User talk:RobS/archive4

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Your Condescension of Me

Dear Rob Smith,

In your petty attempts to shut-down my activism, you have made a series of horribly embarrassing blunders. As should be obvious by the blog entry ‘Fred: Bite and Chew’, Fred Thompson is no Ronald Reagan conservative. You should rethink your conjecture that Ron Paul was truly an opponent of Ronald Reagan. Dr. Paul was one of only four Republican congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan over Gerald Ford in the primaries leading-up to the 1976 presidential election. He was also one of Reagan’s delegates to the convention in 1980. It may also be worthy of note that RON PAUL DID NOT RUN FOR PRESIDENT IN 1984!!!! He ran in 1988 against George H.W. Bush, who was far from Reagan’s first choice for VP according to his own memoirs, and, just like Fred Thompson, is NOT a conservative. Given America’s general apathy and lack of proper education however, you are probably correct when you say “there are many of us who recall” Ron Paul running for President in 1984. At this point in the game, it seems that I am the one who is more “aware of these basics facts of history”.

    I would advise taking a course in history before you attempt to teach one to someone else again. (that is a course other than the one just served to you by a 15 year-old). In the mean time, have fun being ignorant of the truth and supporting a GOP line-tower for president in 2008.



Why did revert

why did you revert my edit on Loose Change. Is it because you want to run from the truth?--Anon243 22:45, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Rob, welcome to the SYSOP/admin group. I've just given you these special privileges, in recognition of your terrific work.

This means you can now block users, and I encourage you to do so immediately (and for infinite duration) upon recognition of obscenity or vandalism. Unlike Wikipedia, we do not block for ideological reasons. Warnings are appropriate, not for obscenity, but for silliness and other problems. In rare and extreme cases, our approach to repeated ideological conflict is to lock the page, and then allow the group of SYSOPs to make changes on a manual basis based on comments on the Talk page.

Welcome!--Aschlafly 11:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Rob, your insights are good. Please go ahead and edit the World History lecture so that students can benefit from your knowledge. Thanks.--Aschlafly 15:38, 11 March 2007 (EDT)


Please explain how the edit was racist--Philaretes 11:32, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Many Southern states have large minority populations, Texas and Florida for example are among some --Tash 20:33, 25 July 2007 (EDT)of the most populous states in the US, and have large Black and Hispanic populations. The attempt to highlight the marginal differences in acedemic test scores accross the region appears racially motivated, and we cannot allow such blatant bigotry in the articles, unless perhaps it is cited properly--that liberal racists wish to highlight lower than average test scores is supposed to be indicative of some sort of conclusion or other. RobS 11:37, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
I cited the scores; they do not refer to race. Therefore, I do not see how the racism that you seem to see, nor how it can be "blatant." If there is no refrence to race in the cites, how do you imagine it is there? --Philaretes 11:42, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

By the way, I do not like your insinuation that I am racist. You somehow saw race in this; I did not. If anything, you sir, have a hang up with race.--Philaretes 11:46, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Then why do you do it? RobS 12:47, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
Then why do I do what? Point out data that does not even mention race, and then have you infer I am a racist? Care to explain that?--Philaretes 13:25, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
I don't think you are a racist, any more than Rob will think I'm a racist. I believe that IQ tests show a 12 to 15 point gap between US blacks and US "white and Asians". Whether this is due to culture, upbringing or education is highly controversial.
I suggest an article on race and intelligence, such as I helped edit at Wikipedia. Perhaps a good start would be about the book The Bell Curve. --Ed Poor Talk 13:43, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
Thank you Ed. My point here is that I do not even see how race came up in this. Rob, in his post above somehow does. --Philaretes 13:50, 21 June 2007 (EDT)


Please see recent changes - there are a couple of vandals operating at the moment :/ File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 13:14, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Special:Contributions/SnareDrumKneeCaps File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 13:23, 20 June 2007 (EDT)


Just wondering if you know anything about templates...I have a question for someone who does. Thanks. DeborahB. 13:24, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

See here Conservapedia:Editor's guide#Templates, or ask Philip Raymont, perhaps TK also know much more about templates than I do. Thanks. RobS 13:29, 20 June 2007 (EDT)


I'm surprised that's been able to survive so long (and that certain editors who were involved in that tolerated it). I'd possibly suggest starting with Karajou or Ed, if he has the time. DanH 13:35, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

I'll ask Karajou. Thanks. RobS 13:36, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
  • Hmmm, I think not. I'll take it. Thanks for asking, you two. :D --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 07:27, 21 June 2007 (EDT)


TK pointed out an edit I made to Ralph Reed where I accidentally copied back ridiculous information from a previous editor. I had felt I was only adding links, and wasn't aware of this change. Thank you for catching it. Learn together 10:59, 21 June 2007 (EDT)


Rob, we got a vandal that keeps making socks, probably has a static IP, he keeps trying to vandalize a video game article, could you help?--Elamdri 23:01, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

ok, any clues who or where? I can run CheckUser. RobS 23:04, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
Check the recent changes, he's running rampant. Has to have a static IP.
GoldenSausage was his most recent username.
Niandra's right on him too. RobS 23:09, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

I don't think you have him yet. I'm pretty sure this most recent guy LockeCole is him too.--Elamdri 23:10, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

small request

Dear Rob,

I wanted to thank you for your assistance in regards to the citation problem having to do with the creationism articles. I have a small request. In order to improve the useability of Conservapedia as a reference source, we are experimenting with a "uncited template". I put one on a section of your well written Office of Strategic Services. Since you know your sources better than I, your help in this matter would be appreciated. Conservative 18:57, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Thanks again...

...for all your inside info -StarbucksWarrior 16:50, 24 June 2007 (EDT) (AmesG)

Ralph Nader

His name is actually spelled Nader, and another article exists at Ralph Nader. Combine as you wish. DanH 21:16, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

Duh. RobS 21:24, 24 June 2007 (EDT)


Rob, in accordance with your preferred method of choosing images, I have chosen a very accurate and illustrative image for the Capitalism article; see [1]. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 17:10, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Hoji my friend, the only way one could connect the dots in this line of reasoning. would be through Marxist ideology. RobS 17:13, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
I think it is perfectly clear; both include pictures of leaders who committed democide to promote their version of a broad ideology. That doesn't mean that the ideology itself is democidal; I doubt you would agree if I believed that capitalism was democidal (which, by the way, I do not).--Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 17:14, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
(a) Capitalism is not an ideology. (b) Only Marxist theory promotes capitalism as an ideology. (c) Only Marxist theory would characterize Pinochet as a "capitalist."
Yes, I think it is perfectly clear what the POV you are trying to express. RobS 17:20, 25 June 2007 (EDT)


Rob, I'm not going to get into a pi$$ing match with a sysop, but the phrase "militant resistance at home to imperialist interventions and wars" dose NOT imply terrorism - not only could it apply to the Solidarity Movement, the American Revolution - or its moral equivalent, the Nicaraguan Contras - it also applies to leftist anti-imperialist movements that don't resort to terror attacks against civilians. Manicheanism is a boring way to see the world. Guitarplayer 22:39, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Can you say that in English, you lost me. RobS 22:47, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm surprised someone on this website doesn't know what Manichean means, given its religious - and somewhat Christian- etymology - it means seeing things in black and white. There are lots of shades of gray that come into play when describing liberation movements - some are terroist, I agree. Many are not. Your edit makes the two appear to be synonymous. Guitarplayer 22:50, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

ok, you want the long answer of the short answer? Better yet, here's both:
Long answer: the WWP is exactly as the entry states, "According to its website, Workers World Party ('WWP) "promotes international working-class solidarity, ...militant resistance at home to imperialist interventions and wars." [1] The ATTAC Terror Report [2] characterizes the WPP as follows:
Founding/Supervisory Organizations:
Cuban General Directorate of Intelligence (DGI)
Socialist Workers Party (SWP)
Supporting Organizations:
Prairie Fire Organizing Committee (PFOC)
Weather Underground Organization (WUO)
Type of Organization: Terrorist/revolutionary
Location: United States
Ideological cover: Openly Marxist-Leninist
Activities: Riots; prison organizing & riots; political & logistical support for terrorism
Target countries: United States
Status: Confirmed active
Assisted Organizations:
Code Pink
Prairie Fire Organizing Committee (PFOC)
Republic of New Africa (RNA)
Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)
Weather Underground Organization (WUO)
Youth International Party (YIP)
Derivative/Controlled Organizations: (unknown)
Short answer: So it's the propaganda game; guess who's in charge of this one? RobS 23:03, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

McCarthy article

Rob, please check the Discussion page for my request. Thank you. Scorpio 14:09, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Rob, what are you doing on the McCarthy article? I have explained all of my work on the Discussion page and urged us to avoid redundant statements. Now you have locked the article so I can't add any further info to the article? Why? Why are you posting redundancy in the article? I have been upfront with all my changes and called your attention to all changes. It's not as if I have been making modifications without talking to you first. And my changes do not affect your work at all. So I'm totally confused about what you are doing. There is no vandalism going on so "protection" of the page is unwarranted. The page was unlocked at my request so I could add info. Can you please explain your reasoning here and unlock the McCarthy page? I would appreciate it. Thank you. Scorpio 11:09, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Oops, sorry about that! (Militant Atheism page)

I hadn't realized I removed your link in the "Further Reading" section. Sorry about that, hope it wasn't too dreadful an inconvenience to fix it up again. Regards, CantorburyTales 10:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Please Help

A recent edit to John the Baptist has caused a great deal of difficulty. Can you please look at the recent edit and the talk section and give your input. I find it to be very troubling the direction this is going. Thank you. Learn together 11:48, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for your assistance Rob. What occurred was setting a bad precedent of forcing fact and protecting it so it could not be altered. The way it was done, in my opinion, was very frightening. Learn together 12:58, 28 June 2007 (EDT)


Have _you_ stamped me vandal? What are you meaning?! --Aulis Eskola 21:35, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

You're asking about a 1 day block from a month ago? [2] Haven't you been editing since? RobS 15:22, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
  • I certainly don't want to be hearing that, Aulis! Come on! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 23:05, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
  • What? Are you a Public Defender now? RobS 15:22, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Anything to say about what I brought upon myself Rob?

Anything at all? Or are you only capable of speaking up in private? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 03:51, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

McCarthy Files

When you talk about the missing files, are you referring to the Gray Files? Geo.Complain! 12:44, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Missing files? Which missing files? RobS 16:59, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
on Joe McCarthy you talk about files unavailable to researchers. Do you mean the infamous Gray Files? Geo.Complain! 18:10, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
I am still not certain what you are refering to. That could virtually anything. You must be more specific, and the Gray files does not ring a bell. RobS 18:26, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
I mean the secret files Hoover kept. Sorry for not being specific. Geo.Complain! 21:13, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
The question is still of which case, among hundreds of cases. And if you are refering to Venona files, that is not stictly an FBI investigation; it began as an Army Signals Intelligence investigation, and later became a joint investigation with the FBI; eventually the CIA recieved some information, and the NSA took over from Army Signals intelligence. Venona is commonly refered to as NSA/FBI files, as the FBI files ended up in the NSA Archives.
Scorpio however, is pursueing all the old cases McCarthy pursued -- the cases McCarthy had wrong about being involved in espionage. So Scorpio and I have really not disputed each others sources on case files.
Scorpio wants to add language from highly partisan McCarthy supporters written in the 1950s to defend McCarthy, and wants CP to claim it is the definitive historic record. Hence, Scorpio wants exactly what McCarthy's (and CP's) detractors want -- then and now -- they want Conservapedia to take a highly partisan stand on an area that the historic record cannot exonerate. RobS 21:28, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Frankly, Rob, I have no idea what I've done to you to warrant such horrendous abuse and horrific slander. I have always been complimentary of you and your work. But for some reason you've chosen to engage in an all out war on me. You've locked the McCarthy article so that you alone could edit it. You've blocked me for no reason. Your comments in this section are so absurd that it's pitiful to even have to respond to them. They are complete lies and distortions of McCarthy and the material I presented as verifiable truth. You have stopped just short of stating, what you essentially implied, and that is, that I am in some way helping the same Communists, left-wingers, fellow travelers, etc. that attacked Senator McCarthy. That is an outrageous line of thinking with no foundation in reality.

