User talk:RobS

Archive1

Conspiratorial?!

Everything sounds conspiratorial to you.-AmesG 07:19, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

I think I wet myself!

That's it, I'm blowing your cover

RobS, I really appreciate everything you've done for RationalWiki. But you've just become too hard to work with lately, and you've outlived your usefulness. So I'm blowing your cover. Andy, RobS here has been working with RationalWiki for some time, feeding us information from your secret sysop mailing list. But it's not worth it anymore. We have other/better sources. So be advised - your sysop's loyalty is not as strong as it appears. Goodbye, Rob.-AmesG 07:49, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

LoL. More RW bullshit. Smoke and mirrors obfuscation can't hide the fact that you are just a bunch of vandals who have stated that you view all tactics, including exposing minors to pornography, as justified in your pathetic squabble for bragging rights over CP. לול 08:13, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Don't worry, Fox, you dont have to pump you creds here...we know youre under deep cover.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 08:25, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

I don't need - or want - the kind of notoriety that "cred" here entails, thanks :D לול 08:24, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Even Slash got kicked out of Guns & Roses. You were great, and seeing as Ames has let the cat out of the bag, you helped a whole lot, but - and if i may quote - "with your bitch-slap rapping and your cocaine tongue you get nothing done". In other words, you've just tipped the scales into burdendom. _δ^α_ι^ι_σ^ρ_Ηταλκ 09:56, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

• By their fruits ye shall know them. [1]

I think Andy and CP insiders all operate under this concept. This is a big weakness of the RW cabal, unfamiliarity with credible sources. And when RW cabalists do employ a credible source, they misues or misquote it, not necessarily deliberately, just out of carelessness or a condescending attitude that Bible beleivers are too stupid to see the ruse. Pity, if these "cybervandals", as the mainstream press has dubbed them, took the time to realize the difference between the spirit and the letter, they could become more constructive contributors. [2] RobS 10:33, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Oh ho! This from the guy who invents the "New Ordeal," and then cannot find any support (and sometimes has to invent it) for his contentions!--Franklin 11:03, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

He never did finish defending that. However, it has been moved to the essay space, so it is all presumed fiction/opinion anyway.162.82.215.199 12:20, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Heck, he could not defend it. He made up a term, argued it was common knowledge, then began citing sources that had the word "new ordeal" in the title. Problem was, none of them supported his argument. RobS, a sterling example of a CP sysop: a friggin' moron.--Franklin 12:30, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

John T. Flynn is one source. His book on the subject will be used. RobS 13:05, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

He doesn't use the term anymore than the rest of them. Why don't you admit you made it up? You just throw a "source" out like so much sand in an opponent's face. I think you page for Schlockumentary is just as sterling. ʄĹїþþїɲ^;-) 13:12, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

You might also point out in that case why a book written in 1935 would use the term "New Ordeal" to describe a period of economic hardship the nation has just entered. Further, this does nothing to support the contention you have that this period went on for 20 years. The whole issue is ridiculous. Do you expect children to write in the New Ordeal instead of the New Deal on their tests? ʄĹїþþїɲ^;-) 13:18, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

The 1935 piece is not even a book. It is a very short ( seven pages I think) philosophical piece that has nothing to do with RobS' essay. Hey dumbass, here is a tip for you. You do the research, then you write. Oh, wait a minute. We are talking about CP, where their fearful leader says "don't read a book to learn, write a book to learn!" Good God. That place is a den of morons.--Franklin 13:37, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Your antics are getting tiresome, Rob. That's too-deep cover. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 14:00, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Is it possible that the e-mails we've been receiving are not from RobS, but from a script that someone put in his inbox program? I mean, maybe he didn't write the script, but when his e-mail went "out," someone put the script in? I guess it could be him, unwillingly then: I don't really care, as long as we keep getting the e-mails. Otherwise, how would I know to laugh my ass off at how RobS thinks every user from Houston is me, and how Karajou simultaneously thinks that every user from Atlanta is me, too? You guys should stop picking on poor Houstonian users. There are 6 million of us, you know.-AmesG 01:45, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

Conservative

Well, at WP, the evolutionist thumpers are known to assume anybody who seems to support ID or questions aspects of evotionary theory is conservative at CP. Heart♥Gold ^tx

Source? I think good old Conservative's discussion method should stick out easily:

1. Make idiotic claims based solely on (mis-)quoting scientists to make it look like they have severe doubts or like they have to guess and believe without any sort of scientific basis
2. Wait for others to challenge said idiotic claims
3. Declare that said idiotic claims are valid quotes and ask the others to prove that the quotes have been directly refuted by other scientists.
4. Ignore all arguments as long as there are still quotes that you have not yet accepted as having been refuted.
5. Make occasional snide remarks about clueless evolutionists and mention how they can't handle the fact that even other evolutionists gave these "candid quotes"

So I'd be surprised if people actually mistook others for Conservative. --Sid 05:52, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

Take my word for it, they do. Also, your method ascribed to Conservative is similar to the method used by evolutionists thumpers, except, the evolutionists thumpers:

1. Classify anybody who attempts to bring balance to evolutinism related articles and a "fundie".
2. Accuse anybody who attempts to bring balanace to said articles of being a sock.
3. Use procedural loopholes to summarily ban new users deemed to be Creationists as socks of other previously banned users to avoid time consuming WP due process.
4. If that fails, pile on new users deemed to be creationists via RFC, in a process similar to one used by zealous communists during the cultural revolution in China. (This is, as opposed to, seeking mediation from other less ardent evolutionist thumpers to mitigate new user behavior and help the new users become a more productive contributor.)
5. Engague in name calling on user talk pages, and deny that bias shown on user talk pages is affecting behavior on article talk pages.

