?

Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 7 April 2011 at 02:11.
The [/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SuspectedReplicant&offset=20110407021110&lqt_mustshow=1932 highlighted comment] was created in this revision.

Was that a joke?

    Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope23:31, 6 April 2011

    No. Stop trolling.

      SuspectedReplicant retire me23:34, 6 April 2011

      How was that trolling? I made that post in good faith.

        Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope00:29, 7 April 2011

        Stop trolling

          SuspectedReplicant retire me00:31, 7 April 2011

          Is this my punishment for being a douchebag last week?

            Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope00:34, 7 April 2011

            I supported you last week. This is just transparent trolling. You're taking stats from a period where CP was 403'd for most people, and including a shitload of bot-like category reassignments and generally adding 2 and 2 and getting a bushel of potatoes.

            Yes you were a douchebag last week, but now you're following it up by being a douchebag this week too.

            Stop trolling.

              SuspectedReplicant retire me00:37, 7 April 2011

              Then tell me my data is invalid in the thread I posted in. Point out what I did wrong—it honestly didn't occur to me to account for CP-related activity being in a temporary downturn.

              Don't call me a troll merely because you object to my data—object to it, and say why, but don't call me a troll. This isn't Conservapedia.

                Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope00:50, 7 April 2011

                Are you seriously telling me you don't look at recent changes? You jump into a huge debate about the future of RW and we're supposed to believe you haven't been looking at what's been going on? Seriously? How fucking gullible do you think I am? Especially after the anti-Human rant you posted? Fuck off you trolling cunt.

                  SuspectedReplicant retire me00:53, 7 April 2011

                  Seriously? Yes. I do frequently fail to put two and two together. It's a failing of mine, that I can make an argument while completely forgetting that the circumstances make said argument completely invalid. I do it all the time in real life. But making mistakes in good faith is not trolling.

                    Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope01:09, 7 April 2011

                    I'm sorry, but given your recent actions I'm not prepared to assume good faith, and since this isn't Wikipedia, I don't have to. Your statements simply don't gel with your actions. Given your change of name, and the fact that you have been exposed as somebody willing to harm RW by doing whatever you can for CP, I don't trust you. You probably don't care, but c'est la vie.

                      SuspectedReplicant retire me01:15, 7 April 2011

                      Welcome to my world

                        Ace of Spades01:39, 7 April 2011

                        Yeah, you were probably right.

                          SuspectedReplicant retire me01:43, 7 April 2011

                          This is such a rich, fulfilling argument to have.

                          I see no reason to assume he's arguing in bad faith. If his data collection was flawed, you only had to mention that.

                            Mei III (talk)01:47, 7 April 2011

                            There's more to it than that. See earlier and related posts.

                              SuspectedReplicant retire me01:48, 7 April 2011

                              OK.

                              'You jump into a huge debate about the future of RW and we're supposed to believe you haven't been looking at what's been going on?'

                              I can believe that.

                              'Especially after the anti-Human rant you posted?'

                              Meh. If everyone has to like Human to have good faith, we're going to have a serious problem.

                              'Given your change of name'

                              Oh come the fuck on.

                              'and the fact that you have been exposed as somebody willing to harm RW by doing whatever you can for CP'

                              That's relevant, but pretty dated. And I thought the general consensus on that was 'who cares?' RW is full of people who've split from and argued with the community in the past. The idea that RA/Stabby is on their side, as opposed to just being pissed off with people here, isn't so plausible to me.

                              I really don't see any evidence of bad faith, SR. If I've missed something, sorry, please tell me. But so far it just looks like you're vying over something unrelated to the edits topic in SB.

                                Mei III (talk)01:57, 7 April 2011

                                Well if you believe that's what he did, then you're accusing him of stupidity rather than trolling. Hardly an improvement. You don't jump into a big debate without knowing what's already happened unless you're an idiot.

                                Yes, I've posted anti-Human stuff before too, but this was of a sufficiently vicious nature that it went to the Coop.

                                You know what "Misanthrope" means, right?

                                Yes it's dated, but nobody else did anything similar.

                                  SuspectedReplicant retire me02:05, 7 April 2011

                                  Sure it was stupid. Stupidity isn't the same as bad faith.

                                  I read it, and there was barely anything vicious about the anti-Human part. The huge 'fuck you' at the top was a pre-emptive jab at people who 'Think I'm silly for being bitter about something on the internet'. The Human part just said he acted like an objectivist, and that RW was his plaything.

                                  You know what 'Replicant' means, right? Usernames shouldn't be considered serious statements. There's no way we could follow that principle.

                                  Kinda depends what you mean by similar.

                                    Mei III (talk)02:11, 7 April 2011
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     

                                    A one-off email, containing a piss-poor, half-assed attempt at conspiracy, hardly constitutes "willing to harm RW by doing whatever [I] can for CP".

                                      Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope02:00, 7 April 2011

                                      What email? This I have to hear.

                                        ТyTalk.02:02, 7 April 2011
                                         

                                        You're the only person who sent such an email.

                                          SuspectedReplicant retire me02:02, 7 April 2011
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                          Personal tools
                                          Namespaces

                                          Variants
                                          Actions
                                          Navigation
                                          Community
                                          Tools
                                          support