Tim
Let's see where his edits go. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt
myself.
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.p...@yahoo.com>wrote:
Yes, he did much for Conservapedia. He drove away good editors, imposed his will even over other adminsitrators, tried to control people, and tried to destroy Conservapedia.
"unhelpful" is not an accurate description. It's a whitewash.
Philip J. Rayment
Skype: PhilipAndRebekahRayment
http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:TK&diff=prev&o...
Philip J. Rayment
Skype: PhilipAndRebekahRayment
TerryH
Then it is at that point that he should be blocked, as per the rules of the
site; one day for first offence, three for the next and so on.
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 9:43 AM, CPAdmin1 <timo...@goodcomputerhelp.com>wrote:
Yes, you should be fair. But (a) being fair doesn't mean welcoming an unrepentant (there's no evidence of repentance) violator, (b) in TK's case, there is no doubt, and (c) my question was asking why you want to give TK the benefit of the doubt that you don't give to other RationalWiki people. To put it another way, will you now give "the benefit of the doubt" to any other RationalWiki person who returns? Or only TK?
Philip J. Rayment
Skype: PhilipAndRebekahRayment
The only way i will give the benefit of the doubt to any RatWiki person is
for them to first renounce (or *repent* of) RatWiki itself. Keep in mind
that RatWiki's official policy is to destroy our website.
Remember what I stated several months ago and forwarded to Andy about those
people: if RatWiki people intend to return to Conservapedia they are to
contact Andy and apologize to him personally for their past conduct before
they return, and only Andy can give authorization for that return.
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Philip Rayment (home) <
Those editors would still have to be authorized by Andy.
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:05 AM, CPAdmin1 <timo...@goodcomputerhelp.com>wrote:
TK was a prominent Conservapedia presence and sysop who was the scorn of RW.
Is he now to be viewed as a bastion of the RW site?
Whatever merits or lack of merits that TK has, they should be weighed on
their own.
To be fair, I should also recluse myself from any decisions that are made.
TK took me under his wing and helped show me the ropes at Conservapedia.
While I understand the decision to remove him last November, I will also
have a certain loyalty to the man for what he did for me personally.
Bill (Learn Together)
Correct, about a year ago. If you want I can think of several things that the precious RW users did.
1) Coordinated vandalism
2) Page boosting and bandwidth consumption
3) intolerance
Since he came back he hasn't really caused any problems.
Here's a rule of thumb: anyone liberals hate with a passion is /
likely/ to be a great help to the conservative cause.
Whom do liberals hate most of all? Rev. Moon, of course.
Moon adamantly opposes communism (because of its atheism and its human
rights record).
He totally rejects homosexuality (and once compared homosexuals to the
"dogs" mentioned in Revelations 22 who would be outside the gate of
heaven).
Moon supports scientists whose work opposed liberal dogma (see
[[ICUS]]), and one of his members got a scholarship to gain a Ph.D.
and then decided to attack Evolution head on (ever hear of [[Jonathan
Wells]] and "Icons of Evolution"?)
Moon claims credit (along with Reagan) for winning the cold war. His
church members were the first religious workers allowed into the
former USSR in 1992.
The list goes on, but I've made my point.
Let's stop all this bickering about personalities and get back to
supporting conservative /principles/.
Ed Poor
The Prodigal Son is welcomed backed in the famous parable. Let's
watch. Thanks for your patience and understanding.
In Christ,
Andy
Last updated 12 Apr 2011 by Georg Kraml.