User talk:Christopher

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>


[edit] Omnibenevolence vs Good

Hey Christopher, I started a thread in the "Evil is like Cold" talk page. --Bertrc (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Moving this here, since it is a bit off topic (I am just philosophizing)
You posted: Omnibenevolent=loving everyone, how could an evil person/God love everyone? Christopher (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
For specificity, I'd say "omnibenevolence == wanting the good for everybody", rather than "benevolence == loving everybody". I think loving somebody means more than just wanting the best for them. I think it includes an investment into their well-being; tying your own happiness with theirs; driving your decisions around them, etc. --Bertrc (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Regardless, I think we evil people can exhibit either trait. We can love everybody; we just love ourselves more than we love other people. We can want good for everybody; we just don't want to let other people's good interfere with our own good stuff. --Bertrc (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
You really are being pedantic now, I'm still waiting for how this solves the PoE. Christopher (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
He didn't want the best for amputees, or Holocaust victims. Christopher (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't know we were discussing that directly. I was just musing about the nature of and perspectives on evil. Heh, you say "pedantic", I say "precision"!  :-D  :-P~  ;-) Let's consider 3 flavors of the Problem/paradox of evil:
1) If God created everything and God is good, how can there be evil/suffering? He must not be good if he created evil or he didn't create everything.
2) If God is present everywhere, and God is good, how can there be evil/suffering? He must not be good if he is present in this evil situation or he must not be present.
3) If God is all-powerful and omnibenevolent, how can there be evil/suffering? He must not be able to stop it, or he must not be nice enough to want to stop it.
I think you are concerned with the 3rd flavour, but the "evil is like cold" theodicy really only addresses the first two. I think the "evil is like darkness" argument is also good for understanding the nature of evil. . . . Um, before we get really deep into this, are you an amputee or a holocaust survivor (or in a really bad place for some other reason?) I certainly do not want to trivialize things for you, if you are, by coldly analyzing how suffering could exist. I think the "I know what it ain't" view is the best perspective for confronting or dealing with suffering; however, that view is understandably considered avoiding the question if you just want to debate or shoot the bull. --Bertrc (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
"Precision"? That's rich — considering you won't even agree that A ⊊ B. And it goes without saying that your false analogy to "heat and cold" is far from multi-applicable; rather, it is not even wrong. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
(EC)I'm not in a position that means I don't want to talk about the PoE, no. The "evil is like cold" argument fails for a number of reasons: 1) It fails for religions where their God is omnipresent as nothing can be the "absence of God", 2) It fails for religions where the God is all powerful and all loving/all good/whatever because even if he wasn't everywhere he could choose to be where a homeless person is to prevent suffering. Christopher (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Cool! I'll trust you and assume that you are not a holocaust survivor or a double amputee and that you are in a good enough place not to be upset if we smugly and analytically consider suffering while sitting comfortably in our ivory towers.  :-) I certainly agree with your second point, which I believe is referencing the third flavor of the PoE I list above; that third flavor of the PoE is better addressed by other theodicies. However, I would disagree with your first point. Let me break those up into two sections. --Bertrc (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Evil is Cold vs a Creator God who is Everywhere

So, I claim the analogy of evil being like cold (and God being like energy) addresses that second flavor of the PoE I listed above (If God is present everywhere, and God is good, how can there be evil/suffering? He must not be good if he is present in this evil situation or he must not be present) I think this deals with the nature of evil. Before I state my case, I have to ask you, do you believe energy is present everywhere? Let's put zero degrees Kelvin and outer space aside, for the moment, and just look at the bubble from the Earth's stratosphere down to the earth's center. Within those confines, do you think energy is present everywhere? --Bertrc (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Obviously energy is present everywhere on Earth, and due to vacuum energy isn't it present everywhere? I fail to see how hot and cold are in any way related to the PoE though. Christopher (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, it has nothing to do with the classic PoE (third flavor, above) When you say "I fail to see how hot and cold are in any way related to the PoE", are you referring to the non-standard flavors of the PoE that arise when you consider God as the creator of all things or as omnipresent? (first and second flavor I list above) --Bertrc (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Beuller? --Bertrc (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I presume that's a reminder I haven't responded to you, I don't think "evil is like cold" is a solution to any version of the PoE (it could be the solution to one I haven't heard of though). Christopher (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Aw, Dude, have you never seen Ferris Beuller's day Off"? Sheesh, you millenials make me feel old. :-) Okay, the PoE's in this case are:
PoE flavor 1) Question: If God is good and God created everything, why did he create evil? The "Evil is like cold" analogy answers this by saying "God did not create evil any more than energy creates cold." --Bertrc (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
PoE flavor 2) Question: If God is good and God is everywhere, goodness must be everywhere, so how can evil exist anywhere? The "Evil is like cold" analogy answers this by saying "In the same way that energy is everywhere, God is everywhere, however, just as we feel cold if there is not enough energy present so to do we see the evil in a situation if there is not enough of God's presence." --Bertrc (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
So does that explain a bit better how the "Evil is like Cold" analogy can be deployed in response to those two flavors of the PoE and why I feel using "Benevolent" is a strawman, so we should use "Good" in the article? (Ugh, why does auto-correct keep changing my spelling of "flavour"?) --Bertrc (talk) 02:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm still wondering why God chooses to operate in a way that's completely indistinguishable from there being no God. Christopher (talk) 07:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

[edit] The existence of suffering vs a benevolent God

Even though you've given me the go-ahead, I'd like to reiterate that suffering is awful and that I think we should lean on "I know what it ain't" when we are in times of crisis. With that being said . . .