Until this moment, Rob, I never gauged your cruelty, or your recklessness. Your assassination of my character brings dishonor and disagrace upon Conservapedia. Have you no shame? Have you no sense of decency, Rob, at long last? You have left me with no alternative but to request that action be taken against you for your abuse of your Sysop privileges. Scorpio 15:20, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Rob, as per Geo's instructions in the "Mediation" section on the McCarthy page, I have changed the intro paragraph to reflect Conservapedia rules regarding Manual of Style. If you have a problem with it, please contact Geo.Complain!. Please do not make any changes unless Geo agrees. Thank you. Scorpio 00:08, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Rob, you are now officially in contempt of a Mediator's orders. Your revert of Geo's instructions is a violation of Conservapedia rules. I have alerted Geo of your actions. Honestly, I'm greatly troubled by your actions and flagrant disregard for Geo's authority. Scorpio 00:30, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

So sue me. RobS 00:34, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
LOL. I don't think that would be the best way to handle this but, come on Rob, you know what you did was inappropriate. Geo has been retained as the official Mediator of the McCarthy article to deal with just such issues and neither you or I can disregard his instructions. This concludes my comments for the evening. God bless you and God bless America. Scorpio 00:39, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Rob, nice work on the H. Julian Wadleigh link. I didn't know he had an article here. Good job on that article. Also, please see if you can find another link for "The Venona Progeny" (footnote #79). The existing link at the Naval War College is dead. Also, the author's name is "Peake" not "Peale". Please see what you can find. Thank you. Scorpio 15:39, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

Rob, I had to ask you this: Did you see the retarded article at WP on Harlow Shapley? The extent of his Communist connections is this: "Politically, Shapley was a liberal, and found himself one of the victims of McCarthyism." That's it!! Can you believe this? I laughed when I read it. Scorpio 17:49, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

Look here, [3] Shapley testified before McCarthy's HUAC in 1946. RobS 18:49, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
LOL!! I can't believe it: "1946 Nov 15, Joseph McCarthy's HUAC interrogated astronomer Harlow Shapley." Morons!! McCarthy was not only not part of the HCUA (they got the name wrong) but he wasn't in Congress, he was in the Senate and not until 1947. What morons!! Thanks for the morning laugh!! :) Scorpio 09:01, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Adolf Hitler Article

I only thought that I would point out that the quotations you removed, which were described as plagiarism[4], were not. My understanding is that plagiarism does not include cases where quotations are used with proper citation, and credit given to their original author(s), as was the case here. Hope this avoids future confusion. -Simple 10:25 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007

Thanks Simple. We've had complaints on it for months, several editors have wanted to improve the article but were being prevented from doing so. So it's time to move forward. RobS 10:28, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Sorry, Rob. Get some rest. There have been no requests. If you know of editors who wish to "improve" it, please supply them directly to Andy, okay? Thanks for your concern and mischaracterizations, as the editor above pointed out. And be sure not to block Simple for pointing out your mistake, okay? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 05:57, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Team contest

I would like to have you on my team for our new Team contest. More info is here. Please let me know if you can compete. ~ SharonTalk 12:26, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Welcome, RobS!!! You're a great addition to team2. You now have privileges to read and edit entries in the confidential team2 namespace, such as Team2:Strategy. In Christ,Aschlafly 16:20, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

deleted "Category:Capitalists": every human being that lives is a capitalist

Ummmm...I'm not. PFoster 12:07, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

oh realy? Even if you dumpster dived for dinner last nite, you we're participating in the capitalist system. And if you did not, you are a capitalist. RobS 12:16, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
LOL. :D That was funny!! I agree with Rob. Scorpio 11:50, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
Way to use a completely, unbelievably vague definition, Rob. You can't possibly say, with a straight face, that every human who lives is a capitalist. It's unknowable. And still, you can participate in a system without advocating that system; Karl Marx was a socialist, but he lived in a capitalist country, no? --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 12:19, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
The pure facts are, only the capitalist system puts food on the table. Even in a nation of hunter-gathers, this is so. RobS 12:25, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
You are trying to change the subject. And no, a socialist system, even in a hunter-gatherer system, can put food on the table; the alpha male gets the food, shares it, etc. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 16:41, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
The point being, to the extent anything can be made to actually produce something of economic viability in an alleged "socialist" system, it is still capitalist.
Wishful thinking about human nature produces nothing. Only not consuming more than what an individual or a collective society as a whole produces, can an individual or collective society survive another day, week, month, or year. This is capitalism. Socialism is little more the wishful thinking based upon a stupid notion that human beings will act from selfless or altruistic motives without being God fearing. RobS 16:58, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
I'm curious as to what definition of capitalism you are using, Rob. Mine is "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market"[5]. So to say that every person in every society in human history has been a capitalist is a hard notion to support. Many socialist communes have been started by devoutly religious people from all walks of life. And once again, one can participate in a system without being an advocate of that system, so even if your statement ("all humans are capitalists") is true, there can still be capitalists (advocates of capitalism) or socialists (advocates of socialism). --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 20:03, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
We've broached this subject once before; Socialism is literally a faith or religion--an ideology. "Capitalism," such that it is an "ism", are simply basic laws of nature. For example, you cannot consume what has not first been produced. A farmer harvests his crops, sells most for a profit to gain access to the produce of other mens labor, and keeps two parts for himself, one to feed himself until next harvest, and a portion to plant next spring. This is capitalism. It does not require an emotional committment to a social cause, or articles of faith to believe in. It's the simple laws of survival for people who chose a means other than robbing and stealing from their fellow man.
Alternatively, if the farmer eats the seed corn himself intended for planting, and disposes of the rest of his harvest in whatever fashion, he is out of the farming business forever, and probably facing starvation and death.
How would I define capitalism? Tuff question to answer in one sentence, because there really is no alternate system that produces income today and gives us hope for income tomorrow. The Capitalism entry I worked on, and I'd appreciate feedback if explains how the system works. When I have the time, I intended to add two more sections, one about how Adam Smith describes what we today call Gross Domestic Product, becuase the idea is no different today than it was in Smith's day, only the methods of measuring have become more complicated. And a second section on the "Revenue of the Sovereign", or the government take of the annual produce of a nation and how it expends it to support defence of the country. RobS 21:29, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
I don't really want to get into this argument, but I'll put my hand up for saying that I don't agree that "every human being that lives is a capitalist". And I have a question on your illustration. If a farmer harvests his crop, eats some and keeps some for the next planting, but does not have a third portion to sell, what does that make him? (By the way, he makes his own clothes and builds his own house from timber on his farm, to anticipate a possible objection.) Philip J. Rayment 22:52, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
Ok, so this illustration means the farmer chooses to not participate in the marketplace. Fine. But he absolutely needs some protion of his rude produce from his own labor left over to put the next years economic cycle in motion. The point being, he cannot consume it all. Adam Smith defines someone who fails to confine their expense within their revenue as a prodigal. The real wealth of every country is diminished by prodigality, and can only be increased by parsimony (a nice word for "conservatism', some might also use "greed", but that's a mischaractertization; "frugalness" would also be appropriate).
So if he keeps some for the next planting, he's a capitalist. BTW, I'd appreciate some feedback from the capitalist entry to see if it explains what we're talking about here. RobS 23:08, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
"... some protion of his rude produce ..." = some portion of his raw produce?
I've no comment on the article, "capitalism". It's not really my are of expertise. All I can say about your reply to my farmer question is that you must have an interesting definition of capitalism, and that it reminds me of the evolutionists, who define "evolution" so broadly as to mean almost anything, which therefore by definition makes it true.
Philip J. Rayment 00:33, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
It's one of those terms that can't be defined without using other terms that also need to be defined. Let's try this: "Captialism is the system whereby revenue is derived from accumulated resources." But that does't go into exchanging the value of the revenue for other goods and services, which is where the process repeats itself. (Oh, and Smith uses the term "rude produce", also "rude state of society" meaning before economic development, etc.) RobS 00:44, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
In my example, the farmer is not accumulating anything and certainly not deriving any revenue, so I guess that means that he's not a capitalist? (So "protion" was a spelling error, but "rude" was not?) Philip J. Rayment 00:54, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

<--If he harvested, he's got a revuenue. RobS 00:56, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

I didn't think of that point, but I was starting to think that a farmer probably would be a capitalist anyway, because he has capital (his farm).
What about a hunter/gatherer who only gets enough to feed himself and his family?
Philip J. Rayment 01:05, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
That one is a little tougher to see the capital & revenue. Let's also suppose the family lives in a cave, so they do not have much investment in overhead. Their revenue is derived from the resources in the immediate neighborhood, consisting mostly of food off the land, skins for clothing, and firewood perhaps. If the immediate resources are over exploited, they would have to relocate. So we can see here the economic cycle (to use a Biblical idiom) of sowing and reaping. Let's also suppose momentarily they are smart enough to lay up two days worth of firewood in case a storm comes in, that would be considered a captial stock.
What Smith points out, and rarely repeated elsewhere, one thing that separates humans from animals is the ability to "truck, barter, and exchange." Smith calls this a "natural propensity." And it truelly is as unique to the human species as language is or any other higher faculties. To illustrate, Smith says "no one ever saw two dogs exchange one bone for another." "Give me that which I want, I will give you this which you want," hence Smith introduced the idea of the "Win-Win" situation, available in most self-help sales manuals or how to win friends and get rich quick without really trying books available at most books stores.
It is widely speculated the Ötzi the Iceman, the 5400 year old corpse discovered in the Austrian Alps, was a merchant tradesman, making the journey across the Alps to do buisness with Mediteranean neighbors. [6] So even the isolated cave-man family wearing wolfskins and living off the land, or the modern hippie-commune living in the mountains, when they do cross trails with other human beings, they are likely to barter something they have in excess for something someone else has an ample supply of and is willing to part with. It's just human nature, living by mutual exchange. RobS 09:47, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
And the revenue earned on the accumulated capital (firewood)? Flames? Talk about burning your assets!
Like I said, it seems that you can define it so broadly that it covers everything, and is therefore is by definition true. But it becomes meaningless, because it fails to distinguish anything.
Philip J. Rayment 10:36, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
Harvesting the firewood is a revenue in itself and added to the captial stock reserved for consumption.
The question you keep returning to regards money, it seems. Wealth does not consist in money, wealth consists in the things money can be exchanged for. This is probably the biggest common error most people make. They confuse wealth with money.
Money, or a vehicle of exchange, is only a small fraction of the entire wealth in a given land, country or territory. The real wealth consists in the sum total of the produce of that country. So this leads entirely to another discussion.
Money is invented to represent a small portion of the accumulated wealth of a country, or the ongoing produce in a given year. The Gross Domestic Product is the sum total of all laborers and manufactures production in one year, and the money supply (in the United States) consists of roughly 6% of that total. So to focus on money as consisting of wealth misses the big picture.
Anything can be used as money. Historically gold, silver, and paper have been used, but Smith even cites instances where nails and sea shells have been used. Money in itself, has no value, you can't eat it, you can't manufacture it into something that can be resold at a profit (let's put the discussion of credit and lending on hold temporarily). All it does is facilitate exchanges of people's labor. Aristotle describes it as the means of measuring how many shoes a shoe cobbler must produce to exchange for the labor of a carpenter who builds his house. RobS 10:54, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
Harvesting the firewood is not "revenue ... derived from accumulated resources", as far as I can see. And it still misses my main point, that you seem to be defining it so broadly as to cover every conceivable situation, in which case it ceases to be meaningful as it fails to distinguish it from anything else. Philip J. Rayment 11:04, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
No, it is not derived from accumulated resources, it is added to his stock of accumulated resources, thus his capital increases until such a time he uses it up all together.
As Smith describes, labor is the source of revenue for the majority of "working poor" in most the world; in the United States, for example, the tax law distinguishes between "ordinary income," and capital gain income. Now if every dollar an impoverished labor earns is added to his capital, and the tax law unfairly taxes it at a higher rate, this has devastaing social effects. Among them is (a) a simple failure among poorly educated working poor to understand the basics of economics, and (2) the government expropriating the working poors capital accumulation at a higher tax rate. RobS 11:25, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
"No, it is not derived from accumulated resources": So it doesn't meet the definition that you provided! It must not be capitalism then!
And it still misses the point of the term being defined so broadly as to be meaningless.
Philip J. Rayment 11:31, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
Smith says, "Labor is the original purchase price of all the wealth of the world. Not by gold or silver, but by labor was all the wealth of the world originally purchased." So when the caveman goes to the forest to chop a stock of firewood, he is purchasing a stock of capital with his labor, accumulating capital from the source of his revenue, the source of his revenue in this case, being his labor.
Thus, he has converted his labor into capital. RobS 11:40, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

So everyone is a capitalist, which means that the word is used to distinguish everyone from ....? Obviously, there is nothing but capitalism; marxism, socialism, communism, or whatever are opposed to capitalism are all figments of our collective imaginations. Philip J. Rayment 08:01, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

The term, "capitalism," simply describes the economic processes by which human civilization has prospered since its inception, as illustrated above how a laborer converts his labor into a store of useful, tradable goods, or "capital." Marxist theory begins with an idea that economic laws are only articles of faith, or an ideology, something like a religion. And Marxism (as it is still taught in American public schools today) created the idea that (a) capitalism is an ideology, (b) capitalism and Marxism are competing ideologies. This is probably the first and foremost fundamental flaw of Marxist theory; (1) capitalism is not an ideology, and (2) since it is not an ideology, it hardly competes with other ideologies.
The misery wrought by this flawed premise and misconception is truelly the history of the modern era. RobS 10:08, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Rule 5

A team shall not work on any pages which the other team is working on.

