User talk:RobS/archive3

... re usage of the phrase "same-sex marriage" by conservative sources.

I was trying to figure out how conservative sources use the phrase, whether they put it in quotation marks, whether they use it only to reject it and explain why they use some other phrase, or whatever.

What's your point here? Is it that you think that the phrase "same-sex marriage" softpedals the issue by avoiding the word "gay" or "homosexual" and that it should be called "gay marriage" or "homosexual marriage?" If so, please clarify there. Dpbsmith 15:09, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

We have to allow for the way search engines are configured. But examining the material from those websites makes it pretty clear they do not accept the idea that the term "marriage", is maleable, i.e. can be molded to mean whatever public opinion, courts, legislators, media, or hollywood want it to mean at a given moment in history. RobS 15:21, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

You just reverted a correction in the article you just locked. All I did was capitalize Middle Paleolithic as it is supposed to be. Please correct your editing mistake. Thanks. Prof0705 17:19, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Hey RobS, I'm not sure I quite agree with this diff; it is definitely described as a controlled substance, but has been used medicinally and legally for centuries, up until today. A dispute took place some time ago, where SharonS advocated the removal of the phrase "illegal substance" from the introduction, it only makes sense to remove the category. Can we create a new category called "controlled substances" which will supercede "illegal substances"? --Hojimachong^talk 17:54, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

If it's controlled, it's illegal. In the case of marijuana, in some state it may be legal with a perscription, but even then its distribution and consumption still is strictly regulated. RobS 17:59, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Still, including "illegal substance" implies that it's always illegal, no matter what, which is certainly not the case. The "illegal substances" is applicable to things like cocaine, which is always illegal, no matter what. --Hojimachong^talk 18:05, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Ok, let's change cat to "controlled substances". RobS 20:36, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, I just have to ask... knee-jerk reaction? --Hojimachong^talk 20:54, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm trying to figure out how to retrieve my NPOV version, or do I have to edit all over again. RobS 20:57, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk to CPAdmin1. --Hojimachong^talk 22:12, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

If you mean This version, the text version is here and you can copy paste whatever you want.--Tim (CPAdmin1)^talk 22:42, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Better I will put it here where you can acsess it easier. --Tim (CPAdmin1)^talk 22:45, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. RobS 22:52, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

If you want to discuss the "religious" section of Race before it gets reinserted, can I suggest that you do actually discuss it (on the Race talk page)? I don't have a problem with it being there (although it could be expanded), and I would like to know what issue you have with it. Philip J. Rayment 23:24, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Speaker & I started a discussion. It appears the article "race", is being transformed rather quickly into an article on "racism", without covering much of what race is. And those subsections are a confused bag; the religion entry blames religion for racism, while the legal subsection says the law still uses classifications by race. And the opening sections moreless scientifically dispells any idea or classification of race.

Moral of the story is, the law, hindered by religion, has not caught up to science yet.

Conclusion: we need to review how these two separate issues, "race", and "racism", are being framed. RobS 23:42, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

It is a great day for me. Thank you for this privilege.

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 15:36, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

From time to time I am unable to resolve conservapedia.com. This is from three different ISPs (two via VPN). Do you know what is going on? My guesses are:

1. Unreliable hosting
2. DNS is under attack
3. DNS is changing

Do you have any ideas, or know who I should ask? Thanks. HeartOfGold 23:56, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Should be up again. RobS 00:02, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Please tell others about: Conservapedia:New Sysops Training Page Conservative 22:04, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. Will do. RobS 22:07, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for asking for my input, however, I have no real interest in the reparative article. Conservative 22:16, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks! Lord bless you for that terrific entry on Monte Cassino!--Aschlafly 00:17, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

I responded to your request on my talk page...requesting elaboration. Thanks. HeartOfGold_talk 22:34, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

If you have any references or information on Vasili Mitrokhin, please contribute if you have sources for the article I just created. Also, if you're getting distressed about McCarthy, you should take a look at Ann Coulter's remarks in my user space: MythOfMcCarthyism. Might lighten things up. Thanks. HeartOfGold_talk 02:50, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Are you interested in espionage books too? Or not. Hard to tell, you seem to have a good grasp of certain aspects, though. I am not sure how to take the allegation that the Mossad has another motto. I am still trying to determine if it is credible or not. In any event, the alternative motto makes the mossad look worse, and I see you support the nation of Israel, so I think we should be very sure or very careful about adding content that falsely maligns the Mossad. HeartOfGold_talk 00:35, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

May I use it? --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 18:52, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Sure; it may even need updating. RobS 16:24, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

It seems you use the 90-10 rule to block people with whom you disagree. As this is my first edit, I will now attempt to make nine other edits before you are able to block me. Ready... set... go! Oh, and in case you win, I'll go ahead and congratulate you since I won't be able to. I have now made over twenty, so I believe I am able to edit a talk page again. I seem to have caught you at an inconvenient time, as you have not made any edits for quite some time. I will try this game again another time. Ninetyten

• Great, another user who cannot read. The "rule" says MAY be removed, not will be. Seems you don't know the difference, or chose to ignore that to create an issue. Enjoy the next couple of days to decide how you want to behave, because I have not the slightest problem blocking you for good, if you want to play games. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 22:21, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Why don't you guys just cut the rules down to The staff can and will ban users at whim. That way, people will know not to bother complaining about your favoritism, autocracy, and general mismanagement. --Gulik3 23:02, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Rob, could you please explain how the claim "A major difference between Liberalism and Conservatism is how much each group is willing to have its pronouncements checked, its actions reviewed and evaluated" helps anyone to understand the concept of Reliability? I asked for the sentence to be clarified at Conservapedia talk:Reliability 6 weeks ago. Nobody was interested in explaining, so I removed the sentence as it appears to be an irrelevant opinion. In particular, if kept it should be improved to say how much each group is willing to have its pronouncements checked (showing which is more willing), and provide a reference to this claim. Secondly, there should be some indication of what this has to do with Reliability. Remember that not all editors or readers of this site have an innate ability to understand American political concepts that may be obvious to some.

Since that page claims to provide a guideline on reliability, all that point says to me is that I can rely on liberals and conservatives being different. (duh!) --Scott 10:46, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Since it always leads to complaints about me putting something in some name space that is unacceptable, would you please archive that horrid abuse page, and the discussion page? Thanks! --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 14:45, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

• LOL!! I could have done that! --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 15:47, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Simply delete the page? No, that's not all he did. He did copy the contents to an archive page, but didn't put a link to the archive on the main page. Also, he copied it to a "wrong" page name. I've renamed the page and put a link to it on the original page. I also deleted the dates from the archive title because they were ambiguous, being in a format that not everybody uses (i.e. it was American format). I'm not convinced that I did it the correct way, however, as it is not acting like a sub-page. Philip J. Rayment 23:08, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

• Well that is something we never can understand. The Sysop abuse page is in conservapedia main, no? So why wouldn't the archives be search-able in the same name space as well? I mean, who made that rule? And for God's sake, please don't tell me that's how Ed wrote the program! :p --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 23:29, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

No, that is incorrect. The sysop abuse page, and it's archive is in "Conservapedia" namespace, which is different to the main namespace. RobS' archive with the "wrong" name would have actually put the archive in the main namespace, but my move should have fixed that. Philip J. Rayment 23:53, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Ok, I think I got it now. Thanks. RobS 23:54, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Why leave out the Serb case? Sevenstring 22:47, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

My mistake. Sorry. RobS 22:54, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

It's all good. Sevenstring 22:55, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Why'd you take out all the Bible quotes? This is _supposed_ to be a "Christian Friendly" site, isn't it? Or is the WORD OF GOD not good enough for you technocrats anymore? --Gulik3 23:01, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I think you begin with a prejudicial conclusion and proceed to quote mine the Bible. RobS 23:04, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Should we replace the advice I gave at Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style#Persons to use {{DEFAULTSORT:biographies}} instead? Seems to be a lot simpiler. Thanks HG_HeartOfGold ^talk 23:13, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Not sure what you mean? RobS 23:15, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Your method results in correct alphabetizing. It is in many cases less typing too. The method I have specified at Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style#Persons uses {{DEFAULTSORT: Surname, Given Middle}}. HG_HeartOfGold ^talk 23:18, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Also, TK proposed a "political" category on the "Political People" talk page. I don't mind biographies, just wanted to let you know others were discussing it. (I do mind "political people" for grammatical reasons. HG_HeartOfGold ^talk 23:21, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

