User talk:RobSmith/What is the purpose of discussion?

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

.

What is the purpose of discussion?

I have requested that Essay's not be posted on MPR, or at least some discussion should occur first. Likewise I have requested that non-news items and psychic premonitions about the 2022 elections also not be posted. What is the response? You spit in my eye. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 13:09, November 21, 2021 (EST)`

Let's take the meme on MPL, for example. IMO, this is not a time to gloat. Kyle Rittenhouse will speak to Tucker Carlson tomorrow night. CP should afford Rittenhouse the respect of waiting to hear his sentiments. What if Rittenhouse has no such gloating attitude, and the img turns out to be a rebuke of Conservapedia? Our job is not to turn Rittenhouse into something that he is not - which is precisely what the leftist media is guilty of. RobS[[User talk:RobSmith|Let's Go Brandon!]] 13:50, November 21, 2021 (EST)

Kyle Rittenhouse was the victim of the misuse of the judicial system by making it a political trial. While in private we can laugh at that meme, it sends conflicting signals about the fundamental issues in the Rittenhouse case. If you have something to say about the Rittenhouse case, it should be added to the Rittenhouse article, not anecdotally to the Main Page to misrepresent a conservative position on what the Rittenhouse case is all about. RobS[[User talk:RobSmith|Let's Go Brandon!]] 14:08, November 21, 2021 (EST)

I had planned to have the Kyle Rittenhouse pic posted on main page

left for a limited period today. Like after I sent someone an email about [https://conservapedia.com/Essay:_RationalWiki_admits_it_has_a_weirdo,_pansie_infestation#RationalWiki.27s_global_competitors_for_web_traffic_are_running_faster_and_faster Operation Flying Fortresses] (2022 is going to be the WORST year in the history of atheism). I just sent that email so I pulled down the pic.

Some events are so important and have such a strong possibility of

happening that it is worth predicting them to occur on main page right. Why? The page Conservapedia proven right is very popular with our audience and with Andy (Some of the items of Conservapedia proven right is Conservapedia making accurate predictions). Also, it gives proof that conservatives are among the best of the public who have insight on what is going to happen in the future!

Lastly, mocking is a tradition among believers. :) Elijah mocked the

prophets of Baal for example. :) David told the world that "He who sits in the heavens laughs". (Derisive laughter) Conservative (talk) 16:27, November 21, 2021 (EST)

The situation is too fluid. It's still early. We are nowhere near a

conclusion of the matter. RobS[[User talk:RobSmith|Let's Go Brandon!]] 02:15, November 22, 2021 (EST)

Joe Biden's approval ratings are worse than every recent president -- except 1 -- at this stage], CNN

Joe Biden appproval/disapproval numbers - historic graph] - the approval trend is down and heading lower.

How low will Biden go?], CNN

Covid-19 is expected to get worse over the winter. His vaccine

mandate will probably fail, but even if it goes forward many people will hate him for it. The only thing he has going for him as far as the pandemic is the Merck antiviral, and the U.S. population is building up immunity, etc.

Watch what happens when people are missing things for their

Thanksgiving/Christmas celebrations due to supply chain problems and they spend a fortune getting to a relative's house due to high gas prices. The suburban moms will hold it against him.

On top of this, there will be more state election audits which will

be more fodder for those who declare that Biden stole the election.

Biden could potentially go into the low 30s and even 20s as far as

his approval numbers. Conservative ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 05:12, November 22, 2021 (EST)

As far as his massive social spending and global warming

alarmist bill, Joe Biden Faces Tougher Sell to West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin as Coal Hits 12-Year High.[1]

Stick a fork in Joe Biden. He's done.