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 19:24, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Oh, sorry. RobS 19:27, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Michael Moore

I assumed that the discrepancy between the figure of $200,000,000 and the total of the table was the missing "Sicko" figure, but now that's in, and the total is $160+ million, what does the $200,000,000 refer to? Philip J. Rayment 08:07, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

$200 million, as it states, is worldwide; $160 million as cited in the chart is U.S. gross. RobS 09:54, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
Oh, I missed that distinction. Philip J. Rayment 10:27, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Institute for Humanist Studies

My goal in posting that description from IHS was merely to provide a description of what Humanists believe, from a humanist source. I'm not certain that the political or organizational activities of the organization change the fact that what I posted succinctly represents the core beliefs of humanists. But, obviously, I have no power and you have all the power so my judgment is meaningless. What source would you find acceptable to describe humanism from a humanist perspective?--Porthos 14:01, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Prof Herek whom you cited in the Sexual Orientation [7] article is not a very good source, either.[8] Please refrain from using extremist and activist references for these topics. RobS 14:09, 12 July 2007 (EDT)


About this reversion: why? Nothing I posted therein was untrue. I stated a plain fact with no bias in one direction or another. You reverted it to a heavily biased position. I am confused. (Please ignore my first version of this question, I got my articles mixed up.)--Porthos 14:07, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

We need a definition, not extreme activism to promote an agenda. RobS 14:11, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
I am still confused. In what way was what I posted "activism"? I said "Heterosexuality refers to sexual attraction between members of the opposite genders." That *is* the definition of heterosexuality. In what way did I mess up? Please explain in as detailed a manner as possible, since obviously I want to avoid such mistakes in the future. (Again please ignore the first version of this question, my mind appears to not be working today)--Porthos 14:14, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

User Blocks

I can see that you're discussing me in the Syops:User Blocks section, but of course I cannot see what you are discussing. Would you mind terribly if you discussed the matter with me before you go blocking me? I'm still not quite clear on what I did wrong here. Thanks.--Porthos 14:43, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm only citing the radical agenda you appear to be pushing, and alerting other Sysops to watch out. RobS 14:48, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
Again...would you ever so kindly tell me exactly what radical agenda I am pushing? Examples? Tell me why what I posted was radical. Don't just boss me around like a bully. Thank you.--Porthos 14:51, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
You made exactly 5 mainspace edits and cited two. And the two cites were disallowable extremist cites for the material in question. The other 3 unsourced edits likewise betrayed a radical agenda. Not a good record to start with. RobS 14:55, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
I'm asking PLEASE tell me what was radical about what I posted. Pleas please please be *specific*. Also, what makes a source allowable or not allowable?--Porthos 14:59, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
See Humanism/talk [9] for the IHS, which incidentally, I am considering bringing to the Deceit page as a good example. Prof. Herek's credentials as an "expert" are already discussed ad neausem on the Homophobia/talk page [10], and he is even cited in the mainspace article [11] as an apparent "scientist" who, being gay himself, may be pushing a political agenda in his alleged "scientific research" which may actually be a conflict of interest. Herek's site sure looks more like a political activist site than a scientific source. [12] RobS 15:12, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
I was unaware that the author of that source had come up before in discussion. I didn't even know who the man was; I just found an article that looked like it fit the topic of discussion. I'm not concerned with that revision so much. But, what about my description of the beliefs of a Humanist? What was radical about that? It was a simple and straightforward list of Humanist beliefs. I wasn't saying that these are "true" or "correct". In fact, I was careful to add the qualifier "(attempts to)" before the first belief so as to make it clear that this was coming from a third-person perspective. There are articles that list the beliefs of Buddhists and Jews and various other religions, so I fail to see what is "radical" about a similar list of beliefs for Humanists. Please advise.--Porthos 15:23, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
The problem is the source; the very President of the organization is a self-confessed liar. He lied to become the Christian Coalition Chapter leader. Not only did he lie to get into that position, he probably lied while standing in prayer with other Christians at meetings. And he told us why he lied, to subvert the will of democratically elected school boards. This is, frankly, a pretty digusting organization, and I can't think of a reason to spend more than another two seconds hearing anything they have to say whatsoever. RobS 15:37, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
  • A Christian Coalition member who lied to subvert a secular-progressive school board is a hero in the minds of many, not a villain. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 01:39, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
  • That may be, but nonetheless it is (a) political spying (b) subversive infiltration (c) deceit. RobS 10:04, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Thank you!

Rob, I'll say this while I can: THANK YOU. I have no idea what most of my ban message was supposed to mean, and it's extremely refreshing to see another veteran sysop questioning such questionable moves. --Sid 3050 15:03, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes, there was a distinct lack of transparency in your block; we created a special Sysop area to deal with such matters, and there was no discussion as best I can determine. RobS 15:05, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
  • You will be correcting your statement, above, right? I know you are a fair enough person not to want to mislead people reading this. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:30, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

combine articles

Hi Rob,

You're the first Sysop I came across in the Recent Changes list, so if this isn't your cup of tea please just direct me elsewhere. :) I'm trying to be constructive by categorizing articles, and I came across these two:

  1. William O. Douglas
  2. William Orville Douglas

They seem to be the same person. Can you do some magic or something to combine them?

Thanks, Aziraphale 18:12, 13 July 2007 (EDT) <- a categorizing fool...

Good find, thanks. You could combine the smaller one into William O. Douglas if there is no redundant material, then create a redirect to the existing larger one. There's no sourcing for William Orville Douglas, so if it's all redundant, just do the redirect cause nothing will be lost. Thanks again. RobS 18:16, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
er, can I do redirects? I've grokked the basics of wiki-coding, but I don't really know what goes on under the hood.
While we're at it, "wilful" and "willful" ignorance suffer the same problem. If I can fix these things I will. Thanks, Aziraphale 18:20, 13 July 2007 (EDT) <- willful...
ADDED - Hi Rob, I know some people get the wrong idea if a conversation goes dead. I don't come here much at all on the weekend, and I'm logging off for now. So, if you respond and don't hear back from me for a couple days, that's why. :) Have a good weekend, Aziraphale 18:49, 13 July 2007 (EDT) <- everybody's workin' for the weekend...

I'll jump in here if that's okay. There's no "magic" that a sysop can do to combine articles. We can rename them and delete them, but that's about it. Combining them involves cutting from one and copying to the other, which any editor can do (assuming they are not protected). Redirects are easy. Empty the page, click the "#R" button on the editing toolbar, and fill in the name of the target page where it says "Insert text". (Redirects are also created automatically by a page rename, which only sysops can do, but that's not applicable in this case.) Philip J. Rayment 07:03, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the jump-in, Philip, I'll give it a go. Regards, Aziraphale 17:17, 15 July 2007 (EDT) <-keeps on giving...


Do you have time right now to help me convert the evolution footnotes so they are more user friendly? I already did the first two sections. Conservative 13:03, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

Right now I got two important biographical articles at my fingertips I've been working on for 3 years, and would like to get it done for the contest. RobS 13:08, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

What you said...

I responded to your comment on Ed's page, but I take particular umbrage with this: "We owe a debt of gratitude to these enlightened scholars who have set the ignorant and unintelligent peons straight."

You don't know me, and you don't know what I do. I'm no scholar - just someone who reads a lot and thinks a lot - and like you, who wants to argue for what I think matters. I do not consider anyone an "ignorant and unintelligent peon," nor do I think anyone needs to be "set straight." PFoster 14:38, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

Andrew Roth

Rob, unfortunately, I probably know less than you already know about this guy. I found this article that may help you in your research. As you already know, WP's Amerasia article has very little on him. I also have some info on him in my McCarthy books but not all that helpful. If you want, I can look deeper. Scorpio 17:25, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

Does the article I listed help at all? Why did your info get erased from WP? Also, did you get my message about the "The Venona Progeny" info? Scorpio 17:43, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

Rob, so what is your conclusion about this whole "Business Plot"? What do you think this was all about? Was Butler nuts? Scorpio 20:30, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

It warrants a little closer examination, and we can't miscolor our judgement of the facts simply because we know how it all concludes with WWII. It needs to be investigated closely with the knowledge we now have of the facts & characters at the time, and forget that we know by 1939 or 1941 the whole world is at war. It has to be investigated with the knowledge in mind the Soviet Union was actively seeking to subvert all beougeois governments worldwide, the US included, through its Comintern operatives, in this case, Spivak & Dickstein. Another known agent, Lester Huettig, actually infiltrated Remington Arms, [13] as the WP article says, The committee deleted extensive excerpts from the report relating to Wall Street financiers including J. P. Morgan, the Du Pont interests, Remington Arms, and others allegedly involved in the plot [14]
Ok, that's fine with me. You do great research work so I'm sure you'll get it right but in the meantime, what is a summation of what this was all about? Was Butler lying, crazy, etc.? Was there really some crazy plot? What do you think? Scorpio 21:48, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
I'm not really sure, but I do not think we can take Dickstein or Spivak's accounts at face value. Shooting from the hip, I'd say it may have been a Comintern plot from the git-go. The Comintern may have planned & funded the coup with the intention to have it fail and be exposed;' attempted to compromise domestic political enemies by it; try to educate the American people the US is not immune to machinations of this nature which occurred abroad in places like Germany and to Soviet Union; try to convince the US public of the evil of imperialist & capirtalist bankers who were allegedly acting like "facists"; criticize corruption in a beougeois regime; smear New Deal critics; control the the investigation & media reporting. Has all the hallmarks of a classic commie plot. RobS 21:57, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
The thing that stands out in my mind is that Fascism was all the rage in the 20's and 30's in Europe and in the U.S. The New Deal was just a Fascist program with an American twist. That's all. From my readings, the people left standing after the effects of the Great Depression were Wall Street filth like J.P. Morgan, Rockefeller, Rothchilds, etc. These were not mere Capitalists but people who made fortunes from the Great Depression which I believe were all quite happy from what was going in the U.S. economically. Why would they want to stir up a hornet's nest that could back-fire, getting them in trouble, and awakening the American people to the dangers of the Fascistic "New Deal"? The only thing that would serve their interests even better would be a Communist takeover which would make them masters of all economic interests in the U.S. and then possibly the world. They would each have themselves set up as the monopolistic elements in whatever capacity which each chose for themselves. It would make sense that these Corporate-Fascists would attempt a total take over of power by grabbing the reins of govt. Their failure was easily covered up by the powerful newspapers they controlled who ridiculed and then hushed the whole affair. But still, from just looking at the WP article, the evidence seems to indicate this whole concept of a military coup is not much more than the ravings of a senile General named Butler. But, these are just my thoughts based upon the limited info I've seen. I'm sure you're able to put together a whole lot of info and assemble it in a coherent fashion that would make it an excellent article. Scorpio 10:47, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
That is something of the idea, and I think you've been able to sort of express that the idea of what "fascism" is in 1934 & 1935 is a little different from what we now think of it, given the record of genocide, etc. You trace the whole WP entry to the mad ravings of a senile General; if it's only one guy, that sure makes it easier for Comintern operatives to target & compromise.
Look at the states Al Smith carried in 1928 [15] (Mississippi voted for him, and maybe if he got elected "we wouldn't have had all the problems all these years.") And this is odd, Al Smith, the first Catholic to win nomination from a major party, carries only the Solid South at the height of the anti-Catholic KKK's power. In 1933, Al Smith criticizes the economic planning of the New Deal as "fascist." So it's pretty obvious there's a split in the Democratic party by 1933 between New Dealers & traditional Democrats. This is also the time that Blacks abandon the GOP--which freed the slaves--and joined the New Deal coalition.
Here's a theory: Comintern operatives in the New Deal are attempting to militarize elements of the Democratic New Deal coalition against fascism. By compromising Butler as a New Deal critic, tarring "conservative Democrats" like Smith & Davis as imperial corporate fascists, appealing to the New Deal & CPUSA base with class warfare & anti-banker, anti-Wall Street, anti-capitalist, anti-rich rhetoric, alleging a fascist plot, the message here is to cast off unneeded Democrats like Smith & the South, integrate Blacks into the coalition, and alert the loyal base to take a militant stand against fascism, because allegedly the U.S. Government is unconcerned or does not see the danger of fascism.
It is classic Stalinist subversion. RobS 11:09, 16 July 2007 (EDT)


Dear Rob,

I want to put a picture of Richard Goldschmidt who died in 1958 and put it on the right side of this section below Gould:

Here is a pic of Richard Goldschmidt:

Would that be ok? And can you help me? I don't know how to do it.

