sotnd conservaleaks

2008-11-17 ZB1 Users with block rights but not sysop rights
2008-11-18 ZB1 Public and private
2008-11-18 ZB1 Inappropriate block by bugler, followed by "edit warring" over it.
2008-11-18 ZB1 LIFE photo archive hosted by Google
2008-11-19 ZB1 Concerns

Inappropriate block by bugler, followed by "edit warring" over it.

"Philip Rayment \(home\)" <PJRaym...@Yahoo.com.au>, Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:58:51 +1100:

See interspersed comments.

Philip J. Rayment
Skype: PhilipAndRebekahRayment

Geoffrey Plourde <geo.p...@yahoo.com>, Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:33:34 -0800 (PST):

"It's Andy who's made it "my way or the highway".  When he insists on his way
in opposition even to several of his own senior administrators, it is he who
is insisting on his way."

Andy is still the leader of Conservapedia. We serve at his pleasure. He does not have to listen to senior sysops.  In business, my way or the highway is the way it works. When your supervisor makes a bad decision, you don't complain about it, because you will be fired.

"Philip Rayment \(home\)" <PJRaym...@Yahoo.com.au>, Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:28:28 +1100:

No, in business it is not "my way or the highway".  Not totally, at least.

First, we are not just talking about "bad decisions", but injustice, including stuff that is analogous to, if not actually, slanderous, harassment, and firing (this last one being analogous to being banned from the site).

In business, when my supervisor makes a bad decision, I can complain about it.  I can complain to my supervisor's boss.  And if I'm fired for complaining, then I can file a claim of unfair dismissal with the courts.  The problem here is that Andy has nobody above him to complain to.

If, in business, my supervisor who makes a bad decision is the CEO, then even he is answerable to the board of directors.  And the board of directors is answerable to the shareholders.  But again, on Conservapedia, there is no higher authority to complain to, so the comparison with business still fails.

If the business is a private business, with no shareholders, board, or etc. even then there are options.  If the "bad decision" is being fired for no valid reason, then there are sometimes unfair dismissal laws to protect the employee from that (here in Oz at least; I don't know if America is that advanced).  If an employee is being harassed, the employee is legally liable for harassing, or for allowing his employees to harass.  And of course if someone is being slandered, they can sue.

And none of this applies exclusively to businesses.  The same rules apply to non-profit organisations, societs, assocations, and so on.

Now perhaps few if any of the things that occur on Conservapedia would constitute crimes under such laws, but the principle remains.  If a supervisor is being unfair, it is the responsibility of that supervisor's "boss" (i.e. Andy) to step in.  And if it is Andy himself who is being unfair, then, as there is no other avenue of appeal, it is our responsibility to speak up.  If Andy "fires" me for doing so, then he has that right, and of course as I'm not an employee, unfair dismissal laws don't apply.  But as long as I'm here, I will put truth and justice ahead of giving tacit approval to injustice and falsities by remaining silent.

Philip J. Rayment
Skype: PhilipAndRebekahRayment

Ed Poor <uncle_ed_p...@yahoo.com>, Wed, 19 Nov 2008 06:41:49 -0800 (PST):

Philip, you are confusing commerce with God's business.

Andy, I presume, feels he has a God-given mandate to supply the world
(or at least America) with a trustworthy resource. That is his highest
priority. He has selected volunteers to help him with this mission -
or whatever he's trying to do (my presumption may be wrong).

Unlike business in Australia, here in the US there are many jobs which
are "employment at will" (this may not be the precise term). That is,
as long as the employer and employee /both/ wish the working
relationship to continue, it may. If /either/ wants a separation, he
is within his rights: the employee may quit working for the employer,
and need not even give a reason; the employer may likewise fire the
employee. The usual reason for quitting is, "I found a job that pays
more." The usual reason for firing is, "I found a better employee
(works harder, requires less pay, whatever)."

In a free market economy - as opposed to socialism - it is each man's
right to enter into or leave any commercial relationship. The only
exceptions are where there are contracts: I can't fire the actor just
because the audiences don't like him any more, or if I do I have to
pay all his remaining salary (or whatever the "golden parachute"
agreement was). Certain essential government workers can't go on
strike, and we all know the situation of soldiers.

Conservapedia is a research institution, staffed entirely by
volunteers. No one's livelihood depends on being allowed to post
contributions or comments. Your analogy to business is entirely
incorrect. No one has a right to "be" on CP.