So, in short, evolutionist thumpers on WP behave worse than conservative is alledged to have behaved on WP. Heart♥Gold ^tx 12:56, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

I think the "problem" (if you want to call it that) with Conservative (and Ken) is that he/they didn't stay put. He was/they were like nomads, trolling forums and such, always with the same routine, often enough with the same source text.

And the behavior you listed is simply mob behavior. It's simple targeting and potentially eliminating, possibly with false positives and false negatives. I've seen such behavior in Wikipedia AFDs and such, and it's not pretty. However, I'd say that the similarity to Conservative's style is fairly... abstract, if not minimal. I'd rather compare it to the behavior you can see on CP (Night of the Blunt Knives, 90/10, declaring people to be socks, etc.) these days.

Conservative is not really mobbing or trying to eradicate, he's just tying up resources with his gig, slowing down the opposition and preventing them from doing whatever they want to do. On CP and CreationWiki, he found a sort of home. A place where he can build his argumentation in peace, with the power to lock out people who argue against him. So I'd guess that he's not really active outside that circle anymore. Other than that, mobs will be mobs, and that's a problem both WP and CP have, not just in the evolution/creation field. --Sid 13:23, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

Edit: Good call with the subject split. --Sid 13:24, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

I don't know what you mean by the "subject split". But the mob behavior describe sounds accurate. It is the same mob behavior I have read and interviewed people about as occurred during the Cultural Revolution, and I suspect it is similar to the mobs who hung blacks in American and the same mob behavior that resulted in heads rolling during the French Revolution. It is kinder and gentler, perhaps, but it is still loathsome. Heart♥Gold ^tx 18:06, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

The subject split referred to the new headline ("Conservative"). I think it hadn't been there before. --Sid 18:47, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

What evolutionists don't seem to understand is that many people question evolution, and it is not just one or two individuals or organizations causing all of the problems. Actually, I think they do understand this, but would rather just suppress and marginalize dissenting viewpoints. Heart♥Gold ^tx 18:06, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

In my eyes, it's just a case of pinpointing the loud ones because they influence the small ones.

Of course, quite a few people "question evolution" (Heck, give me almost any topic and I'll give you people who oppose or question it). It's their right to do so, and nobody doubts they exist. And if/when they make a good case, that's awesome. But the loud ones (for example, AiG and, to a lesser degree, people like Conservative) stick out and make the larger waves overall. It's sorta the same reason why we're here, poking CP and its inaccuracies. Somebody will read the potentially flawed arguments and will accept them as truth. That's "dangerous", and it spawns more people like Conservative who simply repeat these arguments and link to the flawed sources.

For example, AiG and the Starlight Problem. I had a lengthy discussion with Conservative (cp:Talk:Speed of light) about some theory about the speed of light slowing down by a massive degree over time. The killer: AiG both supported and opposed it, depending on which article you checked. The older article (supporting it) gave no explanation that a newer article presented extremely strong arguments against it. Conservative had stumbled over the older article, I had stumbled over the newer one. If it hadn't been for that discussion, Conservative would have accepted the older article (and the quasi-discarded theory) as truth (because AiG said so) and might not have found the newer one.

As such, it makes perfect sense to ignore the small people (or to put them in the same category) and to limit the group you're dealing with to the few, big people (at least most of the time). Of course, this applies to both sides. Supporters of Creation and Evolution will focus on the big dudes: AiG, Talk.Origins, CreationWiki, etc.

So in a way, they know that there are many people supporting a certain idea. However, many people get their background information from just a few bigger sources. The thing to keep in mind is that this is fairly rational behavior (in my eyes) and happens on both sides and in other issues.

Okay, I hope I managed to get some sort of point across. It's late and hot, so I'm running close to a headache - a bad starting scenario for discussing group/mob behavior abstractly. If the above block made no sense, you'll have to wait until tomorrow or so for a correction, sorry... :/ --Sid 18:47, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

Your insanity knows no bounds

How is this liberal commie propaganda? You're starting to sound a little nutso-er than usual.-αmεσ (!) 19:57, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

We're not a platform for liberal hatemongers. Wanna know how to survive? quit parrotting DNC/CNN/MSNBC/MoveOn.org/DailyKos talking points. Not too hard to figure out. RobS 19:48, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

P.S. See talk:

There has not been a single day gone by for 7 years where we have not heard how Kathrine Harris and Jeb Bush stole the State of Florida from the Democrats. Somebody is not being very truthful here. Rob Smith 21:12, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