Conservative 16:11, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Here's the pic. [Image:Goldschmidt.jpg] RobS 16:15, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks. Conservative 16:16, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

request for another pic

Do you think this picture is usable?

Look at the bottom of the page where the pic of Edmund Leach is clearer:

Conservative 16:23, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

That picture is unavailable to me on the computer I'm on, but I may be able to access it tonite on another computer (the link is a subscription service). Right now, you can try this:
  • Right click on the picture and and Left click Save Picture As...
  • Then in CP, click on the Upload file on the lefthand side of any page;
  • on the Upload file page, click Brouse and it will reopen the location you stored picture at on your computer. Do a left click on the picture again, and click the Open button.
  • Back on the Upload file page put {{fairuse}} in the Summary box, and click Upload file button.

Simple enough, huh? RobS 16:36, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

The pic is not that good I decided. He face is shadowy. Bohdan is helping me get another pic of Darwin. However, I will have another request for you in a second. Conservative 16:44, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

another request

Dear Rob,

A librarian told me we can use this pic of Ernst Mayr:

Can you download it on Conservapedia for me? Conservative 17:24, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm having trouble saving it, my computer wants to save it as a .bmp and not as a .jpg. Somebody else might give it a try from this link RobS 17:32, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Uploaded at Image:Mayr.jpg File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 17:34, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

another request

Could you please download one of these pics?

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck:

Plus could you download one more elderly Darwin picture?

Thanks for your help so far!

Conservative 19:46, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

images here Image:Giraffenecks.jpg and Image:Lamarck.jpg
The first two Google results didn't allow downloading of pictures, and I didn't find anymore img's on the rest of the Google resutls page. Have a link for the Darwin img? RobS 20:12, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Dinky problem

The pic of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck is dinky and no matter what I do it stays dinky. I tried even making it 400px. Do you know what the problem is? Is the pic the problem and can we get another pic if it is the problem? Conservative 20:18, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Image:Lamarck.jpg new img. RobS 21:36, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Caricature of Darwin

Can you please download this Caricature of Darwin:

Conservative 20:21, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Image:Darwinmonkey.jpg. I take a look at Lamarck...RobS 21:26, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Conservative, if you are going to make the same request of more than one person, let each one know that you've asked others, else, as in this case, time is wasted with two or more editors doing the same thing. Philip J. Rayment 21:55, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Thank you and a request

Dear Robs,

Thank you for all your help yesterday with the pictures. I want to put the final touches in regards to the pictures and the theory of evolution article.

Could you please copy and download these pictures and post them on my discussion page? It would help if you put them on my discussion page because that would make communication easier.

Here are the pics:

Please copy and download the top pic here of the bacterial flagellum (I have permission):

Please copy and download this pic of Nebraska man:

Please copy and download this pic of Pierre Grasse:

Please copy and download the bird feather pic that is located at the bottom of this article here:

Please copy and download this dolphin pic:

Can you please copy and download this pic of Aleksandr Oparin:

Is it possible to copy and download the picture/diagram of a bird feather that is located on the second page here:

Could you please copy and download this pic of Stephen Meyer:

Conservative 15:24, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Courtesy post

I asked Hoji to copy those pics and download them to Conservapedia. Do you think you two could make it a team effort so one person doesn't do too much work. Conservative 15:54, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Ask him if he can do this one [16], it's the only one I'm having trouble with. RobS 15:56, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
I've done them, but I can't get the PDF one either. --ηοξιμαχονγθαλκ 16:00, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
If you'll pardon my butting in, I have cropped the image out of the pdf that you're working on. Is there an email address I can send it to you at? Aziraphale 16:04, 19 July 2007 (EDT) <-snip snip...
Thanks. Just use the email on this page to your left. RobS 16:20, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
Rob, sorry, the e-mail link at the left doesn't seem to allow email attachments. Is there some other option for getting you the file? Perhaps you could temporarily grant me photo upload rights? Feel free to take them right back afterwards, I don't really have a use for them in general. Aziraphale 16:25, 19 July 2007 (EDT) <-braindrizzling...
email me a RobS 16:26, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
Done. Aziraphale 16:34, 19 July 2007 (EDT) <-yep, done...
Hey thanks. RobS 16:43, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
You're welcome! Aziraphale 16:46, 19 July 2007 (EDT) <-indented...


There have been some edits made to fascism‎ that you should look at. Some of what I believe is your factual edits is being removed. Bohdan

I'm on it, thanks. Hey, take a look how I improved Leftist. RobS 18:13, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
  • It got my attention! Good additions. No need to merge this article as Ed suggested long ago, as it stands on its own. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:31, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

Rob, I am leaving in 25 minutes and I have a request

Rob, I am leaving in 25 minutes, and I want to finish off the homosexuality article. I asked Mr. Martinez to copy these pics to Conservapedia but I think he may have left. Can you do it for me and copy the pics to my user discussion page so I know when you have done it?

Please copy the pic of the protestors with signs:

Please download and copy this Illegal drug pic:

Conservative 20:37, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks so much it is making a difference and a request

Dear Rob,

Thanks you so much for helping with the homosexuality pics. It is making a difference. The article is now ranked 13th by Google and getting 800 plus hits a day.

Could you please copy this pic to my user discussion page so I know when it has been copied?

Please copy the big picture of the gene:

Here is the source of the above pic:

Conservative 17:18, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

PKK added?

Hi RobS,

I was wondering if the PKK terrorist group should be added to the list of groups in the CP terrorist article? Its officially called a terrorist group by both the United States and Europe, and has resulted in 37,000 deaths. If it should be added, I would appreciate you doing it (since its locked to me).

Thanks, --Tash 20:33, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Wow. I was just looking at some info on the PKK the other day, what a timely coincidence. That entry looks real good. I unlocked the terrorist article for you. Thanks. RobS 20:39, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the help!--Tash 21:38, 25 July 2007 (EDT)


I am doing the final touches on the homosexuality article and would appreciate your help. Thanks for your past help.

Please copy and download these pics and then put them on my user discussion page:

Please copy this pic (I have approval from Operation rescue):

Conservative 12:45, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Got your email just now

Dear RobS,

I just responded to your email. By the way, I don't check my Conservapedia email too often. If you send me a private email please notify me via a notice of private email sent to my user discussion page. Conservative 13:15, 26 July 2007 (EDT)


When you return let me know. Thanks. Conservative 14:56, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

I trust your good judgement about the domestic violence material and

I trust your good judgement about the domestic violence material and I will look at it soon. I am cutting and pasting another pic to homosexuality. Conservative 15:37, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

I just sent you a private email

I just sent you a private email. Conservative 15:58, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Those are all credible sources so ............

Those are all credible sources regarding homosexuality and domestic violence. Do you want to put them in the articlel now? I do. I think we should create a new section for the material. Agree? Conservative 17:43, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Let's do it. RobS 17:48, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
Two people editing the article will cause edit conflicts with the computer file. Do you want to put the material in? I would like the material to go in as soon as possible. Conservative 18:10, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

I already added your stats to the homosexuality article about violence plus I found a good graphic to go along with it

I already added your stats to the homosexuality article about violence plus I found a good graphic to go along with it.


Conservative 20:23, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Excellent. It needs its own subhead, too, ok? RobS 20:25, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

can you give the citation for......

Can you give the citation for 53% of homosexual couples not wanting to talk about domestic violence for fear it will hurt "gay rights". (you wrote something to that effect). Conservative 20:57, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

I just sent you a private email

I just sent you a private email. Conservative 15:00, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

I just sent you another private email

I just sent you another private email. Conservative 15:21, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

Adolf Hitler

Order is asking on my page to unlock. After reading the discussion page, I posted on mine that I was not inclined to open it without your approval. --Sysop-TK --Talk 2 Me 21:39, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

would appreciate your support

Dear RobS,

I am sending you a note about the uncited template and how it can substantially increase web traffic to Conservapedia.

The Conservapedia article on homosexuality is now ranked in the top 10 of searches. Once it climbs up to the top 5 it should attract a lot of new conservative "culture warriors" to Conservapedia.

Now a main reason why the Conservapedia homosexuality article is ranked in the top 10 is that the search engines highly reward articles with footnotes that link to other interent websites. Accordingly, since our uncited template is successful in getting people to cite their material as Andy Schlafly stated, I made note of the uncited template in the following Conservapedia articles:


Conservapedia Manual of Style:

Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help

Currently about 50% of Conservapedia articles are completely uncited and a high percentage of articles that are cited are poorly cited. If this persist, not many people are going to know about Conservapedia as our articles will be poorly ranked by the search engines.

I estimate that the Conservapedia article on homosexuality is giving 300-400 people new people a day to know about Conservapedia who wouldn't otherwise know about it. When the article is in the top 5 of the search engine rankings it will bring in SUBSTANTIALLY more as the top 5 entries get the lion's share of the internet traffic.

Accordingly, I would appreciate your efforts in supporting the uncited template.

Conservative 15:14, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Quick note

The previous message was regarding the uncited template. Conservative 15:21, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

A big thanks and I want some input

I wanted to give you a big thanks for your help in getting the Conservapedia article on homosexuality ranked #10 by It is now on the front page of search results.

Next I am looking for some input. Specifically, I am thinking of adding this material:

An early publication to postulate the link between practices prevalent in homosexuality contributing to the spread of sexually transmitted disease was the English publication Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine in 1962.[17] The Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine made the following statement: "The importance of homosexual practices in the spread of venereal diseases has attracted particular attention recently. It almost seems that these practices are keeping syphillus alive in this country."[18]

The above material would be placed in this section:

What do you think? Conservative 18:33, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

want your input

In the Christian tent of those who believe ex-gays are possible there seems to be two schools of thought:

1. Dr. Dobson/Exodus International/Reparative therapy camp saying the origin of homosexuality is a "gender confusion" disorder.

2. Dr. Cameron and others camp saying it is a immoral choice: "FRI believes the facts show that homosexuality is largely about an obsession with sex and self-centeredness, and a desire to rebel against society, one’s family, etc. While we would not deny that “loneliness, rejection, self-hatred, and a search for belonging” are part of the price for rebellion, these are not the fundamental causes of homosexual behavior, but instead some of its consequences." see:

Here is an essay on this topic:

I guess the problem I have with Dr. Dobson is taken to its logical conclusion the men of Sodom were a bunch of men who had gotten to their homosexuality by gender confusion and God judged some very confused people. That simply doesn't make sense.