At some point, we need to distinguish living from dead, or historical "political persons". RobS 23:23, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank you, RobS for reversing the damage done to the United States main page yesterday. The person that wrote that stuff should probably be over on the liberal version called Wikipedia, rather than Conservapedia. Starfleet7 09:48, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

I know better than to hit the "undo" button, but I would like to know how, in your opinion, a four-sentence article on this very important topic can be superior to a sixteen-sentence article? Yes, there was an error in what I wrote -- Lincoln's first inaugural actually stated he would not oppose a 13th Amendment fastening the shackles on the slaves forever. I take it you were aware of this, but the deletion of TWELVE SENTENCES? In particular, leaving the article so that it represents Robert E. Lee as the opposite number of Lincoln? C'mon! I know perhaps in popular culture they hold comparable positions -- but not in history.

I fully intend to turn "Confederate States of America" into a 10,000+ byte article once I have finished reading the book I bought Sunday on the subject. It could be argued, of course, that this is superfluous because of the five very good articles exploring the Civil War year by year. How long, then, should the article be? Please respond at my talk page. Amyz 10:03, May 22, 2007 (EDT)

Thank you! I will put it back the way it was tomorrow and will refer to no politician who was not born before the war. As promised I will eventually expand it over 10,000 bytes if no one else does. Amyz 15:58, May 23, 2007 (EDT)

RobS: You recently reverted a change made by Reaganomist that put the subject word "sodium" in bold. I thought it was a good change, consistent with the style in many other pages, and so I made a similar change to a bunch of other pages (potassium, rubidium, ...) that I am trying to make consistent. (In my little tiny corner of the CP world, I'm trying to make the pages for the chemical elements useful, uniform, and informative.) Is this word not supposed to be in bold? Should I undo the other changes? What is the stylistic guideline on this? CScience 11:32, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

CScience. At the risk of speaking out of turn, the edit was good. The user (Reaganomist) who made the edit was determined to be a (sock of GodlessLiberal) . Consequently, RobS appears to have undid all of Reaganomist's recent edits. This is what I would do too. CP is attacked so frequently by persons who are more or less clever that it is too difficult and time consuming to review each hostile contributor's edits. Malicious users often slip in good edits with bad. I am sure you would be welcomed to bold sodium. HG_HeartOfGold ^talk 13:36, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Oooh, now that's subversive! Putting in good edits with the bad. Might take a bit of intelligence to distinguish the two. Much easier to slash an burn everything a heretic writes, just in case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NItramNos (talk)

Yep; no wonder Angleton & McCarthy went nuts. RobS 15:19, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm confused. HG_HeartOfGold ^talk 17:00, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

He is referring to James Jesus Angleton and Joseph McCarthy, major figures from the early Cold War. It was part of their job to determine what part of Communist propaganda might actually be true. Amyz

Or ferret out internal subversives. RobS 16:07, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

I think you misspelled "fundamental" on your user page in the section on Daniel Brandt. DanH 00:05, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. That's actually an old advertising trick to get you to read what you are reading twice. RobS 00:06, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm wondering if you read the citation you just removed, because if you had, you would see that it was A). From the US State Department and B). Supported your statement ("all the tribesmen had independent funding") in full. --Hojimachong^talk 00:58, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

The problem is the title of that State Dept. article. The title is extremely misleading, and even leaves the reader questioning why the State Dept. would issue such a statement under that title. RobS 16:13, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

The IDF is a terrorist organization, its not trolling, its a fact --DemocraticSocialist 20:03, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Please bring forward you arguements on the IDF Talk page. RobS 20:04, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

If a confessed sockpuppet, why is he blocked for only 3 days? Please explain. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 23:00, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Good point. My screw up. Should have made that infinite,and extendedt he other to 3 days. Shhhhshhh....RobS 23:19, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

• Well is was AdrianP who alerted me to yet another puppet on my page, and his. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 23:21, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

I have reinserted the hammer and sickle into the article communism, as it is irrefutably the most widely-recognized symbol of the ideology, which is the subject of the article, in an encyclopedia. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ^talk 01:06, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

David, you asked me something you evidently considered important a week or so ago. Is this how you are showing it? Why won't you come out of hiding, and communicate by the usual means? --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 01:08, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

TK, I am on AOL Instant Messenger right now, and you are not. I would love for you to join me. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ^talk 01:09, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Albert Gore Sr. did NOT vote against the 1965 Voting Rights Act, Rob. --PF Fox 17:15, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

We got evidence he did. RobS 17:22, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd like to see it then. According to this cite: [1] he was one of several southern Democrats who voted in favor of the 1965 Act:

"Final House passage of the bill August 3 had been by 328-74 vote (217 Democrats and 111 Republicans vs. 54 Southern Democrats and 120 Republicans). The final Senate vote August 4 was 79-18 (49 Democrats and 30 Republicans vs. Strom Thurmond, Republican, South Carolina, and 17 Democrats). The Senate Democratic vote against the bill was cast by Senator Robert C. Byrd (West Virginia) and 16 Southern Democrats. Six Southern Democrats voted FOR the measure, including Senator George A. Smathers (Florida), who thus cast his first vote for a civil rights bill in his 15 years as a Senator. The others: Senators ALBERT A. GORE (Tennessee), Ross Bass (Tennessee), Mike Monroney (Oklahoma), Fred R. Harris (Oklahoma) and Ralph W. Yarborough (Texas). Thirty-seven Southern Democrats had voted for passage in the House." --PF Fox 17:33, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

He voted against it in cloture. RobS 17:35, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Cite? And on what date did this vote take place? --PF Fox 18:18, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Well? Should we assume from this that you have nothing to support your claim? --PF Fox 14:32, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

Ummm... does the fact that the OED contradicts what's on the page not matter? How is this encyclopedia going to maintain its credibility with demonstrably wrong information taking the place of legit citations? Last checked, 1901 predated 1918? Why did you do that? Sevenstring 18:00, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Why not put the Toland information in then? And there are numerous other cites in addition to the Boer War. Anne Applebaum cites Cuba 1895, three years prior to your cite. Yet neither refered to them as "concentration camp"

Point is, while that material deserves inclusion, it does not deserve inclusion in the intro. It's simply an effort to detract from the historical fact the V.I. Lenin invented the term "concentration camp", and Hitler just mimed it. Further, the Boer War is misleading; it occurred in wartime, and was set up by a foreign govt. to deal with civilian internees. The system and idea begun by V.I. Lenin, later copied & employed by Adolf Hitler, was designed for use against internal opponents of the regime in peace time. These are two entirely different subjects. RobS 18:07, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Ummmm V.I. Lenin invented the term "concentration camp" 17 YEARS AFTER IT FIRST APPEARED?!?!? In that case, I'm going to go down to the garage and "invent" the personal computer and maybe the CD player too. Or did Comrade Lenin, along with all his other remarkable achievements, also invent a time machine? Sevenstring 18:11, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Yup, forget about Annie Applebaum. You're on a hiding to nothing here, RobS. I think what you're trying to say is that Lenin invented a system that we now regard as typifying "concentration camps." He most certainly did not invent the term, as the OED proves. --Robledo 18:27, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

The cite is invaild, it is non-comtemporaneous and ex post facto. RobS 12:39, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

You're wrong. Ex post NOTHING. I've looked at the 1901 Hansard cited by the OED -it should be at your university library - and it's there. 1901. Seventeen years before Comrade Lenin. Sevenstring 13:11, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