Conservative (talk) 05:26, November 22, 2021 (EST)

You make precisely my point. The Rittenhouse verdict is a legal

issue, not a political issue. The ONLY political issue involved is American law vs. Socialist law, which you totally obfuscate and ignore, which does not inform our readers. 11:38, November 22, 2021 (EST)``

As to a fluid situation, Waukesha is the Reddest city of its size

or larger in America. A BLM racist in Milwaukee in retaliation for the Rittenhouse verdict decided to use the ISIS-recommended tactic of killing white children with a vehicle. Do not expect local law enforcement, the FBI, prosecutors, the governor or liberal media to report the facts. Again, this is not the time to gloat. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 11:52, November 22, 2021 (EST)

I am not going to further comment on the Rittenhouse issue. I

will let the matter filter through the legal system. For example, Kyle Rittenhouse possibly doing defamation suits, etc. (Joe Biden called him a "white supremacist" while he was running for POTUS). Conservative (talk) 12:27, November 22, 2021 (EST)

Kyle Rittenhouse supports BLM.

See what you've done now, going off half-cocked? In addition to sounding like the liberal media by making Rittenhouse be something that he is not, you've effectively killed any political capital coming out of the story. 12:37, November 22, 2021 (EST)

[https://news.yahoo.com/kyle-rittenhouse-verdict-live-attorney-113623173.html

Mark Richards, who represented Mr Rittenhouse at trial, told Insider: Don Jr. is "an idiot. I don’t have to expand on that because it speaks for itself.”] So now what you have effectively done is walk into a trap and create a new unnecessary problem for the conservative movement, whereas you've had 14 months to work on and establish the facts and avoid misstatements. RobS[[User talk:RobSmith|Let's Go Brandon!]] 13:33, November 22, 2021 (EST)

So how are people supposed to react? You tell them it is a

moment of victory and celebration [https://www.newstarget.com/2021-11-21-suv-driven-by-black-man-plows-into-waukesha-parade-mowing-down-young-girls.html at the precise moment their 5-year-old daughters and grandmothers are the targets of racist attacks.] No wonder people are whip-sawed into confusion. 14:35, November 22, 2021 (EST)

[https://youtu.be/HsMIShagjH4?t=18 Let's stick with what we

know here]. Atheism, evolution, and the homosexual agenda is what you know, politics is what I know. RobS[[User talk:RobSmith|Let's Go Brandon!]] 13:40, November 22, 2021 (EST)

Did Rittenhouse say he supported the organization "Black Lives

Matter", or did he say he supported the concept of "Black lives do matter?" There's a distinction between the two, and helps to sort them out. I myself support black lives, think they matter, just as much as any and all people, but I DO NOT support the organization Black Lives Matter. If you try to claim he supported the organization and not just the concept when in reality he didn't support the organization, only the concept, you yourself come across as a leftist trying to blur stuff, and comes across as extremely irresponsible. In fact, just as irresponsible as you're claiming Conservative of being. Pokeria1 (talk) 08:45, November 26, 2021 (EST)

His media people coached him, and I'm sure he'll say the

concept when asked. And who in the United States is better suited to force front and center a debate about the difference between the concept, and an organization staffed by white racists, ex-cons, anti-police convicted felons, pedophiles, domestic abusers, and people who seek to murder in the streets anyone who opposes them? And why is the organization in bed with these peolple? RobSLet's Go Brandon! 09:45, November 26, 2021 (EST)

I'm pretty sure the leftist dominated media would be far

more interested in trying to demonize him and claim the verdict was made out of racism rather than actually coach him to get back into society. Let's not forget plenty of leftist celebrities are literally calling out the verdict, some even implying that the JUDGE acted out of racism, and the media also claimed he was "acquitted of murder" fairly recently by implying he got away with premeditated murder. In fact, just as an example: https://boundingintocomics.com/2021/11/25/star-trek-host-wil-wheaton-claims-kyle-rittenhouses-judge-schroeder-has-a-racist-little-white-nationalist-heart/ The media today is NOT about objectivity (if it ever was objective to begin with, as Walter Lippmann apparently intended for so-called "objective journalism" to be an up and out pass to literally lie through their teeth to their readers and manipulate them.). Pokeria1 (talk) 09:53, November 26, 2021 (EST)

