User talk:RobS/archive1

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Whittaker Chambers

Rob, I don't know all the details of the issue over the Whittaker Chambers issue, but you have authority as admin to resolve issues in favor of the facts. If the conflict persists and locking (protecting) the page becomes necessary as a last resort, then so be it.--Aschlafly 16:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

AmesG is a bright liberal. What can I say. I've been trying to persuade him and still am. Part of the purpose of this site is to engage the other side. Feel free to change his edits and debate with him, but we would not block him (actually, I guess I did once, but then restored him and am glad I did).
Please block MississippiMud, and for infinite duration, if you feel he's a vandal. His name does suggest possible racism, perhaps in a liberal attempt to for smear tactics. Thanks.--Aschlafly 12:17, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
I agree; AmesG has a familiar voice. RobS 12:59, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Dominionism [1][2]

Dominionism is most often used to describe politically active conservative Christians, mostly Calvinist in orientation, with a specific agenda. The term is rarely used as a self-description; many feel it is a loaded or pejorative term, and use of the term is primarily limited to critics of the Christian Right on the political left. Leftist commonly assign the pejoritive label "Christer" to those they percieve as being "Dominionists".

Generic dominionism

Dominionist or Christian Reconstructionist theology's belief that the penalties of the Levitical law remain binding upon Christians under the New Covenant is controversial among many conservative Evangelicals.

The Christian Research Institute, a noted conservative Evangelical apologetics ministry, takes the Dominionists to task for what it sees as a misunderstanding of the Bible.

Within the Christian Right, concern over social, cultural, and political issues such as abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, sympathy for Israel sometimes expressed as Christian Zionism, the banning of teacher-led prayer in the public schools, and the reduction of overtly fundamentalist Chistian perspectives in the public square has prompted participation in elections since the 1970s. Activists and intellectuals in the Christian Right work in a coalition of religious conservatives, operating through the Republican Party to promote their influence. These dominionists sometimes make the claim that "America is a Christian nation."

Dominionist authors such as David Barton and controversial former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore and others look to 19th century court rulings for a different perspective on Christianity's role in governement. [3] They argue the U.S. Supreme Court has undermined the framers' intent for the establishment clause since the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education case.[4] They claim the morality expressed in American laws, such as the Blue laws, passed during the early part of American history deeply reflected Christianity's influence upon the culture. Such perspectives were advanced in 19th century cases such as Updegraph v. Commonwealth (1824) and Holy Trinity v. Commonwealth (1892), which Domionionist authors including Pat Robertson frequently cite in support of their arguments. [5][6]

The Dominionist Chalcedon Foundation argues:

"Based upon those premises, secularists would have to admit that at the time the Constitution was ratified, America was a full-blown theocracy. Sodomy laws, blasphemy laws, and even Sabbath laws were common in various states. If secularists are crying “theocracy” now, they would’ve marched in the streets of eighteenth-century America."[7]

Now, they feel shut out, and feel the need to re-assert their presence as religious people with a valid perspective in the democratic political process and the institutions of the culture.

Few, however, articulate a position that could be called theocratic.

Critics argue the claim that the United States is a Christian nation is of questionable historic validity (often pointing out the deism of various founding fathers) , is ethnocentric, and reduces secularists and members of other religions (such as Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism) to second-class status. Religious historians, like Nathan Hatch, Mark Noll and others, also suggest that modern fundamentalists are nostalgic for a time that never really existed as they imagine it: a time in the indefinite past, before the turbulent sixties, when wholesomeness, and sanity, and harmony prevailed under a benevolent religion much as they conceive their own to be.

Theological critique

Dominionist or Christian Reconstructionist theology's belief that the penalties of the Levitical law remain binding upon Christians under the New Covenant is controversial among many conservative Evangelicals.

The Christian Research Institute, a noted conservative Evangelical apologetics ministry, takes the Dominionists to task for what it sees as a misunderstanding of the Bible.

"But are Christians supposed to be taking dominion at all? Granted that there is some confusion among American Christians as to what taking dominion would mean, is there a sense in which this really is the mission of the church? A careful reading of the Bible indicates otherwise. Simply put, the Bible never commands Christians to take dominion. A search for such a mandate proves fruitless. The Bible never even hints that this is to be a responsibility of the church between Christ's first and second comings." [8]

CRI argues the Great Commission found in Matthew, Chapter 28:18-20, does not provide any sort of "Dominion Mandate" as argued by Gary North, R.J. Rushdoony or other Dominionists. "There is certainly no explicit connection made in Matthew 28 between the Great Commission and the Dominion Mandate of Genesis 1:28. Nor are the commands to disciple, baptize, and teach somehow equivalent to 'take dominion.'" [9]

It also denies that Christians have a "general mandate from Christ to seek or achieve worldwide or even nationwide political dominion before His return."

Likewise, Bob DeWaay, a conservative Evangelical preacher from Minneapolis, argues the Dominionists strain to make biblical passages conform with their theology. "It is remarkable how much emphasis is placed on Genesis 1:26-28 as being a mandate to rule over cultures and human institutions in a fallen world when at the time that Adam was given this mandate, no such cultures existed and the world was not fallen. The text says nothing about cultures or subjugating other people." [10]

Please stop removing whole sections of articles. Conservapedia Webmaster 16:31, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Copying Entire Articles

Please do not copy entire articles from Wikipedia and present them as original articles by Conservapedia. It hurts our credibility. --<<-David R->> 00:53, 13 March 2007 (EDT)


...isn't my sock. I don't know who it is, but the name isn't race-baiting either, it refers to a book by Edward Hume, which is what I commented about on the user page.--AmesG 12:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

You should unblock her/him. I feel badly that your false interpretation of my quote on her/his wall got her/him banned.--AmesG 15:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
OK. He's unblocked. RobS 15:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I changed..

Your nice article on WMD. Good job. The only thing I did was some minor spelling revisions, "know-how". I use FireFox that has a spell check so it's easy for me to spot these things. --Crackertalk 00:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Playwright or actor-Arthur Miller. He also attacked Langston Hughes.


[11][12] [13] [14]

Reagan Editing....

Do we have to make this a tit-for-tat removal, and reordering? --TK 00:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Why such hate?
RobS 00:57, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Are you a psychologist, so that you have some special ability to read hate into into a common question? --TK 00:58, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I have been putting in a great deal of work ordering material, etc. To find you have just jumped in, and completely changed it without messaging or anything else is frustrating, a duplication of efforts, and pretty rude, in my book. Especially since you could have read of my interest, and chatted about it first. --TK 01:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Check out this link: --TK 03:12, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

McCarthy Edits

Exactly what did I post that was untrue, Rob? Please be specific. How are the transcripts from the McCarthy hearings "deprecated?" How is that audio of the exchange between welch and McCarthy "deprecated?"

--PF Fox 16:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I uploaded a picture if you want to use it "Joe_McCarthy.jpg" I believe I got it from the senate's historical site. --Crackertalk 21:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)


There IS copy right material in the article, it needs to be unlocked so it can be re-written. Tmtoulouse 14:04, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

The first two paragraphs are verbatim from the link in the talk page that should be enough to unlock it for editing.


Congratulations on being the first Conservapedian to be impersonated. Three times. MountainDew 16:00, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

While he holds the record for the most impersonator accounts, I think Andy can claim the "first impersonator" title: User:AschIafly (capital i instead of the l in the middle) =P --Sid 3050 20:35, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Problem solved!!

Thanks for your help Rob! I don't know what got the ban lifted, but I appreciate your help in the matter.--AmesG 10:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Glad to be of help. RobS 10:24, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Your article is today's featured article

RobS, I made your superb article on Joseph McCarthy today's featured article on the front page. Thanks for your awesome contributions.--Aschlafly 13:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Wow, probably the best article here. Very well-attributed, well-organized, and well-written. This site might get taken seriously yet. Palmd001 13:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I made some content changes in the Allende article to give citations, remove subjective comments, and bring it more in line with fact. I did not, however, expand it and make it seem literate. If you know anyone who is qualified to do that, great. Palmd001 14:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Plagarism on Hitler article?

The paragraphs before the Contents box is a near word-for-word lift of an essay Elie Wiesel wrote for Time. It should probably be pulled down ASAP.--Dave3172 20:43, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

  • The content wasn't plagarized, it was put up to see if the nonsense, non-debate, would argue about the only thing that matters, that Hitler was evil. Please see the rest of my comments on the Talk page. And I would remind Rob, he has no right to revert another Sysops work, without first contacting him. Sometimes things are done for reasons not apparent to everyone. Such as the user posting here, and not contacting me first. Motives do become apparent in other's actions, at times, eh? --~ Terry Talk2Me! 21:33, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Put your Communist Party of the USA on front page

Rob, your article on the Communist Party of the USA is a terrific encore. I've put it on the front page as our featured article today. Thanks.--Aschlafly 08:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Salvador Allende

I started the Salvador Allende page, and I have read how all of these users disliked it. I don't mind being edited, but I do want to know what was wrong with it in the first place. And why do people insult my work. --Octaviohpaz 17:22, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. Yes, of course I want to make it better. --Octaviohpaz 17:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes. I do have a library.--Octaviohpaz 16:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)


Watch him like a hawk, ban him if does any more of that junk.--Elamdri 00:09, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Edit to Nazi etc.

