User talk:LT/Against Robscism

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

the core root of fascism, are usually noticeable in their combination of Kremlin shilling

Pretty oxymoronic phrasing, don't you think? RobSGive Peace a chance 22:31, February 18, 2023 (EST)

You're fragrantly taking the sentence out of context. —LT (Matthew 26:52) Tuesday, 22:25, February 20, 2023 (EST)
HA HA HA!!! You really got me there! (some might call it a 'Robism'} "fragrantly" rather than "flagrantly"! I had to read it twice to get the joke. "Fragrantly". I like that, may have to steel it once and a while. RobSGive Peace a chance 04:27, February 21, 2023 (EST)


If I wanted an explanation of what fascism is, this idiot would be the last person I'd ask for it. --LawfulLibertarian (talk) 22:52, February 20, 2023 (EST)
In case you haven't yet been able to tell, this user subpage is intended to castigate RobSmith's terrible record via hilarious mockery. And perhaps I am an idiot, but what would that make you by the very same standards? —LT (Matthew 26:52) Tuesday, 23:01, February 20, 2023 (EST)
Also, in case you can't tell, the more you comment on this subpage talk, the more the subpage itself will be promoted on Special:RecentChanges. :) —LT (Matthew 26:52) Tuesday, 23:03, February 20, 2023 (EST)
How so? --SingleChristian1 (talk) 22:41, February 22, 2023 (EST)

"pointlessly branding critics as "fascists"

Are you saying Nazi symps and Nazi apologists are not fascists? RobSGive Peace a chance 23:34, February 20, 2023 (EST)

The problem with you is that you have a record of pointlessly slandering obvious nonfascists as "fascist." You hurled such accusations against Geopolitician, me, and several other Conservapedia editors who merely expressed criticisms of Putin. —LT (Matthew 26:52) Tuesday, 23:37, February 20, 2023 (EST)
oh wow. I thought Putin was a communist. Only a fascist would criticize Putin. RobSGive Peace a chance 23:52, February 20, 2023 (EST)
(Note to readers and lurkers: anyone with 2/10 of a brain should be able to comprehend that the best way to avoid the fascist label is (1) to avoid suggesting in any way that Putin is a communist or wants to recreate the USSR; and (2) avoid in any way expressing sympathy for the Zelensky regime, such as uttering fascist propaganda or linking to sites suggesting that Ukraine is "democratic", etc.) RobSGive Peace a chance 23:58, February 20, 2023 (EST)
I also find it fascinating that you, LT, as well as apparently RW like to point out the use of that D.S. link as if I somehow support or like them. If you literally read the sentence prior, you will see that I'm remarking how liberals seem to like the guy, and questioning whether he therefore qualified as "top 100 most hated by liberals". I cited D.S. as one such liberal site which liked him a little too much. The logical conclusion is that I am, in fact, referring to D.S. as liberal. Apparently RW found some kind of perverse joy in that, which is fine...I can't expect them to bother reading the sentence before the link. But I figured you would read it, at least. Whatever. Think what you wish. If slander is required to accomplish...whatever...then that's your prerogative, as well as theirs. --DavidB4 (TALK) 21:59, February 22, 2023 (EST)
How was I, or any observer for that matter, meant to arrive the conclusion that you posting a link to a Nazi site in that instance and context was intended as citing alleged proof of Nazis as leftists? Especially since you posted a direct link to The Daily Stormer right alongside the National File link, it did not provide a good impression, to put it as mildly as possible. Now, since a) I can't read your mind to know your true motives, and b) you're finally issuing an explanatory statement on this matter, I'll retract the mention of you. —LT (Matthew 26:52) Thursday, 22:12, February 22, 2023 (EST)
LT, some time ago I suggested you needed Wikipedia experience to become familiar with their citation policies (Disclosure, I personally had several public and private discussions with the prime author of many of WP's citation policies, about WP's citation policies, in addition to having collaborated with her on a few articles). One such policy regards "marginal, fringe, and extreme" sources, and when and where they can be used. While CP does not toe the line directly in accordance with Wikipedia citation policies, we do employ certain journalistic and scholarly standards that Wikipedia's policies allegedly are based upon.
While the Daily Stormer may be considered an "extremist" source, the Seven Day Adventist Church also may be considered "marginal", or "fringe" source. I suggest you read up on how WP deals with "marginal, fringe, and extremist" sources before planting anymore SDA stuff, cited to SDA sources, in CP articles NOT related to the SDA church. Then come back and we can talk about it. RobSGive Peace a chance 22:31, February 22, 2023 (EST)
[EC] You clearly know hardly anything about the history of the SDA church, which persistently advocates religious liberty and civil rights. And the fact that you're citing Wikipedia as the root for a corollary ridiculously comparing a church you don't like to Nazis shows that you're uninterested in posing a serious argument and are just a concern troll. (also, it's ironic that you, who practically reaches the point of worshiping Putin, would pointlessly brand SDAs a "cult") Your words carry no weight because of the extent to which you discredited yourself as an utter charlatan. You have proven yourself to be a liar, manipulator, gaslighter, and among the lowest of people I've met in life.
“ But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death. ”