There's been much talk and criticism about Rittenhouse's

media consultant, John Hancock, although the criticism of Kyle's legal team has abated. But some still say he should have fired Hancock along with Pierce and Lin Wood. Now the white supremacist smear is on the Yang Gang, so yah, the MSM will try to forget Rittenhouse like they have Darrell Brooks (which is likely Hancock's strategy to win obscurity. An innocent man should not have to change his name.) The way to test out the Yang Gang theory is to look at Yang's views on the Second Amendment. RobS[[User talk:RobSmith|Let's Go Brandon!]] 16:32, November 26, 2021 (EST)

As to your lengthy Essay about Biden inflation and the 2022

elections - we know all that, our readers know all that. It's all been headlined many many times over many months. Yet there it is, taking up space that could otherwise be used to inform our readers on current issues and facts. It directly contradicts the day's current news. Fear sells, not your incessant "Rah rah shish boom bah," proven to be ignorant of facts. RobS[[User talk:RobSmith|Let's Go Brandon!]] 14:49, November 22, 2021 (EST)

As to your rebuttal, The page Conservapedia proven right is

very popular with our audience and with Andy (Some of the items of Conservapedia proven right is Conservapedia making accurate predictions). To be statistically accurate, you'd also have to measure the times CP was proven wrong, and then determine the net positive or negative (for example, your Main Page Essay spouting CCP propaganda that covid came from eating bats). Bottomline, a prediction needs to be posted only once, and not your stale, recycled cheerleading that obscures current issues and facts our readers need. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 14:58, November 22, 2021 (EST)

In that instance, I had collected all the facts by mid-March

2020 that covid likely came from a lab leak, but you had poisoned the well for our readers with CCP fake news narratives, keeping our readers in the dark for more than a year. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 20:54, November 23, 2021 (EST)

And, might I add, your espousal and defense of Communist Chinese

narratives and talking points, like here in the Rittenhouse case and Biden's poll numbers, was extraordinarily ill-timed. You need to simply refrain from posting on certain subjects until you can demonstrate a modicum of expertise in that area.

Right now we are attempting to get NYT, WaPo and the

Pulitzer committee to walk back five years of its lies, fake news, and reporting on Russiagate; to avoid the charge of hypocrisy, CP should be held to the same standard. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 16:43, November 22, 2021 (EST)

Bottomline: You keep telling readers with your Red Wave essays,

"Everything is OK! Everything is OK!," and everything is NOT OK. We need a call to action NOW, not in November 2022. And your Red Wave premonitions negate the efforts to get people involved NOW in current vital issues. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 15:28, November 24, 2021 (EST)

As I said earlier, speak for yourself. If anything, the Red Wave

premonitions is encouraging me to find a metaphorical hose to turn the red wave into a red tsunami, basically increase the odds in our favor. Besides, the fact that Virginia's Democrat candidate completely lost the election DESPITE extensive voter fraud in his favor indicates the tide is turning against the left anyways. Pokeria1 (talk) 08:40, November 26, 2021 (EST)

We need factual, informative news. For example, there's more

repetitive news about Biden's approval - we don't need that. Thinking a November 2021 poll in Michigan has any meaning to the November 2024 general election is patently ridiculous. Remember, GOP candidates, at every level, every October in every election year roundly say, "polls are meaningless", so this reporting on overall polls number, 3 and 4 times a week, is just absurd.

Now, if you wish to headline polls numbers, do so specifically

on a demographic breakdown that is relevant and touches on other issues we are developing, report [https://thepoliticalinsider.com/new-poll-shows-biden-approval-among-black-voters-tanking/ “The drop in approval is greatest among Black/African-American voters, moving from 72% approval in February to 52% approval in November,”], but that was ignored because of this redundant reporting on a 38% overall average. And it certainly was a bigger news item than restating again and again Biden's overall approval rating. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 09:25, November 26, 2021 (EST)

