Gamaliel (T-C-L-K-R-D)
is making a real name for him self on the blue water internet ( the greater world wide web, the web the exists out side the scummy cesspool of Wikipedia, where our very own Robo don't have tools and has to stand toe to toe with real people and real life).
Here I will provide a compilation of links as a "DYK" (tongue in cheek) project on the Grand Jagbag Gamaliel.
Robo's love bs
Black ops radio about Robo, and His nutty thoughts on JFK
More about Robie and and his actions and attention he is drawing on JFK sites
Old link by a good link with a discussion by Daniel Brandt on a blog
More about the JFK, the shit hole of wiki and Robo
I will post more as I able to find more and offer relevant links and commentary. I hope this is good seed start to expose Gamaliel for the kind of low life thug, hypocrite and thief of truth and perversion of due process which he and his wikithug buddies really are..
Full Version: Gamaliel vs. The World
QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Mon 16th May 2011, 6:27pm) 
Ah, yes, a classic. Replete with Fernandez burying his nose up SlimVirgin's ass.
People have totally forgotten about the John Simkin thing, because it was kept very, very quiet.
QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Mon 16th May 2011, 8:27pm)
I will post more as I able to find more and offer relevant links and commentary. I hope this is good seed start to expose Gamaliel for the kind of low life thug, hypocrite and thief of truth and perversion of due process which he and his wikithug buddies really are..
Just for the record though, do you personally believe that JFK was murdered by more than just that one guy?
(Personally, I'd probably describe myself as "leaning toward" a more-than-just-one-guy explanation, but I'm certainly not convinced of it. I'd more readily believe it was the mob than LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover, but that's mostly because the mob is better at keeping secrets than the FBI is.)
Anyway, discrediting Gamaliel via his opposition to the JFK-conspiracy folks seems like it would work OK in some circles, but backfire in others. Something with more general appeal would be better...
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 17th May 2011, 3:54am)
QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Mon 16th May 2011, 8:27pm)
I will post more as I able to find more and offer relevant links and commentary. I hope this is good seed start to expose Gamaliel for the kind of low life thug, hypocrite and thief of truth and perversion of due process which he and his wikithug buddies really are..
Just for the record though, do you personally believe that JFK was murdered by more than just that one guy?
(Personally, I'd probably describe myself as "leaning toward" a more-than-just-one-guy explanation, but I'm certainly not convinced of it. I'd more readily believe it was the mob than LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover, but that's mostly because the mob is better at keeping secrets than the FBI is.)
Anyway, discrediting Gamaliel via his opposition to the JFK-conspiracy folks seems like it would work OK in some circles, but backfire in others. Something with more general appeal would be better...
Well, my thoughts are that the "mob" had JFK bumped and as such, was coordinated by more then one person.
Be that as it may, The JFK stuff is only a means to show the style Robbie has in regards to his ways and means of operating on Wiki.
But for now, my goal is to make Robbie stand out side of the curtain of Wiki force him to becoming a public figure due to his role on wiki at the sole editor of review for the Wiki JFK assassination article. This will make Robbie the laughing stock due to his sloppy scholarship.
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 17th May 2011, 1:54am)
Just for the record though, do you personally believe that JFK was murdered by more than just that one guy?
(Personally, I'd probably describe myself as "leaning toward" a more-than-just-one-guy explanation, but I'm certainly not convinced of it. I'd more readily believe it was the mob than LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover, but that's mostly because the mob is better at keeping secrets than the FBI is.)
Cue Milton's entry into this discussion in 5...4...3...2...
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 17th May 2011, 7:52am)
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 17th May 2011, 1:54am)
Just for the record though, do you personally believe that JFK was murdered by more than just that one guy?
(Personally, I'd probably describe myself as "leaning toward" a more-than-just-one-guy explanation, but I'm certainly not convinced of it. I'd more readily believe it was the mob than LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover, but that's mostly because the mob is better at keeping secrets than the FBI is.)
Cue Milton's entry into this discussion in 5...4...3...2...
1... 0... and we have liftoff of the Challlenger!! With the "Teacher in Space" mission, to teach an important lesson about spacey travel for today's children and followers of LaRouche! Don't do it, kids!
Garrison was a nutcase who probably should have been jailed for prosecutorial misconduct, except that the law grants prosecutors broad immunity for screwing up.
There are many evidences of Garrison's zaniness, but perhaps none so good as his extended "magic bullet disscussion" in Stone's film JFK:
The above images are as Stone and Costner/Garrison would have it, with Connally positioned exactly in front of JFK.
Actual positions of JFK and Connally, who sits well inboard, on a jumpseat.
Actual trajectory of bullet (since duplicated with near-perfection, in ballistics tests with a pair of manikins). Deflection angle in Connally is due to the bullet striking his rib, and being deflected rightward and downward through his arm and into his thigh.
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 17th May 2011, 1:54am)
(Personally, I'd probably describe myself as "leaning toward" a more-than-just-one-guy explanation, but I'm certainly not convinced of it. I'd more readily believe it was the mob than LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover, but that's mostly because the mob is better at keeping secrets than the FBI is.)
Even the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), who were convinced of two shooters solely on the basis of acoustic evidence of 4 shots (which later turned out to be bad) could find no evidence that JFK had been HIT by more than ONE shooter, and that THAT shooter was Oswald, from the book depository, with a Carcano. (See-- it's like "Clue"). Taking out the second shooter on the basis that the recording is NOT from the assassination (based on what else you hear on it, plus the fact that the guy whose mic recorded it could NOT have been where he was supposed to be) and now you're back to one shooter.