Here's the deal: We got a source, Gen. Dmitri Volkogonov who says Lenin invented the term. If you can create the Volkogonov entry, and give us some sources as to why he's a questionable source, then you can put the 1898 material in the Concentration camp entyr. Deal? RobS 14:07, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Here's the deal, Rob -- a highly respected source, the OED, flatly contradicts Gen. Volkogonov, as do most sources on the term. Can you offer us a reason why we should consider Volkogonov a more reliable source than the OED? --PF Fox 14:14, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Here's the deal, go ahead & discredit Volkogonov, and you can have your way. RobS 14:23, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

He's already been discredited, Rob, by the fact that the use of the term "concentration camp" predates Lenin. --PF Fox 14:27, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Don't argue with me, just create an entry on him, and put some cites in there why he can't be trusted. RobS 14:31, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Is it possible just to say that he was mistaken, without trashing or discrediting him as a person? If Volkogonov said that Lenin created the term "concentration camp", but the OED found an earlier source, then I think it's reasonable to say that Volkogonov simply didn't know about the earlier source. Why do you need to discredit him completely? Dannyhorn 14:35, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Look, Why doesn't somebody just start the Volkogonov entry and find a few cites that say Volkogonov is full bull, I know they are there. RobS 14:40, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I created the page. I still don't see why you have to prove that somebody's lying rather than making a mistake, though. Dannyhorn 14:49, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

<---The page was deleted already. Here's something to begin with,

"After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Hiss’s lawyer, John Lowenthal, asked retired Soviet general and historian Dimitri Volkogonov to look in the Soviet archives for information about Hiss. Volkogonov did so and wrote a letter to Lowenthal stating that Hiss had not been a Soviet spy. The letter received widespread attention in the United States, and Hiss and his backers celebrated—until, a few weeks later, Volkogonov wrote another letter, stating that his search had not been thorough and that his previous statement should not have been seen as vindicating Hiss. Volkogonov’s retraction turned out to be the start of a flood of bad news for Hiss and, after his death, his remaining supporters.

Citation: Review of Alger Hiss’s Looking-Glass Wars, Studies in Intelligence, Reviewed by John Ehrman, 2004. [2]

Here's more:

In connection with passing of Prof. J. Lowenthal I recall a curious episode that had taken place a decade ago in autumn of 1992. Mr. Lowenthal had sent a letter to the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB), asking it to confirm that his client, Alger Hiss, had never been "an agent of the NKVD". New Russian authorities were overeager to demonstrate their openness and the FSB routed the letter to the SVR, where it landed on my desk.

After carefull study of every reference to Mr. A.Hiss in the SVR(KGB-NKVD) archives, and querring sister services, I prepared an answer to Mr. J.Lowenthal that in essence stated that Mr. A.Hiss had never had any relationship with the SVR or its predecessors. I am ready to eat my hat if someone proves the contrary. (I am pretty familiar with VENONA literature as well as with _The Haunted Wood_. Judging by the references, the authors unfortunately had no access to the essential files I worked with. I believe new archive custodians simply did not know where and how to look).

When I showed the draft of reply to my superiors, I was advised to give that information to General D. Volkogonov, who at that time was an advisor to President Yeltsyn. Virtually in a couple of days a report came from the United States that all major newspaper and TV networks reported my disclaimer, attributing it to Gen. D. Volkogonov and referring to him as a man in charge of the Russian intelligence archives.

Recently I have obtained a copy of Gen. D. Volkogonov's letter to Mr. J. Lowenthal in which he describes how laboriously he "studied the archives of the Russian intelligence services" in search of materials pertaining to Mr. A. Hiss. One would have to be very naive indeed to assume that either SVR or the GRU would open their files to that defrocked komissar. The truth of the matter is that he was simply and elegantly used to add weight to what the Russians wanted to say on the subject at that time.

I, of course, was amused to watch that development. And I think 88-year old Alger Hiss was also pleased to get that message from Russia.

Julius N. Kobyakov

Major-General SVR (Retired)
(dated 10 October 2003)

Here's one more, Soviet historiography, western journalism, by Amos Perlmutter, National Review, Jan 18, 1993.

"But this censoring by the reactionaries turned Volkogonov into a certified liberal martyr. "As a deputy in the Russian Parliament and as Yeltsin's military advisor, Volkogonov had thrown in his lot with the radical democrats," wrote Reminick in The New York Review of Books. In effect, a military apparatchik had become an anti-totalitarian liberal....According to Remnick, Volkogonov had extensive NKVD and KGB files at his disposal. But I had seen some early excerpts of his Stalin biography and had not found there any of the dramatic revelations that would be expected from what Western journalists were describing as a "revolutionary"' work. ...The book, when it was published in English, was a disappointment. Steven Miner, author of Between Churchill and Stalin, who reviewed Stalin in the Washington Post, finds that many of Volkogonov's historical judgments are mere repetitions of old propagandist claims. For instance, he defends Stalin's bare-faced assertion that a majority in the Baltics favored incorporation into the Soviet Union in August of 1940. He describes Stalin's invasion of Poland as "largely justified." And he blames the West for the cold war. RobS 15:26, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

I've got to tell you, Rob, this bizarre rationale you're offering for Lenin coining the term "concentration camp," and your even more bizarre "defense" of it casts even more doubts on your claim of being an "historical researcher." I've yet to encounter a researcher who reasons they way you do. --PF Fox 16:10, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

<--Why don't you begin the Dmitri Volkogonov article. Start with this,

• many of Volkogonov's historical judgments are mere repetitions of old propagandist claims RobS 16:14, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Whether Dmitri Volkogonov was deliberately lying or simply mistaken is beside the point, Rob. The facts show that Lenin did NOT coin the term "concentration camp," that it was used well before Lenin was supposed to have "coined" it. Your approach is like someone trying to defend the claim that the sun rises in the west by citing Mr. Smith saying so, then challenging anyone who argues to show that Mr. Smith is a liar. We don't need to show that Mr. Smith is a liar to refute the claim that the sun rises in the west. All we have to do is get up early enough to see for ourselves. --PF Fox 16:19, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

<--Don't tell me, tell the whole world in the Volkogonov entry. RobS 16:24, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

I hate to break this to you, Rob, but the "whole world" (i.e., anyone who's bothered to do even cursory research on it) already knows the origin of the term "concentration camp." I know you don't want to hear it. Tough cheese. I'm telling YOU. Nobody at all familiar with historical scholarship is likely to believe your claims about being an historical researcher. --PF Fox 16:26, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

<-- Not to pry with a personal question, but do you get some pleasure out of spinning your wheels? RobS 16:38, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

George Seldes' motto was "Tell the truth and run." Mine is "Tell the truth and watch." I find the manner in which historical revisionists react to facts interesting and revealing. --PF Fox 16:42, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

http://messenger.yahoo.com/webmessenger.php

I don't know PF, I gave him that link hours ago, but he used Yahoo instead......--Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 02:20, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

As you can see, I put down a basic structure for the artical, with the intent that if anything else is to be added, there is a proper placement for it. I consider the article as it stands "a bare skeleton" in need of meat. There are three more subsections which have not been placed yet, and one of them, the books and film section, is meant for a brief rundown of popular books and films of the subject, but not necessarily a reference section, which is below it. I would like to see brief mention and descriptions of at least three works that had a major influence in the subject: The Diary of a Young Girl (Anne Frank); Holocaust (the television minseries from 1978}; and Schindler's List. Karajou 01:09, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Hi why did you block Allies? I was about to tidy the article and make it a bit broader in nature. Hannibal ad portas 19:31, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

That's odd it now redirects. Even though I've looked at the time you deleted the article contents and put in a redirect, it was still displaying the original article (it wasn't cached on my computer). Any way the Allied Powers article is much better. Hannibal ad portas 19:41, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

The Allied Powers still needs a few minor touch ups cause it is incomplete. Also, we need a Allied Powers of WWI, and then perhaps we could split the articles. RobS 20:39, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

How is acknowledging that the Nazis were right wing "vandalism?" --PF Fox 20:45, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