What?αmεσ (!) 20:06, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Oh, I remember that one! That's where he disputed the fact that Liberals haven't won any southern states by providing an example of Liberals complaining because they hadn't won a southern state. I have no flippin' clue how this makes him look like anything but an idiot, though. --Kels 20:16, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

He left his tin foil hat in the microwave...and well things are getting...hazy....don't ask him to elaborate or we will get another RW essay submission. tmtoulouse ^torment 20:07, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Well, linking the initial question and Rob's answer, the concise version seems to be that CNN and MSNBC spread commie propaganda. Duh. --Sid 20:09, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Liberal hate mongers, you know, the people who spew DNC/CNN/MSNBC bullrot. RobS 20:10, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

It's a good thing Conservatives never do anything similar, isn't it? (Let's see if the Irony detecting neurons in his brain are still active...) --67.102.192.7 20:12, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Voicing the unspoken question: Rob, is "commie" just another synonym of "liberal" in your universe? Then your post would at least make sense by CP's low standards. But you were asked how the referenced edit was "commie prop", and you start about CNN and liberal hatemongers. --Sid 20:15, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

I know it almost becomes a joke, and I catch myself with a bad attitude sometimes, but truth is, yes, there a commie kindergarten teachers out there corrupting the minds of innocent 4 years olds with commie bilge. I've seen it with my own two eyes. RobS 20:17, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

What are you doing hanging around kindergartens? Perv! DickTurpis 21:22, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Why is it liberal hatemongering to observe that the Democratic "Solid South" changed parties due to Nixon's Southern Strategy? These are simple historical facts. Has any Democrat even won a state in the SS besides where they live since LBJ? Heck, Gore even managed to lose Tennessee! All your article needs to to point out that ca. 1968-72 the GOP "broke" the Dems "Solid South" electoral bloc. human^{be in} 20:18, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Nixon's Southern Strategy; this premise has no basis in fact; see the electoral map from 1968 [3] when a Democrat, who ran as an independent carried the Solid South. And saying Nixon did it in 1972 carries no weight -- it's not Nixon's fault Democrats nominated an idiot, and we'd have to say the Solid Nation at that. RobS 20:50, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

there a commie kindergarten teachers out there corrupting the minds of innocent 4 years olds with commie bilge. I've seen it with my own two eyes. I knew the Internet connected the entire world, but I didn't think it connected to 1956. Or was said Communist Teacher also sacrificing the kids to Satan? ISTR that was a big problem back in the 90s.... --SockOfGulik 20:21, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Rob, you still haven't answered the question - why would you remove a statement that is clearly a very positive Republican story? Those of us who are NOT Republicans are happy to admint we seem to have lost the South to you over the past many years. Wouldn't you want that fact mentioned in this article on the poltiical affiliations of the South? Your move still makes absolutely no sense? DogP 20:27, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Just no basis to it; Dems carried it 3 times since 1976 and GOP 5 times. And Dems still dominate at the local and state level. RobS 20:50, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Dems carried "it"? What, won the White House, yes. Won the friggin South? Wow... human^{be in} 21:15, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

He still sounds like a parody of himself tonight.-αmεσ (!) 20:27, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

After a while, they all start sounding like that, I think. I'm just amazed he's posting anywhere people can back-talk him without him being able to ban them. --SockOfGulik 20:29, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Rob, the Reagan Realignment after the Johnson election, but capitalized upon by Reagan, is an actual fact. And it's not detrimental to Republican's; it's simply objective reality (which I know CP has a problem with). While I was at Rice, I studied with one of America's greatest experts on Southern politics (Earl Black). He's written books on the subject. You're just wrong.-αmεσ (!) 21:19, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

OK. So Clinton and Carter never got elected, and the majority of Southern States do not have Democratic Governors, Legislators, or US Senators & Congressman. Dems today in fact, with thier minority do not control the US Congress.

Weeew, do I feel better. Liberal thinking really does work. I learned how to do by listening to libs, for example, the day after Reagan, GHW Bush, and GW Bush got elected, I always listen to NPR or other sources to have it explained to me how they really did not get elected. Works like a charm. RobS 21:48, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Objection: Nonresponsive.-αmεσ (!) 21:51, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Sustained. Locke ^{Always Watching......} 22:01, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Well, Clinton did get elected, but he didn't carry the entire south. Carter got beat in 1980, if I recall. As for Senators and governors, well it seems there are 17 Republican Senators from the south (using the ex-Confederate states as the defintion here, there are obvoiusly various viewpoints on what is a southern state) and 5 Dems. For governors it's 6 to 5. So, no the majority of southern states do not have Democratic Governors or Senators (the statistics on the House and state level are less straightforward, but we can look those up if it's important). Sarcasm only works if what you're saying isn't actually the truth. DickTurpis 21:59, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

So it's not even solid anymore. Just hammering a square peg in a round hole. RobS 22:11, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Rob, you say both parties "won it" a few times. Won what, exactly, in the context of which we speak? There is no electorial unit for the 'Solid South'. They may well have won some Southern States, but that's not the Solid South, is it? There's seven or eight States there for heavens sake! Just exactly what are you referring to? DogP 21:34, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Kindergarten

I got it, he's right. Ever read the book "all I ever need to know in life I learned in KG"? The things we teach KGers are commie ideals (case in point: sharing). His point has leaked through my tinfoil hat! human^{be in} 20:33, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Robby!