Here is another essay by Dr. Cameron:

I would like your thoughts on this matter.

Conservative 16:10, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

I just sent you a private email

I just sent you a private email. 18:43, 30 July 2007 (EDT)


RobS, I asked a question in Talk:Adolf_Hitler, and you are probably the person who should answer it. User:Order

Did you come up with this yourself? "Two extreme factions of an anti-God ideology got in a big dispute, and 55 million people--many not sympathetic to either side--got killed in the process". It is very profound. I like it. Bohdan
Thank you. The "anti-God ideology" probably could be expanded upon. RobS 13:41, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
Except for the little fact that it wrong. Not that I want to spoil your little party. User:Order 1 August.

Concentration camp

I hate to bother you, but the article on concentration camps says that "Soviet Union created the world's first concentration camp system with a network of prisons and labor camps". Since this article was largely written and researched by you, I thought I would tell you that I think I have some evidence that the Soviet Union was not the first to use concentration camps. If you could please look at the talk page. Thank you. Bohdan

I believe I have found a citation. Bohdan 00:45, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

Same-sex ''marriage"

Rob, as a sysop who can edit this article could you make the references in small font?. BrianCo 17:33, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

Yippie aye yo ki yay! The number one search engine in the United States ranks our theory of evolution article #5 out of all articles written on that subject

I just found out that the number one search engine in the United States ranks the Conservapedia Theory of evolution article #5 out of about 26 Million articles written on that subject. That is why the article is likely getting the traffic it is now getting.

Here is some background:

"Yahoo is considered the number one search engine above all other search engines. Yahoo search queries make up approximately 28% of all search engine traffic. And just in raw traffic reported by Alexa rankings, Yahoo! demolishes competitors such as Google and MSN." taken from :

I found out from Google Ad Words that the phrase "theory of evolution" is about the most popular term to find information about that subject. It is way more popular than the word "evolution". Here is ad words:

As you can see can see Yahoo ranks our "Theory of evolution" article #5:

Conservative 18:45, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

Henry Kissinger

Why did you revert my edit on 'Henry Kissinger'? - William123

Indeed I did. We don't need conspiratorial junk. Rob Smith 15:44, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Er... where is the conspirational junk so we can take a look? --Wwwknow 15:51, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

Democratic Presidential hopeful Bill Richardson, former DNC Chairnman Christopher Dodd, Clinton Economic Adviser Laura D'Andrea Tyson, Democrat Senator & Governor Jon Corzine, and Washington Post owner Donald Graham all are reported to be members of the Bilderberger Group. [19] Richardson is reported to have said, for example, "Various leaders, notably Kabila, have proven disappointments;" within a few months we read Kabila's obituary [20]
If you wish to write on the Bilderberger group, you can start with the above biographical entries. Just make sure your sourcing is good and strong. Rob Smith 17:22, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Sorry, I don't get you. There's nothing on the Discussion page about Henry Kissinger. What are you talking about exactly? I was referring to the reverts made by you on August 10. --Wwwknow 19:02, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
This stuff. [21] Why the interest? Are you the same user who posted it? Rob Smith 14:14, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Somebody put 'conspirational junk' on the entry, and it triggered my curiosity. When I went to look for it, I found nothing, as if such junk were too dangerous. But thanks for posting it, now I understand better (that's why concealing things from view or from public knowledge is so damaging). And no, I didn't post it. --Wwwknow 20:51, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

What is a Siteadmin?

What is a Siteadmin? What untold powers am I missing out on! Conservative 16:11, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Lock down function in case of vandal attack; it's only been used maybe two or three times for a few minutes by others. I never used it (yet). Rob Smith 16:13, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Here is your chance....

The people at RW don't like the Conservapedia material in regards to liberalism, homosexuality, and atheism as can be seen on their article on Conservapedia. I enhanced the article on atheism today and removed the uncited material. Now the article on atheism needs to be expanded as the uncited material was removed. Here is your chance to be more hated by RW than me! I suggest atheism and ethics as a new section. I also think the atheism and communism section should be expanded to mention Stalin and Mao. Also the atheistic persecution of Christians and other theists should be mentioned and cited. Conservative 20:00, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

I also recommended some additional improvements to the atheism article at: Talk:Atheism. Conservative 20:23, 13 August 2007 (EDT)


Hey RobS, I brought this fairly innocuous proposal up on the main page's talk with no response - so given the ease and lack of impact from this edit I was wondering if you could edit either MediaWiki:Common.css or MediaWiki:Conserv.css to add a following class (of course this is assuming you have the ability to edit those pages). Thanks so much regardless (for the time), --Iduan 23:34, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

/* Style for horizontal UL lists */
.horizontal ul {
  padding: 0;
  margin: 0;
.horizontal li { 
  padding: 0 0.6em 0 0.4em;
  display: inline;
  border-right: 1px solid;
.horizontal li:last-child {
  border-right: none;
  padding-right: 0;
Looks technical; I'm in HUMINT. TECHINT is down the hall. Rob Smith 23:41, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
That's probably a technical joke I don't understand - however it's actually pretty simple, it pretty much just allows you to have horizontal list - and the code is absolutely full proof - I've seen it on at least 4 other MediaWiki sites.--Iduan 23:45, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
This is the Poltical Research & Analysis division. I'll pass it along to one of our Technical analysts. Rob Smith 23:52, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
Ahh my mistake - actually I wouldn't bother quite yet, though, if you could give me the link to the tech guys that'd be great - but for some reason, despite the fact that it appears to work on other wikis, i'm not getting it to work here. I'll fool around with it in my monospace.--Iduan 23:55, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
Have Philip take a look at it. User talk:Philip J. Rayment Rob Smith 23:57, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
Ok will do - thanks so much!--Iduan 00:17, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

question and request for assistance plus free publicity for the results perhaps

I know you are a very good researcher. Do you want to help beef up the atheism article. I think I may be able to get free publicity for the article. I am working with a Christian apologist who may give us some free publicity soon for the article. Conservative 15:43, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

I'm really under the gun with my "subversion in government" material which I have a huge mass to contribute and can't get done quick enough; I got another two weeks at least before I even catch my breath. Rob Smith 15:49, 14 August 2007 (EDT)
No problem. By the way, our current atheism article is ranked #40 by google. Hopefully, we get the free publicity. Conservative 17:35, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

Strom Thurmond edit

I stand corrected about the "age of consent". My apologies. I also have modified the my previous edit to make it less inflamatory. Thank you. Wismike 14:25, 15 August 2007 (EDT)Wismike

  • I have re-worked the article, and have more to add. Something tells me you have a file on him....;-) Congrats on the edits! I agree, quit playing around! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 23:49, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

Oh, P.S.: Time to archive this page! It is approaching the size of McCarthy!

Please don't threaten me

I have been on this site for about 2 weeks. I have not been a vandal. I have not written anything that has been vulgar or inappropriate for children or unsupported by facts. I have admitted my mistakes when I have made them. The fact that I have not rolled over and played dead when challenged does not seem to be reason to block me or threaten me. Put whatever you want on Jesse Jackson's page. If it is accurate and presented in a context that puts equal emphasis on his accomplishments, I could care less. What I have done is not a stunt and frankly I am proud of the fact that it has resulted in at least one much improved page (Woody Allen) and some dialogue about what makes for an appropriate biography. Sincerely. Wismike 11:00, 16 August 2007 (EDT)Wismike

As to Strom Thurmond, we've experienced this before. The game plan is to paint him as a hypocritical bigot, and his jumping parties is supposed to imply the GOP is full of hypocritical bigots. You followed the Talking points with your edits. Take it as a warning. Those Talking points applied in other places will get you a permaban. Rob Smith 11:23, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
I didn't make any edits that painted him as a hypocritical bigot. I don't know what you are talking about. I only wrote about his illegitimate child and frankly that was mostly to draw attention to what is fair game in a biography (see Woody Allen history). And there you go threatening me again! I really don't get it. Can't anyone vigorously but honestly challenge the way things are done here? Wismike 11:30, 16 August 2007 (EDT)Wismike
You didn't write about the illigitmate child when you included the editorial comment that while legal, some might consider it immoral. In fact, you orignally stated it was illegal implying that Thurmond was guilty of pedophilia without any foundation whatsoever.
If you haven't figured out this yet by now, I take this type of activity extremely seriously, and I am only looking for editors who have pursued the course you have pursued with your editorial contributions to make an example of. We do not have many hard and fast rules written in stone, but Sysops have much sway over content, and our actions set precedents. So, if you wish to continue with this ideological crusade you evidently are determined to pursue, please be my guest. Rob Smith 11:35, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
As I said earlier, I am willing to admit my mistakes. I was in error about the age of consent and when I was corrected, I apologized. I also admit that I was a bit inflamatory when editing the Thurmond page. Once again, I have no agenda to "get" Strom Thurmond or any other person with a biography on this site. My goal was to create some dialogue about what is fair. If that is an ideology, then I am damn proud of it. Wismike 12:04, 16 August 2007 (EDT)Wismike
Right. Painting Strom as a hypocrit and bigot is objective, but criticism of Jesse Jackson is racist. I understand "fairness" all too well.
On another point, does the Wis is Wismike mean you're a Cheesehead? If so, we are pizzanos. Rob Smith 12:12, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
Whatever, like I said earlier, my intentions are not to emphasize or cover up anyones flaws. Go Pack!! Live in Racine, born in Racine, went to UW-Madison, married in Racine and have raised two kids, a dog and five cats here. Probably going to die here. I support Israel but you probably wouldn't like the rest of my politics. I keep my house nice and neat, have a great marriage of 28 years and my two grown boys are good men though. Wismike 12:24, 16 August 2007 (EDT)Wismike
Yes I know Racine, Milwaukee, and Walworth Counties very well. Still have much family there. Rob Smith 12:27, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

Urgent: Help Template

Hey RobS, if I could borrow you for just 2 seconds I'd really appreciate it. I recently created a template (Template:Citations missing) that was approved, but I just noticed a mistake in the coding (a parameter), and obviously because it's protected I can't access it, so if you could unprotect it for like, 10 seconds at most, I'd really really really be grateful (I don't have much time - like a minute, so I'm hoping you're on now).--Iduan 11:50, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

That's the Technical Department. I only handle Human Intelligence issues. Rob Smith 11:52, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
I think you're the only one on that can change it right now - and the problem is it's leaving {{{category}}} on every page it's on - seriously I'm begging - if you could unprotect it for just 2 seconds (see why at Cuba) I can take out that param easily --Iduan 11:53, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
Shoot I have to go - look it's easy: all you have to do is remove {{{category}}} from the template - it only occurs once, I would do it but now I really do have to leave - so if you could do it for me that'd be great.--Iduan 11:55, 16 August 2007 (EDT)


Dear Rob,

What happened to the theory of evolution article? I put a lot of work into it. Can you please restore it? Conservative 17:11, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

Found the problem - or at least one of them - that link redirected to itself--Iduan 17:12, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

to: Rob

Dear Rob,

How do you like my parodies located here: User:Conservative ?

Conservative 18:15, 16 August 2007 (EDT)


hey, is Andy online like AIM?--Elamdri 23:38, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

I don't know; I don't use AIM. Rob Smith

Income Redistribution

Why did you heave out so much of the Income Redistribution article? What you cut out is all correct, as far as I can tell, and provides a great deal of context for the topic.--Porthos 21:24, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

See the talk page there; and mind you, avowed marxists walk a thin line here as being appologists for democide. Most end being permabanned. Rob Smith 21:27, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
Um, was that a threat? I've never read anything by Marx so I don't see how I could be a Marxist. It just seemed that you removed a lot of valid material and the reasoning (even after reading the talk page) wasn't terribly clear to me. I didn't realize it was a blockable offense to ask questions.--Porthos 21:47, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
Being an advocate for, or an appologist of, a democidal ideology, such as Holocaust denial, or attempting to present any other type, strain, vartiation, or deviation of Socialism as benign, or something other than what it is, can result in a permanant block. Rob Smith 22:07, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
That's all well and good, but who was doing this? Where? I don't understand why you even brought up liberal advocacy.--Porthos 22:24, 19 August 2007 (EDT)


Hi Rob

I am new to this whole world of conservapedia, but you seem to be the person to ask about WWII issues. I was reading an essay by Alan Stang and he mentioned "Rockafeller Reds." Are you familiar with these and a connection to McCarthy? Seems like it could be a good article, but I don't know much about therm. Thanks! Todd --Todd 23:03, 24 August 2007 (EDT)


Excuse me? I'm trying to have a discussion here about the state of the economy. I can guarantee you I'm not a "partisan idiot," as I'm not an American citizen and I have no vested interest in either Republicans or Democrats. (If you must know, were I to vote in America, I would support a particular Republican candidate). I am originally from Britain, and currently live in Canada where I'm doing a graduate degree studying American economics.