We been over this. Now you are just trolling. RobS 20:46, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm curious as to the issue; is it that the Weimar Republic ended in '39 (which is false), or that the Nazis were unbelievably extremist right-wing? --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ^talk 21:01, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Which issue? I have no idea what he's talking about. I didn't even know we had a Weimar Republic page. RobS 21:02, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Starting from the basics; I assume you are familiar with basic European history from 1918-1945? If so, then we know that A). The republic effectively ended in 1933, after the Reichstag fire, and B). the Nazi party was an extreme right-wing political party, as far right as al-Qaeda. Can that be agreed upon? --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ^talk 21:06, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

You appear to be arguing content issues, many of which are in dispute. RobS 21:09, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

I think that was what PF Fox was arguing as well; those two issues are not in debate. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ^talk 21:46, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

He wasn't arguing, he was trolling. Several editors have discussed these issues for months. PF Fox is capable of some good editing when he want's to in the mainspace, but he also enjoys pestering editors. RobS 21:51, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

I fixed it, joke removed. Sorry about the joke, I actually don't think DeLay is that bad, in politics there are worse ones in both parties. He was just unlucky to be caught with some small fund issue. Regards. Wooyi 22:46, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Looks much better. I couldn't revert it cause it was only one entry, and I just wanted to communicate, this sort of thing is a no no. Thanks for fixing it. RobS 22:48, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Anyways, thanks. What is Conservapedia's blocking policy? It seems to be more strict than Wikipedia's. Wooyi 22:56, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

We are new and don't have a lot of rules. Our Conservapedia Commandments are on the Main page. The owner of the site, Mr. Schlafly, has specifically stated numerous times he wishes to avoid having many (incomprehensible) rules such as WP has. As to blocking, here's some guidelines Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks. Basically, Sysops have a lot of discretionary powers, and it does not pay to edit war with them, or go out of your way to tweak their sensibilities. RobS 23:09, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. Another question: does Conservapedia require all articles to present a conservative/Republican point of view in all aspects? I'm asking because though I'm conservative in abortion and education but more liberal in economic policies and drug polices. Regards. Wooyi 23:42, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

We're guided by the Conservapedia:Commandments, no ideological slant is required, it is a collaborative effort,and we want good reporting on all subjects and viewpoints. If the idea is to spout traditional liberal pap, using traditional liberal slander and smear tactics, then it probably isn't going to get very far. Other than that we welcome all contributions. RobS 23:58, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

You disagree with my edit? Even given the two examples from this very encyclopedia? Why, sir? Do tell. Sevenstring 16:30, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I "disagree" with your editorializing on "this encyclopedia", and take this a warning on future edits of that nature. RobS 16:36, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Again, I am shaking in my boots. ;-) Sevenstring 16:37, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I hope you don't mind I unprotected this at the request of an editor. I see that you protected it, apparently due to middleman, so I hope it was alright.Богдан ^Talk 02:20, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Hi Rob I have undone your edit. Dönitz was President for 20 days. Goebbels was designated Chancellor. I've added links to a number of sources on the take page here.. Hannibal ad portas 21:13, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Can you offer any outside information to prove that Dönitz was chancellor not president. By doing a google search I come up with president. I'm about to go to the University of Adelaide library to obtain some hard copy references. The reference to president also occurs on W/P and other web pages. Most of whom are quite respectable. [3][4][5][6]. Hannibal ad portas 22:19, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Sorry some of those references are in German. The word you are looking for is Präsident ((German for President). Reichspräsident Karl Dönitz. Hannibal ad portas 22:23, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

The article is essentially done, with the exception of fine-detailing, uploading photos, and other stuff. tell me what you think. Karajou 11:49, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

I've proofed it. Looks good. I made one separation regarding Poland because I anticiapte a Katyn forrest article. Also, we probably need a citation for the chart. And I'll be rereading most of Lucy Dawidiowicz in coming weeks, but I think we have a good review of all the essentials. RobS 12:33, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Re. your message on my talk page: The reference you refer to was not placed there by me. I merely moved the sentence. --TsarNicholas 19:28, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Since you said "we don't give a rot about poll results" I went ahead and removed the results of a four year old poll. Please contact me if I did this in error. Maestro 18:57, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Ah, I see we do care about poll results. Maestro 00:03, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Selectively. RobS 00:03, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

And you're a sysop… --ExecutableMandlebrot 10:44, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

What was your first clue? RobS 10:47, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Selectively - that's actually refreshingly honest stuff from you, RobS. Intellectually outrageous, but honest. I find myself in the bizarre position of both being appalled and applauding. --Robledo 12:57, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Well, sooner or later editors will realize CP is not WP, the "rules" are different, the way rules are enforced is different, and Sysop rolls are different. About the only thing similiar to WP, is in dispute resolution, the deck is stacked in favor of the House. RobS 13:10, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

And fixing the deck, of course, is nothing to be proud of... --Robledo 14:22, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

The big difference is probably, while WP enforces rules selectively, we do not. That's why our motto is KISS, and we only have 7 basic Commandments.

Moral of the story is, if you got content to contribute, please go ahead and do so; if an editor wants to create a dispute with a Sysop, or just be a pain in the butt, send us a postcard. RobS 14:35, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Keep In Selected Statistics? :P Only the fine example of Dpbsmith kept that clean... --Robledo 00:26, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

You are becoming nearly as hated as I am! I have tolerated that strumpet Conservative, Rob....but make no mistake, you will not overtake me! Back off! --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 11:46, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

I was just pinch-hitting while you were on vacation. Have you seen RW Goon squad entry yet? Maybe we should consider outsourcing the job of strongarm enforcer? RobS 11:57, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

• I shall email the "G" man this instant for tips! --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 11:59, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Why do you have a problem with the etymological discussion of the word "Canada?" It seems harmless enough to me. Sevenstring 19:15, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

That was a case of a user who had cut & pasted much information into several articles from Wikipedia. RobS 11:54, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

Why did you ban me? I don't understand? I was just getting used to this place, and I came back today after work to discover I couldn't log in, and you've banned me for something? 50somethingmore 21:03, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Evidence of sockpuppetry. You are suppossed to contact the blocking Admin via email if you wish to protest the block. Did you do so? Also, I note you recreated another sockpuppet account -- a blockable violation of our rules. RobS 11:56, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes that is a violation.--Will N. 11:58, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

Hey, Rob! I just wanted your opinion on the Cuban Missile Crisis page, as you're the only person who cares about it right now. Do you think it'd be okay to cut the last section on the page. Some of my justification for thinking so is that a lot of the information contained might be better conveyed in a paragraph of its own, as well as the fact that some of the statements appear inaccurate to me. I just want to make sure I'm not going to cause a row if I just cut the entire thing. I generally don't like getting people mad. Hehe

Thanks! Mskreuz 15:02, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

No problem. Your doing a good job. Let's collect the information we can get, then sort through it. RobS 15:07, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

Rob - So you and I don't see eye-to-eye on al lot. so be it. Please check out my edits on the DeLay page, as I know it's a page you've taken an interest in, and I want to make sure they're okay with you.

Best. Sevenstring 12:46, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Yah it looks good. RobS 13:13, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

• Looks even better now that the scolding tone has been balanced. ;-) --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 14:01, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. You read my mind on this one. RobS 14:02, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

TK, incidently, I perma-banned AmesG's most recent sock. I've bent over backwards to get him to contribute constructively, once even getting Andy to allow rescinding a two week block after 5 days, but the material in the DeLay article was nakedly malicious & libelous. I'm through doing any more favors for Ames, and henceforward any editing he does on this site I'll regard as harassment. RobS 14:06, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

I was just wondering if you know how to access the page where users can nominate themselves and others for Sysop privelege. They took the link off the main page, and I can't search for it because I'm not sure what the page is called. Thanks. DeborahB. 15:18, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Here you go. [[Conservapedia:Sysop contest/Nominations]]. Just add your name to the template inside if you wish to nominate yourself. Thanks. RobS 16:10, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Rob - My sincerest apologies - I cut and paste the entry in from a previous entry after only skimming it quickly and did not read it carefully. My bad. I take full responsibility and will take better care to make sure I don't eff up like that again. Best, Sevenstring 01:28, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

I think that, although slimmer (isn't concise the new watchword, however :D) the version I have posted is more truthful and has eliminated all anti-semitic, anti-Israel and pro-terror bias. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 06:14, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Please check up this just created 'article' and see what you think. Learn together 14:45, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Immediate impression: probably intended to tweak CP Sysops, a blockable offense. RobS 14:48, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

No, it wasn't an attempt to 'tweak CP sysops'. If someone makes an article on 'green balloons', can we not also make an article on 'blue balloons' as well? Look at the differences between the texts of Andy's version and mine. --wikinterpreter ^woo!