Inever thought I'd see the only and only Rob Smith on this humble wiki. It's my honour to welcome... wait, what's that behind you???...

JESUS CHRIST, IT'S A COMMUNIST SPY GET IN THE CAR!!!!!!! --Offeep 20:03, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

By the way, how's the hunt going for a source that uses "The New Ordeal" to describes the '30s?--Offeep 20:40, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Provided that years ago Other People's Money, John T. Flynn, The New Republic, February 20, 1935. "the New Deal is threatening to become the New ordeal" RobS 20:52, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

And that qualifies as a "common expression"? ....Hey, did that goalpost just move? I could swear is was further away before. --SockOfGulik 20:55, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Sources are all there, and I got more. Hey, look at this for example FDR biographer Robert Sherwood (let me explain; FDR dropped dead in office, Harry Hopkins who ran the show the last few years while FDR was on a 4 hour work day because of his health, dropped dead two years later. Neither left memoirs to explain the personalities involved, or the momentous decision in WW II. Robert Sherwood was a speech writer who worked closely with FDR & Hopkins, and headed up the commie infested Office of War Information, a Kremlin directed mouthpiece. So in lieu of FDR or Hopkins memoirs, Sherwood's biography, Roosevelt and Hopkins is the closest thing we got). Sherwood names 4 special Administrative Assistants to FDR whose job was, "to get, information and to condense and summarize it for [Roosevelt's] use." Now considering one of those four went nuts and jumped out the 16 floor window of Walter Reed psyche ward, and two were KGB spies, seems it is time to rewrite the history books, hmmmm? 21:05, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

RobS, what kind of person spends this much time researching long-dead, half-imagined communist conspiracies in a vain attempt to rekindle such a bleak era in American history?-αmεσ (!) 21:10, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

See the Moynihan Commission Report, "The first fact is, there was a Communist conspiracy." (lk provided upon request). I think we've presented well enough in our Election of 1944 the CPUSA, determined by an Act of Congress to be an agent of a foreign power, effectively took over the Democratic Party. So this is nothing new, it didn't happen during the 60's, it happened well before your or my time. RobS 21:18, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

When was the Commission Report written, Mr. Palmer?-αmεσ (!) 21:20, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

In 1993, when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, and the White House, creating this Statutory Commission and vesting it with special extroardinary subpeneoa powers like a Congressional Committee, was one of the first Acts of Congress passed. They could now do what many wanted to do for a long time. The intention was to get to the bottom of much government secrcy which had shrouded several extremely partisan domestic debated for a half century (the Rosenbergs, Hiss, Nixon who built his career on Hiss, etc.) It's finding were published in 1995. RobS 21:29, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Uh.... huh. Then why is it that both parties jumped on the Anti-Communism bandwagon the instant the ashes cooled in Berlin? --SockOfGulik 21:22, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Funny you should mention that, I just wrote exactly the answer to that today RobS 21:29, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Can you explain it in small words, please? Because I'm not quite gettin' it. --SockOfGulik 21:40, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Ok, succinctly, the War started over the right of self-determination of the Poles, Czechs, the Slovaks, etc. By May of 1945, it was pretty obvious it all was a fraud. The Poles, the Czechs, the Slovaks in fact did not get liberated, win their freedom, enjoy the right of self-determination, or however you wish to phrase, until the Administration of President George Herbert Walker Bush.

IOW, all those noble causes FDR took us to war for, Ronald Reagan & GHW Bush finally accomplished. As to the matter of Hitler's WMD, how we had to build the bomb first cause Hitler was working on weapons of mass destruction, turns out that was a big fraudulent lie, too. Only the US spent $4 billion (multiply that by at least 20 to arrive a comparable amount in today's acounting), countless sacrifices, only to be lied to, and then have that same $4 billion investment handed to the commies by your fellow American citizens. Then came the insane nuclear arms race (which by some extimates cost 25% of the GDP of the planet for half a century), all thanks to several KGB agents, the most famous of which is code named "Liberal." RobS 22:00, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

• • Note, this is not a de-clonoization, it's a reply to a comment waaaay above here. TK out human^{be in} 21:47, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

That's a joke and a clever grammatical trick; not a real academic suggestion.-αmεσ (!) 20:54, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Well, what nobody's noticed is....it was published in that commie rag, the New Republic (see our entry on New Republic, Clinton's teacher, Prof. Carroll Quigley, says its a commie rag). RobS 20:56, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Goddamn, Rob, not everyone who disagrees with you is a commie spy secretly working to cripple the government. Come on, it was funny reading it the first few times, now it's getting pitiable.--Offeep 20:59, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

These days, if the Commies really wanted to cripple the US government, they'd vote Republican. --SockOfGulik 21:00, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Actually I have strong evidence the RNC has been infiltrated. RobS 21:20, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Provide links.-αmεσ (!) 21:20, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Rob, who hasn't been infiltrated?--Offeep 21:23, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