You are projecting your personal ideas of justice into a situation
where it simply does not apply.

Moreover, there is nothing criminal in America about giving one's
opinion. We have (nearly) absolute freedom of speech here.

So please stop trying to blow Andy's coat off him. Try shining the
warm light of brotherly love on him, and maybe he'll take his coat off
voluntarily. (source: Aesop's Fables)

Ed Poor

Geoffrey Plourde <geo.p...@yahoo.com>, Wed, 19 Nov 2008 09:56:31 -0800 (PST):

Maybe we have a difference in legal comparisons. In the United States, there is no such thing as a unfair dismissal, except for gender or racial discrimination. While you may think that the decision is a bad idea, the decision is still Andy's to make.   

DeanS <dean.conservat...@gmail.com>, Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:22:18 -0800 (PST):

Philip, I disagree with your assumption of Andy's "bad decision." Just
because you (or several others) think it's a bad decision, doesn't
mean it IS a bad decision.

The problem here is YOU just don't respect or accept Andy's decisions
or leadership. Good thing Andy has a lot of patience and
understanding.

Dean

"Philip Rayment \(home\)" <PJRaym...@Yahoo.com.au>, Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:10:36 +1100:

See interspersed comments.

Philip J. Rayment
Skype: PhilipAndRebekahRayment

"Philip Rayment \(home\)" <PJRaym...@Yahoo.com.au>, Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:21:19 +1100:

Okay, so if you have laws against dismissal on the grounds of gender or race, then you do have some form of unfair dismissal laws!

As for it being Andy's decision, see my previous e-mail responding to Ed.

Philip J. Rayment
Skype: PhilipAndRebekahRayment

"Philip Rayment \(home\)" <PJRaym...@Yahoo.com.au>, Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:27:14 +1100:

That Andy makes bad decisions is /not/ an "assumption".  You are correct on
a point of logic that a majority is not always right, but in saying that
you've totally missed discussing how one decides what /is/ right.  It's not
right simply because Andy says so, is it?  So how do we determine what /is/
right?

So your second paragraph logically fails because you haven't established
that Andy's decisions /are/ right.  If Andy is insisting on something false,
then /that/, not my refusal to accept it, is the problem.

Philip J. Rayment
Skype: PhilipAndRebekahRayment

DeanS <dean.conservat...@gmail.com>, Thu, 20 Nov 2008 05:11:50 -0800 (PST):

Your reply is why I usually don't try and discuss things with you
Philip. You think you have the "logical high ground" by deciding what
is logical and what is not. It seems to me you always think you're
right and you decide the other person is not logical.

Since Andy is in charge of Conservapedia, HE decides what is right for
Conservapedia. You don't and I don't. Your constant bickering confirms
what I said earlier - "The problem here is YOU just don't respect or
accept Andy's decisions or leadership." That's a fact.

Dean

CPAdmin1 <timo...@goodcomputerhelp.com>, Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:02:39 -0800 (PST):

This site is /not/ about Andy's opinions.  This site is about Truth,
and truth is absolute.  Andy does not decide what truth is.  If Andy
decides what os right on CP, then the RW people are right, it /is/ his
blog.  You said "It seems to me you always think you're

> right and you decide the other person is not logical." Are you saying that you don't always think you are right?  Do you do or say things that you think are not right.  I would be much more concerned about someone who does/says things that they don't believe to be right, than someone who does/says what they think is right, regardless of who it might offend.

Are you saying that logic is not valid?  Are you saying that we should
go against logic?  Logic is valid as long as you have the right
starting point.  Start with God, and what God says, and you will come
to the right conclusion.

Truth is not relative.  Truth is not decided by men.  Truth is decided
by God, regardless of what man may say.  Therefore, if Andy goes
against truth (I am not alleging anything here, just refuting your
claims) then it is right to argue against it.

Tim

DeanS <dean.conservat...@gmail.com>, Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:07:57 -0800 (PST):

Tim, you say truth is absolute. While that is true, I'm sure we will
have different interpretations of the same issue, and that doesn't
mean you or Philip are right.

Of course I believe I'm right whatever I say or do, but I have been
wrong before and it won't be the last time.

As far as offending goes, this idea about saying whatever you think is
right, "regardless of who it might offend", is a slippery slope. It
seems to me that Philip is nicer to problem editors than he is to his
fellow administrators. He is very understanding of their liberal
tactics and frequently defends them. When it comes to his fellow
administrators, he is very critical and combative. That's just my
opinion.