Good luck trying to keep it or expand it. RobS 14:51, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

It will grow and expand, as per the other article. Perhaps a fairer idea would be to merge the two into a single 'Denial'? --wikinterpreter ^woo!

It would be a shame to put hours and days work into something that in the end gets deleted. Now, for example, I have extensively used a book entitled In Denial [7]; if this is viewed simply as, yet again, another attack or attempt to water down and obscure that source, I might personally get involved. RobS 14:57, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

No, don't worry, I'm not attacking your source. Maybe Denial (political concept)? I've put in a merge possibility. --wikinterpreter ^woo!

As a personal observation, I think you're trying to obscure one of Andy's primary distinctions between libs & conserv's, that libs tend to use and/or be deceitful, and a basic tenet of liberalism does not condemn this, whereas conservativism is virturally based upon teaching children from an early age not to be deceitful. This being Conservapedia, I'd recommend studying this basic premise, and so far is possible, try to refute it if you are not converted to conservativism after studying it. Otherwise, I think you're going off half-cocked, which is a stereotype conserv's have of libs in responding to any crisis. RobS 15:07, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Ah, I'll read it and see if I'm converted. I still think that sometime, somewhere, a conservative has told a small lie ... :p --wikinterpreter ^woo!

Well, As Andy has continually stressed, conservativism is based upon teaching children that things like lying & being deceitful toward your fellow man is wrong (for example, teaching the Ten Commandments). Libs on the otherhand, if they do not outright oppose (a) following the Ten Commandments, (b) teaching the Ten Commandments, (c) teaching the difference between right and wrong to children (public school kids included), then they actively argue right and wrong are indiscernable. "Who's morality?", we often hear. Or "shades of grey". Relativism, it depends what "is, is". Ironic, as I've told Andy, how libs argue nobody can define right and wrong, yet turn around and condemn for hypocricy (which presumably is the motivation for Conservative denial). RobS 15:36, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Relativism has nothing to do with being liberal either in the classical or modern sense. It has a great deal to do with being "liberal" in the pejorative sense pervasive on this site. That'll be Conservapedian deceit no. 1, then.

No-one (except perhaps your loopier post-modernists) seriously advocates full moral relativism. Indeed, it's so counter-intuitive as to be almost impossible to argue for genuinely. Murder, rape, torture et al become OK as long as the people committing those crimes believe they are right in doing so. Errant nonsense and seriously postulated by a number of people tending very quickly towards zero.

If, however, you possessed even the rudiments of a decent philosophical education, then you would know that establishing "right" and "wrong" as objective matters of moral fact is incredibly difficult, even for those who genuinely want to do so. Murder is a classic example: thou shalt not kill, if you will. Simple enough on the face of it, but thou shalt actually kill in all manner of different and justifiable circumstances. Throw in, say, war and capital punishment, and the waters get murkier still.

I imagine you have a position on whether or not it was right to drop two atomic bombs on Japan. Try outlining it without using a shade or two of grey. (Hint: can't be done).

Ethics = serious & complicated business. :P --Robledo 17:00, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Thou shalt do no murder, is the actual commandment (KJV here didn't make it clear enough). Murder, is actually different from killing. God never rescinded Genesis 9:6, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed". And specifically, New Testament teaching is "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer" (1 John 3:15), so it is the thoughts and intents of the heart that make us a murderer, not the action itself (same as with adultry).

The larger question is, why did God at this particular moment in time, when Noah stepped off the Ark, lay down this command (Gen. 9:6)? The teaching is, "a bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit", "the seed off the wicked shall be cut off", and "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation." (Ex 34:7) IOW, the Great Flood was the result of the murder of righteous Abel, the unavenged murder of righteous Abel, and though Cain escaped punishment, his seed paid the price. (Note: God reserves the right to amend himself, and did so, amending Ex 34:7 and the same passage in Deut with Ezekiel 18, particularly v. 20). RobS 17:33, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Fair point re. KJV phrasing and duly noted. You're side-stepping my main assertion, though, about the inherent complexity of ethical judgements. Hiroshima or Nagasaki - take your pick. ;) --Robledo 18:01, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Ok. This gets into dispensationalism again. Unfortunately human being have to live under a civil government. And unfortunately the civil government must be led by a human beings. And unfortunately human beings are evil and wicked sinners, full of hate and envy, and kill each other (besides things like rape, theft, etc). And unfortunately the Sovereign leader selected (by whatever means) must at times make unfortunate decisions. Remember this: he is a fiduciary, acting in behalf of others, not in his own self interest.

Does this mean Harry Truman is a bunk mate of Hitler in a jail cell in hell? In my unqualified estimatation, no.

Let me raise another parallel. The people of Wisconsin pride themselves in that Wisconsin has gone without Capital punishment for longer than any other known sovereign authority in the history of the planet. Jeffrey Dahmer got a few life sentences. Now if the people of Wisconsin beleive a killer can kill, but the rest of us collectively have no legal recourse other than resrtriciting his freedom of movement for ever, then the people of Wisconsin have a legal responsibility to keep him alive. Washing their hands of him, and turning him over to insane killers to be beaten to death is cruel, unusual, and inhuman punishment--worse than gassing, lethal injection, or the electric chair. They have a moral responsibility to keep him alive then, if they abrocate their moral responsibility to execute him. And their pretense to moral superiority in not taking responsibility to put him to death, but handing him over to criminals for execution, is sickening. RobS 20:28, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Since I started this: ok so ethical standards are complex. Now what? Just because there are varying degrees of mist that can obscure complete clarity doesn't negate the idea that there is a right and a wrong. I stick by Rob's starting conservative assumption that being deceitful is wrong. Now you may be able to make an obtuse argument like "But what if an angry man with a gun who wants to kill your wife asks if she's inside your house. Do you tell him the truth?" But in matter of fact the way we live our lives day to day one can apply a standard of non-deceitfulness and adhere to that principle pretty well. Learn together 20:34, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Learn together, I don't think you've understood me. Don't worry, though, I'm getting used to it round here:

1. My initial objection was to equating the term "liberal" with relativism.
2. I pointed out that it's damn near impossible for anyone to be a true moral relativist.
3. I stated that concepts of "right" and "wrong" are, however, philosophically problematic, even for those of us who wish to hang on to them (myself included).
4. I invited RobS to find this out for himself by attempting to reconcile the "wrongness" of killing with his (or other's) perception of the "rightness" of nuking two Japanese cities. He has yet to take up this invitation.

No. 4 simply can not be done without some degree of nuance - the very same "shades of grey" that RobS so dismissively referred to. It's all very well calling yourselves conservatives and believing that you have clearly demarcated notions of right and wrong, but when it comes to the real ethical crunch (like no. 4), then you're on as shaky ground as the rest of us. My substantive objection is to people trying to pretend otherwise.

Ethics = serious & complicated business for everyone. --Robledo 18:39, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Hi! I'm the new sysop, as you probably already know. I'm kinda new and just want to make sure that I should block this one user. I suspect the new user, Unreconstructed, who just created a user name a few minutes ago, to be a sockpuppet. I checked on the checkuser page and he showed up as using the same computer as Cinwit1. Should I block him or not? --BethanyS 15:55, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Nevermind! Karajou already blocked Cinwit1 and Unreconstructed! :P Thanks anyway!--BethanyS 15:58, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Hey if you are not to sure, wait and see if they make a move. Or if another admin thinks he is a sock of someone he has already blocked then he or she will probably get it. But cryyingeagle and the guy you mention, you can almost see what thier going to do just by thier name.--Will N. 16:00, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

If somebody's IP address shows up using the same computer of a previously blocked user like you mentioned, go ahead and block. DanH 16:01, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

The policy is (a) against using any socks, and (b) blocking indefinitely again a sockpuppet who has already been blocked. So the new sock, Unreconstructed should be blocked right away, and then you need to check and see what Cinwit1 status is, has he been indefinetly blocked, or for a shorter duration, etc. If he was temporarily blocked, this may warrant extending it further.