Shall we continue our conversation?--RogerMy 13:56, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, please. Now address t he issue of the trade deficit and on Main Page Talk, not monterary policy, not petrodollars, not dollar hegemony, not federal spending for defense, not government borrowing. Please address the issue in the exact terms you raised, "If you want to ...discuss the merits of the Bush administration, you should really check out the trade deficit." Rob Smith 14:00, 29 August 2007 (EDT)


I don't suppose PinkFlowerHeart shares an IP with Draare? (They have similar vandalism styles.) If so, perhaps a range block is in order? Jinkas 17:13, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Larry Craig

Any reason this article has to stay protected? I'd rather just watch it; it's on my watchlist now. --Ed Poor Talk 14:10, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

No problem. But if it becomes the focus of trolling & vandalism, it may need to be protected again. Rob Smith 14:28, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. Let's both watch it. :-) --Ed Poor Talk 15:00, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Oh, and thanks for helping me complete the move of the debate about him. --Ed Poor Talk 15:10, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Glad you got the spotlight for the month

Dear RobS,

I have not read much of your material except for the domestic violence and homosexuality research. I do know that you are adept at doing internet research as I could not find an alternative footnote for that religioustolerance info and you found it. I was also impressed on how fast you came up with the aforementioned domestic violence info. I do know that you are very much into the leftist/communist issue. I think it will be interesting to see what material you came up with in the Joseph McCarthy article since I am guessing the article is well sourced before it was featured for the article of the month. Conservative 15:36, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

Well thanks, Conservative. Those compliments mean much coming from you.
I wrote much of the McCarthy material dealing with subjects indentified with the Venona project; I'm doing an overhaul right now of McCarthyism, which basically shows how the Silvermaster case investigation was aborted because of internal leaks, how the Justice Dept. didn't have enough prosecutable evidence when the case was shut down, so it simply notified the Dept. heads of persons they knew were involved in Soviet espionage, and how three year later some of these persons still were not discharged. This is when Hoover contacted McCarthy to see if McCarthy would do what the FBI, the Justice Dept., and the other Departments and agencies could not do. Much of the documentation I have is groundbreaking, AFAIK, at least as to what is available and easily accessible in one place on the internet. Rob Smith 15:45, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
Robs, I read and skimmed the Joe McCarthy article in order to see if I could make any helpful suggestions plus I had some curiosity since I have only heard in the past the liberal side. My first suggestion is since a opening paragraph is very important and makes some serious claims I think you need to put in the requisite footnotes. I realize that you may cover the claims later but a reader doesn't know that. I also think that you should put this sentence in the opening paragraph: "This committee opened hearings on August 31, 1954. After two months of hearings and deliberations, the Watkins Committee recommended that McCarthy be censured on only two of the original 46 counts. The committee exonerated McCarthy on all substantive charges.[97]" It appears as if the McCarthy issue is a complex issue involving a lot of people. It seems as if I would have to do a lot of reading to be truly informed on this subject. I hope this feedback based on my initial cursory skimming of the article helps. The article interested me enough that I intend to read it when I can sit down and take the time to read some of the footnoted material. Conservative 16:23, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

I think I have a conservative National Review article which might helpful to the Joe McCarthy article

I think I have a source which may be useful to the McCarthy article (a National Review article) and since I believe you are much more knowledgeable about the subject of Joe McCarthy I think rather than me trying to insert its information in the article perhaps it is better if you take a look at the article and incorporate some of its information. Here is the article:

Next, I think you should acknowledge McCarthy's apparent alcohol problem and some of his possible other shortcomings which the conservative National Review article mentions. I think it is important that Conservapedia does not fail to reveal relevant facts about a person as one of the virtues of the Bible is that is does not fail to reveal the blemishes of its heroes.

Conservative 19:17, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

By the way, I think you did a public service because....

By the way, I think you did a public service because the Wikipedia article appears to have papered over various matters in respect to its use of sources. One of the sources which I am guessing you used (I realize that the article was a group effort) gave a important fact which led me to the National Review article. Conservative 19:20, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for that article. I haven't seen it yet. One problem we've consistently ran into on the subject of McCarthy & McCarthyism is people wish to focus on events from the late 1940s and first half of the 1950's This, of course, is not what McCarthy and McCarthyism is about at all. It is about the events beginning with the Workers World Revolution in 1919, Comintern infiltration and subversion world wide which provoked the fascist reaction to it, Comintern infiltration and subversion of the New Deal which prolonged the Great Depression and all the social and poltical ills we've sufferred since, WWII, the insane nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union (which you can thank your fellow American citizens for), the Korean War, the Vietnam War, even Watergate (it was Comintern subversion that built Richard Nixon's career and Watergate was a vendetta for destroying a KGB liberal Democrats career--Alger Hiss), etc. etc. etc. So I have been trying for years to get away from McCarthy the man, and point more to the "conspiracy of infamy so black that, which it is finally exposed, its principals shall be forever deserving of the maledictions of all honest men." Rob Smith 14:14, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
RobS, it appears to be a good article and National Review produces some good material. I do think you are obligated to talk about his drinking in the McCarthy article which appears to have been in excess. I think it is a mistake not to mention his drinking because It would be like having a article on Churchill that avoids his drinking. Secondly, I think Nixon's fall was he is own doing. He broke the law. As far as the Comintern issue I frankly had never heard of the term until now. I just looked it up! Conservative 14:32, 2 September 2007 (EDT)


Unlike Wikipedia, we do not block for ideological reasons. Warnings are appropriate, not for obscenity, but for silliness and other problems. In rare and extreme cases, our approach to repeated ideological conflict is to lock the page, and then allow the group of SYSOPs to make changes on a manual basis based on comments on the Talk page

Rob, I ask you to consider the above passage which I have copied from the top of the page. You have blocked Goldstein, and have by implication threatened Iduan with blocking, purely for ideological reasons: that they wish to see an explanation of Communist principles to emphasise the difference between theory and practice, and you differ - very mistakenly, in my view. You appear to see any dissention from your particular belief as amounting support for communism, enforced poverty, absence of freedom, and mass murder. But consider these two issues: why, in some countries, did Communism attract, even temporarily, a mass following? And: know your enemy. How can the people of democratic nations oppose anti-freedom ideologies, be they communism, fascism or blasphemous Islamic militant fundamentalism, if they don't understand what they mean and how they came about? If you keep CP students in ignorance of these matters, you are the friend, not the enemy, of communism. And in banning people from debating these issues - on ideological grounds, not for vandalism, trolling or obscenity, you are the enemy, not the friend, of Conservapedia and of freedom. I hope that you will revert the ban. Pachyderm 16:46, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

Just like WP, we do not allow trolls and vandals, extremists and holocaust deniers to use our cite as a soap box to push marginal, fringe, and extreme POVs. Rob Smith 16:50, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Please see this: [[23]] "Sysop's and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked." It also says tit-for-tat editing, and arguing without end are also reasons to block. I fail to see what those have to do with ideology. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 16:52, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
Wikipedia actually does have some extreme genocide deniers. Bohdan 16:57, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

I've no intention of arguing without end but should like to make two brief points, afterv which I shall keep my peace. (1) is that I strongly believe that Goldstein was not pushing communism b=ut is like me an anti-communist. (2) is to say that to oppose communism one needs to show and explain the contradiction between what it promises and waht it delivers. It promises a quasi-scientific, quasi-utopian perfect world, a mix which has had a fatal attraction in certain societies at certain periods of history. If we suppress the explanation, we are also partly suppressing the lie. 'Know your enemy' - what could be more obvious? - and that is what we 'communism page dissenters' have been pressing for. Pachyderm 17:04, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

WP's most extreme genocide denier, User:172, who was desysoped as I understand it, basically over his conduct stemming from his assertion denying that Josef Stalin was responsible for the death of 40 million, may still be active, and his sockpuppets are certainly more active than him, but this is a Stalinist holocaust denier, not a Nazi holocaust denier. True, WP offers much more tolerance and fairness to Communist genocidal apologists than Nazi apologists. One need not even be a Nazi holocaust denier to be publicly defamed as such in WP, as the evidence concludes. Rob Smith 17:14, 2 September 2007 (EDT)


Rob, how about collaborating on an article on (provisional title) 'Communist Genocide, Mass Murder and Mass Homicide'? We are both historians, I think, and Chinese history is one field of mine. The title is a bit wordy; I suggest the three categories as not all the mass murders were genocidal, and some were homicides - I'd argue for deaths brought about by the Great Leap Forward - brought about by communist contempt for individual life/liberties, rather than actively planned as murders.

It's a good idea and I certainly endorse it. I don't know how much time I can commit to it immediately as I'm juggleing several porject at the moment. But it's worthwile getting started. Rob Smith 10:07, 4 September 2007 (EDT)
I'm glad you think so. After I posted I discovered the Democide article which covers quite a bit of the ground, but nevertheless this would have a different approach and could do with more detail (there are certainly plenty of examples). I too have a big project - 15k dissertation to finish within a couple of weeks - but will try and make a start. Cheers, Pachyderm 12:22, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

history question

RobS, I have read the following: Dr. Edward Simpson, an evolutionary professor of biology at Purdue University, while attempting to weaken the association between Darwinism and the Holocaust, nonetheless confessed: “I don’t claim that Darwin and his theory of evolution brought on the holocaust; but I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible” (1983, p. 24B).[24]

My question to you was how prevalent was atheism in Germany during Nazism? I ask because you did state that Hitler was a response to CP activity.Conservative 17:06, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

It would be considered dominant; this is particulalry the Socialist aspect of National Socialism. Hanns Kerrl [25] (my apologies for using WP as asource, but this information appears good) headed up the Reich Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs. Hitler says in Table Talk (also known as The Borman Notes), "Kerrl, with the noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself....Pure merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics." [p. 145-146] This puts to rest some of the blather that there is a link between Christianity & Nazism. Here's another one from Table Talk, Conversations from the Night of 11th-12th July 1941, "Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." This next quote I regard as extremely important because it explains much of the militaristic alliance that existed between all three Axis Powers, Germany, Japan, and Italy, the idea of "Might makes Right", and not simply in a racial sense. Conversations of 10th of October 1941 Midday:
"Originally war was nothing but a struggle for pasture grounds. To-day war is nothing but a struggle for the riches of nature. By virtue of an inherent law, these riches belong to him who conquers them. The great migrations set out from the East. With us begins the ebb, from West to East. That's in accordance with the laws of nature. By means of the struggle, the elites are continually renewed.
"The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest. Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. [p 51] Rob Smith 17:30, 4 September 2007 (EDT)
RobS, I think that historical investigations are probabilistic and I don't know how genuine the Table Talk document is. But my larger question is "How rampant was atheism in the general populace of Germany during the time of Nazi Germany? Conservative 17:35, 4 September 2007 (EDT)
Going back to the 19th century, secularism and athiesm was the norm. Marx made atheism the basis of Socialism, and Germany was always intended to be the first target of the Workers Revolution that would instill atheism as the official government policy. Of course in 1945, with the collapse of the National Socialist regime and foreign occupation, suddenly most Germans held thier poltical identification as "Christian."
To understand the affects atheism through the public schools had on German youth, after several generations of wide social exceptance of the doctrine that man is an animal, it was not that difficult to convince 19 year old SS recruits guarding death camps who may have had moral qualms that man was an animal, and since killing a dog is ok, there is no difference between killing a human being and killing an dog. And there is no Final Judgement for your actions, either. Let me add another little known fact, the propaganda was not all based upon racial hatred; some of it was regarded as "compassionate," i.e. these people were destined to die anyway, being enemies of the state and not entitled to any food which was a cost to the government, hence through an enlightened process of quick extermination based upon the most recent scientific developments, a quick end to thier misery and suffering would be 'compassionate", rather than wasting away by starvation and disease. Rob Smith 18:24, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

