User talk:Jazzman831/block

• forcing away good faith editors is a horrible long-term strategy for Conservapedia

• The idea is to make outrageous statements that no one in the world would make (no one, that is, except RobS) followed by a fake RobS signature.

• Sounds fun, but you have to be more subtle

I'm not going to ask, because I don't want an answer. But if you can justify in your mind that this is good faith editing, CP does not need you.

And privately we've debating many times banning anyone who edits at RW; while editing here in in itself we don't block far, conspiring with vandals is blockable. And frankly, if you have nothing better to do with your time than to read & discuss methods of vandalims, again, we do not need you. RobS 19:57, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

But you do need him and people like him.....keep it up your strangling your site more and more every day. The slow agonizing death throws are fascinating...though a bit disturbing. tmtoulouse ^beleaguer 20:00, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Right now, our "liberal" entry is Google # 8 of 80.5 million, and it got there by me keeping out the kind of meaningless drivel Jazzman tried to insert over a ten day debate. RobS 20:09, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

1. 8? Wow, that's amazing! It must be doing the site absolute wonders with all the new editors it's pulling in. Oh, wait...--Offeep 20:11, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

fun:Argumentum ad Google ranking is like a CP past time isn't it.........so our google ranking of 8 for "conservapedia" is proof that everything we say about you is true....hey this is fun! tmtoulouse ^beleaguer 20:14, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

So if you ban all RW editors does that mean you get banned too? tmtoulouse ^beleaguer 20:00, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Of course not! That would violate the Double Standard. He's taken the Pledge, and Jesus has sealed his mind against all possible contamination. --67.102.192.7 20:09, 6 September 2007 (CDT) fnord

Jazzman has some abilities, and I admire him very much. I even wouldn't mind continuing mentoring him. But him taking everything so personal, and then turning around and trashing me personally, well that's just unworthy. RobS 20:14, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, I can't imagine why he'd get upset about your bullying and lying. Some people are just sooooo hypersensitive when slandered! (Or is it libel? I can never keep them straight...) --20:18, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Mentoring? Mentoring? Mentoring? your hubris and false pride knows no bounds. tmtoulouse ^beleaguer 20:16, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Hubris? Hubris? ...just like in the movies...the kid gets adotped out of the orphanage, and all the other kids get jeolous. RobS 22:34, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

(edit-conflict'd) I'll leave it to Jazz (or whoever else decides to join in) to tear you apart for the rest of the post, but I'll just point out that at least TK often enough banned several IPs (and only IPs, not CP users) right after they edited here. So you can take your "while editing here in in itself we don't block far"(sic like whoa) and use it to decorate your tinfoil hat. It has little more value or use than that. --Sid 20:04, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Ah, hypocrisy--the lifeblood of politics. --67.102.192.7 20:09, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

And I've said it before--CP doesn't want more editors. Every person there is another potential source of subversion. The ideal number of editors on CP is either one or zero, and they're working their way there, slowly. --67.102.192.7 20:09, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Whoa you guys were busy while I was off doing other things.

• I can see why you wouldn't want an answer, Rob. Because it turns out my good faith in editing is shown by the edits I make, not some conspiratorial definition of abetting other vandals. Maybe you can argue I wasn't a good member of CP, and sure that's true. It says right on my user page that I'm not a conservative; I never pretended to agree with your project, and I never pretended to agree with you methods and I never pretended to pledge loyalty to your site. I stayed there because I enjoyed editing, and my editing was good. You said it yourself, don't take my "spin" on it now, go back and look through my 1,000 mainspace edits. The fact is, you are so hung up on my one supposed transgression that you can't look at any other piece of evidence. One line of text does not an entire person make, Rob.
• You claim that you read my posts and it was *I* who wasn't reading well enough?! Seriously?! How is it that you didn't see the little messages I left for you, then? Or are you trying to say that every time I asked you a question point-blank (over a dozen times, as you point out) that you never gave a point-blank answer? When I asked you "what if I throw out the UN from the definition" is this answering my question? How about this, or this? (Consider the fact as well that you said anyone who continually copy/pasted their arguments would be blocked [1]). Or how about when I said, point blank, "This is just to see if you read or skim. I'm guessing skim?" Are you seriously trying to claim that you noticed that (all five times I did something like that) and chose to ignore it? As Andy would say[2], "Don't hurt your own credibility by denying the obvious." JazzMan 20:56, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Reading messages from people isn't the Conservapedia way to understand them. Writing messages about them is. --SockOfGulik 20:59, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Redlinks

Your user page has a number of redlinks that mostly reference CP pages. Would you be able to either "no-wikify" them or alternatively link them to CP. Thanks. --Remarcsd 18:53, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

Even bigger thanks for your prompt response. --Remarcsd 21:41, 6 October 2007 (EDT)