I'll look at it, too. And if a user page needs to be deleted (as in the case of recurring trolls), watch how I do it. RobS 16:02, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Thanks!--BethanyS 16:30, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Hello Rob. I noticed an article that made a reference that pointed to the same article name in wikipedia. Is this a violation of policy, or just bad form? Also, since only a small part of the article in wiki actually had the information in question and there is a source given, is it ok to directly use the magazine source that wiki had?

Thanks Learn together 16:55, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes, we'd prefer the original source. Wikipedia is not supposed to be used as a source here. However, if you are the original author, we do make exceptions. RobS 16:57, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Rob, I don't follow your main page entry that the Boston Globe "trumpets Conservapedia's success", when it is simply ridiculing Conservapedia. And I can't see what you are referring to with "demonstrates CP's objectivity with a review of Pat Robertson". What review? Philip J. Rayment 01:36, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

I've written a response to the column, which I think should be linked from the front page for people coming here after reading Alex Beam's column, if you and others like it. Philip J. Rayment 01:44, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Philip, Rob is right. The Boston Globe concedes the success of Conservapedia and that is the premise of the article. The criticism doesn't make sense without the premise of success. Your link to a response did not work for me and I need to sign off for the night, but I'll check your (corrected) response first thing tomorrow morning.--Aschlafly 01:49, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

I've fixed the link. Philip J. Rayment 01:51, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

I agree that Conservapedia must be successful enough to warrant the attack, but it was an attack, not an attempt to "trumpet Conservapedia's success". That is, we can say that Conservapedia must be successful in order to have this sort of thing written, but we can't say that the column was saying that we are successful. Philip J. Rayment 01:56, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

I did it on the fly; we'll work on some more wording today. RobS 09:57, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

It still reads as though we don't realise that it's being critical of Conservapedia. Philip J. Rayment 10:16, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

There is no such thing as bad press. RobS 10:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

So they say, but even though the publicity may be good, it's still being critical and the Main Page reads as though we don't realise that. Philip J. Rayment 10:18, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

They obviously did not read Pat Robertson, which is the basis of thier criticism. And the Robertson entry as it is now I've cleaned up so far as is possible; we should revert it to the older version, and let people judge for themselves on the quality of their criticism. RobS 10:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Where do you get that? The only reference to Pat Robertson is this "Conservapedia is just like Wikipedia, except that its 11,000 entries read like they were personally vetted by Pat Robertson and the 700 Club." That has nothing to do with this: Pat Robertson--Colest 10:25, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

The first edit in cleaning up the Robertson entry [8] was a removal of a link to the Boston Globe, and replacing it with the official transcript from Robertson's website, i.e. replacing a secondary source with a primary. Perhaps comparing those two references will shed light on the fairness of the Globes objectivity and criticism. RobS 10:28, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Colest; the columnist doesn't mention our Pat Robertson article, and there's no evidence that he's even seen it. The Main Page entry referring to Pat Robertson doesn't make sense. I've just looked at what you changed, and it hasn't shed any light at all. (And even if it was relevant, there's no need to revert; just link to the old version.) Philip J. Rayment 10:40, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

See my comments at Talk:Main_Page#Boston_Globe_article. Describing an opinion column which ridicules Conservapedia as "trumpet[ing] Conservapedia's objectivity" is, uh, not exactly an example of Conservapedia's being objective. If it's intended as ironic humor, then it needs a smiley-face or something. And, as others have noted, the column only mentions Pat Robertson in passing, and not to "laud" him as "a symbol of diversity and fairness." Dpbsmith 10:49, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

We'll just employ the tried and tested Hillary Clinton technique of responding to crticism: spin it in our favor for the first 24 hours, wait til the next news cycle, and dismiss it as "old news". We do not need to respond to baseless B.S. RobS 11:30, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Rob - Glowing review??? Did you read Dpbsmith's comment? I agree with Dpbsmith's analysis and while I appreciate your insertion of the article, I don't agree that it's a glowing review from Conservapedia's perspective. I also don't agree with using Hillary Clinton's techniques. Your glowing review is not spinning it in our favor. Crocoite ^Talk 12:49, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

The fact is, it is not criticism of us. And we should not recognize it as so. And we have limited space to explain context, how we've been the target of vandalism, etc. So if you can come up with words that do not acknowledge this as criticism, I'd be interested in hearing. RobS 12:52, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean "it is not criticism of us"? That's exactly what it is! Criticism by mockery rather than with facts, but criticism nonetheless. Or perhaps you use a different definition of "criticism" than the rest of us?

And why did you revert my changes to the Main Page?

Philip J. Rayment 21:58, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

To acknowledge it as valid criticism, acknowledges the legitimacy of it. You can never, ever live that down. Everything they said then, is (a) attributed to you (b) you admitted it was true, fair, and correct (c) it can always be cited in the future as your confession of guilt/incompetency/fill in the blank whatever.

Legitimate criticism we can respond to. This isn't worth the effort. RobS 22:04, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Oops...sorry about the reversion, I didn't see it til now. RobS 22:10, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Huh? You didn't say that it wasn't valid criticism' you said that it wasn't criticism. I have said all along that the criticism was unwarranted (hence it was invalid), so you've just admitted that I was right and that you were either wrong or hadn't explained yourself properly.

And rebutting to the criticism is not acknowledging its legitimacy, it is, by definition, denying its legitimacy. If anything, acknowledging that the column exists and not rebutting it is tacitly acknowledging its legitimacy.

Apology accepted, thanks.

Philip J. Rayment 22:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Ok, we agree it is not valid criticism. Not being valid, it is not criticism of us, either. Rebutting it is acknowledging it as criticism. Since we have not been criticized, there is no need to rebut or deny. And that is the last thing we wish to get into, is a tit-for-tat exchange with critics with a larger voice than we have. To simply leave it alone, anyone can judge for themselves the value and usefulness of this criticism. This critic alleges CP is written by Pat Robertson & the 700 Club; this means either (a) this critic did not research their subject properly prior to writing about it, as is evident by reviewing our Pat Robertson entry, or (b) this critic knowingly and deceptive did read the Pat Robertson entry, but proceeded with smears against us and Robertson anyway. Anyone can judge for themselves on the merits of this, without us unnecessarily getting into a public dispute with a critic who has a much larger voice then we have. RobS 22:40, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

About the only bit in that argument that I will accept is that it might not be a good idea to get into a tit-for-tat exchange with a critic with a bigger voice. But we don't follow that line with Wikipedia, so why here?

But you logic bypasses me. How can you redefine "invalid criticism" as "not criticism"? Invalid criticism is a type of, or a subset of, criticism. So invalid criticism is criticism, and deserves (whether its prudent to do so or not), to be rebutted.

Sometimes people can judge for themselves, but how many people will look up the kangaroo article to see for themselves that he's quoted out of context? Most won't. Proverbs 18:17 : "The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him". Unless someone points out where he is wrong, most people will simply accept what the column says.

The critic does not allege that Conservapedia is written by Robertson; just that is reads as though it is—there's a big difference.

Philip J. Rayment 02:36, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

As per a redefinition: Some forms of "valid criticism", by valid meaning qualified, may be worth responding to. Unless it is valid, it is not criticism (it's just drivel, disinformation, peeing in the wind, etc). As to criticizing WP, it's done selectively, and we must always take caution that its done fairly. That means we admit where they are correct, or have done things right, and criticize where it's warranted. This is expected of us, not only by our mission task, but the public as well has come to expect it. But it should never be blanket, naked, partisan criticism.