The RNC. I personally heard Ronald Reagan, in his speech to the 1992 GOP convention several times speek of "the sin of racism." All those references have been expunged from the published version of the speech on the RNC's website. RobS 21:29, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Golly, is there anyone around who ISN'T secretly plotting to flouridate our water? --SockOfGulik 21:22, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

How does your Reagan thing prove infiltration?-αmεσ (!) 21:37, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Well duh, somebody, in the RNC, sanitized the original version of the speech. Now, it could be argued, it may have been by a racist. This itself is infiltration and subversion. Alternatively, someone from outside the party likewise could have infiltrated at that high a level to remove that information. All we know is, it has been done. RobS 21:43, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Well, it might have been the Commies. It could just have been the GOP pandering to the Bigot Vote. It certainly wouldn't be the first time...or the last. --SockOfGulik 21:46, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Apparently, thinking racism is a sin is COMMUNISM. I'm sure the Ku Klux Klan will be delighted at their vindication. :-P --SockOfGulik 21:41, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Im on ur site fuxing ur bla<!------------->cklist!-αmεσ (!) 21:03, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

How about taking the blatant lie off of your userpage?

I N A C T I V E

This user is no longer following discussions in Trationalwiki.

That statement appears to be non-operative as of this point in time. --SockOfGulik 21:43, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

You also misspelled "TrashionalWiki"! human^{be in} 21:48, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Ban This Bitch

Hi Rob, couldn't help noticing that you blocked me from creating an account on CP simply because I posted here, without breaching a single commandment. Not to worry, I've changed my IP address quite easily (it's a dynamic one you see) and so I can happily vandalise away if I wanted, although I simply clicked edit to steal some wiki code. The end result is that you've banned around 200 dynamic addresses for five years (locking out many prospective editors) and I get off scott free for a crime I never committed. Good day to you 124.183.9.177 04:47, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Another Liberal Deceit. After all, blocking someone for their activities on another site would violate the Conservapedia Commandments, and we all know no Real True Conservative would EVER do such a thing. --67.102.192.7 16:13, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Darn commies

Hey Rob! :D --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 21:41, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Linking to satan worship websites...

Since you brought it up and like pop culture[4]... Could you Look around this image and see who the person who not only linked to (in the upload comment), but copied an image from a satan worship heavy metal band? Whats more, this image is a copyright violation (and certainly not fair use). Once they get around to it, I'm sure they'll be filing a DMCA takedown request (I did send them an email that CP has a copyright infringement). You might want to chat with someone about it before Conservapedia gets sued by Satanists who win the law suit and take down. --Shagie 01:17, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Friendly advice

Speed kills, man. --Kels 19:08, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Poorly educated?

Let's throw down here. My bet is that RW credentials >>>> all CP credentials. Aaaaaand go.-αmεσ (spy) 22:53, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Only liberals use credential based education...real education is the kind you get reading Ann Coulter. 24.141.169.227 22:56, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, dude, I forgot.-αmεσ (spy) 22:58, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Hey, Rob, Guess What?

We totally posted that diff, even though you vaguely threatened us not to. I liked your general tone there, something like, "Yes, post the diff, RW, if you dare!"--Offeep 00:02, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Yea, that's right, we went there. Locke ^{Always Watching......} 00:05, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Uhhh uhhhhhhhhhh (snaps fingers in a "z" pattern).-αmεσ (spy) 00:07, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm so proud. All I did was add an entry and it culminated into this. You reinserted the peice yourself, nobody forced you to. In that meaning, with your statement, "placed by trolls", you just called yourself a troll. Norseman^Wassail! 01:00, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Happy Anniversary!

Happy anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, Rob! May the victorious proletariat go on to yet greater successes in the bright future! :D --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 12:07, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Wow. Resurrected from the ash heap of history to my talk page. Life is strange. RobS 14:57, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Speaking of anniversaries, in a couple of weeks CP turns 1! We've been stockpiling balloons, cake and goat pilaf for the occasion! human 15:00, 8 November 2007 (EST)

I saw the other day CP is exactly where Wikipedia was in its first year of existence, 20K articles. In another 5 years, we should be number 8 in Alexa. It may pay to start kissing up to the cabal now, huh? RobS 15:18, 8 November 2007 (EST)

20,000 articles, lol. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Come on now, they try. But it's hard to write a good article when you can't find something to copy it from. Jrssr5 15:56, 8 November 2007 (EST)

I've been down now since the end of September. I got dragged into the WP/RfArb/Attack sites case, and had a private mediation with SlimVirgin. But I think we got that all cleared up now, so seriously, I'd like to ask you guys for a CP/Request for Comment/Wikipedia/Brandt-Berlet feud, including all the subsections. I distinctly left SlimVirgin's role out, but other than that, brought all relevent facts upto date. RobS 17:37, 8 November 2007 (EST)

I don't think Wikipedia spent quite as much time banning people in their first year as you Conservapedia guys did. Which might have something to do with WHY they're the go-to quick-reference site on the Web, whereas CP's main use is for cheap laughs. --Gulik 23:54, 8 November 2007 (EST)

• Conservapedia number 8 in Alexa? O RLY? DINESEN^yep? 19:01, 8 November 2007 (EST)

I went to your link, RobS. Since the first sentence was an impenetrable run-on, I stopped reading. human 21:17, 8 November 2007 (EST)

The Essjay scandal destroyed WP's credibility, which is covered here [5][6]. I was one of Brandt's "cronies" at WR, and there's even more to the scandal than was reported and is still ongoing. WP's cabal tried to deal with it in the Attack sites case, but failed, so they're now pursuing a different track. One more piece of independent evidence to corroboarte existing evidence is needed, and this next scandal will blow & shake WP to its foundations even more than Essjay did.

