?
The [/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SuspectedReplicant&offset=20110407022257&lqt_mustshow=1938 highlighted comment] was created in this revision.
Was that a joke?
No. Stop trolling.
How was that trolling? I made that post in good faith.
Stop trolling
Is this my punishment for being a douchebag last week?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, you were probably right.
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.
There's more to it than that. See earlier and related posts.
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.
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.
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.
I've made no secret of my real identity since I outed myself. I'm rpeh - Robert Peter Edward Herbert, and perfectly happy to admit it. The reason I mention that post is that it seems to be part of a pattern. By itself it's not too bad (which is why I defended him in the Coop). As part of a pattern, it's worrying.
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".