User talk:Castaigne
Contents |
[edit] Moonraker
Given that I just completed watching all of the canonical Bond movies, in order, your comment made me grin. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- While I have a decided love for the Craig reboot, I am of the opinion that Moore has two films which I feel showcase his best qualities. Those would be Live & Let Die and Moonraker. Moore gets raked over the coals for his humor, but those two movies just... --Castaigne (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with you re: Craig, am partial to Brosnan (I think he set the stage for the new depth that Craig brought to the role), but Moore has a special place in my heart because 1. he was my first Bond and 2. Live and Let Die is ah-mazing (especially if you happen to be a student of post-colonial Caribbean revolutionary politics....) Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Bond is a lot like Dr. Who in that regard (and many others) - you never get over your first one. ħuman
01:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- That's a very good point and I have to agree. My first Bond was Moore, come to remember, and while there are those who more rigorously follow the book model, I am a softie in the manner. --Castaigne (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Bond is a lot like Dr. Who in that regard (and many others) - you never get over your first one. ħuman
- I agree with you re: Craig, am partial to Brosnan (I think he set the stage for the new depth that Craig brought to the role), but Moore has a special place in my heart because 1. he was my first Bond and 2. Live and Let Die is ah-mazing (especially if you happen to be a student of post-colonial Caribbean revolutionary politics....) Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- While I have a decided love for the Craig reboot, I am of the opinion that Moore has two films which I feel showcase his best qualities. Those would be Live & Let Die and Moonraker. Moore gets raked over the coals for his humor, but those two movies just... --Castaigne (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
[edit] A very important e-mail
...you know the drill. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Seen yours and Nutty's. Will reply shortly. --Castaigne (talk) 06:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- People still use e-mails in this hypermodern age? O_o 141.134.75.236 (talk) 06:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Answer
"If something is 100% factually correct, how can it be completely misleading and biased?" Because being 100% factually correct is not equivalent with: "I have 100% of the facts" "If Ryulong were writing Gamergate up as "misleading and biased", the only way this can be done is by committing sins of omission and disincluding information prejudicial to Ryulong's viewpoint. If it's 100% factually correct, that cannot be happpening, as nothing has been omitted and nothing has been disincluded. --Castaigne" I'd say this section that he inserted, " their conspiracy theories on how they think game developer and frequent Gamergate target Brianna Wu is transgender" is not only misleading and biased, but false as well since it implies Brianna is not transgender. To your point of view, has he included sources saying that Brianna is transgender? No. That covers your "discluding information prejudicial to Ryulong's viewpoint." Sins of omission are the most common way on lying in all media forms. 67.42.179.115 (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- 1) If 100% of the facts are not there, then feel free to edit the page and don't bitch about it.
- 2) I see no sources or statements from Brianna Wu herself about being transgender. What sources do you have that she has identified herself as transgender? Or are you outing her, which I think is fairly reprehensible to do, but hey, if you have sources outing her, please give them to me.
- I ask for these because Brianna Wu hasn't identified herself as such, and so therefore I do not know for a fact that she is transgender. Although I don't really see what fucking difference it makes, since she identifies as a woman.
- 3) Don't respond to my talk page again. You don't have an account? I don't need some random BoN fucking about on my page. MAN THE FUCK UP and get an account. I have taken your "reply" and posted it where I should. Further replies without an account will be deleted. --Castaigne (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- 1) I can't edit it. It is locked. The talk page is locked. I don't like making accounts.
- 2) Do you need a source from George Washington where he claims to be a male? Sources don't work like that. The sources say Brianna Wu is transgender. Brianna Wu has not denied being transgender. Is there some rule here where someone must self-identify their gender/trans status before it can be included in the article? The article calls Brianna Wu a "financially vulnerable women" - did she claim that? If not, then by your standards it shouldn't be in there.
- Of course, people can and will lie about themselves. It is human nature.
- 3) Whoops, didn't see this until I got here. Next time you don't want to talk to someone try putting it at the front - or just not responding. In any event, I see nowhere else where I can edit to talk about this. 67.42.181.10 (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'll be kind. If you register an account, you can edit the damn page. It is locked against non-registered users. Now, register or shut up. Your choice. --Castaigne (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Sysop
I assumed you already had this. Here is your mop. Tielec01 (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, but I firmly and permanently decline the position of Sysop or any other positions of authority. --Castaigne (talk) 06:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sysop is a position of authority? --Miekal 07:08, 20 February 2015
- Anything that has the slightest bit of responsibility or power, if you prefer. Don't want it. --Castaigne (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough, you can remove your sysop status of you like. It's useful to have, but obviously your call. Tielec01 (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- You can remove your sysop flag yourself using Special:UserRights/Castaigne.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- But can he do that without at the same time momentarily accepting said position of responsibility? Editing user rights is a sysop privilege after all. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Anything that has the slightest bit of responsibility or power, if you prefer. Don't want it. --Castaigne (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sysop is a position of authority? --Miekal 07:08, 20 February 2015
[edit] Rrstuv
What's up with that? Give a reason, don't be a mockingbird.
- 1) Sign your fucking posts.
- 2) New topics go at the bottom of the page.
- 3) Your edits are whitewashing the article and make it wordier than it needs to be. See Missionality. --Castaigne (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)