Conservapedia Talk:RobS's Idiot's Grin Stratagem
From RationalWiki
Excellent strategy, I especially like the "stretch wide" quote, but I may have to use it in a very different anatomical context.--PalMD-yada yada 13:07, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
- hmmm...Wonder if you are thinking about the same pic as I am. Pretty fucking sick.Prof0705 13:10, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
I'm not the goat guy. I was thinking of some creative uses.--PalMD-yada yada 13:14, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
- Ah ok. I've known quite a few crazy ass Army doctors, so I can never be sure about MD's.Prof0705 13:17, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
Yes, excellent work. Say, perhaps you could do something on the RobS Snowplow Strategem, which involves doggedly piling on such a massive amount of irrelevant data, the librul enemy becomes frustrated and eventually gives up. For instance. --Kels 13:21, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
- Actually, you're misreading that example, and yes I am to blame. I acted hasty in my impatience. Let me explain.
- Dmitri Volkogonov was my source. And I was begging them to trash my source, as is the well established WP method. And I truelly need Volkogonov discredited, because he is about the sole source Alger Hiss still defends himself with. Look at the overreliance on Volkogonov in the WP entry on Alger Hiss. I gave you guys everything you needed to trash Volkogonov with, but nobody wanted to do it. Too bad. As is said about Hiss, "this has been the intellectuial debate for a generation".
- So, before you guys go off on the wrong track, please reconsider if you are not going down the wrong track on this. Thank you. RobS 23:13, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
- Not quite sure what you are talkig about. This article is in reference to the brilliant work on the New Ordeal.Prof0705 06:54, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
- Wipe that grin off your face, Rob! --Kels 07:38, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
Kels brings up the discussion on my source for the claim V.I. Lenin invented the term "Concentration camp", and was the first to use it. My source is Gen. Dmitri Volkogonov. There is a dispute on that page, challenging my source. I invited a disputant to create a bio on Volkogonov, and abuse him at will. Mr. Alger Hiss & apologists have repeatedly used Volkogonov as a fig leaf to deny his guilt. It was disputed in WP, where I presented the identitical evidence against Volkogonov's credibility, only to get banned. Now, one and a half years later, I see in the WP Hiss bio, Volkogonov is trashed with the very evidence I presented (incidentally, the e-mail used to trash Volkogonov, reproduced in the box in the link Kels provides above, and cited in the WP Hiss article, was first made accessible by me). The link I provided here to the website entitled, The Alger Hiss Stroy, is essentially some Foundation Hiss personally had a hand in creating to argue his innocence posthumously, and was in fact used as the final kicker or trump card in the WP article up until very recently, despite having been debunked a decade and a half ago.
WP, in its zeal to slander living people, made a collossal error which requires only one mode of expiation. RobS 09:31, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
- Actually, they're challenging you, who made the foolish comments in the first place. You tried to derail the conversation by insisting it was about your sole source instead of actually supporting your argument. All the rest is just blue smoke and mirrors. --Kels 10:26, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
- (A) I did not make a "comment"; (B) I did not make an argument. RobS 23:53, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
- So if I'm understanding correctly... You made and are sticking by a claim you have good reason to disbelieve (convincing contrary evidence has been presented to you), when your only basis for the claim is a source you yourself don't consider trustworthy. You're doing this in an attempt to manipulate other people into writing an article on a subject they have no independent knowledge of or interest in, but which you could write if you chose (and have all but written in the talk thread where you're doing this), all as part of a long-running dispute with another group of people over yet another person's guilt of espionage. And that's your defense to charges of essentially showing lack of good faith in debate. Have I got that right? --jtltalk 20:08, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
- I actually like the source. My problem was with Wikipedia not accepting the source's own deprecation of his own material. As to me manipulating other people to write the article, amen bro, you got that part right. I even gave them everything they needed. But rather than trash my source, which was their intention, they were incapable of it. Your analysis is pretty close to the mark. RobS 23:50, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
[edit] Please Feel Free to Contribute to this Article. Additional Examples are Appreciated.
- -)
[edit] Misspelling in title
The correct spelling is 'Stratagem' 67.159.45.52 07:38, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