To review Beam's criticism on a case by case basis, where content was done by editors in good faith, and what was placed by trolls, I suspect itself would be tedious, and then open us to a charge of more criticism, "What are you doing to police the articles? Why haven't you been more vigilant in reverting vandalism? Who's running the show anyway?, etc." It becomes a never ending circle of the dog chasing his tail, which is what the trolls want anyway.

In short, Beam's criticism is basically just another attack, like RW cabal, on a larger scale. We do not respond to RW point by point, of all the errors that they themselves placed in CP. Beam probably got a tip from one of them to write the story at this time anyway. RobS 12:03, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps I shouldn't bother any more with the semantics of the word "criticism", yet I notice that despite you declaring it to be not criticism because it's not valid, you subsequently refer to it twice as "criticism"!!

Regardless of whether you call it "criticism", Beam made a specific claim about the Kangaroo article, which claim was wrong, and being wrong, can be answered.

Yes, response to Wikipedia is selective, and I've already admitted that responding to Beam may not be judicious, but one of your reasons for not responding was because they have a "bigger voice". My point about Wikipedia is that we don't let a "bigger voice" stop us from replying, so this particular reason is not a consistent reason for not replying. Your response about being selective sidesteps that point with an answer to a point that I wasn't making.

I can't see that it would be tedious to go through all the criticisms, because, if I recall correctly, there were only two specific criticisms, one of which I've already prepared an answer to.

Philip J. Rayment 22:44, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

It is criticism, it is not criticism of us.

• Beam made a specific claim about the Kangaroo article, which claim was wrong

Yes, so this entails criticizing the critic who didn't make good, valuable, just, fair, qualified, lefitimate criticism of us. So the question is (a) is it worth criticizing the critic? (b) are we prepared to criticize the critic? (c) responding on the kangaroo entry legitimizes Beam's criticism. (d) we do not want to legitimize Beam's criticism. (e) If we are to respond to Beam's alleged criticism, it will not be a point-by-point criticism of his work, it will be questioning his credibility regarding his alleged criticism us. (f) Are we prepared to take on Beam's credibility, or for that matter, all his professional buddies in several mainstream publications, who will come to his defense and trash us also? RobS 22:58, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Huh? The criticism is not of us? Who is it of then? It is directed against Conservapedia, so is "of us".

(a) That is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that it is, yours is obviously different.

(b) I am, but obviously you are not.

(c) No, it does not legitimise it. I've already explained why not. Not answering it is, if anything, tacit legitimisation. Refuting it is not legitimising it.

(d) So we should answer it, so that all can see that it is not legitimate.

(e) Given that he has quoted out of context, and probably from a third-party site, his credibility is questionable, so what's the problem?

(f) Maybe not, but given that we are prepared to take on Wikipedia (with a far larger readership), I don't see why we should be scared to take on Beam.

Philip J. Rayment 06:11, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

It is not valid criticism of us, hence it is not criticism of us. It is directed against Conservapedia, yes, so this is a question of the credibility of the critic, not of the credibility of the alleged criticism of Conservapedia. (c) So following this, you legitimize the credibiltity of the alleged critic. (d) answering it recognizes, that it is fair and valid. Do we answer every troll? (e) So we are in agreement. Answering Beam primarily involves impugning his intergrity (f) Why not take on CBS News, or the Kremlin, or the Chinese military industrial complex. Or al-Qeada suitcase bombers for that matter. By this logic, we are equally prepared to deal with all of them. RobS 11:37, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Discusssing this in public only serves the trolls purpose, i.e. now they will exploit an obvious difference of view between Sysops. RobS 10:36, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

I thought that Conservapedia was prepared to "take on" (criticise) mainstream media organisations, etc. if they are are putting a liberal view. But there's not much point in continuing this if you can't even agree with yourself as to whether or not it is criticism. Philip J. Rayment 07:50, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

• Rob, some of your hate mail has made it to me, and I will forward it on to you. I want to emphasize you are not a sock of mine, nor I of you. I had nothing, whatsoever to do with your piece on the Globe, however I doubt I would have written it in a more pleasing fashion. ;-) --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 12:10, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. I always enjoy reading hate mail. Once in a while you pick up a creative, new epitome that can be stashed and recycled, provided it's not copyvio. RobS 12:14, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Hi Rob - a favour, if you would, please -- probably for both of us. Could you block me? No hard feelings, no parting or Parthian shots - I just have to buckle down and get a lot of work done and this place is a bit of a time-sucker for me.

Many thanks, take care....Sevenstring 18:09, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

• Well, this isn't RW. We don't block without cause. You can email in, and ask for your account to be deleted, however. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 18:30, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

I dislike the lefty religioustolerance site too but I cannot find a reference to the specific Gallup study nor can I find another site which carries the information. Any suggestions? Conservative 17:12, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

I reverted your change to Creationism as your change reflected in your footnote did not cite what the American scientists believed which is the issue in question. Can you find the Gallup scientists poll? By the way, I got rid of a talkorigins footnote a few days ago and found a better site to reference. Conservative 17:54, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

The material is copyrighted. I don't know the implications of your cut and paste suggestion without giving a reference. I do know it is nice to have the info regarding what american scientists believe. Also, the credibility issue is mainly with Gallup and Gallup is quality outfit. So if a lefty website cites a credible source like Gallup albeit not a specific cite perhaps that is good enough. What do you think about leaving the american scientists info out and thereby eliminating the need for the lefty citation. You would have to rework the paragraph though. Conservative 18:28, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

I'll take a look at the site; what info do we all need? RobS 20:31, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

There are two problems with the Christianity template which can be found at Trinity. One is that it includes Mormonism in Western Christianity and most western Christians do not consider Mormonism to be Christian. The second problem is that it list Protestantism and then list Lutheranism. Well Lutheranism is part of Protestantism so it is duplication. I would fix it myself but I don't know how to edit templates. Conservative 19:38, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Done. RobS 20:30, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

The Sysop User:Crocoite has objected to the Mormons being deleted from the template. I could use some solidarity and would appreciate any influence you have with Andy Schlafly in regards to the Mormon/Christianity template issue. I strongly disagree with Mormonism being on the Christianity template. Please ask other Sysops that you have a good rapport with to be an ally in this issue too. Conservative 21:18, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Rob, I'm not sure what the point of your comments were on my Discussion page. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. What exactly is your point? I'm pretty new here so there is no body of work that you can look at. Can you further elaborate on your comments? I just finished adding some new names to the section in the McCarthy article retitled, "VENONA files & Other Security/Loyalty Risks". There's still lots of work to be done, including listing everything alphabetically and creating separate articles for the new entries. Let me know if you like the work. And, please, use the "+" tab to add new topics on my Discussion page next time. Thank you. Scorpio 21:12, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Thank God you found an alternative citation. If you could be so kind please institute the change in the Theory of evolution, Creationism, and Young earth creationism articles which all use the lefty site for the American scientists survey. Conservative 21:13, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Fixed all three articles with your citation. I only used one of your citations though as the other one didn't match up. Thanks for finding that for me. I don't like that liberal site. Conservative 21:50, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

The ABC News cite does not give a cite for the information on the scientists, as nobody else does either. It may be available from Gallup, for a fee. RobS 21:56, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Rob, nice work on the McCarthy article tonight. I've got more names to add, hopefully tomorrow. Thank God I found someone who has a thirst for this topic as much as I do. :) Scorpio 23:19, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. I am anxious to do a Louis Budenz article. Do you have any info? RobS 23:21, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Absolutely, in the words J. Edgar Hoover, "His [Budenz] evidence has been worth 20 divisions to the United States." I have enough info to make a decent article. Look forward to it. Scorpio 10:59, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

RobS, I would like to upload one or more images for the Joseph McCarthy article. I don't have the authority to do this so can you please help me with this or list me as a sysop so I can do the work without having to bug you guys about it? Thank you. Best Regards. Scorpio 14:06, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

I posted this earlier today but it seems to have disappeared. So I'll repost it: Hey RobS, how about responding to Franklin with some proof to back up your claim?--Colbyjack 11:14, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Franklin Who? RobS 11:27, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Look at the "New Ordeal" discussion page.--Colbyjack 11:33, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Actually, just came here to say the same thing. I tried to nominate it for deletion, which you should do RobS if you understand the reason I gave on the talk page there. If not, tell me. FredK 16:15, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Did you read the Freeman Tilden article? It has nothing to do with your essay.--Philaretes 15:13, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

Really? I thought it did. Let's look at just this one excerpt for example:

At least the half of all economic history is concerned with the tragi-comedy of governments getting into debt by extravagance and trying to get out by fraud. A good deal of the other half is concerned with individuals attempting to do the same thing. But governments have the advantage over individuals in this respect, since they are immune from the police power, because they control it. Indeed, it is axiomatic that if the commercial morality of the individual were as low as that of his government, no government could exist.