No, I'm not saying that logic is invalid. I'm just saying that what
seems logical to you or Philip may not be logical to me.  You say,
"start with God, what God says, and you will come to the right
conclusion." Since we have different interpretations of what God says
(remember I'm Mormon). then we're not going to agree on some points of
logic or doctrine.

You say, "Truth is decided by God, regardless of what man may say".
Yes, that is true, but you or I are not God, and just because you or
Philip say it's truth doesn't mean it is.

Dean

Ed Poor <uncle_ed_p...@yahoo.com>, Fri, 21 Nov 2008 07:22:09 -0800 (PST):

>> So please stop trying to blow Andy's coat off him. Try shining the
>> warm light of brotherly love on him, and maybe he'll take his coat off
>> voluntarily. (source: Aesop's Fables)

>Sorry, I've already tried that.  It didn't work.

In light of the above, I am calling a recess to discuss whether Philip
should remain in this discussion group.

Ed Poor

Geoffrey Plourde <geo.p...@yahoo.com>, Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:01:15 -0800 (PST):

I find Philip's actions troubling. While disagreeing with authority is healthy, it is unChristian and unproductive to make a scene about a "bad" decision. I made a business analogy about how in business you do not defy your boss, because you will be fired. This rule holds in Christianity as well. You will never see someone stand up during a church service and attack the preacher. I believe the point I am making was best said by Napoleon with his statement that anyone who is selected to lead a doomed plan should present his objections and resign rather than be the instrument of disgrace.  

In addition to his open defiance of the authority of Andy, I have issues with his refusal to attempt to communicate with TK. Ed and I both maintain constant contact with TK and do not have any problems with him. The refusal to communicate could indicate a closed mind or grudge, which we do not need.

The best way to deal with TK is to talk to him. He has AIM, Google Chat, Yahoo, and email. While he can be obstinate, being open to communication decreases the level of paranoia and assumptions.

God Bless;

Geoffrey Plourde

"Bill Bagot" <wbag...@san.rr.com>, Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:30:29 -0800:

I am hoping this isn't just going to be a jumping on Philip..  I have found
his style to be personally grating at times, but I question some of the
statements that are being made.

1)     There is nothing "unChristian" about what Philip is doing.  There are
times to question authority and there are times not to.  I don't believe
Jesus should be brought into a discussion over honest differences of
opinion.

2)     There are different thoughts on when someone should 'abandon ship'.
Christians academics did that in the 1920s  and 1930s after the Scopes Trial
and look what that got us - an academia totally controlled by liberals.  If
Philip sees worth and hope with the project along with negatives, he
probably wants to at least try to fight for that which he believes has
value.  I'm not going to fault him for this.  If you are going to fault him
then fault him for protocols, not steadfastness.

3)     TK and Philip have totally different styles that do not mix.  I'd
imagine Philip would talk to TK if TK would write him an email - indeed,
ongoing written discussion of specific issues is Philip's primary means of
communication, although even then I doubt this would lead to constructive
understanding.  You and Ed both have ongoing contact with TK because he
considers you his friends.  Your interactive styles can bring out more of
his jovial nature.  Philip doesn't have that same standing.  Philip
obviously believes, rightly or wrongly, that TK has sabotaged the site in
the past.  This has a tendency to exclude group hugs.

I believe that any discussion about Philip should deal with identifying
specific issues of difficulty and how to improve them.  Hopefully this can
occur.

Bill  (Learn Together)

Geoffrey Plourde <geo.p...@yahoo.com>, Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:31:44 -0800 (PST):

I mostly agree with your line of reasoning. I still am convinced that in accordance with the Bible, we are to submit to those placed in authority over us. While Philip was free to state his objections to Andy's course of action, he needs to understand that Andy is the boss and that pushing the issue is a bad idea.

Geoffrey Plourde <geo.p...@yahoo.com>, Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:36:35 -0800 (PST):

I am not attacting his steadfastness. That is to be admired. However, there is a fine line between objections and defiance. Do you ever a parishioner argue with a preacher on the church floor?

"Bill Bagot" <wbag...@san.rr.com>, Fri, 21 Nov 2008 22:04:04 -0800:

I do cringe a bit when I hear references to religious leadership that ties
into the structure of this project.  I'm in this project because I recognize
the need for a conservative outlet that allows conservative thought to be
presented instead of suppressed.  I admire Andy for not only conceiving it,
but implementing it.  But in no way do I see a connection between Andy's
role and my pastor.  The one deals with political and social ideology, the
other deals with helping to clarify a relationship with God.  They're
different spheres.