In the Essjay scandal, WP got caught trying to engineer a hoax against academics & students. This next scandal is much worse, and you can find elements of it in my footnotes, but I'm leaving out direct accusations against individuals. My differences with WP is on a policy level, but I just have too much evidence how thier policies have been abused in a systemic way by the very authors of those same policies. RobS 01:26, 9 November 2007 (EST)

CP at 20k/1 yr is not the same as WP being there. When WP was one year old, no one even knew what wikis were (well, not many people). Granted, CP started 11/06 with no one on board who really know how a wiki worked, but by the end of 3/07, dozens or more new editors turned up who knew all about how wikis worked - from their experience at WP. Also, as pointed out above, a large majority of CP "articles" aren't even good definitions, let alone 'pedic articles. But, at least, the site is growing rapidly!!!oneone11!! human 21:17, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Also, I think it's fairly clear that Conservapedia has hit its maximum number of users. Everyone else they've offended or scared away, and even certain sleeping dragons seem to be tiring.-αmεσ (spy) 22:01, 8 November 2007 (EST)

¡☭!

☭!

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist :). --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 21:54, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Ah, the beloved interrobang. That's Rob's logo, you know. human 21:57, 8 November 2007 (EST)

The interrobang? No, that's ‽. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 22:09, 8 November 2007 (EST)

If you don't have the special character (or don't know you have it), ?! is used. Of course, you used the spanish version in the header, right? human 12:45, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Ah. Well, I have a lovely collection of special characters, so… --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 13:15, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Hey Rob! Hey! HEY!

:D --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 13:22, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Rob: when conservative says "frog" you better jump.

Hey Rob!!! Somebody just sent you an IMPORTANT e-mail: [7] (just in case you'd er... ignored it) Susan_{... purrrrrr ...} 22:05, 11 November 2007 (EST)

I just sent you an important email, about making our site the uberkelzzzzez on teh innertubes!!!!!

I just sent you an important email, about making our site the uberkelzzzzez on teh innertubes!!!!! human 00:04, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Hey Rob, thanks for dropping by! You know we are having a party for Conservapedia's anniversary, right? Feel free to come on over and enjoy the festivities!

Hey Rob, thanks for dropping by! You know we are having a party for Conservapedia's anniversary, right? Feel free to come on over and enjoy the festivities! human 22:56, 20 November 2007 (EST)

RobS, do you frequently see concaine addicted prostitutes where in reality there are none?

If so, you may want to seek out the advice of a health care professional. 76.105.223.232 22:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Present for you

Although you might have the original. --Kels (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you (incidentlally, did you know the biographical information for cp:Allen H. Belmont came from Mad Magazines internet archives site? I kid you not. RobS (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't surprise me. Bill Gaines set a good standard back when he ran the magazine, and I would imagine his successors kept that up. --Kels (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Mad Magazine was the subject of Congressional Hearings during the subversion-comic-book hysteria. Mad published a form letter to send to the FBI for draft resisters. This of course brought them under FBI scrutiny, Belmont, who was a longtime field investigator in the Venona project, headed up the investigation. The whole Spy vs Spy stuff is moreless based on this episode. RobS (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't the first time Gaines had been before Congress. Back when he ran EC Comics, of which only Mad survived in the long run, he was trying to defend the right to publish horror and crime comics in the midst of the controversy that Fred Wertham and his crowd had stirred up. Sadly, being on appetite suppressants at the time, he didn't handle himself nearly as well as he could have, and made a lot of the same missteps that Frank Zappa would make decades later at the PMRC hearings. --Kels (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an area I'd like to delve into if ever I get the time. The mad magazine archives have much more interesting stuff, and they clearly did do thier research seriously. They got the Belmont stuff from the Warren Commission Report. It is very interesting because the 1956 Belmont to Boardman Memo is one of the key documents that has led to Cold War history revisionism (read D, E, & F here. It's very short) It would be nice to know alittle more about the author who set much of it in motion (see for example the text in WP Chip Berlet & I collaborated on this, one of the few things we agreed on, and it virtually is verbatim from Belmont's memo, the section entitled "Prosecution"). RobS (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, these days I'm more interested in the art itself (Mort Drucker alone influenced easily hundreds of modern professionals, to say nothing of geniuses like Kurtzman), but I used to be pretty into comics history. Never let it be said that it's "kid's stuff" by definition, there have been some pretty sharp cookies in the field and still are. --Kels (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sysop

In the interest of fewer red exclamation points, you are now a sysop. Our guide, if you're interested. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I am fattered and fumbled. RobS (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Comrade!