First of all, I can't speak for Conservative, but I never

referenced polls. I if anything referenced the actual election results in Virginia that if anything backed UP the whole Red Wave narrative since the guy REALLY went all out on voter fraud to ensure his win and yet he STILL ended up losing (and it apparently being a landslide loss even WITH the voter fraud). And while polls may be meaningless ESPECIALLY after how the left ruined them by attacking voters by 2016, the actual election results most certainly AREN'T meaningless. Second of all, going by one of the MPR topics, even a leftist rag like Newsweek is now admitting that Trump if anything WON those swing states, meaning they just tacitly admitted to stealing the election. Pokeria1 (talk) 09:36, November 26, 2021 (EST)

I think you miss the point, too. Anyway, now that Biden just

reinstated Remain in Mexico, his poll numbers will rise before the big anticipated Red Wave. He's being responsive and responsible to voters. So what are you going to harp on now repeatedly, having squandered the opportunity to inform voters on facts and issues? Biden's rising poll numbers and maybe the big wave won't be so big after all?

This is only the first reversal of course, and we have a year

to go yet. He's got plenty of tricks up his sleeves to win popular approval. And you have done nothing to prepare voters for that, squandering the time with psychic premonitions. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 15:58, November 26, 2021 (EST)

We'll see. Biden is still doubling down on Rittenhouse,

however, and I'm extremely doubtful that throwing the occasional bone to conservatives is going to keep him in office. Bush throwing the bone to liberals with his infamous reversal of his no new taxes slogan certainly didn't endear him enough to voters to keep him in even without Ross Perot. What makes you think that him maybe giving enough support to the wall to slightly increase his poll approval ratings would have him win 2024? Besides, I never said it was guaranteed that there would be a Red Wave. I think the fact that I said I'd use a metaphorical hose to turn it into a red tsunami should be a pretty big hint that if anything I DON'T view it as guaranteed. That said, however, the fact that the Virginia governor lost even with voter fraud on his side should be a pretty big hint that we might at least have a chance at reversing the trend for them. Pokeria1 (talk) 16:18, November 26, 2021 (EST)

Remain in Mexico popularity is mainstream, not (just) a

conservative issue. Next he can take Manchin's advice and reopen the Keystone XL pipeline, to quiet criticism from Democrats. As to a Red Wave or Red Tsunami, as November 2022 approaches and it doesn't appear as easy or attainable as User:Conservaitve has built it up over the past months, will have a demoralizing effect on conservative and conservative leaning voters. RobS[[User talk:RobSmith|Let's Go Brandon!]] 16:32, November 26, 2021 (EST)

There's an old saying, "Never count your chickens before they

hatch," yet despite being asked to discuss first, he just continues posting occultic premonitions week after week. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 16:43, November 26, 2021 (EST)

MPR should be used properly to build narratives

For example, on Sunday I posted this:

  • "Black nationalist Darrell Brooks, the accused in the

post-Rittenhouse verdict slaughter of 5 people..." On Tuesday Tucker Carlson opened his show with this:

  • "a black nationalist BLM supporter drove an SUV through a Christmas

parade in Waukesha, Wisconsin. It was a slaughter.”

Now, I could have used "black supremacist", "racist anti-Semite", etc., all of which would be justifiable. MSM, other than Tucker, will not do that. In fact, as Tucker points out MSM will try to bury this story. It is CP's responsibility to keep it alive, and not recycle CCP narratives or MSM polling data that we all are spoon fed anyway. Hence, the vital importance of discussion and collaboration.

Let's take the case of Vladimir Zelenko. Conservapedia and User:Conservative in particular, can and should rightly take credit for helping to make Dr. Zelenko's name a household word. This morning, Gatewaypundit published this: [https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/11/exclusive-video-dr-zelenko-gateway-pundit-cdcs-response-covid-19-crime-humanity-mass-murder-genocide/ EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: Dr. Zelenko to The Gateway Pundit: CDC’s Response to COVID-19 “A Crime Against Humanity. Mass Murder. And Genocide…”]. Yet there is no interest or follow-up at CP. Lesson's learned: when an editor chooses to post on a subject, they need to be committed to follow up as the story develops. No news story or headline exists in a vacuum. We have far too much an anecdotal approach, both to MPR headlines, and worse, adding content to articles. Open discussion, focusing on improvement in writing skills and objectives, is the only way to approach and solve these problems. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 16:47, November 24, 2021 (EST)

Duh, wud I tell ya? Rittenhouse supported a Democrat in 2020.