Reason for reverting my edit, please? Karalius Nyder 00:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I think I counted one too many "conservatives" in there when there may actually be a question if any belong at all, and you didn't engage in talk or cite any source. This,

While not always recognised for it in popular accounts due to the weight of their other actions, the Nazis were responsible for removing the scourge of rational conservatism in the lead-up to World War II

I read six times and concluded the author of it himself probably doesn't understand what it means. Then we have this, a disclaimer,

The Nazis are generally seen as fascists

Just who or what are you trying to debate here? RobS 00:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps scourge was the wrong word, but I think it's clear that if you hadn't lopped off the end of the first sentence that I wrote, you would have seen that I was pointing to the "scourge" as being:
- disbanding the German branch of the left-wing communist movement spreading throughout Europe.
Either way, instead of reverting the whole thing back to the messy and uncategorised page that existed before, you should have removed the offending sentences and asked for clarification on the discussion page. Karalius Nyder 01:03, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I've continued this discussion on the appropriate discussion page. Karalius Nyder 05:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Potential fake article

I am not completely sure, but this article [| Holland ] seems fake. I don't think that this user is serious about our work.--Octaviohpaz 17:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the heads up on these people. Please let me know if there is anyway in which I can help--Octaviohpaz 16:41, 26 March 2007 (EDT)


I'll be honest, given my political leanings I have a difficult time telling the genuine conservatives from the provacateurs... but I'll keep my eyes open. Myk 16:17, 23 March 2007 (EDT)


Rob, in my experience, and in looking over the voting in the US Congress, I cannot for the life of me find anything to support the statement that Liberals, in the United States, align themselves on economic issues with the Republican party. In point of fact, it is usually just the opposite. Ask Andrew. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 18:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, Gov. Bill Richardson soon will be running for President on his success implementing reaganominc trickle-down tax cuts for business in New Mexico.
“Make no mistake,” Governor Bill Richardson said. “The point of cutting the personal income tax and the capital gains cut is to send an unmistakable message to business leaders - here in this state and across the nation: New Mexico is open for business.[15]
And the difference between Richardson & Hillary is, Richardson can win. RobS 20:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Rob, you cannot take one example and extend that out to the edit you made in Liberals. Unfortunately, his actions while involved with the Clinton Administration, and his support of many Congressional bills, don't walk the walk. That said, I think you are correct about Richardson's viability, but unfortunately he will never raise the necessary funds to have a successful campaign, and the Clinton's will, unfortunately, destroy him. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 20:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Which edit in Liberal you talking about? RobS 20:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
  • The one where you claim, yet again, that Liberals stick with Democrat's on social issues, and Republican's on fiscal. It is unsupported, purely personal opinon. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 20:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Can't find it; the only economic stuff I did there was insert the word "classical" twice. RobS 20:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
  • "Liberals in the US typically align themselves with the Democratic Party on social/political issues and with the Republican Party on economic issues. Note, that liberal in the European context refers to moderate and center-right parties, often with a pro-business stance.[4] The same holds for many liberal parties throughout the world.[5]. The US definition of liberal is much more similar to the politics of European socialist or social democratic parties.[6]." It appeared to be your edit, but sometimes I am confused....--~ TerryK Talk2Me! 20:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Not me. RobS 20:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Thanks for setting me straight on that. Now go have a nice iced beverage, and focus on something other than Hitler, lol. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 21:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
I think we got a lot of meat & pototoes here with this one:
"It is true that Hitler was closely associated with Ernst Ro[e]hm and Rudolf Hess, two homosexuals who were among the very few people with whom he used the familiar du....When Hitler left the prison he fretted about his friend who languished there, and spoke of him tenderly, using Austrian diminutives: 'Ach mein Rudy, mein Hesserl, isn't it appalling to think that he's still there.' One of Hitler's valets, Schneider, made no explicit statement about the relationship, but he did find it strange that whenever Hitler got a present he liked or drew an architectural sketch that particularly pleased him, he would run to Hess- who was known in homosexual circles as "Fraulein Anna"-as a little boy would run to his mother to show his prize to her...
Truth is, Langer is the one book I never read; [16] but I have read all the those source Langer cited in the wiki article Ernst Hanfstaengl, Gregor Strasser, Herman Rauschning, Princess Stephanie von Hohenlohe, Kurt Ludecke and Friedlinde Wagner. And Langer's credentials are pretty heavy duty. RobS 21:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Your Twin...

You might also want to add to the block notes that he removed all content from several pages.....--~ TerryK MyTalk 11:58, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks; not sure how to do that... RobS 11:59, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Unblock him, then re-block, with the added 411.  ;-) You are such a celebrity, with your own impersonators! I didn't check the IP...but most likely BORF. --~ TerryK MyTalk 12:01, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Sorry!! --~ TerryK MyTalk 12:37, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

    • Blocking yourself in the fight against impersonators... now thats dedication! --Hojimachongtalk 12:37, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  • I keep unblocking, but the block seems to be still there!!! --~ TerryK MyTalk 12:43, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
It's off now; this was easier than trying to set my watch forward last week when we went on daylight savings time. RobS 12:46, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Joseph McCarthy, What's Next?

RobS, your superb entry on Joseph McCarthy has risen to 110 in popularity, with over 3,000 reads. Well done!

You are one of our very best contributors. Do you have another entry for me to feature next on our front page? Thanks again. By the way, if you are interested in writing something for possible publication, we have an "Original Works project that other Wikis do not allow.--Aschlafly 00:49, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Night of the long knives

Glad that you are content that we moved on to the Night of the Long Knives and the Roehm Putsch[17]. Especially since the the first comment made regarding that matter [18] was to move on to that subject. Order 27 March 17:25 (AEST)

I'd fix this

If I knew what the sentence was trying to say... Its predecessor agency was knownAgricultural Adjustment Administration as the Office of Price Administration and Civilian Supply (OPACS). -- Crackertalk 16:42, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I see you did. Crackertalk

Got it now. Thanks! RobS 16:48, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

here are some comments on your National Lawyers Guild talk page

where are your sources? 

Where are your sources? This article has little credibility and I am more conservative than many at this board. Here is what the conservapedia commandments state: "Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain". Conservative 21:22, 1 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Conservative, let's celebrate our very first agreement and wipe it clean. Calling any group a pack of commies is slanderous.-AmesGyo! 21:24, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
I disagree regarding your "calling any group a pack of commies remark". I just think a Sysop like RobS should follow the websites rules and cite his sources. I think readers deserve to know what his sources are. Conservative 21:26, 1 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
Please see my most recent comment in the talk page. Conservative 21:43, 1 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
Except possibly the Communist Party. Then it's not slander, it's a fact. --BDobbs 21:45, 1 April 2007 (EDT)


Just for the sake of clarity, the way the Iran-Contra scandal worked, was that the US sold weapons to Iran, first through Israel, and later, directly, and then sent the money raised from those sales to the Contras.--Epicurius 16:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

If any of this is true, why were private arms trafficers involved? RobS 16:45, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Like Kashoggi and Ghorbanifar? They were apparently middlemen between the Israelis and the Iranians...they provided bridge financing. After the US cut the Israelis out, they did the same thing for the US sales From the Independent Counsel report:
Private arms dealers in 1984 began suggesting to U.S. officials that if weapons were sold to Iran, Iranians could gain the release of Americans held hostage by terrorists in Lebanon. Manucher Ghorbanifar, an Iranian exile and former CIA informant who had been discredited by the agency as a fabricator, was a driving force behind these proposals.

By August 1985, Israel had obtained, through National Security Adviser Robert C. McFarlane, President Reagan's approval to sell U.S. arms to Iran and to replenish Israeli weapons stocks.

In 1985, there were two Israeli sales of U.S. weapons to Iran: 504 TOW missiles in August and September 1985, and 18 HAWK missiles in November 1985. The Israelis relied on international financier Adnan Khashoggi to raise "bridge financing" for the deals, because the Iranians would not pay for the weapons until they were delivered, and Israel would not ship the weapons before Iran paid for them.

and also

In January 1986, the Reagan Administration decided to sell weapons directly from U.S. stocks to Iran, eliminating Israel as an intermediary and employing Secord as an agent to make the sales and transport the arms, masking official U.S. involvement. President Reagan authorized the direct sales in a January 17, 1986, covert-action Finding. Under the Finding, Secord, acting as an agent of the CIA, would sell arms to brokers representing the Iranians, who then would sell them to Iran. Secord would obtain payment in advance from the Iranians and deposit in a CIA account the amount the CIA was to pay the Department of Defense for the weapons. The CIA would purchase the weapons from the Department of Defense at cost under the Economy Act; Secord would deliver them to Iran. Ghorbanifar, as broker for Iran, borrowed funds for the weapons payments from Khashoggi, who loaned millions of dollars to Ghorbanifar in ``bridge financing for the deals. Ghorbanifar repaid Khashoggi with a 20 percent commission after being paid by the Iranians.

The complete Walsh report can be found here

Thanks. Got any page numbers for the passages above? RobS 17:13, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Unfortunately, it's a text document, and so I can't find any page numbers. It's in Chapter 8, "The Enterprise and its Finances" under the header "The Enterprise and Sale of US Arms to Iran"
And I can see that the report does actually say the Contras got arms shipments as well, through a Portugese company named "Defex".--Epicurius 17:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Nancy Pelosi's Article

I reverted a hit piece, you last contributed so I thought you might want to check it out.... --~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 22:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey, Rob, nice to meet ya. Thanks for your work on the Pelosi page.