I recently found this picture of you on the internets!

What do you think? --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you should also add an auto-playing "Lara's Theme" here. ħuman 02:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

<flashmp3>http://folk.ntnu.no/makarov/temporary_url_20070929kldcg/anthem-sovietunion-1943-en.mp3%7Cautostart=no</flashmp3>

...is better. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Is that Paul Robeson? brings tears to my ears..... RobS (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Frank Marshall Davis

so, Rob, have any reliable articles (other than the Telegraph one, which is another argument) which confirm that Sex Rebel: Black is indeed an autobiography and not a work of fiction? Because if it's not an autobiography, saying FMD is a self-confessed pedophile is pretty vicious defamation. Megaten (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Per WP policy, it's "verifiable." Also, let the dead guy sue me for libel; then we can get him under oath and have hjim perjure himslef. RobS (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh, must be one o' them "compassionate Conservatives" we keep hearin' about. --Kels (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Rob "almost" has a point - you can't defame the dead. You can still be a twerp, of course. ħuman 20:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the purpose of even discussing whether this man is a pedophile except to tar Obama with the sins of his "mentor." Just more shabby ad hominems from CP, is it RobS? If you knew what darkness was in the hearts of those around you, your family, friends, parents, spouse, whatever, you'd think twice about this kind of vapid, intellectually squalid nonsense. Conservapederast (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Intellectually squalid nonsense? Are you refering to "healthcare reform," or Frank and his old dashiki self? RobS (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep guessing Rob, I'm sure you'll get it someday. --Kels (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You know...RobS is loyal to this "God" character...and I have it on good authority that God created HITLER!!!!! It's a serious issue that bears further investigation, you know. --Kels (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see what Wikipedia's policies have to do with the subject (although if that's an admission that Conservapedia seeks to emulate them, I do admire this difference in stance from Schlafly). Rather, I repeat my question - do you have any reliable sources other than the Telegraph saying that Sex Rebel: Black is really an autobiography? Megaten (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Please feel free to improve the article. RobS (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I was blocked by TK for being a member of the vandal/troll site before I ever even found RationalWiki. Why hasn't he blocked you yet? Conservapederast (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, here's the Frank Marshall Davis-Walter Jarrett-Henry Wallace-Valerie Jarrett-Michelle Obama-Bernardine Dohrn-Barack Obama connection. [8] RobS (talk) 02:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well done RobS, you have become about the 10,000,000th person in history to demonstrate an example of the 6 degrees theory. You can make these connections all day long about any two randomly chosen people you want. Did you know that your are at most my 50th cousin? Think about that for a while. - π 02:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Amazing, especially in that Barack Obama doesn't have a direct connection to his own wife! Don't ever change, Rob, although I doubt you could. --Kels (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

So Rob, I see you still haven't addressed your own strong connection to known racists, it has every bit as much validity and strength as the associations above, but fewer links. I know I speak for all of us when I say that your silence on this matter is...significant. --Kels (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ken wears pants (I assume). God made Ken & Hitler. God made racists, too. Case closed. RobS (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

We lack sufficient data to evaluate whether or not Ken wears pants. However, preliminary results tend towards "no". --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. That was weird and highly non-sequitur even by Rob's standards. - π 02:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess he's claiming kinship with Hitler. Or something. It's pretty much a given Communists are involved somewhere, of course. --Kels (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Dunno how Rob squares his conscience with posting on an evil communist website like what this is! ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 04:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Good job, Rob!

This is a masterpiece of absurdity. Keep it up and you'll soon trump JPatt as the top parodist at Conservapedia. Megaten (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You can't criticise people with dyslexia? What? Wisest stupid Hoover! 21:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Only if you're a NAZI! --Kels (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Rob

Why have you guys let TK take over your wiki with his heavy handed and dishonest nonsense? I can see a few of you guys really trying to write your articles and do your news entries, but he just spews hyperbole and blocks users. What gives? 22:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

TK

Is killing your project: alienating what few well-intentioned, good-faith editors might come by (and when was the last time CP attracted any to begin with?) range-blocking most of the country and the world (especially colleges and universities, where smart people may sometimes be found) and now locking random pages from editing (the Beach Boys? seriously?) --why do the rest of you let him get away with it? Why not drop an e-mail on Andy telling him just how much TK is doing to undermine CP? Surely even Andy isn't so stupid as to think that the guy is helping out? JustThisGuy,Y'Know? (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Conservative

Is a moron--a mendacious, self-serving idiot. Why the hell do you all put up with that twit, who is obviously using the project for his own ends? Did the "Gentlemen" shout-outs end on their own, or did Andy finally get sick of Conservative taking advantage of his bandwidth? JustThisGuy,Y'Know? (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Under your bed....

Around the corner...

Down the street...

In your neighbor's rec room...

You know what is going on.

We surround you. We dilute your water. We contaminate your food. We indoctrinate your children.