[2] We need to stop this instinctive "shoot from the hip" reaction to MSM reporting and coordinate more on what CP MPR editorial stance is. I put 14 months labor into the Rittenhouse case, and it was wiped out in a moment. Likewise the 'covid comes from eating bats' hung out there for a year, whereas the facts of the covid crisis have been posted in various articles and timelines since the winter of 2020 with no MPR links to it cause of a faulty editorial policy. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 23:10, November 25, 2021 (EST)

To be fair, the fact that Rittenhouse voted democrat and the MSM

villified him as a far right nutcase would actually work to our favor of discrediting the leftist-dominated MSM, so there actually IS a pretty sensible approach in this case to what you call "gloating." It's sort of like how Disney threw Last Man Standing under the bus even though its creators were liberal, or similar treatment to the guys who created Path to 9/11. Pokeria1 ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 08:35, November 26, 2021 (EST)

Rittenhouse has professional media people handling him (IOWs, I

think many of these statements coming out of his mouth are not necessarily expressions of his own views, rather part of media strategy to re-integrate him back into society). When he speaks himself, he sometimes makes big errors, for example defaming Lin Wood while complaining about Biden defaming him. But he's a kid thrust into this role and still learning. RobS[[User talk:RobSmith|Let's Go Brandon!]] 08:53, November 26, 2021 (EST)

As I mentioned above, the leftist-dominated media is more likely

to shun him from society even AFTER the confirmed verdict proving his innocence than to ever reintegrate him into society. You place too much trust in the leftist media based on that remark. Pokeria1 (talk) 16:20, November 26, 2021 (EST)

The Yang Gang strategy is brilliant. Now people will ask, How

can supporters of a Chinese American be white supremacists?, shedding light on [https://youtu.be/Zdmf2UlNuhs?t=353 discrimination in Affirmative Action programs against Asians] and [[Black on Asian crime]]. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 16:56, November 26, 2021 (EST)

== Sorry about Conservative's unwarranted block of you and deletion of this talk page ==

—LT [[User talk:Liberaltears|(The Old Right was right!)]] Wednesday, 22:07, December 7, 2021 (EST)

Thanks. He's not well at the moment. Please encourage him to speak to

someone in his real life circle of friends & family. ConwayIII (talk) 17:34, December 8, 2021 (EST)

Conway you are an insincere person. Conway, since you are no doubt a

RationalWikian, show me your not a liar. Update the [https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki RationalWiki article on RationalWiki] so it is no longer lying about its web traffic statistics. Conservative ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:43, December 8, 2021 (EST)

[[File:Is RationalWiki lying about its web traffic statistics in a very big way? - screenshot 11-2021.JPG|thumbnail|2000px|Question: Is RationalWiki lying about its web traffic statistics in a very big way? The screenshot was taken on 11-8-2021. On 11-8-2021, RationalWiki's was the 97,739th most popular website in the world and its Alexa rank was dropping.

Please note: RationalWiki claims on 11-8-2021: "Also since 2013, RW's Alexa rank (a measure accurate only in a broad sense) has hovered between 15,000th and 25,000th most popular website on the entire Internet..." That is not true, RationalWikians! Not true by a longshot!