The idea of two shooters actually HITTING JFK simultaneously, has always been too bizarre. It's an impossibly difficult shot to do at the same time for two snipers, and there's also the difficult problem of where the second-shooter bullet goes in, comes out, and what happens to it. Which is why the HSCA couldn't even buy into the idea of the thing doing nothing but miss.
The even better theory is that it wasn't fired at all.
QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Mon 16th May 2011, 8:27pm)
Gamaliel (T-C-L-K-R-D) is making a real name for him self on the blue water internet ( the greater world wide web, the web the exists out side the scummy cesspool of Wikipedia, where our very own Robo don't have tools and has to stand toe to toe with real people and real life).
Here I will provide a compilation of links as a "DYK" (tongue in cheek) project on the Grand Jagbag Gamaliel.
Robo's love bs
Black ops radio about Robo, and His nutty thoughts on JFK
More about Robie and and his actions and attention he is drawing on JFK sites
Old link by a good link with a discussion by Daniel Brandt on a blog
More about the JFK, the shit hole of wiki and Robo
I will post more as I able to find more and offer relevant links and commentary. I hope this is good seed start to expose Gamaliel for the kind of low life thug, hypocrite and thief of truth and perversion of due process which he and his wikithug buddies really are..
Some more insight to the Lord Robbie, King shit of the Wiki.... Note if Robbie wants, Robbie gets, be dammed consensus, discussion or debate, he justified his actions as "BOLD" This is in regards to the Madden article and how Robbie made a unilateral page move from John Madden (American football) to John Madden to make him the primary topic with out any discussion or consensus. Robbie acts as an editor of content and volatiles section 230 in the process.
Lord Robbie is are thug
QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Thu 19th May 2011, 1:40pm)
QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Mon 16th May 2011, 8:27pm)
Gamaliel (T-C-L-K-R-D) is making a real name for him self on the blue water internet ( the greater world wide web, the web the exists out side the scummy cesspool of Wikipedia, where our very own Robo don't have tools and has to stand toe to toe with real people and real life).
Here I will provide a compilation of links as a "DYK" (tongue in cheek) project on the Grand Jagbag Gamaliel.
Robo's love bs
Black ops radio about Robo, and His nutty thoughts on JFK
More about Robie and and his actions and attention he is drawing on JFK sites
Old link by a good link with a discussion by Daniel Brandt on a blog
More about the JFK, the shit hole of wiki and Robo
I will post more as I able to find more and offer relevant links and commentary. I hope this is good seed start to expose Gamaliel for the kind of low life thug, hypocrite and thief of truth and perversion of due process which he and his wikithug buddies really are..
Some more insight to the Lord Robbie, King shit of the Wiki.... Note if Robbie wants, Robbie gets, be dammed consensus, discussion or debate, he justified his actions as "BOLD" This is in regards to the Madden article and how Robbie made a unilateral page move from John Madden (American football) to John Madden to make him the primary topic with out any discussion or consensus. Robbie acts as an editor of content and volatiles section 230 in the process.
Lord Robbie is are thug
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gam...ichele_Bachmann
Robbie is now tangling with others, showing off the behaviors which makes him a real delightful little man.
The latest is Robbie is now sitting on the Michele Bachmann (T-H-L-K-D) Bio and plying his agenda with the weight of his tools... Now its an editor by the name of Jimbo Wales (T-C-L-K-R-D) , and Arzel  (T-C-L-K-R-D) pointing out in so many long wiki-esse laced mumbo jumbo that Gamaliel (Robbie) is in full and total violation of WP:COI. (conflict of interest) as well as Wp:Weight and other hypocrisies and thuggery, The Grand Gamaliel is known for, over his wiki admin career, spanning almost a decade of slime.
See this drama here...
All of this is shows up with Arzel serving notice to Robbie boy he is a bad boy...
I think Robbie deserve to be added to the noteworthy editors on this section of this forum.
QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Thu 30th June 2011, 9:14pm)
Ya know what the funniest part of that is? The part where Jimbo has an "exchange" with NYyankees51, the guy who aggressively tries to pwn all the Michele Bachmann articles......
QUOTE
I agree completely with Jimbo. I think with certain politicians/public figures, incidents like this can be notable if they show what the person believes and why. With Bachmann, it doesn't really shed any light on anything. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes. As I think further about this, I think that the kind of things readers are looking for are things that either show consistency or hypocrisy. For a hypothetical example, if she happened to have a gay family member with whom she is personally very close, it would be interesting to know that, as it would be evidence of her "love the sinner, hate the sin" outlook, as well as evidence that even knowing and loving a gay family member isn't enough to persuade her that her views are wrong. Or if, separately, she fired someone from a job after they came out as gay, that seems pretty relevant too.
Both of these incidents are very trivial, and there seems to me no reason to be so trivial: it isn't as if Bachmann hasn't said many things, easily documented, that are quite interesting on the topic of gay rights.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes. As I think further about this, I think that the kind of things readers are looking for are things that either show consistency or hypocrisy. For a hypothetical example, if she happened to have a gay family member with whom she is personally very close, it would be interesting to know that, as it would be evidence of her "love the sinner, hate the sin" outlook, as well as evidence that even knowing and loving a gay family member isn't enough to persuade her that her views are wrong. Or if, separately, she fired someone from a job after they came out as gay, that seems pretty relevant too.
Both of these incidents are very trivial, and there seems to me no reason to be so trivial: it isn't as if Bachmann hasn't said many things, easily documented, that are quite interesting on the topic of gay rights.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.