not have the right to take a prisoners life, they sure as fuck have the responsiblity to keep him alive after they restrict his movements and lock him up with a bunch of other killers. nobs^{don't bother me} 00:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't going for that but ok. --ǓḤṂ^³ 00:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I am amazed that Obama has such a strangle hold on the New Zealand economy. Ace ^{of Spades} 22:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

If McCarthy was still alive, he'd become a Communist just to get away from Rob. --Kels (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll make you a deal

Since you feel so hard done by and believe I am responsible for treating you badly in opposition to the community standards please take me to the Chicken Coop/admin abuse/whatever and make your case. I will not mount a defence (outside of calling you out on any lies) nor comment. Let the mob have their way and decrat me if your case is strong. Ace ^{of Spades} 22:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's see what changes are in store in the near future. And keep fucking with me boy, and me and your soon-to-be-de-'crated self could make an interestging test case to see if new proceedures are effective. nobs^{don't bother me} 23:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I am serious, mount a case or shut the fuck up. Ace ^{of Spades} 23:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I mounted my case here, brother and these are EXACTLY the reforms being implemented right now as we speak. And most of the community agrees with what I articulated nerly a year ago, "two things RW needs to consider as it grows in to a more diverse community: (1) need to more established dispute resolution procedures (other than mob rule), and (2) need for better selection processes for fiduciary functions."

You de-sysoped me accusing me of being a Sockpuppet of TK. You were wrong. Admit you were wrong. nobs^{don't bother me} 23:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Those two points were always uncontroversial. And the "You're TK" picture was always a joke. Lighten up Rob. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Bull. Look at the date he posted it, at the same time he was trying to curry favor with mob to justify a unilateral action, opposed by other sysops, after he agreed to allow the Loya Jirga to handle the case. [5] nobs^{don't bother me} 00:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not my fault you seriously think I thought you were TK. The "You're TK" pic is one of my favourite RW pics. Along with this one....Ace ^{of Spades} 23:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

File:AceJesus.jpg

You're TK!

Rob can't cum, he just made it clear he has no balls. --Kels (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Nutty Roux (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Still 403d

Just sayin' ħuman 03:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a trap Human. He has unblocked your account so 1) you will go down to the local StarBucks to edit, 2) he can then catch you, 3) put you on trial with all the secret stuff from RW 1.0 he has, 4) change the Wikipeida article to show he and TK weren't working together 5) ???? 6) PROFIT!!!!. - π 03:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL! ħuman 03:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Drat. Foiled again. Got DMorris on it. Sid tried 'splainin 403's to me, but like politcs & reason, it's just over my head. nobs^{don't bother me} 03:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

God, I miss the old days. sterile^talk 01:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe this template does not exist (next edit...). Rob, just google it, everything about everything is on the internet, except that damn birth certificate. Then search the cp block logs or whatever for me (I gave you my IP, right?) and figure out what Andy or someone else did. ħuman 03:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

don't worry robsmith

Under the coming regime, Premier Brxbrx will outlaw trolling and flaming (mostly/somewhat). That's why I need your vote!---brxbrx 20:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

bye the way...

... somebody nominated you for cratship. Will you run? --ǓḤṂ^³ 19:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The exploratory committee hasn't made a recommendation yet; I'd be inclined to accept if I can communicate the message that I beleive I can be a postive force in building a balanced and diverse community in keeping with RW's Mission Statement. nobs^{don't bother me} 19:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem there is that you and the wiki seem to have different definitions of "pseudoscience". --ǓḤṂ^³ 20:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I've been involved in discussions on pseudoscience (provide a diff if you can); my interests & specialty are historical subjects (I am the founder of wp:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cold_War/Members, incidentally). nobs^{don't bother me} 23:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You're a YEC? There's the evidence. --ǓḤṂ^³ 23:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Check CP & Conservaleaks; I can virtually assure you probably will not find one single instance, anytwhere, ever, of me participating in any YEC discussion threads or mainspace. And frankly, I don't even know what YEC is. As a rule of thumb, I avoid discussions I know nothing about nor have interest in. nobs^{don't bother me} 02:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