Question: If RationalWikians are lying about their web traffic, what else are they lying about? ]]

You're proceeding from a fundamental misunderstanding of how this

exchange-of-advice-between-grown-men thing works. I'm satisfied I've done what's right and that my meaning is clear. It's really not my job to try & convince you further. Good luck, man. ConwayIII (talk) 19:30, December 8, 2021 (EST)

90/10 rule

Please familiarize yourself with the [https://conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines#90.2F10_Rule 90/10 rule] which you are in violation of. See: [https://conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines#90.2F10_Rule 90/10 rule].Conservative ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:59, December 11, 2021 (EST)

Tell me more about all the times you blocked VargasMilan or PeterKa

for violating 90/10. I do hope you won't exhibit double standards/hypocrisy, which Conservapedia deems a liberal trait. —LT [[User talk:Liberaltears|(The Old Right was right!)]] Sunday, 19:15, December 11, 2021 (EST)

I can enforce rules when I am aware they are being violated. The

alternative is anarchy. Feel free to tell PeterKa that he is violating 90/10. Conservative ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:35, December 11, 2021 (EST)

So we now meant to believe that for most of last year when

VargasMilan talked nonstop, you were never aware despite often joining in on the long discussions? How oblivious do you expect us to be? —LT [[User talk:Liberaltears|(The Old Right was right!)]] Sunday, 19:37, December 11, 2021 (EST)

I didn't follow VargasMilan's edits. But I will enforce 90/10 on

ConwayIII if he continues to violate it. Conservative (talk) 19:39, December 11, 2021 (EST)

(ec) This is idiotic. Do you want him to troll mainspace or talk?

RobSLet's Go Brandon! 19:44, December 11, 2021 (EST)

Oh, of course you didn't. So instead of enforcing standards

equally, you merely state an intention to arbitrarily enforce them when you feel like it. —LT [[User talk:Liberaltears|(The Old Right was right!)]] Sunday, 19:41, December 11, 2021 (EST) I am looking at PeterKa's edits and he is doing main space edits such as his Korean War edits. Regardless, having anarchy at CP is not a good policy. I will feel free to enforce 90/10 on ConwayIII. Conservative (talk) 19:44, December 11, 2021 (EST)

90/10 is stupid and assinine. RobS[[User

talk:RobSmith|Let's Go Brandon!]] 19:45, December 11, 2021 (EST)

If you cannot win a debate or an argument with a troll, and have to

rely on 90/10 cause you think that will avoid embarassment to yourself, that's pretty sad. RobS[[User talk:RobSmith|Let's Go Brandon!]] 19:47, December 11, 2021 (EST)

Better yet, don't let a troll draw you into a stupid argument or

discussion. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 19:50, December 11, 2021 (EST)

I like the capacity to enforce 90/10 against trolls. If you want

90/10 removed, talk to Andy. Conservative (talk) 19:52, December 11, 2021 (EST)

ConwayIII has exhibited trolling. I know that has been the case

toward me. And I will not put up with it. Conservative (talk) 19:54, December 11, 2021 (EST)

If that is the case, an Admin should have the ability to issue

temporary blocks based upon his judgement for trolling violations, and need not hide behind a destructive policy to collaboration like 90/10. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 20:03, December 11, 2021 (EST) ConwayIII is a troll. He did a personal attack up me which Liberaltears restored and then I subsequently removed. In addition, trolls often advocate that MPR cover tragedies. MPR covers what the MSM does not cover or undercovers. Conservative (talk) 20:11, December 11, 2021 (EST)

(ec) If anything, 90/10 could or should be an Admin Guideline to

help determine trolling activity, not a standing policy applicable to all users, where its enforcement is arbitrary. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 20:13, December 11, 2021 (EST)

The problem you have right now is a repeated pattern of vandalism

to Main Page talk and other on going discussions between users. Not to mention the confusion you engender in the deletion log. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 20:14, December 11, 2021 (EST)

↑ ...the same administrator calling ConwayIII a "troll"

inappropriately calls atheists and feminists "mutants" on the Main Page and personally attacks RationalWiki users on "essays" that are given undue free advertising via MPR. —LT [[User talk:Liberaltears|(The Old Right was right!)]] Sunday, 20:16, December 11, 2021 (EST)

There is no point in discussion when Admins behave like this. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 20:19, December 11, 2021 (EST)

