Posted on 12/25/2013 1:01:05 PM PST by Awestruck
Am I the only one to notice that most of the Wikipedia entry about FR is one big hit piece? Or does it not matter because it is editable? Don't meant to be dense...just curious.
It sure sounds like it fits to me ...
“Guess I’ll reluctantly have to join Palin, Levin and the others and go all in with our last choice, last chance candidate. It sucks but there it is. But if he pulls a McLame on us, we’re pretty much done for. Praying for the best.”
I was given a post from August 20 and they have another post from October 27 ... both showing that Jim Robinson changed his mind.
Mine is an earlier post - so - they say he changed his mind 9 days before the election and I say he changed his mind 78 days before the election.
I personally don’t care whether he changed his mind 9 days before the election or 78 days before the election.
The important fact for me is that he changed his mind before the election - and thus that fact has been proven true.
Perhaps you would like to make that change from “9 days before” to “78 days before”.
My reference was from August 20, which is 78 days before the election. Their reference was from October 27 which is 9 days before the election.
It’s apparent that Jim Robinson said more about what he was doing 9 days before the election, than he said 78 days before the election.
Just like I was given the quote for 78 days before the election, I’m sure someone can give me the quote for 9 days before the election.
I should also clarify what I understand you’re still not sure about — I take that to be the “straight GOP ticket”. Is that the remaining question?
LOL
That’s great
Stay warm.
This is very specific, “”However, just nine days before election day 2012, Robinson backtracked, admitting he was voting for Romney and a straight GOP ticket. [56]””
I would like to see the source for that, I imagine it was posted here at FR, Wikipedia should link us to it.
Now ... you already know he changed his mind, so I’m guessing that you’re wondering if it was 9 days before ... or 78 days before. Is that right?
And then, I’m also guessing that you’re wondering if he voted a straight party-line ticket. Is that right?
Those are the only two things I can see — (1) the number of days before, and (2) party-line ticket or not.
Good Lord man, are you thick? At this point you have no idea how JR voted.
This is very specific, “”However, just nine days before election day 2012, Robinson backtracked, admitting he was voting for Romney and a straight GOP ticket. [56]””
I would like to see the source for that, I imagine it was posted here at FR, Wikipedia should link us to it.
Would seem that way wouldn't it?
Really???
Ok... let's do a little review since you seem to have, accidentally or purposefully bypassed the facts. The discussion is that WikiP.D.A. is not quite truthful. The statement was made that if you edit one of their pet articles they will change it back. You came along and said someone should edit it since it's not all that difficult and if 'we' would supply 'you' with proof 'you' would undertake the task of proving 'us' wrong by editing the WikiP.D.A. article yourself.
As a reminder.. This is the WikiP.D.A. quote "However, just nine days before election day 2012, Robinson backtracked, admitting he was voting for Romney and a straight GOP ticket. [56]" with the [56] directing to the nonexistant link so the statement is unsourced. As it stands WikiP.D.A. is in error for two reasons. First they offer a nonexistent link as proof of their statement. Then they erroneously relate the time and contents of the statement, based on the link they provide. WikiP.D.A. is thus claiming that at the unavailable link we will find proof of their statement "However, just nine days before election day 2012, Robinson backtracked, admitting he was voting for Romney and a straight GOP ticket."
It has previously been noted that your 'found' link from FR dating to August does not say what WikiP.D.A. says it says, nor is the time frame correct since by most calendars August is considerably more than nine days from November. It has been noted that the now nonexistent TBL post that WikiP.D.A. cites as proof of the disputed statement was also posted in August, so the now nonexistent post from TBL could never have been a proper citation for the statement as reported by WikiP.D.A. The now nonexistent post on TBL from August does point to the FR post that you provide as proof of your claim. The problems with this proof have already been cited even though you cannot seen to grasp the differences in content and date.
Since I found the fingerprint of the now nonexistent TBL post, I'm sure you can too to observe that I am relating this properly, especially as to the date of posting as contradicting its use to prove a statement of 'nine days before'.
Now you add "and they have another post from October 27 ..." but you have provided no substantiating link, only a vague 'they'. Remember that saying is not citing except in straw arguments - then it's only valid if you can get someone to believe it. There are fools here on FR saying that they have photos of Ison heading towards Earth (one of the proofs 'they' offer was a much photoshopped photo of the Pleiades by the way so 'theys' don't get any credence here. Your mileage may vary.)