LOL...that pic! :p --~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 20:38, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Your comment on my userpage

Is that a serious question? --Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 12:19, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Amen bro. RobS 12:37, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Can you clarify its meaning? --Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 12:46, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Oh, and what have I convinced you of? --Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 12:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
I just want you to convince me I'm incorrect; I'm tired of being right all the time, and I really need a pro to straighten me out. RobS 12:58, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the sarcasm :). --Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 13:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
So your not going to help? Dang, I've lost hope now. RobS 13:07, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Oh no, I'm still going to convince you that you're incorrect, since you asked so nicely :). And that particular sentence wasn't directed at you only. --Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 13:09, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Thank goodness. Right now on several pages I got so-called leftist telling me about "leftism". When I ask what is a leftist, they explain a leftist is a liberal. When I ask what a liberal is, they explain a liberal is a leftist. I am convinced this is all horse hocky. Can you show me were I'm all wrong, please? (see Talk:National_Socialist_German_Workers_Party#Right_Wing for example). RobS 13:17, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

uhhhh, 'scuse me Rob, but where exactly have I done anything like that? Please point out the specific exchange between us. --PF Fox 17:39, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

PF, actually I wasn't specifically refering to you here. RobS 19:59, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
I see nobody else arguing with you in the section you cited as an example: Talk:National_Socialist_German_Workers_Party#Right_Wing. --PF Fox 11:08, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
That section specifically discusses left v right; further you brought in a dictionary definition that reads, "advocating the greater well-being of the common man"; this is particularly comical, for example, where do opponents of "advocating the greater well-being of man" go to apply for membership? or perhaps you'd like to play some craps with loaded dice. I mean, come on now, let's get real. Here's other discussion of esentially the same nature [19][20][21]
And nowhere in that section have I reponded to your request for a definition of a leftist by "explain(ing) a leftist is a liberal or that "a liberal is a leftist."--PF Fox 12:14, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
P.S. And I am absolutely serious as a heart attack; I will press the issue how so-called advocates of human rights, the "betterment of humanity", and womens sufferage are working overtime to insure Iraqi women loose what few gains have been made since 2003. RobS 11:58, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
What gains are those, Rob? The fact is, Iraqi women have LOST a great deal of ground since 2003. Before the invasion, they were able to walk about in public unveiled, look forward to a higher education, and practice professions like medicine unmolested. Now women are afraid to leave their homes without their faces covered, the rise of the shia majority has made the prospect of their daughters attending college highly doubtful, and professional women who insist on continuing to work are being murdered. How do these qualify as "gains?" --PF Fox 12:14, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
You have well stated the so-called "leftist" viewpoint, my friend; Iraqi women were much better off under the fascists Ba'athists than a liberal Constitutional democracy. Thank you. RobS 12:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
That doesn't answer my question. You claimed Iraqi women had made "gains." Specifically what "gains" have Iraqi women made? Do you consider the imposition of Shia restrictions on women a "gain?" --PF Fox 12:32, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
The "gains" are identitical to the gains you cited in Wiemar Germany. Exercising the basic human right of voting. So Iraqi women have freely chosen to live under a liberal Consitutional democracy; they are met with opposition to holding these basic human rights by thier alleged "liberal" fellow thinkers in the West who argue they were better off barefoot, pregnant, in the kitchen, down on the farm, and subject to rape at the whim of Uday, Qusay & Saddam. Yes indeed, modern "leftists" and "liberals" are shining advocates of democracy and human rights. RobS 12:38, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Weimar Republic women were not driven back into their homes out of a fear of going outside with their faces uncovered, nor were they shot dead in the streets for the "crime" of practicing medicine as doctors. Or maybe you're going to claim they were, along with your bizarre contention that the Weimar Republic didn't end until 1939? --PF Fox 12:41, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

PF, please clarify for me once more; I get the impression you are pointedly argueing Iraqi women were better off under fascism than living under a Constitutional liberal democracy. Please set the record straight once and for all--no qualifiers added or anything. Then we can leave this discussion were it concludes and move on to other things. Thank you. RobS 12:51, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
There's no question that Iraqi women as a group were better off under Saddam. They were not veiled. They could practice professions.They could look forward to a higher education. With the rise of the Shia majority, (which does not qualify as a "Constitutional liberal democracy") all of those advantages are evaporating. Are you claiming otherwise? --PF Fox 12:59, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Blocks by Conservative

I posted a reply to your request for proof here.-AmesGyo! 01:59, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Replied again - apologies for misreading your request. No need to reply if you're off celebrating. Happy Easter!-AmesGyo!

Happy Easter!

Happy Easter to you, Rob!

The eleven disciples went to the hill in Galilee where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him, Jesus drew near and said to them, "I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth. Go, then, to all peoples everywhere and make them my disciples: baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and teach them to obey everything I have commanded you. And I will be with you always, to the end of the age." Matthew 28
Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right. You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. You know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached— how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him. “We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” —Acts 10:34-43 NIV

--~ TK MyTalk 04:45, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Darwin & the Holocaust?

Hey Rob, Personal remark removed I hope we can discuss it here. Will you begin by presenting your reason for the link between the two? Let's see your "line of deductive reasoning."-AmesGyo! 21:09, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Note this excerpt from Chapter 5 of "The Descent of Man" in your answer: "The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil."-AmesGyo! 21:18, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Should actually read "rationalism and the Holocaust", of which Darwinism is borne out of. And I have much to say on this subject, but briefly, in the "Enlightenment" the Divine Right of Kings was overthrown and God was knocked off the throne. Marie Antonette was exposed for the fraud that she was, that she really didn't rule by the Divine Right of Kings, cause there really is no God. This is when people woke up, opened their eyes, and discovered that God, or Jehovah, was just another "Jewish conspiracy" to control the masses. Even the Jews themelves didn't believe in thier own God. To be "Enlightened", is to be an atheist, as someone describe here,

in the 18th century, almost all thought was controled either by the ideas of the Church or by the King/State. Most people accepted this because this was a very comfortable way of thinking.

Enlightened Reason became inextricably bound up with anti-Semitism--and explains much the horrors which came later. Once "faith" was replaced with "reason", and "science" was used to establish "facts", we could discard God's word in favor of scientific facts like Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. God's word said,

What is man, that thou art mindful of him? ... Thou ...didst set him over the works of thy hands: Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing [that is] not put under him. (Hebrews 2:6-8)

In otherwords the order goes something like this:

  • God
  • Man
  • dog

Let us, through our Enlightened thinking, remove God out of the picture:

  • Man = animal
  • dog = animal

You can kill a dog so you can kill a man (since there is no God, there's no Final Judgement either). This enlightened thinking was used to indoctinate youth who still had moral qualms from their antiquated faith based reasoning. It is a straight line of deductive reasoning from the "Enlightenment", to the Holocaust. And I think Ellie Wiesel agrees with me.

Post script: Yes yes, I know; please spare a response that reads, "I and most Enlighthen thinkers are too moral (in our own opinion) to contemplate or engage in such behavior. RobS 21:25, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

To say that there is no morality without fear of a final judgment bespeaks more of your character than it does about Charles Darwin, or Enlightenment. The link you pose between rationalism and anti-Semitism is laughable in its poor grammar, construction, and argumentation, not to mention lack of citations to authority (I'm sure you can't seriously believe it). But getting back to the morality thing - do you really think the only reason to be moral is fear of a final judgment?-AmesGyo! 21:28, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
It's not me were talking about; it's indoctrinating some 18 year old kid who stood guard at Auschwitz. And the public schools did their part to help convince him (a) there was no judgement for his actions (b) killing a dog is no different than killing any other animal (c) he was probably being compassionate cause all these "enemies of the state" were gonna die slow horrifying deaths by malnutrition and disease anyway, so why not employ the efforts of our "best scientific minds" to do it quickly and hygenically.
This is where 150 years of rational, enlightened thinking lead the human race. And if you wish to deny clear, discernable, scientific facts, and keep up the lies, Wikipedia is probably the place to do it. RobS 21:52, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm sorry, but for the egregious accusations you propose, you offer absolutely no evidence other than your own twisted judgment. I would appreciate a compelling intellectual argument rather than appeals to emotion. I fail to see how rationalism convinces people that mass murder is justifiable. Perhaps you will argue that rationalism was the Nazi justification - I can somehow make out the seeds of that argument. That Nazis were told that killing a human is no different than killing a dog, so why not kill humans? I fail to see how Darwinism or rationalist compels that result, and if Hitler perverted it to suggest that it did, that is no fault of the philosophy. All great philosophies have been perverted by evil, and twisted into a shadow of themselves, to do the work of evil. The Crusades & the Inquisition, which resulted in the murder of innocent Jews & Muslims (as well as innocent Christians!) were all done in the name of Christianity, but that does not implicate Christianity any more than Nazis (supposedly) using rationalist to defend the Holocaust implicates rationalism! Christianity is used even into the modern day to justify abortion clinic bombings, but this is just a perversion of Christianity - Jesus Christ did not teach murder. Similarly, neither does secular humanism. An ideology is not responsible for its nutjob outliers. If every ideology was, there would be no good one left untainted by evil in the world!
Also, to preempt the argument, once you actually make it, rationalists, or secular humanists, inherently believe in the power and worth of the human mind. By definition, "humanism" is opposed to murder as the destruction of a moral human being. Humanism supposes that humans are worthwhile and good, and murder is wrong, not because God commands it, but because the human species is inherently good.
Dare I even mention that Hitler facetiously tried to justify Nazism with Christianity? But Rob, I would never argue that that makes Christianity evil, simply because it was used to justify evil. You and I both know that Christianity does not justify mass murder, regardless of Hitler's arguments in Mein Kampf. Similarly, you should never argue that humanism, because it has caused some nonspecified harm through the workings of a deranged mind not representative of the whole, is evil. Humanism can not, and has never, justified murder-AmesGyo! 22:43, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