Liberaltears is insisting that ConwayIII be able to do personal

attacks upon me with impunity. I am not going to put up with this. Conservative (talk)

Prove it. Oh that's right, you outsmarted yourself by deleting the

very evidence (the earlier revisions for this user talk page) you can use to back up your assertions. Congratulations. —LT [[User talk:Liberaltears|(The Old Right was right!)]] Sunday, 20:23, December 11, 2021 (EST)

(ec) Cons, You have the power to discipline the abuser without

vandalizing talk pages where other editors are engaged in ongoing discussions. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 20:23, December 11, 2021 (EST)

Cons, vandalism of talk pages where other editors and Admins are

engaged in ongoing discuson shows a complete lack of respect for your fellow editors and Admins. RobS[[User talk:RobSmith|Let's Go Brandon!]] 20:25, December 11, 2021 (EST)

Agreed. Also RobSmith, can you restore the earlier revisions for

this user talk page? I believe administrators have the ability to view and restore revisions that get wiped out when a page is deleted. —LT [[User talk:Liberaltears|(The Old Right was right!)]] Sunday, 20:26, December 11, 2021 (EST)

We need a Kangaroo court where the actions of users in conflict

can be reviewed by the communuity. RobS[[User talk:RobSmith|Let's Go Brandon!]] 20:28, December 11, 2021 (EST)

I don't necessarily disagree with that, though can you still try

to restore the earlier revisions for this user talk page? I believe there are some links corresponding to courses of action you can use to to that via here, [https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:ConwayIII&action=history here], or [https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User+talk%3AConwayIII here]. —LT [[User talk:Liberaltears|(The Old Right was right!)]] Sunday, 20:30, December 11, 2021 (EST)

(ec) One editor is charged with trolling and personal attacks; the

problem is we have only the Admin's word for it who has a habit of vandalizing talk pages and misuing deletion log to hide his own actions. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 20:31, December 11, 2021 (EST) If someone is going to get into revert war about something inane as restoring personal attacks upon me, I am going to shut it down.

"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." - Sun Tzu

"What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations." - Sun Tzu Conservative ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:31, December 11, 2021 (EST)

That's a good point. The problem is a lack of transparency. You had

no cause to delete this page. RobS[[User talk:RobSmith|Let's Go Brandon!]] 20:32, December 11, 2021 (EST)

Simply because a discussion between bonafide editors is not going the

way you'd like it to go, is not cause for deletion. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 20:34, December 11, 2021 (EST)

A kangaroo court is an illegitimate court by definition so that is a

nonstarter. I would suggest looking up the meaning of "kangaroo court". Conservative ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:35, December 11, 2021 (EST)

and you destroy your own credibility, that you were the subject of

personal attacks and trolling, when you vandalize bonafide editors conversations. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 20:37, December 11, 2021 (EST) I am not going to continue to wrangle about this. He did a personal attack against me. I deleted it. Believe or not. I really don't care at this point if you don't believe it. Conservative (talk) 20:39, December 11, 2021 (EST)

We have no reason to believe you, based upon your deletion of

bonafide editors comments. RobS[[User talk:RobSmith|Let's Go Brandon!]] 20:41, December 11, 2021 (EST)

A kangaroo court is exactly what we need, where a troll can try to

defend himself and you can be proven correct in your judgement. it's your deletion of bonafide editors comments now that makes you look bad. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 20:39, December 11, 2021 (EST)

Definition of kangaroo court by Webster's dictionary: "a mock court

in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted".[3]

Multiple times you have been told the definition of kangaroo court,

but over and over again you say Conservapedia needs a kangaroo court.

That is why I spent zero time advocating for a court of any kind.