Now, heeping in mind the previous facts, please note that as the content now stands on WikiP.D.A. it is erroneous for the previously noted reasons. This substantiated the original claim that WikiP.D.A. is not quite truthful. That discussion is no longer on the table. Now suppose you were suddenly to find a post on FR that does state exactly what the WikiP.D.A. article says with a time frame that is close to or even exactly calendar correct, would that change the original premiss? (You know - WikiP.D.A. lies, er, is not quite truthful..)
Well in case you can't figure that out, the correct answer is "No". Why? Because WikiP.D.A. maintains an article with improper attestation and ascertation. (Reminder: WikiP.D.A. is not a forum presentation, but represents itself as encyclopaedic. If it were a forum, corrections are made by subsequent posts. In an encyclopedia, corrections are made by editing the erroneous text, so pointing out a straw argument that some older posts on a forum such as, oh, lets say FR, are now in error is not the same as making a similar claim about an encyclopedia.) IF you are able to find such a post that fits both the content parameters and the time parameters, you, based on your professed ability to edit WikiP.D.A. articles with easy are urged to do so. IF proper corrections are made, all that would be accomplished is that WikiP.D.A. is no longer lying, er, being less than truthful in THIS situation.
OUR original premise has been proved. I suggest that you get on the line promptly with your TBL buddies and dig up the proper information. It might after all be out there, but either way, WikiP.D.A. is in error. Unless and until you find 'their' post - which by implication you do not have access to - from FR on Oct. 27 or thereabouts and undertake to correct the WikiP.D.A. account, YOUR braggadocio of being able to edit with ease a WikiP.D.A. article will be regarded as torofeces. Unless and until you perform the above, and supply such information, no further communication will be necessary
The only thing I see that you’re bringing up is (1) the 9 days versus 78 days before the election ... and ... (2) voting the straight party-line ticket (or not).
The original thing that started this conversation for me was whether Jim Robinson changed his mind. It was either he did change his mind about voting for Romney - or he didn’t.
It’s already been shown that he did change his mind about voting for Romney - so that settles what started this particular conversation for me
NOW ... if you want to start up some more issues about (1) 9 days or 78 days before - and - (2) straight party-line or not party-line ... well ... have at it.
I personally don’t care — as I already got my original issue solved - as to whether Jim Robinson changed his mind about voting for Romney — he did change his mind.
I know what my original question was ... which was did Jim Robinson change his mind about voting for Romney. And I found out the answer - which was that he did change his mind and voted for Romney.
So that is settled for me - and it should be for everyone else, too - according to the quote I gave from Jim Robinson.
The only two other things that I see being brought up after it’s been shown that Jim Robinson did change his mind about Romney — are — (1) whether it was 9 days before the election or 78 days before the election; and (2) whether he voted straight party-line or he didn’t vote straight party-line.
Those two things were not what I was looking into originally, but go ahead (if you want to) and search it out.
I was only interested in finding out whether Jim Robinson changed his mind about voting for Romney and did indeed vote for him. I found out that yes he did change his mind and that yes he did vote for Romney.
Where did you find the information on how JR voted?
Now you are playing an obama... You are misstating your original intent on entering this discussion. Your original intent had nothing to do with whether JR changed or did not change his mind. Your original entry to this thread at Post 33 and the following four posts was to claim that there was nothing wrong with WikiP.D.A. or the article about FR. Here are quotes from the mentioned posts:
I didn’t see too much that was wrong with it and found out some other interesting details.
In general, I don’t think anyone should find any real big issue with the article.(33)
As far as the names and dates and items being described, it seems to be fairly accurate. I don’t see any major problems with it.<34)
What is it, in particular, that needs fixing in that article? I read it and it seemed to be generally right on...it should be easy enough to document the mistaken info, and actually correct it yourself, on the Wikipedia entry. All you would need is the supporting documentation to correct it.(35)
The article was fairly “right on” I thought. And it seemed to be accurate for dates and issues that happened.(37)
Then you began suggesting that YOU would magnanimously edit the WikiP.D.A. for us if we gave you the information.