As you may know Tischgesprache is probably a good starting point, but let's not make it definitive; we need the stuff that actually went into childrens heads through popular media and the public schools. Let's tentatively examine these two quotes, cause they give us an indication as to what was being taught in schools in the late 19the century until the mid 20th:
The present system of teaching in schools permits the the following absurdity: at 10 a.m. the pupils attend a lesson in the catechism, at which the creation of the world is presented to them in accordance with the teachings of the Bible; and at 11 a.m. they attend a lesson in natural science, at which they are taught the theory of evolution. Yet the two doctrines are in complete contradiction. As a child, I suffered from this contradiction, and ran my head against a wall. Often I complained to one or another of my teachers against what I had been taught an hour before-and I remember that I drove them to despair.
And now to address rationalism pointedly,
Science cannot lie, for it's always striving, according to the momentary state of knowledge to deduce what is true. When it makes a mistake, it does 10 in good faith. It's Christianity that's the liar. It's in perpetual conflict with itself.
This nazi attitude Hitler expresses so succinctly I encounter personally, daily. Not to mention the garbarge I'm barbarded with via media. RobS 23:07, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

You continue to fail to support the Nazi link. Good job. As for the rest, God & evolution are not incompatible. I believe that God created the universe and set the natural processes in motion - I see Genesis as an allegory, that I cannot hope to understand, since the words of God are endlessly complex (see Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana, for support). Sure, a literal reading of the Bible, and all the shallowness that that entails, is incompatible with evolution. But abandoning the literal truth of the Bible does NOT mean abandoning the truth of the Bible!-AmesGyo! 23:16, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, you set yourself up for a cheapshot by agreeing with Hitler but I'm not gonna exploit it. What does the Bible teach, though? There is a universal teaching shared by a strictly Jewish interpreation and a Christian interpretation, and it is this: of the first two brothers who walked the planet, one murdered the other. What does this teach us about human nature? RobS 23:29, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I have no idea about either of your past two points. I did not agree with Hitler - I said that you continue to fail to support your argument linking evolution with Hitler. Since you fail to address the point, I consider it conceded. But what are you trying to say about human nature? That the Bible says human nature is inherently evil? I guess we will have to disagree on that point.-AmesGyo! 23:31, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Since you fail to address the point, I consider it conceded.
Not so. And I am adamant in pursueing this (I just have a severe sinus infection the past few days, and am running on about 3 cylinders right now...)
Yes, man in his fallen state can do no good thing. Loving you brother is a supernatural act, i.e. it is against human nature. Because human nature is selfish, envious, self-destructive, and all sorts of other nasty things which can range up to senseless hatred and murder. And the truth is, an Orthodox Jewish interpretation of scripture, and an orthodox Christian interpretation, are not that dissimiliar. RobS 23:41, 8 April 2007 (EDT)\

I guess we will disagree on the nature of man. You think religion is necessary to do good; I think man can find goodness in himself. Sad, though. I look forward to hearing a real argument linking Darwin and Nazism.-AmesGyo! 23:43, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Reagan's tomb reads, "I know in my heart that man is good"; well this is something Nancy & her psychics must've put up there, cause any Christian knows it denys the basics of Christian teaching. RobS 23:46, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Reagan was right. It's such a basic element of faith to me, I'm sorry you can't believe it, and I wonder how you can find morality without it.-AmesGyo! 00:00, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. Romans 7:18. RobS 00:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I stick by my philosophy, but it's interesting to learn that take. I'm curious still about the Darwin/Holocaust link. Feel better; don't worry about posting until you do.-AmesGyo! 00:20, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Yah gimme a couple days; I been so sick I've been posting in these areas I usually don't work in cause I just don't have the strength to work on the stuff I've given priority to. RobS 00:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
  • The inscription on the Tomb says: "I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there's purpose and worth to each and every life," Reagan first used the words while opening the library in 1991, and in those remarks, expounded more, including the thought that Good will always triumph over Evil, and that God himself ensured there was purpose and worth to each and every life, because we were all his children. This is a over-arching theme throughout his public life....--~ TK MyTalk 00:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
    • Well I can't help but see the hand of Nancy here somewhere behind it..... RobS 00:33, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
  • You're not feeling well, so I will refrain from saying that's a smart-ass answer, because it would be wrong to do that. --~ TK MyTalk 00:39, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
    • This is how historians's 1991, Reagan is tired and Alzheimer's taking its toll...Nancy says, "we gotta plan for your funeral"....Reagans says, "whatever"....Nancy says, "Dear, don't you think some New Age phrase on your grave would be some nice mud in the eye to all those Christers who supported you?" Reagan says, "Dear, whatever"..... RobS 00:52, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
  • LMAO! Sorry, wasn't done that way. Mike Deever, with President Reagan, had completed the entire funeral plan for the MDWHQ, (Military District of Washington, D.C.) before he left office. It was updated before the dedication of the Reagan Library, which was before he was being affected by the Alzheimer's. A version of the inscription was actually favored by the President and his two oldest children, Maureen and Michael. But it does sound more interesting, if Nancy had consulted an Astrologer. You do know, BTW, that his shooting was forseen by a woman, a penpal, in the Midwest, before he left office as Governor? You really must not be well, to have missed my fine Nixon impression above! --~ TK MyTalk 00:59, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Rob-- your reorganization of liberal right now looks fine... but you dropped a good ref. Here it is: [1] --Mathematica 14:05, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. We have a good discussion on that Talk page regarding the etymology; there appears some confussion between the etymology of liber with the root of licentiousness. RobS 14:10, 10 April 2007 (EDT)


The picture caption on your user page that describes a man as a "closet pixie" is offensive to homosexuals. It should say, "closet homosexual," or something non-derogatory. Slurs are not acceptable here.-AmesGyo! 15:23, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Will the counsel for my benefit define – I think he might be an expert on that – what a pixie is? RobS 15:28, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Learned Counsel for the plaintiff will state for the record that "pixie" is a homophobic slur, or a term of derision.-AmesGyo! 16:17, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Liberal icon Joseph Welch, the man who destroyed Joseph McCarthy, was homophobic? We'll have to remember that for his biographical entry. RobS 16:21, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

No, your description of Joseph Welch is homophobic. You cannot construct my statements any other way than that; their meaning is plain.-AmesGyo! 16:25, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Here's the transcript, [22], excerpted,

WELCH: Did you think this came from a pixie? ...

MCCARTHY: Will the counsel for my benefit define - I think he might be an expert on that - what a pixie is?

WELCH: Yes, I should say, Senator, that a pixie is a close relative of a fairy. Shall I proceed, sir? Have I enlightened you?

Pretty obvious it was liberal icon Joseph Welch who cynically introduced a homophobic slur into an official, open and public Congressional hearing. Another historical fact which will go into his biographical entry. RobS 16:39, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm afraid I don't know the context. I guess Welch did use a homophobic term, that's sad. However, that doesn't mean you should use it, too. I request anew that you remove the term from your user page. Ed, thanks for censoring out my insult to Rob. The sentiment could be better expressed. Rob, you should note that I am still waiting for your explanation of how Darwinism leads "directly," in your words, to the Holocaust.-AmesGyo! 16:45, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
I didn't take it as an insult, and to me hiding it just gives cover to flawed methods, reasoning, and arguements. And we will expand more on how Nazism grew out of the rationalism of the Enlightenment. As to Welch, that immortal exchange is taught in schools of rhetoric cause Welch destroyed McCarthy during that hearing. Censoring Welch is like book burning, or taking Lillian Hellman out of libraries, IMHO. RobS 16:51, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not saying censor Welch when you're talking about what Welch said, as in, with quote marks. But using his language outside of that context lends validity to it, and to the insulting term itself :-P -AmesGyo! 16:56, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Here's another transcript [23](slightly different from the one above) of the same incident with some context,

The purpose of producing the photograph was to show the secretary being friendly and considerate to Private Schine, demonstrating that there had been no attempt on McCarthy or Cohn’s part to blackmail the army. But the following day, Joseph Welch, the genteel, bow-tied Boston lawyer who represented the army, produced an enlargement of the same photo, which showed Stevens and Schine but also included Air Force Colonel Jack T. Bradley, to say nothing of the sleeve of yet another individual. The photo had been “altered, shamefully cut down,” in order to give a deceptive impression of chumminess, insisted an outraged Welch, proof that McCarthy and Cohn could not be trusted. After a series of denials by McCarthy aides as to who was responsible for the cropping, Welch faced down James N. Juliana, a former FBI agent who worked for McCarthy:

WELCH: I find myself so puzzled to know why you just did not take a photostat of the picture that was delivered to you that afternoon and hand it over to Mr. [Ray] Jenkins [counsel for the committee]. Would you tell us how come you did not do this?

JULIANA: I just mentioned or just stated that I was under instructions to furnish a picture of only the two individuals.

WELCH: And who gave you these instructions?

JULIANA: Jenkins and—or Cohn.

WELCH: Did you think this came from a pixie? Where did you think that this picture I hold in my hand came from?

JULIANA: I have no idea.

McCARTHY (interrupting): Will counsel for my benefit define—I think he might well be an expert on it—what a pixie is?

WELCH: Yes, I should say, Mr. Senator, that a pixie is a close relative of a fairy. Shall I proceed, sir? Have I enlightened you?