That being said, I'm sure most of us have a similar viewpoint that accepting
a position of authority in the project under the project leader means that
there are boundaries and there are appropriate and inappropriate behaviors.
Public discussion especially should be respectful and if differences are to
be aired, they should be done so in such a way that there is always a path
where both people can exit gracefully.  This is one thing that I don't think
Philip understands.

Bill  (Learn Together)    

Geoffrey Plourde <geo.p...@yahoo.com>, Fri, 21 Nov 2008 22:17:43 -0800 (PST):

Thank you for expressing my thoughts in more coherent manner. I might have to start wholesale borrowing your writings.

"Bill Bagot" <wbag...@san.rr.com>, Fri, 21 Nov 2008 23:21:05 -0800:

I'd be honored.

Bill ;-)

"Philip Rayment \(home\)" <PJRaym...@Yahoo.com.au>, Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:20:22 +1100:

Your response here was to attack me rather than my argument.  I don't decide
what is logical.  Things either are logical or they aren't.  If they are
not, the solution is to show that they are not, not to attack the person
claiming that they are logical for making that claim.

Philip J. Rayment
Skype: PhilipAndRebekahRayment

"Philip Rayment \(home\)" <PJRaym...@Yahoo.com.au>, Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:26:14 +1100:

"Of course I believe I'm right whatever I say or do..."

Yet you criticised me for believing that!

I'm not nicer to problem editors than fellow administrators.  I'm nicer to
people who are being nicer than to people who aren't.

"...just because you or Philip say it's truth doesn't mean it is."

And just because Andy says it's the truth doesn't mean that it is.  Yet one
of the big problems is with administrators who say that I have to accept
what Andy says /because Andy says it/ regardless of whether it's true or
not.

Philip J. Rayment
Skype: PhilipAndRebekahRayment

"Philip J. Rayment" <PJRaym...@yahoo.com.au>, Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:41:12 -0800 (PST):

On the contrary, I've heard of cases where someone /has/ stood up in a
church service and confronted what the preacher is saying--when the
preacher is preaching /against/ the Word of God.

Philip Rayment

"Philip J. Rayment" <PJRaym...@yahoo.com.au>, Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:45:40 -0800 (PST):

Regarding point 3 (I concur with points 1 and 2), TK does e-mail me at
times, and I generally reply.  But his e-mails long ago degenerated to
the point of being nasty, and as Bill says, TK's past actions tend to
exclude group hugs.  And I see a huge inconsistency with the way that
various liberals and RationalWiki people are treated compared with the
way that TK is treated.

Philip Rayment

Timothy Svendsen <timo...@goodcomputerhelp.com>, Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:56:34 -0500:

I would like to draw everyone's attention to an old thread.
See: http://groups.google.com/group/the-zeuglodon-blues/browse_thread/
thread/0dd1f995f94460bf?hl=en

Particularly quotes such as:
"I agree that he should not be brought to a position of trust, and  
that TK can be an ordinary user"
"So TK is not the kind of person I want as a trusted admin."
"He can be an ordinary user, but absent convincing proof of  
repentance for sharing secrets with our opponents, I vote against  
giving him any position of trust again."
"This incident speaks worlds of insight to me, i.e., I regard it as  
tantamount to (1) an admission that he committed "treason" against  
Conservapedia and (2) an acknowledgement that he feels no guilt or  
remorse for what he did."

It seems to me that some of us have forgotten, just how far TK went  
to attack CP and this group.  At the time everyone seemed to  
understand, but now he has been brought back, almost to the level of  
a sysop.
While I agree that we should forgive people, and give them second  
chances, I do not believe that it should include giving special  
rights to people who have no repented or changed their ways.

TIm

Mammon is an unforgiving God, I cast him away
I live my life to God, not to get paid
Money can't save your soul, don't think I can
I look to God and I feel like a little man.

Oh, let my pride fall down I'm a little man

   -The O.C. Supertones, "Little Man"

2008-11-17 ZB1 Users with block rights but not sysop rights
2008-11-18 ZB1 Public and private
2008-11-18 ZB1 Inappropriate block by bugler, followed by "edit warring" over it.
2008-11-18 ZB1 LIFE photo archive hosted by Google
2008-11-19 ZB1 Concerns

Last updated 12 Apr 2011 by Georg Kraml.