—Rev. 21:8

—LT (Matthew 26:52) Thursday, 22:37, February 22, 2023 (EST)
I don't really care to know SDA history written by biased SDA apologists.
Citing the SDA as an authority on anything other than the SDA itself, is little different than citing the Church of Scientology, the Lyndon Larouche movement, the Nazi party, or the Socialist Workers Party. That basically is WP policy, and our policy at CP may even be a little more "tolerant" or "liberal" regarding censorship of fringe and marginal views. RobSGive Peace a chance 22:43, February 22, 2023 (EST)
Who instituted WP policies? The same RW ringleaders. So it's clear whose "authority" you're citing—RationalWiki's. That is who you owe your allegiance to, and alongside whom you will reap your rewards in one day at a special lake if you don't repent. Let the record stand that I persistently attempted to reason with you in good faith, and that you chose darkness rather than the light in front of your eyes. Jesus said to the Pharisee Nicodemus:
“ And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. ”

—John 3:19–20

—LT (Matthew 26:52) Thursday, 22:49, February 22, 2023 (EST)


(ec) That basically is the history of Wikipedia. In its early days, the Larouchies and Scientologists had a large body of their own literature, and tried to take over the site inserting their crap as doctrine in all sorts of articles. They eventually were confined to articles about themselves, or were driven out by Marxists and globalists who control the site today with their own large body of literature. Those same Marxists then came here and tried to take over this site. What you are doing is so amateurish, all it is amounting to is painting yourself as a peddler of fringe ideas.
Bottomline: No SDA doctrine will be recognized as any sort of biblical truth in this wiki, and only serve to draw attention to the fraud of it all. Use some sense, and think these things through. RobSGive Peace a chance 22:55, February 22, 2023 (EST)
How cute, unconditional Putin shillers lecturing others about "sense." —LT (Matthew 26:52) Thursday, 22:57, February 22, 2023 (EST)
You picked up too many bad habits from RW, and can't see the forest from the trees now. RobSGive Peace a chance 22:59, February 22, 2023 (EST)
Wow, how adorable, the overt RW troll shill casting accusations of "you learned from RW" as yet another whataboutist failsafe deflection. The pot calls the kettle black, and the arsonist blames the firefighter... —LT (Matthew 26:52) Thursday, 23:05, February 22, 2023 (EST)

'

(ec) The more you talk, the less sense you make. RobSGive Peace a chance 23:09, February 22, 2023 (EST)
...according to you, who fails to comprehend sense. —LT (Matthew 26:52) Thursday, 23:10, February 22, 2023 (EST)
Do we have any evidence that RobS owes his allegiance to RW? That's a pretty serious charge. --SingleChristian1 (talk) 23:05, February 22, 2023 (EST)
  • Lying Troll is not reliable. Period.Dianne3000 (talk) 11:41, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
Dianne, be forewarned: there are certain trigger words such as "Wikipedia" or "Rationalwiki" that cause certain Conservapedia editors and Admin to go ballistic, making any further rational discussion impossible. RobSThe Truth. Just Putin It Out There 12:25, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
  • Lying Troll[1] tried to link me to RationalWiki. I never used it. Shall take a look there what LT's record is?Dianne3000 (talk) 13:40, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
He learned a lot of bad habits from them (like Ken did) and, like Ken, applies them here. RW is a lot like WP with an open liberal bias, only they have little or no restriction on personal attacks on talk pages, which unfortunately CP also emulates. RobSThe Truth. Just Putin It Out There 15:25, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
Here's his Coop case (there might have other cases as well). Don't expect any rational arguments or justice in the case. Just a trollfest by multiple sockpuppets. RobSThe Truth. Just Putin It Out There 15:46, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
Excerpted:
I did nothing deserving of a block or vandal bin. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
You violated the civility parole quite a few times with your feuds in the saloon bar and the talkpages. PoorlyDrawnRockford.jpeg Rockford the Roe boop my snootpraise Oscar Wilde 20:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
You could stop using bad sources for your arguments. You know, little stuff to be just a little less annoying. CorruptUser 20:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Credible sources don't exist for his historical arguments. It seems pointless to pretend that if he looks a bit harder, he'll find something that'll persuade the audience here. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
"oH nOz wE mUsT bAn uShiT beCuZ wE dOn'T lIkE hIs sOuRCeS1111SHIFT!!!oneone11SHIFT!!1elventy11oneSHIFT!!111one!!!11!!" UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
[bolden added] It seems like the same complaint - lack of credible sources (and being annoying about it). Some people think that because they find a published source on the internet, it meets credibility requirements (this is my big objection to the crap User:Conservative has published on the Conservapedia platform, which tarnished the Conservapedia name brand and reputation).
Oh, here's the permaban ruling by Moderators. Evidently, he learned nothing from the temporary community ban in the above Coop case. RobSThe Truth. Just Putin It Out There 15:56, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
In short, LT was permabanned from RW for his behavior, and you have to look elsewhere for discussion of the credibility of his sources, which evidently, he engaged in the same type of "annoying" behavior. RobSThe Truth. Just Putin It Out There 16:34, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

But also, this "UShistoryanalyzer" proves, LyingTroll has been a sockpuppet on various forums, Wikis...Dianne3000 (talk) 02:31, September 18, 2024 (EDT)

That's nothing new. Everyone does it. Anti-doxxing rules encourage it. Abusive sockpuppetry occurs when one does it to evade a ban or uses multiple strawman socks. RobSThe Truth. Just Putin It Out There 14:20, September 18, 2024 (EDT)
These editors, LT & Ken for example, never lasted long enough in Wikipedia to learn the basics about proper interaction with other editors that have evolved since the days of Usenet - i.e., they are unable to distinguish between a content dispute and a dispute over user conduct. RobSThe Truth. Just Putin It Out There 14:26, September 18, 2024 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:LT/Against_Robscism&oldid=2076601"