The hearing room broke up in laughter. McCarthy forced a smile. Cohn tried his best to hide any expression at all. Cohn later called Welch’s parry “malicious,” “wicked,” and “indecent.” But he had been humiliated.

In otherwords, Welch called Cohn a "pixie" or a "fairy" in a public hearing. RobS 17:13, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Only if Cohn's homosexuality was, in fact, an "open secret", otherwise, one could argue that Welch merely gave a synonym for a pixie without referencing sexuality at all. Even if Welch did imply the terms with regard to sexuality, it was McCarthy who tried to query Welch's in the first instance. Crackertalk 17:34, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Cohn's homosexuality moreless was an open secret; Wikipedia says this for instance,
people speculated that Schine and Cohn might have had a homosexual relationship, and that this played a part in Cohn's motivation to seek preferential treatment for his former colleague. [24]
Wikipedia makes this statement on at least three different pages,
McCarthy and Cohn claimed the Army was holding Schine "hostage" to deter the committee from exposing Communists within the military ranks.
IOW, the Army-McCarthy hearings were held supposedly so McCarthy & Cohn could get Cohn's gay lover, Schine, special treatment. It was during these hearings the famous "have you no shame" remark finally destroyed McCarthy. RobS 17:49, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Political spectrum

Hi, Rob. I liked what you said:

To grossly oversimplify the root problem, the original meaning or definition is inextricably linked up with Church/State issues, or "the God question" as I refer to it from the late 18th century Enlightenment period. At its root is faith vs rationalism, or atheism vs the Church, etc. The so-called "right", defined as "traditional interests" meant the Church & monarchy who ruled by Divine Right. With 20th century fascism a need arose to define certain Socialists, atheists, and other anti-God elements as "right wing", which PF Fox never stops refering to. So it's a redefinition of the term that we're talking about. No longer does one have to be faith-based or God fearing to be defined as right-wing, you can mold your hatred of God & the Church to anyone you despise. In fact, it really doesn't matter what your political views are, since the definition is left wing = good guy, freedom loving, and for the betterment of humanity, whereas right wing = pro oppression. So if they don't like you, voila, you are a right wing bigot (leftists, by definition, cannot be bigots).

Most of that should go in the article. Just take out the references to I and PF Fox and you're good to go. How about in the "origins" section? --Ed Poor 10:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I got some other material to present, and between the two we might have something; however, i still want to do a page move to Politcal spectrum theory. Will you go along with it? TK agrees, we had a good exchange here on it. [25] RobS 12:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Barack Obama

Regarding the published criticism of Barack Obama, don't you think the majority of that link would be better served in an article about Don Imus or about Racism in Broadcasting? It seems to me that the relevant bit is that the Boston Globe and some prominent black leaders question Obama's handling of the situation, not the digression towards Michael Richard and Jimmy the Greek. Myk 15:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

You convinced me. You wanna do it? RobS 15:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
It was locked last time I checked. Myk 15:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Ok, I'll unprotect you so you can fix it; but i may have to reprotect quickly cause actually I don;t know what's going on on that page. RobS 16:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
That you'd have to take up with TK. He thinks the candidate pages are being excessively vandalized. I have been unable to persuade him otherwise. Myk 16:15, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Done. Check it out to make sure it still fits with what you wanted to say. I am an Obama supporter so I tried to keep it to the source as much as possible. Searching for Obama AND Imus actually comes up with a lot of comments about Imus and McGuirk (sp?) making derogatory comments about Obama himself. Those weren't helpful. Myk 16:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Real good. Couldn't have done better myself. Say, while I got you here, would you mind discussing why you support Obama just to answer some personal curiousity. I got two questions off the top (a) what age group do you fall into (18-24, 25-30, 30-45, 45+),and (b) when and/or where did you first hear of Obama? Thanks. RobS 16:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm narrowly into the 30-45 category. And I first heard Obama at the 04 convention. Went out and got his first book and then Audacity when it came out. Myk 16:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Question 3: Do you think he can (a) defeat Hillary in the primaries and go on to win the General election, and/or (b) is just running for the VP spot? RobS 16:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

(Undent) I don't think people on the right fully appreciate how disenchanted a lot of Democrats are with Hillary. I think when the two of them are on the same stage in a debate the differences will become overwhelming. Obama is both charismatic and smart. As for the general... well, obviously he's going to be a polarizing figure just because of his race and his name... but far less polarizing than Clinton. I think Hillary is much more beatable in a general than Obama. Myk 16:53, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Good observations, and I agree with all of it. Hillary is the Newt Gingrich of the Democratic Party--42% will come out to vote for her, and 42% will come out to vote for whoever can beat her.
So as to the question of electability, Richardson & Obama got her beat. I just quickly reread Obama & Kerry's convention speeches, cause I recall at the time much of what Obama said was directly contradicted on successive nights by a host of successive speakers. Let's look at these two excisions:
Obama:tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America -- there’s the United States of America. [26]
Kerry:after September 11th all our people rallied to President Bush's call for unity to meet the danger. There were no Democrats. There were no Republicans. There were only Americans. And how we wish it had stayed that way. [27]
Now, is this just meaningless election rhetoric on the part of both speakers, or is there some way to reconcile these divergent passages? RobS 17:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
A lot comes down to genuineness (I think I just made up a word). When Obama uses rhetoric, I believe it. At least in a way that I never do from Kerry or Clinton. The position of president entails a mix of issues, ability and inspiration. Issues are always going to be split based on ideology. Ability is where Obama's going to take a hit due to his lack of national / executive experience but he clearly has the intellect. If he can handle that question, which I think he can, then his ability to inspire will make him a daunting force. Think Bill Clinton without the smarm. And hopefully without the personal problems. As it stands now, Romney and Giuliani are the only GOP candidates I see capable of taking on Obama and then only if they don't prompt a more conservative third party candidate.
The fact that Obama chose to give a unifying speech at a historically polarizing venue took a lot of courage. Compare his keynote address to Zell Miller's. Regardless of your thoughts on the issues, Miller's speech was a heckuva lot more abrasive. Myk 17:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Guilani doesn't have a prayer. GOP will not nominate an East Coast liberal in favor of abortion. The question is who can beat McCain? Richardson may, Hillary can't, and Obama probably can't either. (Incidentally, new item this morning says Fred Thompson has lymphoma, so that leaves Huckabee as the only other Bible-belt GOP candidate, and Bible-belt candidates, GOP or Dem, are the only ones who can win nowadays).
Let me give a gut instinct on Obama, he's probably running for VP, which is a mistake. His problem is, if he doesn't win the whole prize, which is a long shot right now, no one will ever take him serious again. He will not be viable in 2012 or ever after. (Just as Edwards doesn't have a prayer, or Gary Hart, etc. Candidates really have a short shelf life). You can't run on failure. I think he's in now for the following reason:
Both parties recognize a young person's poltical views are molded by parents & teachers, but not really hardened until they reach about age 25. So between 18-25 they are still approachable and winnable. Once they turn about 25, whatever party reaches them has a voter then for life--for the next 40 or 50 years. So there is always this sort of outreach to younger voters, to get their interest, enthusiasm, and commitment. I think Obama (a) knows he being used this way with the prospect of being a VP candidate for Hillary (b) doesn't mind the prospect that he will never get elected President in 2008 or ever after that by agreeing to this scheme. But he is getting rewarded. Ultimately in the end though, he will disappoint his followers by being a failure, which of course can always be blamed on Americans entrenched racist attitudes, and everyones's a victim.
This is how the game of politics is played. RobS 17:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Yes, that is how it is played, usually, like this, away from the article talk page, to the exclusion of those not specifically "watching" the page.  :p --~ TK MyTalk 17:46, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
    • OK, I'll cut and paste it over there. RobS 17:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
McCain has alienated both the left and the right. I don't think he has a shot for the nomination and the only thing that can save him in the general would be an abrupt upturn in the war. Myk 18:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Sysop Pledge

As my good deed of the day I am requesting that you place this template on your userpage. Participating sysops will earn my respect and gratitude. --BenjaminS 00:06, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Sysop Pledge
As a Conservapedia Sysop, I will NEVER ARBITRARILY block anyone who is not in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments or related CP Guidelines.


[[28]] --~ TK MyTalk 19:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Blocking policy

Give it a go, if you want, make an outline, email it to me, I will pass it around to the other Sysops for comment and colaboration, and, wash, rinse and repeat. There is some slight convo with CPAdmin1 on my page about it, although he has yet to email me. My thoughts were we could make it leaner, meaner, and then forward to Andy for his comments, before doing anything else with it. --~ TK MyTalk 05:33, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

PS: Check Ed's user page about unlocking one of your deals. --~ TK MyTalk 07:23, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Augusto Pinochet -- Welll?

The article on Augusto Pinochet reads;

"He came to power as a member of a council of military leaders after the overthrew the government of President Salvador Allende on 11 September 1973."