So, I feel the "Transformative" theodicy (with a smattering of the vaccination analogy) is the strongest apologetic argument to address the third flavor of the PoE I listed above (If God is all-powerful and omnibenevolent, how can there be evil/suffering? He must not be able to stop it, or he must not be nice enough to want to stop it.) Essentially, the idea is that a God with infinite power and ability could transform and redeem any magnitude of evil/suffering.

My favorite analogy is when I trained for a marathon: There is one incline that I hated; that's no hyperbole; I loathed it. However, sometimes, when I reached that top and started on the straight away, I would realize that the entire run, up to that moment, was awesome. I don't just mean reaching that top; I don't mean that achieving that goal and taking in that view was better because it contrasted to the suffering of that bloody incline; and I don't mean that the suffering of that incline was balanced out because the result was so spectacular. What I mean is that the entire run -- leading up to the incline, running the incline, cruising along the straightway at the top -- was somehow transformed retroactively into an amazing, wonderful experience even though I had been suffering and wanting to give up just moments before.

This transformation and redemption of suffering is reflected by countless other experiences. Trivially: Would you want to have been able to put that jig-saw puzzle together without having gone through the work and, at times, frustration of having had to hunt for each of those friggin' pieces? More strikingly: Do you wish you had never had any of the uncertainty, drama, and trauma you went through wooing your spouse, now that you are together? Is your joy over the process of coming to understand quantum relativity or Green's theorem diminished by the nights of having banged your head against a wall due to some misunderstanding? (So long as the head banging was figurative) I don't have an artistic bone in my body, but I assume that painters/composers/musicians/sculptors/etc. sometimes suffer as they try to get it just right, but feel unable to do so; I'm willing to bet that sometimes, when they finally do succeed in their vision, they do not think: "This would have been so much better if I had just gotten it right immediately from the start."

Now I'm not saying that this transformation happens every time in all these circumstances and I certainly wouldn't say a tearful, heart breaking fight with the love of my life was as painful as what my cousin went through when his mother died of cancer. However, it does happen sometimes, and I would propose that if my minor sufferings can be transformed/redeemed though the natural processes of this world, within my lifetime, then an all-powerful God of infinite ability could ultimately redeem and transform any magnitude of suffering in a similar or analogous manner. --Bertrc (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

