sotnd conservaleaks

2008-09-25 ZB1 fannie mae and freddie mac
2008-09-26 ZB1 Country infobox
2008-09-26 ZB1 Saul Alinsky
2008-09-28 ZB1 TerryK's edit
2008-09-28 ZB1 Proposing new idea

Saul Alinsky

kara...@gmail.com, Fri, 26 Sep 2008 10:40:21 -0700 (PDT):

http://www.infed.org/thinkers/alinsky.htm

I suggest everyone read this if you don't have access to Alinsky's
book "Rules For Radicals".  The tactics he postulated are those being
used by liberals against this country and others right now, as well as
being used by RW against our site.

DeanS <dean.conservat...@gmail.com>, Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:48:13 -0700 (PDT):

Brian, I agree with you. Previously I posted a similar message in this
forum.

Dean

"Brian Macdonald" <kara...@gmail.com>, Sat, 27 Sep 2008 00:38:05 -0500:

Here are Alinsky's "rules" in brief, copied from that link:

*Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you
have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise
a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.

Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people.
The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.

Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here
you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. "You can kill
them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian
church can live up to Christianity."

Rule 5: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It's hard to counterattack
ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your
advantage.

Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. "If your people aren't
having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic."

Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may
become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.

Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all
events of the period for your purpose. "The major premise for tactics is the
development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the
opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your
advantage."

Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. When Alinsky
leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the
washrooms of O'Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act
on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the
mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every
washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and
the damage to the city's reputation.

Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, "Okay, what
would you do?"

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don't try
to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible
individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.
*
We have had in the past many liberal trolls who have tried baiting us with a
number of these rules, and more often than not they don't get blocked for
it.  Memorize these rules, because what we should do in the future is to
state directly to the troll involved that we are very familiar with
Alisnky's playground and we're not going to tolerate it here in the least.

"Philip Rayment \(home\)" <PJRaym...@Yahoo.com.au>, Sat, 27 Sep 2008 17:56:55 +1000:

This is now the third time this has been brought up, but the comments I made the first and second times have still not been addressed.  Ignoring an argument does not refute it.

So here, for the third time, are my comments on this.

-------------------------------
But back to Alinsky, and what I believe is the fatal flaw of your argument.
Let's accept that some RationalWiki people are following this tactic.  How
did Alinsky expect that the "establishment" (admins) would respond?  And
what is the best way to counter the tactic?

Perhaps Alinsky expected the establishment to respond with measures that
made the establishment look even worse, such as knee-jerk reactions, tougher
measures, insincere denials, etc., and perhaps this was, in effect, part of
the tactic.

So is the best way to respond to such a tactic to (a) get tough on the
perpetrators, or (b) do something that they don't expect, and respond with
exceptional fairness, integrity, and civility, and thereby take the wind out
of their sales?  Again: "A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word
stirs up anger."  That's not from Alinsky, but from Solomon, to whom God
gave great wisdom.  Perhaps he understood things better than Alinsky?

Alinsky's tactic, in part at least, was to highlight and magnify inevitable
flaws (e.g. inability to follow rules 100%).  So should we (a) support the
tactic, by continuing to demonstrate those flaws, or (b) oppose the tactic
by doing our utmost to show that the criticisms are unwarranted?  Sure, we
won't achieve it 100%, but by showing that the criticism /is/ warranted, we
only help the tactic work.
----------------------

Philip J. Rayment
Skype: PhilipAndRebekahRayment

CPAdmin1 <timo...@goodcomputerhelp.com>, Sat, 27 Sep 2008 04:28:59 -0700 (PDT):

I agree with Philip completely.  We need to treat them fairly
according to the rules.  If we do not do this it gives Christianity
and Conservatism a bad name.

Tim

"Brian Macdonald" <kara...@gmail.com>, Sat, 27 Sep 2008 09:29:37 -0500:

They've been doing that for a while, and again their version of "fair" is to
force us to do things their way.  Why do you think they want to have certain
articles changed to reflect the "fact" of evolution, or the "acceptance" of
the Bible as a fairy tale, among others?