What concerns us now, however, is not repudiation in specific instances, whether of government or the individual, but of the attitude toward repudiation, as expressed by those whose position, training and intelligence are of considerable moment. While there is yet no blunt statement from high sources that an obligor is to receive special favor if his net fortune prove, on examination, to be inferior to that of his creditor; yet we have clearly arrived at the stage when, regardless of the intent of the obligation, if the debtor suffers a loss, the creditor is to be considered a partner in the borrowers enterprise...

Of course, the leading spirits in the assault upon the contract principle are governments. Whatever specious excuses are given by a government for the repudiation of its promises, either to its own subjects or to others, there is never more than one real reason: that it wants more money to spend as it prefers to spend it. As all governments are liberal promisors, their first thoughts, when more money is needed, and there is a fear of alienating support by taxation or direct expropriation, fly to the devising of some means of invalidating their obligations, and setting up a construction more to their liking. Fortunately for needy governments, a great part of their subjects are also in debt, and would also like to be relieved. Therefore what the government desires, and what would at the same time be popular, happily coincide, and the next thing is to declare that a crisis exits. This is taking high ground, precluding the charge that there is any immoral or illegal purpose of fleecing the creditor class....

Having declared that a crisis exists, which is not hard to do, since governments are generally so clumsy and expensive that a crisis is always within call, all that remains is to alter the standard of value in some artificial manner; and there are a number of ways of doing so. This step, of course, brings all existing contracts that involve money payments into confusion. The unfortunate consequences in respect of these contracts could be avoided by enacting, along with the legislation altering the standard, that preceding obligations should be made good ... not according to the new value, but according to that which existed when the contract was made....

But, even if there were no political reasons against this course, it would be unthinkable to a modern government, for the reason that it has its own obligations so clearly in mind. If its act were not to have the final result of assessing the difference to the creditor, the legislation might just as well not have been passed, and the crisis was cried up for nothing. Of course, the government is even now not in the happiest position, for its expenses increase in exactly the ratio of the degradation of the standard; but this can be met by a further degradation, and that by another...

Meantime, the spirit of default naturally filters down through the body politic. And truly, it is hard for the humble individual to see why, if a government can elude its obligations, or set the stage for a general default based upon one particular kind of contract, it is not equally in order for him to repudiate his promise, however and wherever made. ... RobS 16:01, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

Nice excerpt. How does it support your argument?--Philaretes 09:02, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Did you just post on my talk page? Did you send me the email I just got? --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 17:57, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

yep, that's me. RobS 17:58, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Good afternoon. Would you look at the Noam Chomsky article and decide if the section of "Chomsky's Criticisms of the west" is necessary and factually correct? It seems like it doesnt belong in this article. Thank you. bd ^Talk 15:39, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

I've looked at it, it all appears factual, and is of utility when comparing others who echo Chomsky's views. Being the father deconstructionism, criticism of the Wast is only natural. RobS 15:44, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

Could you please weigh in regarding Mormonism being on the Christianity template at User:Aschlafly's discussion page? Also, can you tell me how to edit the Christianity template so I can remove Mormonism from the Christianity template? Conservative 14:10, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

Rob, go ahead and block User:DoggedPersistence. Thanks! Crocoite ^Talk 20:42, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

• Sorry, no. Learn to discuss. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 20:46, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

What now? RobS 20:47, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Rob, you should be ashamed of yourself. You blocked me (User:Associate) for disagreeing with you, with no warning, after INVITING contributions, and then didn't respond to my email questioning you. I was hardly the only person questioning the Great Ordeal. In fact, after Bohdan reverted my edit, he invited me to discuss it elsewhere, so I left your essay alone. You have to learn to work and play with others better, especially if you want to convince them of your interesting, but obscure, ideas.Assistant 20:56, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Thank you, TK, I greatly appreciate the balance you brought to my banning. RobS - please don't simply ban people because you disagree with what we have to say, it's in the Conservapedia Commandments. DoggedPersistence 21:20, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

• And you, Dogged, most likely know my shortness of patience with baiting. No matter how fun the target makes it. So you also, take heed...my blocking of you will not be undone, if you force my hand. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 21:31, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

I hear you. Enough said. DoggedPersistence 21:35, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

I had a few techincal questions on your aricles, specifically on New Ordeal and Political profiling. Specifically, Talk:Political profiling is locked, so i opened a discussion at Conservapedia:AFD:Political profiling. If you feel they are worth answering, great. Thanks.PaulP 00:00, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

You may wish to consider protecting the Alvaro Uribe article since it is prone to vandalism. Thanks Learn together 11:05, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Same troll is back. Karajou 12:52, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Did you know that EnFrancaisSVP is the sock of HomesCool, who is blocked? Should I block him?--BethanyS^{Talk to ME} 12:41, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

Left-wing propaganda. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 13:42, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

Fixed. Will check over other Palestinian-related articles, as there is a lot of genuine - as opposed to left-wing garbage - historical background to the situation - including some of the Arab viewpoints - which are deserving of being put into an article. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 14:02, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

You made two comments on my edit to the Cocaine article. a) mentioning "feelings of euphoria", b) the chemical formula. Was it necessary to revert the entire edit? I spent quite some time finding quality references to back up all the points I added, and for the ones that were there. With regard to "feelings of euphoria", whether or not you agree with having it in the article (I don't particularly, either), it was already there, and so after your revert, it's still there. As for the chemical formula, what's the precise problem? - it's a very commonly quoted formula, but certainly not a how to cook book by any means, and you certainly can't manufacture cocaine from knowing it. In fact, the chemical formula may serve only to increase the apparent sinisterness of cocaine. In my opinion, that would be a good thing. What else was wrong with my edit, and why did you revert all of it? I thought the points about the extreme dangers of cocaine abuse during pregnancy were pretty good and clear, no? Amahony 17:29, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

In keeping with our goals to be family friendly, we don't wish to offer any and all scraps of information on illegal drugs. For example, the claim that cocaine is used in eye surgery appears dubious, it may have been at one time, but I can't find a qualified verification for this claim, and actually this is the first time I've heard of it. References to chemical compounds are not necessary, particlularly since we are a family friendly site, and I doubt there are many families with chemical laboratories wishing to cook up chemical compounds of controlled substances reading this site.

As to the harmful effects of controlled substances, this is something we feel the obligation to education people on, so I'm sorry for my reversion about the effects on pregnent women. Please reinsert it, it is very valuable material, and we would also encourage good sourcing from various studies on the effects which is the basis why controlled or illegal substances are either controlled or illegal.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, and feel free to edit the article. RobS 18:07, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I'll avoid the chemical formula. I suppose it makes sense that it will not be needed on a family site. I didn't claim that it was used in eye surgery though, that was a previous edit. It was when I saw that edit that I decided to try and improve the article. Amahony 18:15, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

• Amahony, I have taken over the improvement of that article. Please contact me on the Cocaine talk page with any suggestions you might have. Thanks! --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 19:19, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. What is Conservapedia's licensing policy for images? For the four that I created, I am willing to license them in any way suitable to use here and the fifth one is PD. --BigDT 16:29, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

Thanks again ... I have edited the image description pages to include licensing information and the Virginia Tech article looks a bit more colorful now ;) --BigDT 17:12, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

This page is around 92k in size. I'd advise you to archive this talk page. I would, but it's your talk page. :) Niandra ^talk 09:11, 19 June 2007 (EDT)