Why bother working with someone who wants to keep insisting on a kangaroo court for Conservapedia? Conservative (talk) 20:46, December 11, 2021 (EST)

A correction. I spent a small amount of time advocating for a

court, but after you relentlessly kept advocating for a "kangaroo court", I moved on. Nobody wants to work with someone who is needlessly acting difficult. Conservative (talk) 20:57, December 11, 2021 (EST)

A kangaroo court is not intended to administer truth or justice,

duh. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 22:05, December 11, 2021 (EST)

But your arbitrary interference in bonafide editors discussions

sure is not just, at all, either. At least we would have some transparency. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 22:07, December 11, 2021 (EST) I have moved on, RobS. Best wishes on your efforts to get Andy to agree to a court. Godspeed. Conservative ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])

Your deletion of talk pages constantly makes it look like you

have something to hide, or are embarassed about. That is not a confidence building measure by any standard. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 22:10, December 11, 2021 (EST)

Your deletion of talk pages is just childish, like picking up your ball and going home when things don't go your way. How you then expect to have any credibility in the next discussion is anybody's guess. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 22:21, December 11, 2021 (EST)

Final word on deletion of Talk pages: barring removal of profanity,

we have a scroll Template for off-topic and nonsensical comments. Deleting the whole page (including bonafide editors discussions) however, only serves to give the comments credibility, being that you obviously fear others reading the trolling comments and beleiving it. If they truly are outrageous, over the top, and site policy violations, you need to leave them intact (or cover them with the scroll Template and give warnings) so that other editors make sense of what is happening.

It is tiresome to hear your "Boo hoo, he hurt my feelings" excuse for

destroying talk page discussions. RobS[[User talk:RobSmith|Let's Go Brandon!]] 02:26, December 12, 2021 (EST)

I suggest you go to Andy about this matter. And don't forget to

mention your idea about establishing a court at Conservapedia that does not have any concern about administering justice. And make sure you refer to it as a "kangaroo court". Conservative (talk) 03:23, December 12, 2021 (EST)

We simply need a forum were editors and/or trolls can air their

grievances for everyone to see (I could do it on a User subpage). It would have zero enforcement authority. But it can't be done when you keep covering up evidence to hide your own mistakes. If what you say about trolls attacking your integrity is true, what do you need to fear or hide? RobSLet's Go Brandon! 03:47, December 12, 2021 (EST)

Have you looked at the Conservapedia logo recently? It has the

American flag. In the USA, people are innocent until proven guilty.

Lastly, barring getting Andy's cooperation, there is nothing you

can do to stop me deleting this talk page. And so far, on the persuasion front in terms of getting me to stop doing it, you have gotten zero traction. I would suggest ceasing on the accusation front. Conservative (talk) 05:44, December 12, 2021 (EST)

All your doing is discouraging editors from engaging in any discussion if their participation will be arbitrarily deleted. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 05:53, December 12, 2021 (EST)

And discouraging discussion has a negative impact on mainspace contributions, as well. RobSLet's Go Brandon!

If Liberaltears is going to insist that trolls can troll me at Conservapedia with impunity, and you are going to take his side, then frankly I don't care if Liberaltears and you don't like it.
Liberaltears reversed my block of User: ConwayIII, despite the fact that I am an admin and he isn't. And he insisted on restoring the trolling at Conservapedia.
So feel free to take this up on Andy's talk page, where you will be ignored. Conservative (talk) 06:09, December 12, 2021 (EST)
You just don't get the point, do you? RobSLet's Go Brandon! 06:12, December 12, 2021 (EST)
You should really get a job as a Facebook or Twitter admin, since you cry like a baby everytime someone says something you don't like. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 06:14, December 12, 2021 (EST)
I recall you complaining to me that Northwest was ignoring your admin status and effectively overruling you. And yet, you side with Liberaltears unblocking my block of ConwayIII.
So take up this matter with Andy on his talk page, where you will be ignored. Conservative (talk) 06:16, December 12, 2021 (EST)
Huh? Where did I "side with Libertears"? Now you are making things up and imaging the world is out to get you. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 06:18, December 12, 2021 (EST)
diffs or it never happened. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 06:19, December 12, 2021 (EST)
Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:RobSmith/What_is_the_purpose_of_discussion%3F&oldid=1820636"