They (and some of us here) need to realize that this is a conservative
website; it was not set up for liberals to force their ways and viewpoints
on it.  If they want "fair"; if they want to be heard, if they need to put
their words out, then they need to create their own website.

On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 6:28 AM, CPAdmin1 <timo...@goodcomputerhelp.com>wrote:

"Philip Rayment \(home\)" <PJRaym...@Yahoo.com.au>, Sun, 28 Sep 2008 01:01:33 +1000:

Thanks, Brian.  For completely sidestepping the points that I was making.  Now how about giving me enough respect to actually address my points?

Philip J. Rayment
Skype: PhilipAndRebekahRayment

"Brian Macdonald" <kara...@gmail.com>, Sat, 27 Sep 2008 10:40:58 -0500:

I addressed part of it.  The rest, namely "Alinsky's tactic, in part at
least, was to highlight and magnify inevitable flaws" is wrong.  What he
wrote in his preface says everything:

*"What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to
what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for
the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the
Have-Nots on how to take it away."*

Why do you think he dedicated his book to Satan?  Was it to promote peace
and loving kindness?  Or was it to influence the masses on organized theft?

Phillip, you do not know conservatism in America, and for that matter you
don't know liberalism in America.  Myself, Andy, Dean, and a few others here
are just a few of the millions who are stuck witnessing the difference
between the two.  One side wants family values, the other wants to shove in
the family's face sex, drugs, and aborted babies.  One side wants to go to
church to worship the Lord, the other wants to go to the church to burn
it down.  Our side finally gets a television outlet (Fox) to express our
views on television, as well as talk radio; the other side demands to have
their views shoved into both, and if they cannot do that, they want to force
the issue with the so-called Fairness Doctrine which they are trying to push
through Congress.  Get the picture?

We have Conservapedia, and online wiki meant to counter the bias of
Wikipedia; we are a reflection of the above conservative media, and the
other side does not like it.  You've seen first-had as to what they are
doing, and yet you insist on playing fair with them.  They have their own
outlets to create and/or use; why do they need to get in ours?  Is it to
play "fair"?  Or is it to force us to change our way of thinking?  When they
remind us of our rules, they have demonstrated that they have read Alinsky
and fully intend to use Alinsky's tactics against us.

Phillip, respect is a two-way street.  Pick which side of the street you
want to be on.

On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Philip Rayment (home) <

"Philip Rayment \(home\)" <PJRaym...@Yahoo.com.au>, Sun, 28 Sep 2008 02:07:42 +1000:

See interspersed comments.

Philip J. Rayment
Skype: PhilipAndRebekahRayment

"Brian Macdonald" <kara...@gmail.com>, Sat, 27 Sep 2008 11:48:09 -0500:

There is no such thing as middle ground with me; it's either right or it's
wrong.  Period.

Do you honestly think Jesus took the middle ground?  Or Peter?  or Paul?  Do
you honestly think they would be allow their word to be compromised in the
sake of fairness?  Jesus quite clearly stated that the average Cristian who
had one foot in Christ and one foot out in the world would be treated as if
he was all in the world.

Try reading this Bible quote:

Rev 3:15  I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I would that
you were cold or hot.

Rev 3:16  So because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will
vomit you out of My mouth.

*Rev 3:17*  Because you say, I am rich and increased with goods and have
need of nothing, and do not know that you are wretched and miserable and
poor and blind and naked,

Rev 3:18  I counsel you to buy from Me gold purified by fire, so that you
may be rich; and white clothing, so that you may be clothed, and *so
that*the shame of your nakedness does not appear. And anoint your eyes
with eye
salve, so that you may see.

Rev 3:19  As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten; therefore be zealous and
repent.

Rev 3:20  Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice
and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him and he with
Me.