It seems to me that there is a third aspect to this question which we haven't really addressed in CP: that the 'debate' in Nazi Germany was not just between atheism and Christianity, but also a resurgent paganism and occultism of the kind championed by Himmler and other top leaders in the SS. See, eg, and Pachyderm 06:09, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

Are you referring to Madam Blavotsky, and such? I'm not certain many of these particuilar occultic influence ever went away, or for that matter the same thing which is quite prevelent in Great Britian. While they do much to fuel godlessness and other horrible crimes and insensitivities toward other human beings, the racist aspects of National Socialism that engendered genocide is probably more rooted in spiritual wickedness that is pretty well explained in the both the Old and New Testaments. These occultic traditions in both Europe and the British Isles are even today considered harmless by the entertainment and "music" industry (although some may differ in that opinion), so to the extent they caused human beings to act as animals is indisputable, but the root cause is much deeper. Rob Smith 11:01, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
I shouldn't get involved in these discussions while I have work to do ;-). I wasn't thinking really of Mme Blavatsky, though her kind of occultism (Order of the Golden Dawn etc) had a vogue in late c19/early c20 Britain (WB Yeats was a believer, I think) and it is interesting that Blavatsky's Theosophy also attracted Annie Besant, previously a well known atheist and colleague of Charles Brad;laugh (and I definitely DOBN'T want to get involved in the atheism arguments...). I know that people may take the view that varieties of occultism are simply a matter of degree, but I can't help see quite a gulf between the practioces of Blavatsky et al and the quite hard-core paganism, invented ritual, blood legends etc created by the SS, at the behest of Himmler, at Wewelsburg Castel, in his Tibetan expedition (shades of Raiders of the Lost Ark), and in worship of Wotan and of the sun god Sol Invicta. My view, of course, is from the comfortable standpoint of hindsight, but at least Mme Blavatsky never killed anyone. Another influence in the inter-war period may be the huge growth in spiritualism, fuelled by those who had lost loved ones. I know this was so in the UK; not sure about Germany (which had as large, if not larger, a proportion of war dead). Pachyderm 12:46, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
The Order Under Death's Head by Heinz Hohne goes into the activities of Himmler's archaeological department in the SS (this is probably the basis of Spielberg's Raider's of the Lost Ark and other works). Hohne points out how Himmler would discover an axe-head dated about the year 1000 A.D., and how it was all related to ancestral glorification & race pride, etc., and Hitler would complain to his entourage how embarassing this was when he visited Mussolini in Italy. Mussolini would point to the Roman aquaducts and by comparison, Germanic culture was several millenium's behind in civilized development -- all which would negate everything written in Mien Kampf and elsewhere. Hitler thought Himmler was an embarassment with this stuff. So I don't think even a commonality of occultic beliefs can be made between Hitler & Himmler, which is not surprising, given the deceptive nature of occultic beliefs in general. Rob Smith 13:03, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
Interesting point, thanks. Pachyderm 13:14, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps it hard to find out what approximate mix of religious and philosophical beliefs existed shortly before WWII or during Nazi Germany. I am guessing there were not too many survey companies at that time. :) But perhaps it is not as hard as I think. Conservative 18:13, 5 September 2007 (EDT)


Of all major European powers, Germany has always socially most resembled the United States. France, Italy, Poland, Spain, are overwhelmingly 90%+ Roman Catholic, with varrying degrees of secularism dominating. England is 90% Protestant with a 10% Catholic minority. The Scandanvian countries & some of the Low Countries are overwhelmingly Proestant. But Germany, with a traditional 60/40 Protestant/Catholic split, very much parallels the social constitution of the US, and has experienced very similiar "Culture wars" because of this.

So what was Germany like, spiritually, during the Weimar period? Secularly, it was very much like the US, only ideas like free speech, democracy, voting, etc., were somewhat foreign, people were unacustomed to it and didn't fully understand thier rights, or how to exercise them (kind of like the new Russian democracy is experiencing).

Michael Burleigh's recent book, Sacred Causes, addresses this issue in some detail, though I have not finished reading it, he seems to indicate that Germany's "background" knowledge (about itself), included a fair amount of reliance on old Norse legends. The rise of Hitler was seen by some to be a confirmation of these legends especially ones devoted to the dynamic leader that would bring Germany to a new realm. This was co-opted by the Nazi propaganda machine as is seen in the imagery produced. Samwell 18:38, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
This the Norse stuff was mostly the subject of stage entertainment (i.e. somewhat akin to watching Star Trek reruns nowadays). To the extent that anyone took it seriously, i.e. engaged in Wotan worship and such, and some did, this was all moreless just marginal wackos (it should be noted, General Ludendorff was one, but didn't get many followers to resusitate worshipping the old Nordic gods).
The real question in understaing Weimar society revolves around studying the difference between law and tradition (we actually are seeing something very similiar in Iraq today). The citizens did not have much sympathy to a written Constitution, didn't quite understand what it was, and largely considered just another imposition by victorious powers at Versailles. So since average people did not regard a written body of laws as the governing instruments in their everyday lives, what was it? Well, it is largely tradition, which we discover is much more powerful than any written Constitution, an idea many Americans just cannot seem to grasp. Rob Smith 18:48, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

I sent you a private email

I sent you a private email. Your reading of it would be most appreciated. Conservative 18:11, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

Another question on Nazi Germany

RobS, I have some interest in Nazi Germany because I studied it for two semesters in high school from a teacher who I think was moderate in his political views but I am not sure. I have a question for you when you get a chance.

On the one hand, I know the burning of the Reichstag was pivotal regarding the establishment of Nazi Germany. And it seems as is if the communist Marinus van der Lubbe was responsible. Whether or not he had assistance or support of the German communists is perhaps a unanswerable question.

I also know that public high schools generally often push the liberal/left ideology so I have no idea on whether your thesis that the communist are largely responsible for getting Hitler in power is correct (he was the backlash so to speak). However, I believe I was taught that the unfairness of the Versailles treaty and Hitler's fervant nationalism and militarism plus his anti-semetic rhetoric (If I am not mistaken Hitler stated that the Jews were responsible for the defeat of WWI) were largely what got Hitler into power and this appears to me to be the most plausible view to me at this point. Any feedback? Conservative 18:56, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

Well, all this appears true. Hitler regarded Communism as a Jewish conspiracy, as many did of that generation in the wake of the collapse of three monarchies, the Hohenzollern, Hapsburg, and Romanov. Anti-Semitism was by no means limited to Germany after WWI. The Protocols of the Wise Elders of Zion was widely circulated, and seemed to explain much as to what had happened, how all the old order had passed away and a new one established. The "stab in the back" is all based upon this, how Masons, Jews, and International banking interests all conspired to eliminate the old order to pave the way for a new. Rob Smith 19:04, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

check out the 65-100 million edit to the communism article I made. I posted something on the talk page if you want to have a discussion

Please check out the 65-100 million died because of communism edit to the communism article I made. I posted something on the talk page if you want to have a discussion. Conservative 16:00, 8 September 2007 (EDT)


You reverted a few of my edits and I have some questions.

First, I agree with your revert on Antichrist. I was confusing premillenialism with those who believe in a pre-Tribulation Rapture. You are right that premillenialist Christian is a better term than dispensationalist, as most premillenialists believe in an AntiChrist, not just dispensationalists. I'm a bit confused by your calling the edit "disinfo" and your references to the 2nd chapter of 1st John.

The other (unexplained) revert, on Osama bin Laden, is an edit I do not understand. First, you restored the assertion that the Taliban was somehow funded in the 1980s to fight the Soviets. The Taliban itself was not involved in fighting the Soviets. You seem to be confusing it with the mujaheddin. The Taliban arose in the chaos that followed the Soviet pullout. As many of the muj were Islamic fundamentalists it is possible that some of them later joined the Taliban. Note, however, that many of the Taliban were madrassah students when the Taliban rose to power in the 90s and would have been children during the Afghan Civil War. Certainly, children have been used in war before in the Third World, but I am unaware of any evidence there was widespread use of children by the muj in the Afghan Civil War. The aid to the muj did indeed begin in the Carter administration, but was an uncontroversial application of the Truman Doctrine and was also pursued by the Reagan admiistration, again with bipartisan support. When this fact is presented it is usually as some sort of liberal criticism of the Reagan administration, which is how I am assuming it worked its way into the article originally. However, this criticism is ill-founded both for the preceding reasons and for several others. First, the training was in fighting the conventional Soviet military, not in undertaking terrorism against civilian targets. Second, a wide variety of fighters were trained, including members of the Northern Alliance, who later became US Allies, and there is no evidence, AFAIK, of a direct connection between US aid and attacks against the US. In fact, I'm seeing little connection between the subject, Osama bin Laden and US aid to the muj. Even the article says that he would not have accepted US aid. Maybe the section should just be removed? Traditional Conservative 20:25, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

(a) 1 John 2:18 states, "as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists
Comment: "even now" is pretty plain language. "Even now" was then, and "even now" is even now.
1 John 2:22 states, "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son."
Comment: Again, pretty plain language. Whosever that denieth that Jesus is the Christ this is the spirit of anti-Christ. And simple logic would conclude the same thing.
(b) The Taliban reference could be clarified as you've pointed out, and it's a very valid point. Personally, I'm somewhat of a stickler for accuracy in historical detail, so I appreciate you bringing this up. Right now, the text reflects what the footnoted source document says, but it could do with further explanation and clarification as you’ve pointed out, all with good sourcing of course.
As the Carter v Reagan controversy, everything you've stated is on the mark, particularly regarding Containment. But you may have left an important factor out of the equation -- a very powerful GOP & Conservative argument -- that Soviet expansionism in this particular case was the result of Carter Administration screw ups. Even more precisely, it was the result of Carter admin foreign policy. And the resulting war because of Carter's so-called "human rights" policy cost 1.4 million Afghanis their lives. In no way should we whitewash this, this is indeed an example for all time on how not to conduct foreign policy. Carter did a mid-course correction, and resumed Containment after he abandoned his pipe dreams of so-called "human rights policy." And voters, particularly young voters, must be educated not to fall for the same old tireless crap spewed by Democratic Presidential candidates, thinking their being "liberal", or "humanitarian", of for human rights, when the end result is war and mass slaughter of 10% of a third world nation. Rob Smith 21:06, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
(a) OK, I believe that support for premillenialism is primarily found in the Apocalypse and certain of the Old Testament prophets, rather than John's epistles, but I do not wish to press the point.
(b) I agree with virtually everything you say about Carter, containment and Afghanistan. My only quibble is that it should be attributed to the failures of the Democrat/liberal policy in southeast Asia and possibly Korea as well. The text does not reflect the cited source, however, which is, a liberal website that doesn't even mention Carter's involvement. I don't believe it should be whitewashed. I'm simply not sure of its relevance to Osama bin Laden's biography, though. Traditional Conservative 22:10, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

quick question

Rob, any interest in developing the militant atheism article? I think there is a lot of room to grow and given that we are Conservapedia I think there might be some interest in the article. Please see my talk page commentary for the article in question. Conservative 22:19, 10 September 2007 (EDT)


Would you let me have the honor of using it on my page? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 17:09, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Amen bro. It's the hammer of freedom! Its the hammer of justice! All over this land! Rob Smith 17:53, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Banhammer installed on my user page.....check it! We should install it on Karajou's and Hoji's pages....;-) --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 20:55, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

New York Times Subsidy Reference

To what incident are you referring to with the comment about a "$65,000" subsidy reference? (Talk:Main_Page#Bias) Fernando507 23:23, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