We control your world. ħuman 04:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, putting LSD & flouride in the water. That explains the underground subculture of the 60s. RobS (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You really should be more careful with your precious bodily fluids. Well, we have a sample now so it's only a matter of time. --Kels (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water? ListenerX^TalkerX 17:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Vodka, hat's what they drink, isn't it? The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!}

Greetings.

Arise ye workers from your slumbers

Arise ye prisoners of want

For reason in revolt now thunders

And at last ends the age of cant.

Away with all your superstitions

Servile masses arise, arise

We'll change henceforth the old tradition

And spurn the dust to win the prize.

Refrain:

So comrades, come rally

And the last fight let us face

The Internationale unites the human race.

No more deluded by reaction

On tyrants only we'll make war

The soldiers too will take strike action

They'll break ranks and fight no more

And if those cannibals keep trying

To sacrifice us to their pride

They soon shall hear the bullets flying

We'll shoot the generals on our own side.

No saviour from on high delivers

No faith have we in prince or peer

Our own right hand the chains must shiver

Chains of hatred, greed and fear

E'er the thieves will out with their booty

And give to all a happier lot.

Each at the forge must do their duty

And we'll strike while the iron is hot.

TheoryOfPractice (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Mmmm .. nice! ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 15:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

TK... again...

...strange he should crop up twice on the same talk page under negative pretentions, eh? He just went on a blocking spree and blocked about 3 or 4 new editors who hadn't done anything wrong. Two of them were even contributing properly.

Anyway, not to take out my frustrations on you (seriously), hope you're well! SJ ^Debaser 17:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Robby... talk to me darnit! I'm genuinely trying to be friends with you here! SJ ^Debaser 10:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Rob is too cautious to make friend. How does he know you are not a communist infiltrator? - π 10:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Because I'm as much of a communist as ListenerX is. SJ ^Debaser 11:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Back in the 60's a bunch of members of the Conservative Party (UK) turned out to be communist. You can't trick old Rob that easily. - π 11:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember that... but then again, I was in my negative mid-twenties. REDS UNDER THE BED! MCCARTHY, KILL THEM ALL! SJ ^Debaser 11:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Also...

How come Terry hasn't blocked you for belonging to a "vandal site"? God knows he's done it to basically every other user here. SJ ^Debaser 09:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify, Rob.

Who have you gotten to know? Megaten (talk) 03:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Frank, or "Pops" as young Barry called him. RobS (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Commie Rot?

A family member of mine here in NZ gets cancer.

• Intial Diagnosis - Free.
• MRI scan - Free
• X-Rays - Free
• Blood tests - Free
• Brain surgery - Free
• 5 day stay in hospital receiving top-notch care - Free
• Radio therapy - Free
• 2 wigs for when hair falls out - Free
• Chemotherapy - Free
• Stay in hospital to recover - Free
• Medication - $3.00 per prescription with Govt. Subsidy
• Future palliative care when they get sicker - Free
• Societal cost - a wonderful caring person who paid their taxes their whole life and spent their entire career looking after foster care kids and abused children so that they and others might be able to recieve this excellent heathcare gets to live another day.
  

Commie rot? Fuck you Rob, you fucking disgust me. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 20:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should read, Societal Costs of Menstruation [9] it may warrant its own article. RobS (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Fuck off you revolting cunt. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 02:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Why can't you just say "I'm speechless," why so abusive? Let's sing all together now, "We are the world...we are the children...." RobS (talk) 03:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You might be child of the world, but the rest of us are adults. 192.43.227.18 03:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I sorry, I must've hit an emotional nerve (Need a kleenex?) RobS (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah you fuckwit, you hit a nerve, you are calling the treament my dying family member receives to help them live an extra day or week as "commie rot". You are a digusting piece of of shit and obviously deeply disturbed and paraniod. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 20:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ace! Mind your tongue! RobS is in a very delicate condition. He is making progress, yes, but who knows what kind of catastrophic reversal could occur if he learns that the only Communist state that could pose a threat to the US fell over two decades ago! I have tried to stabilize him by placing him amongst right-wing fanatics, but then you had to ome along. Please leave the poor man alone. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 21:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ace, you convinced me. We need death panels. [10] The Palpatine, count me among the revisionists. [11] RobS (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Rob, did you read the article where the writer said that if Stephen Hawking lived in Britain the NHS would have refused to treat him? I felt he made a very convincing argument. EddyP (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Fuck you Rob, just fuck you and your 1950's mentality. I hope you are inflicted with the same cancer that my family has and I hope your treatment costs you your house and life. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 21:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Comparing health care reform to the Gestapo.

Agree with health care reform, disagree with it--there are lots of reasonable positions to stake out around the issue. But comparing a policy initiative to a key actor in the genocide of millions is cruel, thoughtless, stupid, insensitive, inaccurate, and beyond the pale. You're a fucking horrible person Rob. A fucking horrible person. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not my invention, its just a neologism in common usage. I'm just reporting on it.

Hey, by the way, isn't this about as Godwin as it gets? "Conservapedia:Fascism;" don't rag me out with your BS. RobS (talk) 02:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

As much in common usage as the cp:New Ordeal, I'm sure.--الملعب الاسود العقل ^{There's no love in fear} 02:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)