Rev 3:21  To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me in My throne,
even as I also overcame and have sat down with My Father in His throne.

Rev 3:22  He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the
churches.

On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Philip Rayment (home) <

"Brian Macdonald" <kara...@gmail.com>, Sat, 27 Sep 2008 11:49:04 -0500:

And yes, I am aware that I mispelled "Christian", but it wasn't deliberate.

CPAdmin1 <timo...@goodcomputerhelp.com>, Sat, 27 Sep 2008 11:14:38 -0700 (PDT):

Philip Suggested that we:
"respond with exceptional fairness, integrity, and civility, and
thereby take the wind out
of their [sails]" Because  "A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a
harsh word
stirs up anger."
Is there something wrong with that?
I think Philip is right.  We should respond with fairness, (follow our
own rules, no double standards, etc) integrity, (Honesty, Don't treat
some people badly just because they disagree,) and Civility (everyone
on the site is a human being, and deserves to be treated as such.)
The Bible tells us to repay evil with good, and to love our enemies.
Are we loving our enemies?  1 Corinthians 13:4-8: "Love is PATIENT,
love is KIND and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not
arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek it's own, IS NOT
PROVOKED, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not
rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all
things believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Love Never Fails."
Are we loving our enemies?

"There is no such thing as middle ground?"
In some cases I agree.  If it is a moral issue then you are right,
there is no middle ground.  Black and white, either it is sin or it
isn't but in other cases there is middle ground.  Some issues are not
black and white morally, and therefore there is middle ground.

God Bless,

Tim

"Philip Rayment \(home\)" <PJRaym...@Yahoo.com.au>, Sun, 28 Sep 2008 10:14:18 +1000:

My "middle ground" comment was in reference to this comment of yours:
  One side wants family values, the other wants to shove in the family's face sex, drugs, and aborted babies.  One side wants to go to church to worship the Lord, the other wants to go to the church to burn it down.  Our side finally gets a television outlet (Fox) to express our views on television, as well as talk radio; the other side demands to have their views shoved into both, and if they cannot do that, they want to force the issue with the so-called Fairness Doctrine which they are trying to push through Congress.  
Not every liberal wants to shove sex, drugs, and aborted babies in our faces.  Not every liberal wants to burn down churches.  Not every liberal want to force their side onto Fox.  That is what I was referring to.  I agree with Tim that when it comes to moral values, there is no middle ground; either it's wrong or it's not wrong.  But some liberals don't lie.  Some agnostics oppose at least some abortions.  Which countries clamped down on pornography and vice harder than the U.S.?  Atheistic communist countries!  And not all RationalWiki people agree with vandalising us.  And some conservatives agree (shock, horror) with gun control!

See, not everybody fits your stereotype of "liberal" or "conservative".  There are many who are a bit of both, which is what I was referring to as the "middle ground".

In fact the very first verses that you quoted supports this.  God is saying that some people are "neither cold nor hot".  That is, some are in the middle ground!  The rest of your verses don't talk about there being middle ground or not.  So I've explained how your verses do not support your view.  I've given you the respect of addressing your comments.  Now how about you address the verses that Tim and I quoted, which tell us to be fair?

Philip J. Rayment
Skype: PhilipAndRebekahRayment

"Brian Macdonald" <kara...@gmail.com>, Sat, 27 Sep 2008 23:29:07 -0500:

I did address those verses, and I've answered the subject of your version of
fairness in Conservapedia versus what liberals expect and demand what our
fairness should be.

You need to take that subject up with Andy, as I already did over a month
ago.  What he says about Conservapedia and how it should be is final.

On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Philip Rayment (home) <

CPAdmin1 <timo...@goodcomputerhelp.com>, Sun, 28 Sep 2008 05:52:45 -0700 (PDT):

You did not address those verses.  Do you or do you not think that we
should treat them with love?
Do you or do you not think that we should treat them fairly?  Do you
or do you not think we should treat them with civility?