My Goodness, Rob, why are you allowing that to stand? Shouldn't it be removed immediately? --PF Fox 21:51, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

That is supported by the cites. Now, once you begin adding all the extra stuff, like CIA was complicit in bring Pinochet to power (unsupported), CIA was complicit in activities after Pinochet came to power (unsupported), "Many in the US protested" CIA complicity in bringing Pinochet to power (unsupported), "Many in US protested" CIA complicity in human rights abuses (unsupported), etc. there is absolutely no sourcing to support any claim of that nature. RobS 21:59, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
As you know, nowhere in my entry does it say "the CIA was complicit in bringing Pinochet to power." I simply say the allegation was made. You are editing out the word "alleged" from my comments. --PF Fox 22:01, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes the allegation was made, however we have three cites now that say its unsupported. Hence, we cannot repeat an unsupported allegation that two official US investigations, and one Chilean, have refuted. RobS 22:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, THE ALLEGATION WAS MADE. Thank you for admitting that fact. Acknowledging that the allegation was made does not qualify as "repeating an unsupported allegation" when it's identified as an allegation.
Are you in all seriousness, denying that Pinochet took over hours after the coup? That he was not in charge when Victor Jara was murdered? Whose forces arrested Jara then? Who tortured him? Who shot him? --PF Fox 22:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes the allegation was made Don Rumsfeld blew up the World Trade Center by remote control, and G.W.H. Bush flew to Madrid on an SR-1, and a one arm-man was seen running from the grassy knoll, and Jimmy Hoffa was abducted by space aliens. Doesn't mean we should reference any of it. RobS 22:14, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Are you in all seriousness, denying that Pinochet took over hours after the coup? That he was not in charge when Victor Jara was murdered? Whose forces arrested Jara then? Who tortured him? Who shot him? --PF Fox 22:18, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Please explain what this statement means:
  • CIA actively supported the military Junta after the overthrow of Allende but did not assist Pinochet to assume the Presidency. RobS 22:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

It means the CIA did not give material support to the coup. Now please answer my question.

Are you in all seriousness, denying that Pinochet took over hours after the coup? That he was not in charge when Victor Jara was murdered? Whose forces arrested Jara then? Who tortured him? Who shot him? --PF Fox 22:28, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

We are back to the issue of timeframes; what document can you produce prove that Pinochet ordered human rights abuses in the immediate wake of the coup? The CIA document above makes a clear separation between "the military Junta", and Pinochet's accession to the Presidency. In otherwords, in the chaos of a regime change like this, none of the three investigations can make the claim Pinochet ordered these executions, hence we cannot preclude the possibility these human rights violations were the independent actions of participants in the coup acting on thier own. Further, there is clear evidence from these documents of a potential coup within a coup, that Pinochet was not fully in command, and that he lacked the support from even the CIA whom, according to the documents, had assisted coup plotters for three years prior to these events. RobS 22:53, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Please show where in these documents it is indicated that anyone other than Pinochet was in charge after the coup, i.e., as of September 11, 1973. --PF Fox 22:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
  • (1) [29] "According to the Church Committee report, in their meeting with CIA Director Richard Helms and Attorney General John Mitchell on 15 September 1970 President Nixon and his National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger, directed the CIA to prevent Allende from taking power." years prior.
  • (2) [30] "Although CIA did not instigate the coup that ended Allende’s government on 11 September 1973, it was aware of coup-plotting by the military, had ongoing intelligence collection relationships with some plotters, and—because CIA did not discourage the takeover and had sought to instigate a coup in 1970—probably appeared to condone it."
  • (3) [31] "CIA actively supported the military Junta after the overthrow of Allende but did not assist Pinochet to assume the Presidency

So, the CIA had ongoing relationships with some plotters, it did not however assist Pinochet. So we can conclude that the plotters, and later the junta in the early hours or days, was not an entirely organized affair, there were differences of opinion as to who should lead the coup and who should succeed Pinochet, and these activities were ongoing for three years prior to events, and did have some foreign (i.e. US CIA) influence. RobS 23:12, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Can you cite anything that indicates this other than your highly questionable "guess?" I have yet to hear or read a single account of what Time Magazine described as a "carefully planned and meticulously executed" coup that casts any doubt about who was in charge. --PF Fox 23:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Have you read the Clinton era CIA Report? Here's two more references, which must be read in the context of the foregoing,
  • (4) Early Allende Presidency "General Augusto Pinochet (not a coup plotter..."
  • (5) Violations of Human Rights Committed by Officers or Covert Agents and Employees of the CIA This heading is interesting in what it does not say, it does not say "Violations of Human Rights Committed by Subordinates of Pinochet
  • (6) Accession of General Augusto Pinochet to the Presidency, "Chile‘s new military Junta—Army General Augusto Pinochet, Air Force General Gustavo Leigh, Navy Admiral Jose Merino, and Carabinero Chief General Caesar Mendoza—was sworn in on the evening of 11 September 1973. The next day, the four drafted an official document constituting the Junta as Chile’s supreme power. Pinochet was designated as its first President, and the four verbally agreed to rotate the office. Shortly after, the Junta established an advisory committee, which Pinochet was successful in staffing with Army officers loyal to himself. One of their first recommendations was to discard the idea of a rotating Presidency, arguing it would create too many administrative problems and lead to confusion.

So, the evidence suggests (a) US was aware of, but did not give direct support to coup plotters; (b) Pinochet was not a coup plotter; (c) there was immediate confusion in the first days of the coup as to the basic strucure of the new junta; (d) some human rights abuses that did occur in the "early months after the coup" can be attributed to Pinochet, however because of the foregoing evidence regarding Pinochet's lack of involvement in the coup itself, and the fundamental change in the structure of the junta, there is ample evidence to suggest Pinochet did not have full control of the regime in the first few days; (e) finally a question arises about the difference between a "covert agent and employee of CIA" vs a member of the Chilean junta? Can a man serve two masters? RobS 23:46, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

How does the fact that they quickly discarded the idea of the rotating four man junta indicate so much confusion that there was question about who was actually in charge? Which of them are you claiming was in charge when Jara was murdered? --PF Fox 23:53, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
The four who agreed to the structure of the junta did not agree to discarding it, as the source doucments states. Source document does not give a timeframe either, only states, "shortly thereafter". How shortly is shortly thereafter? Well, it would have to include how long it takes for Pinochet to make appointments, the appointments to be accepted, and the appointees to meet and make decisions. In the absence of testimony, how long could this possibly take? Could it be done in two or three days? Perhaps. And at least one other day is lost between Allende's suicide & Pinochet working out the original deal with the other Generals. Most importantly is two factors, (1) obvious confusion and renigned deals at the outset, and (2) how did the Generals who made the original deal react? Source document doesn't tell us, but presumably it may have been problematic. RobS 00:04, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

According to the Rettig Report, the idea of a rotating junta was just that -- an idea -- and one that was dropped after a few weeks. It was never really implemented, and the man who had been sworn in as leader from the beginning, Augusto Pinochet, remained in charge. And there is no sign of any "obvious confusion" about who was calling the shots beyond your unfounded extrapolations in either historical or contemporary accounts. --PF Fox 11:28, 16 April 2007 (EDT)


This is probably the only site in the world other than a few fringe spanish language sites that actually defends Pinochet.PalMDtalk 23:01, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

It is almost certainly about the only one that claims there's some question about who was in charge immediately after the coup. --PF Fox 23:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Not at all. The CIA review ordered by the Clinton Administration published in 2000 says exactly that. RobS 23:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
And yet so far you've offered no cites to support this claim. --PF Fox 23:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Duh, what does the English language phrase, cited above, "CIA review ordered by the Clinton Administration published in 2000" mean? Duh, do I have to link spam the cite? Here: CIA Activities in Chile, September 18, 2000. RobS 23:47, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Go easy, Rob. Perhaps their online activities precluded them watching the news back then, or even doing a 20 second Google now. Don't you yet understand you are here as a Sysop to satisfy their demands? :p And goodness, yesterday the Doctor couldn't find anything else to interest him outside of medicine. Today he has become a student of history and politics! I'd say Conservapedia has been a positive force for many! --~ TK MyTalk 07:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
LOL! Rob, your CIA quote is about as convincing a cite for Pinochet not being in charge as your Speer quote was for your bizarre claim that the Weimar Republic ended in 1939.
TK, I watched the news back then and remember quite clearly that from the beginning, Pinochet was named as the man in charge. Not only a Google search, but a visit to a library confirms this. (Someone who thinks the average person could waste time "online" in 1973 may find this hard to grasp, but a traditional library is this big building filled with the fascinating things called "books" and bound periodicals, some of them actually written BEFORE 1990! You do research there by using an online or offline card catalogue, finding the books or bound periodicals on the shelves, and opening them, and consulting their index. The writing in these "books" and "magazines" can't be edited or seamlessly altered once they're published, which I'm sure would be frustrating to you and RobS, but is a rather nice feature for those of us who are actually interested in what was being said at the time historical events were unfolding.) --PF Fox 11:33, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
PF, you have found some excellent primary sources; problem is (a) the sources say something completely different from what you cite them as saying; (b) you cite them as as saying things they do not say. RobS 12:12, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
No, Rob, sorry, but books confirm what I've said, whether it's the actual date the Weimar Republic ended, or the question of whether or not Pinochet was in charge in the days after 9/11/73. I've not seen anyone -- other than you -- question whether or not Pinochet was in charge of Chile after the coup, or offering any names in lieu of Pinochet's as the Man In Charge even in those first few weeks, and there is nothing to indicate the bloodbath that took place then was uncharacteristic of Pinochet. He continued ordering the torture and murder of dissidents for years afterwards. --PF Fox 12:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
The source documents contradict that conclusion. RobS 12:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
You've offered no cites for your "conclusions" that any more convincing than your silly cite about Speer. Again, Rob, I find myself wondering where, other than this website, you've published as an "historical researcher," and where you got your degree. Where did you learn to conduct historical research? --PF Fox 12:26, 16 April 2007 (EDT)


It sounds like the dispute is over two or more related things:

  1. Was Allende a social reformer who deserved a chance to put his socialist ideas into practice?
  2. Was Pinochet "wrong" to overthrow Allende?
  3. Are the human rights violations which occured in Chile after the 1973 coup as bad as genocide perpetrated by totalitarian regimes like the Nazis and the Communists?