YEC=Young Earth Creationist. As you are a rather prominent member of CP I simply assumend you are, because if you ever professed any other opinion on CP you would be blocked and burned by now. It is pretty much they same way you can assume that somebody is a socialist if he is active in Communist Party. --ǓḤṂ^³ 09:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Why would I (a) express an opinion on something I know absolutely nothing about, and (b) have no interest in? A search of CP's sysop discusions for "YEC+Rob Smith" shows this capture of a thread with 29 comments back in mid-2007 entitled, YEC litmus test for our site?. I never even opened the thead let alone engaged in discssion, which Conservaleaks can corroborate. The reord is clear, I have never showed any interest of becoming familiarized with the basis of that dispute. nobs^{Viva la Revolucion!} 17:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

"Why would I (a) express an opinion on something I know absolutely nothing about" - that's funny, most of the CP guys do that - Ken even 20/7.

Dude, I was assuming on the basis of empirical evidence (that means what I saw others doing). No need to throw screencaps at me. And btw, (1) Get rid of IE, and (2) clean up your inbox. --ǓḤṂ^³ 17:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

"Dude, look at this screen cap, this conversation has half of the emails from me, but since I hit the 'mark as unread' button, it looks like I've never touched it!" ... Your proof is unpersuasive. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 17:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Duh huh? Search Conservaleaks (or ask one of the experts famiiar with it) and find one, I mean one single reference anywhere, or in CP itself, where I engaged in any discussion thread of YEC, or where that term even came out of my mouth (or fingertips). nobs^{Viva la Revolucion!} 19:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget his rather...unique definitions of words like "straight answer", "logic", and "helpful". --Kels (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I didn't want to make him cry - yet. --ǓḤṂ^³ 22:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You're all forgetting that Rob is a cunt. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 22:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Cunts are useful and pleasant. --Kels (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 22:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

In fact, there are many publications devoted to the beauty and utility of cunts, I recommend seeking them out. --Kels (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been told that most cunts are pink, which might be too red for Rob? 03:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

All cunts are delicious and intoxicating. Rob is not delicious and intoxicating. Rob is not a cunt. QED. (fully aware I'm way overstating the quality of the average snizz) Nutty Roux (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

NobS wins this one hands down. On account of, you know, "facts". He isn't YEC, he just ignores the morons that are on CP. Geddit? Now shuddup. Hi Nutty, I liked your afterthought! ħuman 06:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Your signature

..Is missing an accent over the ó in revolución, señor. Rationalize (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

bueno bueno. nobs^{Viva la Revolucion!} 00:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, are you fluent in Spanish?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 00:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No amigo, but I live in the only state of the union where hispanics outnumber angelos and can in most cases carry on a fairly basic conversation with the native Spanish of this state, immigrant Mexicans (who speak much faster) and Cubans (who are much more dramatic or expressive and use different idioms). For the most part, conversations usually are over pricing and sales specials (Quonto es? quarto y media o dos para ocho, etc.) I read & understand basic Spanish fairly well, with no formal training. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 00:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice. I was born to immigrants and speak Danish as a native language. I did take a basic Spanish course in high school, but I live in a part of the union where the only place you really need to know any Spanish is at the local Mexican restaurant. But it's good that you can understand the basics of another language.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is. I took German classes for a few year but now have a easier understanding of Dutch & other the Low Countries when I hear it spoken than German & its dialects. What's odd is, I never stdied Spanish nor was inclinded to do so, yet native Spanish speakers tell me when I read out load I got it down very good -- even when I don't have clue what I'm saying. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 00:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, people do tend to get more experience in real life situations, and that is why you comprehend basic Spanish. When I was a kid, it was a goal for my family that I be proficient in English for school and ifor life. Language is power. In your area, Spanish is widely spoken, and it does really benefit to know it. Also, studies have shown that knowing another language helps in brain activity significantly. I'm thinking about picking up a third language and going to a formal Spanish class for the fun of it.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Were you asking me? I studied in Spain and am semi-fluent. Of course nowhere close to perfect, but decent enough to have a good conversation in Spanish. Rationalize (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)