And ... heck ... if you don’t know how to do it, just give me the citation, and I’ll get it on there for you ..(82)
give me the citation ... and ... I’ll show you .(85)
including your 'reasoning' as to why no one edited it before..
if I were to guess as to why that change has not been made on Wikipedia — it’s because no one can come up with the citation — and THAT would explain a lot, right there..(94)
And you continued with the statement implying that YOU would correct a WikiP.D.A. article if YOU knew it was faulty..
I don’t think it’s a waste of time to correct an error like that on Wikipedia. If one allows an error to stay then don’t complain about the error in the first place. I don’t take that position.
My position is that one acts to correct it - which is why I said I would do it, if you didn’t think it could be done. HOWEVER ... it takes a citation to that fact, to correct it.(99)
Along the line both I (post 86) and ansel12 (post 106) pointed out to you the false attribution by nonexistent link of the WikiP.D.A. article, thereby presenting an error that you had just stated YOU would correct if it was up to you. You then proceded to spend the next forty or so posts pretending that the WikiP.D.A. error was not all that bad, alluding to a document that 'they' have, and other misdirections. When presented in post 149 with the logical support of 'our' as opposed to 'your' comments you pretend that you cannot read with comprehension words in English, redirect to items that never were in the discussion, and then proclaim that you had no interest in anything you had been previously arguing by inventing an "original interest" that you never posted ("I personally don’t care — as I already got my original issue solved - as to whether Jim Robinson changed his mind about voting for Romney ") as a means to remove yourself from the discussion.
Referring again to post 149 please read the following:
"OUR original premise has been proved. I suggest that you get on the line promptly with your TBL buddies and dig up the proper information. It might after all be out there, but either way, WikiP.D.A. is in error. Unless and until you find 'their' post - which by implication you do not have access to - from FR on Oct. 27 or thereabouts and undertake to correct the WikiP.D.A. account, YOUR braggadocio of being able to edit with ease a WikiP.D.A. article will be regarded as torofeces. Unless and until you perform the above, and supply such information, no further communication will be necessary. "
You have been provided with sufficient information that no matter what information you may eventually come up with, the current information you have been presented with and now possess (irrespective of future discoveries) requires by your own words in post 99 that YOU now edit the faulty article.
You have provided none of the prerequisite information or actions that enable further conversation. You have however proven to be a misdirecting disruptor who prefers to embroil argument rather than engage logic.
No further communication is warranted.
Ansel12, I pinged you out of courtesy since I mentioned you. If you would prefer I not do so let me know. I will try to remember - even though my brain leaks more now than it did 30 years ago.. ;-)
I found an actual source.
“”And I guess hell has frozen over because as much as I dislike Romney’s prior RINO positions, I have decided to make my anti-Obama vote count in the only way it might actually do some good. I’m marking my absentee ballot today for Romney-Ryan and I’m voting straight Republican down ticket and no on every ballot issue that would raise taxes, spend money or aid big government or help greedy, thieving socialist workers unions.””
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2951524/posts
Dressing up like Shrek is very creative. A Marine Reservist in full uniform came to our Cub Scouts meeting last year to collect toys. Impressed the Cubs no end.
Well ... I guess you got your answer now. It was exactly as stated on Wikipedia.
(1) Jim Robinson did state he changed his mind about voting for Romney - he did vote for Romney.
(2) As to the question of 9 days before the election or 78 days before the election - I see that he stated it 9 days before the election.
(3) As to whether he voted straight party-line or not - I see he did vote straight party-line.
AND A BONUS ANSWER ...
(4) He voted by absentee ballot.
(5) he voted ‘No’ on all tax issues.
SO ... you found out that all three items were as Wikipedia said ... and ... you got a TWO BONUS ANSWERS ... what a deal ... :-) ...
Very good and thank you for your work in digging it up!
ON TOP OF THAT ... someone has already changed the ‘reference’ to a live link now - versus the now dead link in the prior citation, yesterday. They must have read your post! ... :-) ...
The link was sent to me by someone else and I posted that link here, immediately after receiving it.
Really? Perhaps, of charity, you can explain the use of the F word in conjunction with the Savior's birth.
Here's my take
That site is a joke.
Compare...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Bruckner
http://www.conservapedia.com/Anton_Bruckner
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.