[26][27] Rob Smith 23:43, 17 September 2007 (EDT)
Hi again, Rob,
I figured you might have missed my comment on the NYT talk page, which is understandable - I know you have a lot of pages to keep up with. Anyway, it turns out that the NYT, whatever it's other flaws (and please notice I haven't tried arguing a single word about their bias in general), did not subsidize the MoveOn advertisement. There is a less standard but still public ad rate called "standby." Similar to flying standby with an airline, you don't get a guarantee that your ad will run on the day that you want, but in exchange you receive substantially lower pricing. This is the rate that MoveOn availed themselves of, just as the Guiliani campaign did, days later, in rebutting MoveOn.
I'll be glad to change this for you, but I figure you want to maintain the essence of your argument in the various places that you've mentioned the "subsidy," and I doubt I would do it the same justice that you would. Just let me know what you'd prefer. :) Aziraphale 22:54, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
Hmmm, let's see....they were on standby and they just happen to get a good standby rate coincidentally the day before Petraeus testimony, as they had planned, and as advance press releases said they were timing it for; then to CYA, they give Guilliani, a hometown boy in a life and death struggle with GOP candidates and Hillary, who also happens to be from NY, coincidentally the same standby rate three days later. Wow. Rob Smith 23:18, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
The standby rate is fixed, they didn't negotiate it. It's a published rate, in other words. I could get it, if I had $65k and something worth telling New York about. There are also standby rates for other sizes/locations.
That said, your tone makes it pretty clear that we're already done with the discussion phase of this conversation. I'll leave your edits be, I know who loses that fight. Aziraphale 00:21, 21 September 2007 (EDT) <-raises hand...
So when the deadline comes, they basically give away unsold space. Makes sense. But the problem is twofold (a) we got advance publicity of several days about's plan to run a full page add on said specific date, and (b) since this is indeed an issue of credibility, what is the rational in sacrificing the Investor's Business Daily and the New York Post's credibility simply on the word of the NYT. Nuhuh. Sorry, no can do. NYT worked hard to gain the reputation for credibility that it has earned. At this point, we would need full retractions from the sources cited, that they somehow were in error, or mistated the facts. You know, that's how the business works. Rob Smith 01:00, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
You're welcome to set that standard; you're the owner of your opinion, of course. The fact that columnists at the Post and Business Daily likely won't see fit to publish columns saying "oops, I spoke rashly" has absolutely no bearing on what the truth is, though. "[H]ow the business works," in my experience, is to ignore mistakes and push on to the next battle. I doubt either publication will lose any sleep over this no matter how mistaken their columnists were.
I appreciate your willingness to talk this out a bit further, and I apologize for assuming that you wouldn't; that was my mistake. Aziraphale 02:37, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
Recently I ran into a similiar phenomenea; in December 1941 [28] a notorious gangster & murderer was being investigated by a Brooklyn DA. The killer was being protected by an attorney for the head of the CIO, which basically garnered the votes for FDR's 3rd & 4th term. Pearl Harbor was attacked, the DA went into the military, and NYT found something else to write about. The rest is history. Rob Smith 13:22, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

<-(unindenting) So, I initially decided to just let this thread pass, but since you proved me wrong once and offered to continue talking, I figure I'll do you the courtesy of sharing my honest response with you.

In my opinion (and I realize that it's only my opinion), the reason you and I seem to butt heads, Rob, and will probably continue to do so, is that you seem to see every small issue as a front in some larger war, and that a concession on any front will lead to defeat in that war. On the other hand, I don't hold larger ideals responsible for the individuals who fail it, nor do I think disproving a tangential or minor point automatically disproves a larger one. I mean, this MoveOn thing seems pretty open-and-shut to me. I don't have any love for MoveOn, in fact I don't think I've ever been to the site; I may have followed a link at some point in my life. Anyway... Advertising Age is the paper of record for the ad biz, and believe you me those people's only interest in politics is how much money each party is spending on ads. As they're both spending a BUTT-load, Ad Age doesn't want to piss either side off. They ask a few questions because it's an area of their expertise (advertising rates) and figure out something that wouldn't be readily apparent to a couple of columnists with no expertise in the subject. I know we aren't a court of law, but if I was a judge, I know whose side I'd take.

But but BUT: just because the "subsidy" issue is inaccurate doesn't change one single thing about the actual ad itself; if it was despicable before then it's still despicable now. I don't know if that's how other people "debate" with you, and so you've had to learn to be ultra-defensive, or what. That said, I can't see what the Lepke issue has to do with it. That sounds like a completely crappy cover-up to me; I have no problem saying that. Sounds like the New York Times really screwed the pooch on that one. In fact, I bet they've screwed KENNELS-worth of pooches over the years. But that's not related to the standby ad rate and a couple of over-eager columnists, not directly.

Anyway... I don't expect to change your mind, but like I said, I thought you deserved to hear what I had to say, and I'll do my best to absorb whatever response you choose to give. Regards, Aziraphale 01:27, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Everything you say is true. Let's take a parallel example, GW Bush is the second most educated president in US history, a MBA while Wilson had a PhD. None the less, GW Bush is commonly called an idiot (an idiot who at least could KYPIYP while at work, no less). Now, to what extent did the NYT go to clarify the facts regarding GW Bush's idiocy, and being the second most eductated prez in US history?
Nuff said. Rob Smith 17:45, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
I'm honestly trying to come to an understanding of your point of view, Rob, I promise. Please help me to close the loop - what does your parallel example have to do with the subject at hand? If the NYT is on record as saying he's uneducated, then they're wrong for that, and I'll happily support any reference along those lines. But I don't understand (and that's not rhetorical code for "you're dumb" or anything like that, I'm acknowledging the possibility that I just don't get it) why an incorrect statement on one issue stands because of some flaw somewhere else? Shouldn't we be against BOTH flaws, instead or just shrugging and saying "there's a balancing flaw on a tangentially-related subject, so it's a wash"? Aziraphale 18:48, 22 September 2007 (EDT) <-Not a Stan Lee fan...
I beg your pardon...let me clue you in on something many CP users (and RW users too) just can't quite get a handle on. I really (a) am not interested in (b) do not give a rip, and (c) follow minimally current events. My primarly interest is historical. I do not care in any sense whatsoever to get into a discussion about the NYT without looking at it in its entire historical context. I do not care to play these mindless partisan ti-for-tat gotcha games -- and here's one reason why : the whole pretext to the War on Terror is a united common endeavor of the American people, without partisanship. To the extent any partisanship exists, it works to advantage of terrorists. Now, if you are seeking to draw me into an argument or discussion, without discussing the NYT historical context, solely to advance some partisan line or cause, I do not think I can spell out in plainer language what my own views on that are.
Sooo....stayed tuned...I am armed with some of the background material of NYT, and its ownship, subservience to the Soviet cause. Rob Smith 16:56, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
Rob, we're having a major miscommunication somehow. I'm all for writing about the history of the New York Times. If you're interested in expanding the NYT article and including all of the good and bad things they've done, knock yourself out. You may, of course, dismiss what I have to say, but if you dismiss me because of "some partisan line or cause" then you're mistaken. I still don't have any feelings one way or the other about MoveOn, and wouldn't care if they ceased operations tomorrow. I also wouldn't care if the New York Times ceased operations, whether it's because of your exposure of their subservience to the Soviet cause or because ice cream costs twice what it used to.
But, we're getting off course here. While I'm all for covering things honestly, not hiding the warts, scandals, whatever you want to call them, I don't see why the wart of one thing serves as a negator to another thing. The fact that the NYT may be scandal-ridden has nothing to do with the fact that they have a publicly-available standby rate, and that this rate, not some nefarious subsidy of liberal causes, is why the MoveOn ad cost what it did. Why do we want to leave inaccuracies in CP articles? By all means, write about the lurid history of the paper; but why include a falsity just because you can find a couple of research-deficient columnists who "support" it?
I'm 100% in agreement with your statement against "tit-for-tat gotcha games." But we apparently think that means two different things. I think that means all sides in any dispute are held accountable for their mistakes. What I seem to see from you is "Mistake by party A is not to be dealt with because of mistake by party B." Regards, Aziraphale 17:21, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
We already explained that; Investor's Business Daily & the New York Post need to go on record that they were mistaken; then we can reexamine the credibility of various witnesses.
Hey, I didn't invent these processes, but that's how it works. Rob Smith 17:24, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
 :( Actually, far earlier in this conversation I laid out why I feel that makes no sense. Both of those links are to editorialists, not journalists, and yet we're going to wait on a retraction before even "examining the credibility"? And when pressed on that, you moved the conversation on to the sins of the NYT...
I apologized to you earlier for not assuming your good faith in this conversation. It seems I was mistaken, and the original situation is exactly what I thought it was. Sorry to have wasted your time. Aziraphale 18:47, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
We are after all dealing with the NYT. It's sort of like Charlie Manson before the Parole Board. Sure, he's entitled to a fair hearing, and the Parole Board is committed to maintaining fairness and just process. Or where are you going to find an unbiased jury? How are we to overlook all the past sins, and make an offhand judgement that, "yah, right, the NYT is the victim here of unfairness." Its too comical. Rob Smith 20:16, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
Rob, I was apparently unclear above, or you mistook my sentiments for rhetoric. I'm rarely rhetorical. This conversation, in my opinion, has reached the end of its usefulness. In fact, I apologized above because it reached that end a couple days ago and I didn't recognize it ("sorry for wasting your time").
I've "unwatched" your talk page; I'm only writing this because somebody pointed out to me that you were still talking, and I try not to be rude. But really, I'm done here. If you've got something else you want to talk to me about, you'll need to flag me down elsewhere. Regards, Aziraphale 00:38, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Moral Zeitgeist

you might want to check this article out, Thanks--Tash 21:45, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

Hey cool! When I saw the Venona articles I thought you might be here! I've pretty much given up on WP but I'm still interested in the articles I contributed to like Flato and Krafsur et al. Years ago, like 8, I sent off for the FBI files for Charlie Flato and I haven't heard a word. I assume there are a lot of them. I'd be interested in hearing about what you found. Dwain

Christian Conservatives Consider Third-Party Effort

Rob, I disagree with your removal of the article I posted on the Main Page. Even though you don't like the idea, that doesn't mean it should not be a topic of discussion. Please reconsider your action and revert your deletion. --Crocoite 01:30, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

I think we have enough evidence of abuse already. The NYT article you site says, "participants spoke on condition of anonymity," and uses Dr. Dobson's name. So we can conclude, Dr. Dobson and Tony Perkins are not in favor of a third party run (assuming the NYT held to its promise of anonymity). Nonetheless, somebody on the Talk:Main Page is attempting to spread the false idea that Dr. Dobson is involved in coup. [29]
This is pure nonsense, and needs to be nipped in the bud right now. Rob Smith 13:03, 1 October 2007 (EDT)


Hi Rob,

Since you know Dwaine, you may wish to explain to him about our non-copying of articles from the other wiki policy. This seems to have occurred with Sanford Ransdell. Thanks Rob Learn together 03:40, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Noble Ally

I have been enjoying your work on the WWII article, but isn't "by Hiler's noble ally, Josef Stalin." a bit smarmy and sarcastic for an encyclopedia? I don't want to interrupt the work you are doing by any sort of edit war, so I thought I would mention it here, instead.Boomcoach 10:21, 4 October 2007 (EDT)


Could you maybe ask around if it's possible to remove the silly math test that pops up when inserting a new external link? That test caused a series of speedbumps for me because many of the restored articles suddenly had "new" external links (because the vandals removed them along with the rest of the articles). While I enjoy the challenge, it was extra tedious to see several tabs suddenly going all "To revert this vandalism, please tell me what x+y is!" --Jenkins 17:32, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

Hey buddy!

So the "legal threats" were very clearly not "legal threats" - I told Andy they were in no way official - but were intended to make firmer and more substantial my hopes that Andy would act in good faith and pull the content at my request. I should've known better.

Now, "let me get this right," I give my work and labor to articles for your conservative blog, some before you instituted a highly sketchy copyright waiver process, and you still think you're entitled to keep them, after you've cyberstalked me, harassed me, and insulted me?

P.S. - I can't reply to you on my talk page. It's protected. Heh.-MichaelS 23:27, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Al Gore

I think you made the right call in taking the whole thing out. SkipJohnson 17:25, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. It's enough to say Gore was journalist in Vietnam and people blame journalists in Vietnam for the loss of the war. We don't need to pile on any more lame accussations. Rob Smith 17:37, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

I just sent you a email

I just sent you a email. Conservative 15:37, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

to: Robs

Dear RobS,

I just sent you a private email. Conservative 16:54, 16 October 2007 (EDT)