So I suggest we take up this issues one at a time, and each in their proper place. PF Fox, you can write an article about the post-coup "disappearances" (your own term, by the way) in History of Chile or in Augusto Pinochet. --Ed Poor 12:28, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Two faultry premises:

  • Was Pinochet "wrong" to overthrow Allende?
  • all primary source documents specifically cite this is not so.
  • While this is an interesting discussion, Pinochet's activities after the death of Allende have no place on the Salvador Allende biographical page. RobS 12:33, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

You really should read the article I helped write 2 or 3 years ago at Wikipedia on the 1973 Chile coup. Every issue you two guys have brought up was already hashed out and resolved there. --Ed Poor 12:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Just read the intro, it states,
CIA-sponsored General Augusto Pinochet took over [32]
this primae facia conflicts with CIA Activities in Chile- Summary of Response to Questions, September 18, 2000, which states,
CIA actively supported the military Junta after the overthrow of Allende but did not assist Pinochet to assume the Presidency
and cited elsewhere as well. Hence, we can conclude the Wikipedia article is faulty in this matter. RobS 12:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
No, Ed, the dispute is over facts, those facts being who was in charge of Chile immediately after the coup. Every historical source I've consulted states it was Augusto Pinochet, and even taking in to account the proposed four-man revolving Junta, I have yet to hear any other name offered for who was truly calling the shots at that point. The (frankly, astonishing) question of whether the mass murder Pinochet is responsible for was right or wrong is completely separate from those facts, as is the red herring you're attempting to introduce about whether or not Pinochet qualifies as a latter day Hitler. --PF Fox 12:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Iraq Body Count

Here is IBC methodological statement.Read it and tell me why their numbers don't belong in an encyclopedic article about the war but Fox News's numbers do.

Thanks. 13:04, 16 April 2007 (EDT)


Overview Sources Data Extraction Data Storage Publication of data (including conditions of use) Limitations

1. Overview

     Casualty figures are derived from a comprehensive survey of online media reports and eyewitness accounts. Where these sources report differing figures, the range (a minimum and a maximum) are given. All results are independently reviewed and error-checked by at least two members of the Iraq Body Count project team in addition to the original compiler before publication.

2. Sources

     Our sources include public domain newsgathering agencies with web access. A list of some core sources is given below. Further sources will be added provided they meet acceptable project standards (see below).
     ABC - ABC News (USA)
     AFP - Agence France-Presse
     AP - Associated Press
     AWST - Aviation Week and Space Technology
     Al Jaz - Al Jazeera network
     BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation
     BG - Boston Globe
     Balt. Sun - The Baltimore Sun
     CT - Chicago Tribune
     CO -
     CSM - Christian Science Monitor
     DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
     FOX - Fox News
     GUA - The Guardian (London)
     HRW - Human Rights Watch
     HT - Hindustan Times
     ICRC - International Committ of the Red Cross
     IND - The Independent (London)
     IO -
     JT - Jordan Times
     LAT - Los Angeles Times
     MEN - Middle East Newsline
     MEO - Middle East Online
     MER - Middle East Report
     MH - Miami Herald
     NT - Nando Times
     NYT - New York Times
     Reuters - (includes Reuters Alertnet)
     SABC - South African Broadcasting Corporation
     SMH - Sydney Morning Herald
     Sg.News - The Singapore News
     Tel- The Telegraph (London)
     Times - The Times (London)
     TOI - Times of India
     TS - Toronto Star
     UPI - United Press International
     WNN - World News Network
     WP - Washington Post
     For a source to be considered acceptable to this project it must comply with the following standards: (1) site updated at least daily; (2) all stories separately archived on the site, with a unique url (see Note 1 below); (3) source widely cited or referenced by other sources; (4) English Language site; (5) fully public (preferably free) web-access.
     The project relies on the professional rigour of the approved reporting agencies. It is assumed that any agency that has attained a respected international status operates its own rigorous checks before publishing items (including, where possible, eye-witness and confidential sources). By requiring that two independent agencies publish a report before we are willing to add it to the count, we are premising our own count on the self-correcting nature of the increasingly inter-connected international media network.
     Note 1. Some sites remove items after a given time period, change their urls, or place them in archives with inadequate search engines. For this reason it is project policy that urls of sources are NOT published on the iraqbodycount site.

3. Data extraction

   Data extraction policy is based on 3 criteria, some of which work in opposite directions.
        1. Sufficient information must be extracted to ensure that each incident is differentiated from proximate incidents with which it could be potentially confused.
        2. Economy of data extraction is required, for efficiency of both production and public scrutiny.
        3. Data extraction should be uniform, so that the same information is available for the vast majority of incidents. This is best guaranteed by restricting the number of items of information per incident to the core facts that most news reports tend to include.
   The pragmatic tensions in the above have led to the decision to extract the following information only for each incident:
       * Date of incident
       * Time of incident
       * Location of incident
       * Target as stated by military sources
       * Weapon (munitions or delivery vehicle)
       * Minimum civilian deaths (see Note 2)
       * Maximum civilian deaths (see Note 2)
       * Sources (at least two sources from the list in section 2 above)
   Reliability of data extraction will be increased by ensuring that each data extraction is checked and signed off by two further independent scrutineers prior to publication, and all data entries will be kept under review should further details become available at a later date.
   Note 2. Definitions of minimum and maximum
   Reports of numbers dead vary across sources. On-the-ground uncertainties and potential political bias can result in a range of figures reported for the same incident. To reflect this variation, each incident will be associated with a minimum and maximum reported number of deaths. No number will be entered into the count unless it meets the criteria in the following paragraphs. This conservative approach allows relative certainty about the minimum.
   Maximum deaths. This is the highest number of civilian deaths published by at least two of our approved list of news media sources.
   Minimum deaths. This is the same as the maximum, unless at least two of the listed news media sources publish a lower number. In this case, the lower number is entered as the minimum. The minimum can be zero if there is a report of "zero deaths" from two of our sources. "Unable to confirm any deaths" or similar wording (as in an official statement) does NOT amount to a report of zero, and will NOT lead to an entry of "0" in the minimum column.
   As a further conservative measure, when the wording used in both reports refers to "people" instead of civilians, we will include the total figure as a maximum but enter "0" into the minimum column unless details are present clearly identifying some or all of the dead as civilian - in this case the number of identifiable civilians will be entered into the minimum column instead of "0". The word "family" will be interpreted in this context as meaning 3 civilians. [Average Iraqi non-extended family size: 6. -CIA Factbook 2002.]
Read it already; and there is a problem with the organization "Iraqi Body Count", not the least of which is the name of the organization to begin with. RobS 13:06, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

So the name's in poor taste - that's an ad hominem attack - tell me what's wrong with their work. Jacobin 13:08, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

We have to begin with the undignified name of the organization--shows little respect for the victims and families. It appears to be extremely partisan in nature and insensitive to the deceased. The alleged "humanitarian" image this organization is attempting to foist upon the public must be adequately explained by that organization, and no other. RobS 13:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Again -do you know what "ad hominem" means? You keep talking about names and images - not about substantive questions concerning methodology. But in that spirit, the name "Iraq Body Count" arose from a response to a question anked of General Tommy Franks concerning civilian casualties. When asked for an estiamte, Franks replied "We don't do body counts." There's your respect for vicitms and families. Jacobin 13:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
The source must be properly qualified to be used becasue of the inherently serious and controversial nature of the claims. RobS 13:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

And these sources are not "properly qualified" as comparedd to Fox News or CNN?

ABC - ABC News (USA)
    AFP - Agence France-Presse
    AP - Associated Press
    AWST - Aviation Week and Space Technology
    Al Jaz - Al Jazeera network
    BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation
    BG - Boston Globe
    Balt. Sun - The Baltimore Sun
    CT - Chicago Tribune
    CO -
    CSM - Christian Science Monitor
    DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
    FOX - Fox News
    GUA - The Guardian (London)
    HRW - Human Rights Watch
    HT - Hindustan Times
    ICRC - International Committ of the Red Cross
    IND - The Independent (London)
    IO -
    JT - Jordan Times
    LAT - Los Angeles Times
    MEN - Middle East Newsline
    MEO - Middle East Online
    MER - Middle East Report
    MH - Miami Herald
    NT - Nando Times
    NYT - New York Times
    Reuters - (includes Reuters Alertnet)
    SABC - South African Broadcasting Corporation
    SMH - Sydney Morning Herald
    Sg.News - The Singapore News
    Tel- The Telegraph (London)
    Times - The Times (London)
    TOI - Times of India
    TS - Toronto Star
    UPI - United Press International
    WNN - World News Network
    WP - Washington Post

I know I have no part in this conversation, but i think that Iraq body count is not credible at all. It is just a bunch of Bush hating anti American activists [33]Bohdan

Be that as it may, that doesn't mean their numbers are wrong. I think people here aren't interested in some unpleasant truths about this war. Czolgolz 13:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

The source must be qualified. RobS 13:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Will you answer a direct question: how are these sources, the ones used by IBC, "less qualified" than the ones cited in the Conservapedia article? Debate only works - and knowledge is only advanced - when we critically engage with those we oppose. I urge you to do so. again, the sourses in question are: ABC - ABC News (USA)

