sotnd conservaleaks

2008-04-02 ZB1 User:Snphughie
2008-04-02 ZB1 Little Black Sambo and other books
2008-04-02 ZB1 Curses and insults
2008-04-03 ZB1 Press Releases
2008-04-03 ZB1 GNU images

Curses and insults

Ed Poor <uncle_ed_p...@yahoo.com>, Wed, 2 Apr 2008 08:11:22 -0700 (PDT):

You'd have to be an idiot to think that phrases like "don't be a dick"
or "don't be an idiot" are generally considered to be insulting.
However, I'm perfectly willing to avoid using them.

There should be one standard for all, even though liberals insist on a
double standard. I had to give User:Fox a public scolding, because he
was claiming to apply one standard while simultaneously insisting on a
double standard! He pushed all TK's buttons and made a mountain out of
a molehill, instead of handling it behind the scenes. As soon as I
paroled TK the first time, he should have realized this is not a good
time to create a public scene (on the other hand, I myself should have
set a better example by not unilaterally paroling TK.)

This is what I mean about liberals insisting on higher standards. Any
criticism of Fox, he just turns right around and starts blaming
others. Anything to take the heat off, I guess.

Well, I don't mind being held to a higher standard. So, anything I do
wrong, feel free to contact me and tell me off. (Hint: gentle, patient
words work better with me than, um, the alternative.)

Uncle Ed Poor

"Philip Rayment" <PJRaym...@yahoo.com.au>, Thu, 3 Apr 2008 19:33:14 +1100:

I guess I must be an idiot.

I'm not following what you are saying about Fox claiming to apply one
standard whilst insisting on a double standard.

What I see is TK trying to push everyone's buttons, but everyone but TK
getting the scolding.  TK reverted an edit of DParker's with the edit
comment, "Sorry, you were reverted by a sysop for your idea, on another
article"!  So basically TK's stated "reason" for reverting DParker is that
DParker was reverted for doing something /different/ on a /different/
article.

So you, Ed, blocked DParker for a /month/ for dubious reasons.  One was
"50/50 comments" (what happened to "90/10"?); another was for "2 reverted
edits"!  I've also never really agreed with the requirement for a "writing
plan", but I'll leave that one go for now.

So basically TK reverts for silly reasons, and the editor who got reverted
gets blocked for a month!

Then of course there's TK's abuse on my talk page.  But it was Fox who got
blocked this time.  I queried the consistency of that on Fox' talk page, the
answer I got didn't make much sense (my query of that has not been
answered), and there's still been no consistency.

Philip Rayment

"Brian Macdonald" <kara...@gmail.com>, Thu, 3 Apr 2008 05:43:35 -0500:

all of us have to look very carefully at what is being said here.  I do not
trust TK at all, and if he's the one pushing the buttons, then he needs to
be blocked.

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 3:33 AM, Philip Rayment <PJRaym...@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:

Ed Poor <uncle_ed_p...@yahoo.com>, Thu, 3 Apr 2008 05:26:24 -0700 (PDT):

Philip, I could be wrong; I often am. What do you suggest?

Ed

"Philip Rayment" <PJRaym...@yahoo.com.au>, Fri, 4 Apr 2008 01:32:56 +1100:

Merely more consistency.

Either don't block TK's victims, er, protagonists, so readily, or give TK
some blocks also.  Admittedly, we should perhaps leave that to Geoffrey, but
whoever does it, it should be more consistent and even handed.

Philip Rayment

Geoffrey Plourde <geo.p...@yahoo.com>, Thu, 3 Apr 2008 08:01:45 -0700 (PDT):

I generally will not block people arguing with him. If they bait him, I will deal with them accordingly.

"Philip Rayment" <PJRaym...@yahoo.com.au>, Fri, 4 Apr 2008 02:15:57 +1100:

And if he baits them?

I've just seen a second occasion (at least) where he's responded to someone by slighting where they are from.  The first was me on my talk page; the second was on the Liberal talk page where he referred to "European logic", because the person's user name is Europeanunion.  I'd consider that "baiting".  So how are you dealing with him?

Philip Rayment

"Dan Holmes" <thunderbolt...@gmail.com>, Thu, 3 Apr 2008 11:14:35 -0500:

I agree that it ought to be considered baiting. Conservapedia is not a
site just for conservatives for any one country, and insulting people
on the basis of their country of origin should be tolerated no more
than we would tolerate comments of a racial nature.

Geoffrey Plourde <geo.p...@yahoo.com>, Thu, 3 Apr 2008 12:54:07 -0700 (PDT):

Is anyone here a psychotherapist? I would be interested in TKs psychological makeup. I am maintaining constant contact with him and will bring it up with him. If I have to block him, I will do so. It will all depend on what happens tonight when I speak to him.

"Brian Macdonald" <kara...@gmail.com>, Thu, 3 Apr 2008 15:23:04 -0500:

I remember a Far Side cartoon a few years back, in which the psychiatrist
has penciled in his notepad three simple words about the patient on his
couch: "just plain nuts!"

I can't help but think of that right now!

2008-04-02 ZB1 User:Snphughie
2008-04-02 ZB1 Little Black Sambo and other books
2008-04-02 ZB1 Curses and insults
2008-04-03 ZB1 Press Releases
2008-04-03 ZB1 GNU images

Last updated 12 Apr 2011 by Georg Kraml.