User talk:Rcooley

From SourceWatch
Jump to: navigation, search

Hi Rcooley, I posted a note for you at http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Talk:Pharies_%27Bud%27_B._Petty I look forward to hearing from you. --Bob Burton 23:56, 19 May 2006 (EDT)


Can I re-iterate, that your concerns can only be addressed if you provide specific details of any alleged innacuracies. --Bob Burton 21:10, 20 May 2006 (EDT)


Hi Rcooley:

  • You complained that some contributors to the SourceWatch article used pseudonyms and they "they should reveal their true identity. What do they have to hide?". Two points in response.
    • You have warned that unless the article on Tepper and related pages is removed "at once" then "action will be pursued". This infers you are somehow linked to individuals or organisations referred to in one or more of the pages. However, as far as we know you too are using a pseudonym. For this reason it would be appreciated if you could reveal your true identity and any affiliation with the organisations or individuals mentioned in the pages you object to; and
    • More importantly than whether you or others are using pseudonyms is whether the content is fair and accurate. I and others have requested you identify any inaccuracies on the articles in question. You haven't identified a single specific point or set out your arguments why anything should be amended or deleted. Once more I restate my request that you be specific.

I look forward to hearing from you on these points. --Bob Burton 19:45, 21 May 2006 (EDT)

I’m actually not hiding behind any pseudonym. This is my name. I’m curious about this individual Neoconned because I suspect he used to work in our office. I tried to avoid mentioning his history before but the person we know was fired for having pornographic images of children on his computer. The individual would use the name Neoconned on chat rooms and other web forums. He was from the UK but had resided across the Atlantic for some time. I strongly suspect it is this individual. So therefore it would be good if he could be transparent and reveal himself and all his motivations will become apparent in relation to these pages. I don’t think he needs you all to speak for himself. In any case he was naïve enough to leave his details on one site. I would like to also kindly request one last time that you remove all these slanderous allegations based on warped conspiracies. It seems every time I ask, you all choose to add more material. That is not very mature. User:Rcooley

Please see my talk page for a reply to this feeble smear. --Neoconned 22:31, 22 May 2006 (EDT)
Neo, I think if I remember correctly that is how you used to like to be called. I’m appealing for you to stop your agenda of revenge. I think if you can be honest with us for just one minute, you know you were the one who had child pornography photos on your computer. I thought we resolved that. I can still help you overcome this problem but this is not the way forward.
Don’t talk to me about democracy or about feeble smears. We have been fighting to ensure democracy remains part of our constitution before you and the rest of the X-Files crew turned up. You can add as many new links and pages as you want for Tepper but you won’t prove a thing nor will you find anything of substance because it does not exist. We’ll be in touch with you soon. Before I forget, how is the cat? User:Rcooley
Again, replied to on my talk page. --Neoconned 23:20, 23 May 2006 (EDT)

Rcooley - you take the cake. You can't nominate a single inaccuracy in the articles you complained about so you have resorted to a pathetic smear. And you want us to take you seriously? --Bob Burton 04:04, 23 May 2006 (EDT)


Oh, my, you are THAT Rcooley .... See how it works? Artificial Intelligence 04:38, 23 May 2006 (EDT)