I would like to hear some other people's take on this, especially
Andy.

Thanks and God Bless,

Tim

"Brian Macdonald" <kara...@gmail.com>, Sun, 28 Sep 2008 11:02:15 -0500:

Yes, Tim, I agree with you in that we must treat everyone wih love,
civility, and fairness.  But I already discussed with Andy what liberals
consider fairness with respect to conservatism in general and Conservapedia
in particular, and there is a big difference between the two.  I for one am
not going to be suckered into the liberal version.

On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 7:52 AM, CPAdmin1 <timo...@goodcomputerhelp.com>wrote:

"Bill Bagot" <wbag...@san.rr.com>, Sun, 28 Sep 2008 11:01:18 -0700:

Quick thoughts:

Yes, we are called to love all.

Not all liberals choose to be liberal out of a desire to do malice.

At the same time we recognize that there are fundamental differences between
liberal and conservative views that do affect a person's actions and
outlook, and these are not equal.

We should also acknowledge that on an entity level we do have people who are
our enemies and seek to see to the removal of Conservapedia as a website or
at the very least see that it becomes neutered so that it can not reach
people with a conservative message.

When possible we should protect the site, but are actions in doing so should
adhere to the principles that we uphold.

Bill  (Learn Together)

"Philip Rayment \(home\)" <PJRaym...@Yahoo.com.au>, Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:01:26 +1000:

No, as Tim also said, you did not address those verses.

Philip J. Rayment
Skype: PhilipAndRebekahRayment

"Philip Rayment \(home\)" <PJRaym...@Yahoo.com.au>, Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:13:45 +1000:

Please ignore the last e-mail I sent on this topic; I hadn't at that time realised that this e-mail existed.

The problem, though, is that it's still on a sidetrack.  You raised Alinsky's views.  I wrote a response to that, discussing how we should respond to Alinsky's tactics, and saying that we should not respond in kind, but respond by being fair and following our own rules.  You (Brian), instead of addressing that, launched into an attack on RationalWiki and talked about their version of "fair" (which I hadn't raised).

In a subsequent e-mail, you "accused" me of wanting to be fair.  So I asked if you think we should be unfair.  You also stereotyped people as either conservative or liberal, with no middle ground, so I challenged that also.

Your next reply responded (inadequately) to the point about middle ground.  I responded to that, and asked you to answer the question about being unfair.

With this e-mail you have now grudgingly conceded that we must be fair, although still trying to concentrate on a "liberal" version of "fair".  But you haven't gotten back to the points I originally raised in response to Alinsky's tactics.  If you need a reminder, they were in message 2816.  For that matter, Dean hasn't addressed them either, and he was the one who first raised Alinsky's tactics.

Philip J. Rayment
Skype: PhilipAndRebekahRayment

Timothy Svendsen <timo...@goodcomputerhelp.com>, Wed, 1 Oct 2008 22:34:25 -0400:

Actually, neither he nor I have ever suggested that we go by their  
definition of fair.  We are not siding with them at the site's expense.

I admit that I do sometimes side with them but only when I feel they  
have been wronged (e.g. blocked when they have not broken the rules)  
and never at the site's expense.

You say:  "You are the problem, Phillip, and I'll not have this site  
go down because you think it's funny."  I haven't seen philip claim  
that anything is funny.  And he is not supporting anything that will  
make the site "go down"   I find it offensive when you say that he is  
"the problem".

Tim

"I have been crucified with Christ; and
it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me;
and the life which I now live in the flesh
I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me
and gave Himself up for me."
Galatians 2:20

2008-09-25 ZB1 fannie mae and freddie mac
2008-09-26 ZB1 Country infobox
2008-09-26 ZB1 Saul Alinsky
2008-09-28 ZB1 TerryK's edit
2008-09-28 ZB1 Proposing new idea

Last updated 12 Apr 2011 by Georg Kraml.