   AFP - Agence France-Presse
   AP - Associated Press
   AWST - Aviation Week and Space Technology
   Al Jaz - Al Jazeera network
   BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation
   BG - Boston Globe
   Balt. Sun - The Baltimore Sun
   CT - Chicago Tribune
   CO -
   CSM - Christian Science Monitor
   DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
   FOX - Fox News
   GUA - The Guardian (London)
   HRW - Human Rights Watch
   HT - Hindustan Times
   ICRC - International Committ of the Red Cross
   IND - The Independent (London)
   IO -
   JT - Jordan Times
   LAT - Los Angeles Times
   MEN - Middle East Newsline
   MEO - Middle East Online
   MER - Middle East Report
   MH - Miami Herald
   NT - Nando Times
   NYT - New York Times
   Reuters - (includes Reuters Alertnet)
   SABC - South African Broadcasting Corporation
   SMH - Sydney Morning Herald
   Sg.News - The Singapore News
   Tel- The Telegraph (London)
   Times - The Times (London)
   TOI - Times of India
   TS - Toronto Star
   UPI - United Press International
   WNN - World News Network
   WP - Washington Post

Best, Jacobin 16:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

   The method they use is incidental to this debate; the first step is to properly qualify the source as to why we should spend any time whatsoever even examining their methodology. RobS 20:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT) 

ummmmm...because they make substantive claims with important political ramifications? Does that not count? Jacobin 20:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)


I like to keep a watch on the abuse page, it gives me a good idea of what is going on on the site. So I was somewhat surprised to see that you blocked SRodgers for “conduct detrimental to Conservapedia” –in particular because his edits were seen as (and I happen to agree they were) anti-Semitic. But the reason you gave for his block was not a violation of the Commandments. I say all this because, to me, this looks like an ideological ban, the guy is an anti-Semitic jerk so he gets banned, and I am concerned about what looks like ideology based banns. I am in no way shape or form standing up for anti-Semitic beliefs, but I do think that if the site is going to ban for ideology it should say so and if it says it won’t (which is the case currently) then it shouldn’t. I think this is doubly true for those sysops who have taken a pledge to only ban for violations of the Commandments. If I am misreading your comments and the ban was for a violation of the commandments, please let me know which one, as I can’t for the life of me see that SRodgers violated any of them.--Reginod 16:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for your concerns. I did consider this case very carefully before making the decision, and I do not perform blocks lightly. The reason given is "Conduct detrimental to Conservapedia" [34] This is something we are discussing at Proposed Block Policy; the general consensus now appears to make Attempting to embarass Conservapedia a seriously blockable offense, however not necessarily as a policy but as a guideline. Unfortunately, we've encountered far too many incidents of this type that User:SRogers engaged in, his actions were questioned on the talk page there, the article in question Federal Reserve is needed, however this current version is now on Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion. There has been entirely too much of this ourtrageous conduct in Conservapedia, so I felt the necessity to get tuff, and begin demonstrating we will no longer tolerate it. RobS 16:40, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
I appreciate the response, and for the record, I think making attempting to embarrass Conservapedia a blockable offence is a good idea (once the language is clear). But, I’m concerned about blocking a user for violating a proposed rule, that has not yet been adopted, and which can’t be found on the page that proclaims it is “the only rule page on Conservapedia.” That alone would be a problem for me (it seems very unfair for a editor to be blocked for violating a rule still in development, on a page most users would not even know to look at). But, I’m especially concerned as the offending edit occurred on April 2 and the rule was not added to the list of proposed rules until April 13. So, to me it seems he was blocked for violating something that is going to be a rule, at some point in the future, but was not even a proposed rule at the time he violated it.--Reginod 17:00, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Reginod, if I may butt in here, you are making a typical error. Many of our project's opponents want to 'pin us down' to a rigid set of rules and use this against us. This is, in itself, destructive.
The whole point of voluntary service is that you have to be helping; otherwise you're not helping. It really is as simple as that. Like suppose you have an acquaintance who wants to be your friend. If he really is your friend, would he threaten you, manipulate you coerce you, in any way? That's not what friends do.
Someday you will want to have a job, a profession, etc. You will have to work with (and for) people who do not have to account to you for their likes and dislikes. What are you going to do then? --Ed Poor 16:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Ed Poor, I appreciate your comments, but I respectfully disagree with you:
I think a clear set of rules is a good thing not a destructive one. That’s really just my personal preference, and my experience teaches me that things run more smoothly when the rules are clear and there is a bright line between what is permitted and what is not. I’m fine with Conservapedia deciding that it doesn’t want a clear set of rules, it’s a decision I would advocate against, but in the end I know it is not my decision to make. But, at the moment the commandments purport to be a clear set of rules, and I don’t see anything wrong with wanting a clear set of rules to be taken seriously.
I also understand that no one here has to account for their behavior to me. I simply asked, in as polite a manner as possible, what I think is a reasonable question. RobS is free not to respond, to tell me to mind my own business, to tell me anything he likes, he could even delete my question and tell me never to post on his talk page ever again.  :::When I work I know exactly what the rules governing my employment are, I know what I can be fired or disciplined for, and I know that if I see my employer or coworkers violating the rules laid out for them I have the right to ask for an explanation (again no one has to give me one, and I may chose not to do it if I work at a place where I can be fired for asking questions), but I know that the rules I am working under will be followed.--Reginod 17:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
OK, Commandments 1, 2, 3, and 5 were violated, and User:CPAdmin1/Proposed Block Policy#Attempting to embarass Conservapedia summarizes it best. But I wish to include, I treated it as a Guideline, and handed out a 6 month block. This is an extremely serious offense, and my instincts would be to hand out an indefinite block. There is absolutely no question what User:SRoger's motives were, and attempting to embarass Conservapedia was only the by-product of it. RobS 17:35, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
  • As for the "Abuse" page, one can, and should, read it with some grains of salt. Oftentimes it is merely used as a platform for ideological complaints and vindictiveness, by users, with absolutely no merit. --~ TK MyTalk 16:56, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
  • User:SRogers contibs was only active for four days, and this was over ten days ago. But he did put a lot of effort into the few pages he worked on. I suspect he'll be back as a sock. We seriously need to send a message to put a stop to these types of abuses. Look at all the work involved for the rest when the subject of a legitimate article ends up on AfD, which would then have to be recreated, etc. I hope other Sysops will also put their foot down and get tuff on this sort of thing, even when they create articles with some good sources as this one was. RobS 17:08, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Reginod, you have misrepresented my comments. I don't want to work in the same project with you any more.

I respectfully disagree with you: I think a clear set of rules is a good thing not a destructive one.

You have put words in my mouth, making it seem as if I had said that a clear set of rules is a destructive thing. --Ed Poor 17:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Maybe we can move on now? Would you kindly forward on to me your thoughts about the blocking policy proposal, Ed? CPAdmin1/TimothySvendsen has sent me his email address. Rob, please do the same if you have some thoughts. I will send it all on to CPAdmin1/TimothySvendsen, he can send it back, wash, rinse, repeat, and it can then go on to Andy for his thoughts. --~ TK MyTalk 20:33, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Please block Redeton

He's a sockpuppet of Crumps, who was just blocked for vandalism. He's also a self-admitted neonazi. Either way, he needs to be gone. Could you help, and make sure you get his IP too?-AmesGyo! 23:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Done. RobS 23:12, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

For the record

I did apologize to TK after he warned me about a comment I made to jeremiah4-22. Boy, that really incensed me though. (speaking of that debate and what I thought was an unreasonably light warning.) Thanks Flippin 12:38, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I was refering to Jeremiah4-22; that would've got a 6 month block from me, and I'm reviewing all his edits now. RobS 12:40, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Just making sure. Thank you, Flippin 12:41, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Just a thought....if you block anyone, you get nasty remarks. If you block too lightly you still get them. If you issue a warning, that still gets nasty remarks and second guessing. Nice place this is. --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:34, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Why do I get the feeling we keep blocking about half dozen people over and over again under different user names? RobS 17:36, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Because we are, and there are dozens more socks we haven't caught. Even a couple of Sysops have them to cause trouble. --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey if all we get are nasty remarks here, I can always go back to Wikipedia for that. ;-) I even got banned Conservapedians hounding me there. :-( --Ed Poor 17:55, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Personal attacks bounce off my chest like bullets off of Superman. I try to lead by example, being ever focused on substance and content, and not being part of a clique. RobS 19:25, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
  • I have an unjust mental picture of you Rob, sleeping inside the National Archive building, slumped over arcane reports and transcripts.... --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 19:35, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Actually you nailed it. I like writing about dead people. Once they're dead, we see their life in full perspective, nothing's hidden, no more surprises, and they can't sue us. RobS 22:01, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
  • So that means I do need to call Bill Leonard and make sure you leave the building occasionally?  ;-) --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 05:58, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
  • lol; Frad Bauder, Chairman of WP ArbCom, is a lontime personal friend of Fransisco "Kiko" Martinez. Bauder, Martinez, and Chip Berlet [35] were all former National Lawyers Guild members and 60s activists whom I have unwittingly become (along with Danial Brandt [36]) their unauthorized biographer. Imagine the shock when I told Fred of the discovery Kiko's papers were closer to where I've been working the past few years than the bathroom I use.[37] RobS 12:30, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

A little help

See recent changes. Thanks Rob Pommertalk 00:51, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
  1. Etymology [38]