So God gives people Ebola, but he magically turns Ebola into a Good Thing™ so everything is fine? Surely it's a lot simpler to just say "the Christian Gods (and other similar Gods) don't actually exist"? Christopher (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Heh, nice try. I see what you did there!  :-P~  ;-) --Bertrc (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
First, you said "So God gives people Ebola" but God does not give people ebola. That's a dialogue tree we will probably run into in the "Evil is like Cold" analogy, above, and will have to split out into its own section. --Bertrc (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Second, you asked "Isn't it simpler to say God does not exist" but the transformation theodicy (and theodicy in general) is not meant to prove that God does exists; instead, the purpose of theodicy is simply to debunk the PoE as a means of proving God cannot exist. Whether God does exist is probably yet another section. --Bertrc (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Really nice try, though!  :-) --Bertrc (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Addressing the part of your statement that is actually on point, I would counter that it is not magical. Consider the pain during my run up that blasted incline, or the anger trying to find the friggin' correct piece of blue sky in a jig-saw puzzle or the tears during a fight with my spouse or the mind-numbing frustration trying to grasp Green's theorem or the nights of terror thinking I won't be able to provide for my family after being jobless or, heck, even the desire to throw my computer out of the window because I can't figure out how to kill the prismatic dragon with my gnome illusionist. Is it magical that those instances of suffering get transformed and redeemed right now in this natural world? --Bertrc (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
@Bertc What's with you and the making of incomprehensible analogies? Seriously; I could cite your whole last post back to you as example of this. The best part is, you give poor Christopher a nipple twister for allegedly rambling off-point just as you present the following word salad as 'corrective':
Consider the pain during my run up that blasted incline, or the anger trying to find the friggin' correct piece of blue sky in a jig-saw puzzle or the tears during a fight with my spouse or the mind-numbing frustration trying to grasp Green's theorem or the nights of terror thinking I won't be able to provide for my family after being jobless or, heck, even the desire to throw my computer out of the window because I can't figure out how to kill the prismatic dragon with my gnome illusionist. Is it magical that those instances of suffering get transformed and redeemed right now in this natural world?
I rest my case. Facepalm.png
@Christopher Bertc's "Gene Ray-isms" aside... Notice the amount of mental contortionism the guy is willing to put in, just to be able to claim the good stuff (e.g. divine guidance in locating the perfect parking spot) as sign of God's loving presence — while at the very same time, billing all the bad stuff (e.g. parasitic flies injecting their worms into the eyeballs of malnourished infants) to a different account?
Ergo; God gets thanks for all the good — and any bad? Why, that's just 'cause it didn't have (enough of) God in it! Amen! Reverend Black Percy (Reverend Black Percy) 12:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
@Reverend Black Percy, I'm not sure how you consider the Transformative theodicy to mean God is putting things on somebody else's bill, particularly since, according to the theodicy, He actively undoes all the brokenness and evil . . . Did you mean to put that in the "Evil is Cold vs a Creator God who is Everywhere" section? --Bertrc (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
@Christopher, are you confused as to why I would bring up instances where suffering is transformed/redeemed in our normal (natural) world when I am opposing your claim that I am proposing a "magical" (supernatural) solution to the PoE? --Bertrc (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure which post you're replying to, your basic argument seems to be "some bad things "become" good things later on, therefore AIDS, the Holocaust and Ebola become good things in the afterlife", "some things do this, therefore some other things do this" is clearly not a valid argument. Christopher (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, before you moved my responses, my replies were under the posts I was responding to!  ;-) Heh, once again, I see what you did, there; nice try, though. I never said "Some things do this, therefore some other things do this." I said "This can be done to some things that are small, therefore it is possible that this can also be done to other things that are immense" and that is clearly a valid argument [1]. eg. I've never been able to generate enough heat to melt steel, but I have been able to melt tin; tin, with a small melting point, can be melted so it is possible that steel, with an immense melting point, can also be melted. In my life, small experiences of suffering (and even many big ones) have been transformed so that they no longer were experiences of suffering. I hold this up as evidence that retroactive transformation of suffering can happen -- eg. I am suffering while running up that hill, but at some point in the future, that experience will no longer have been an experience of suffering (ugh. Tenses get really screwed up when you talk about changing the past! Perhaps "At some point afterwards, that experience no longer was an experience of suffering" is better) -- If this limitted broken world can transform small (and big) experiences of suffering, then it is possible that an Omnipotent God is able to transform immense experiences of suffering. --Bertrc (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  1. My "clearly" is said tongue in cheek. I'm just poking fun at your use of the word.  :-P~  ;-)

[edit] glad you agree with me

discuss the matter pertaining to this nonsense with me here please, as i really want the articles on this to be fixed. i am a mental health patient myself, and am tired of encountering this pseudoscience wherever i turn. please revise all articles pertaining to this on rationalwiki as there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between the current state of mbsr and it being a "sure thing", psychotherapy-wise. also keep in mind that snake oil salesmen, predominantly of eastern religious affiliation, use this bullshit to prey on the mentally ill. PLEASE REVISE THIS.— Unsigned, by: / talk

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Christopher (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
sorry, i am new. MBSR, though, does involve prayer-like activities as a component. therefore, will try and find relevant source, but complete exclusion may be overkill. put "citation needed" on the end or something in the interim.
this could be included as it specifically mentions the aforementioned items— Unsigned, by: / talk
On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you.
[edit conflict]I've removed the section for now, I'll search for sources (the two sources given previously didn't appear to be to do with prayer and only measured effects on the brain's structure, not actual real world things like a measurement of stress). Christopher (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
however, even the physiological studies are not credible, as pointed out in an article which i am attempting to unearth. this is a big problem in the psychotherapy community now and rationalwiki should be taking a stand against it. (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
and that brings up another point; in terms of the plos blog, see paragraph 3 "Mindfulness meditation programs had moderate evidence of improved anxiety (effect size, 0.38 [95%CI, 0.12-0.64] at 8 weeks and 0.22 [0.02-0.43] at 3-6 months), depression (0.30 [0.00-0.59] at 8 weeks and 0.23 [0.05-0.42] at 3-6 months), and pain (0.33 [0.03- 0.62]) and low evidence of improved stress/distress and mental health–related quality of life. We found low evidence of no effect or insufficient evidence of any effect of meditation programs on positive mood, attention, substance use, eating habits, sleep, and weight. We found no evidence that meditation programs were better than any active treatment (ie, drugs, exercise, and other behavioral therapies).

An accompanying commentary on the review asked:

The modest benefit found in the study by Goyal et al begs the question of why, in the absence of strong scientifically vetted evidence, meditation in particular and complementary measures in general have become so popular, especially among the influential and well educated…What role is being played by commercial interests? Are they taking advantage of the public’s anxieties to promote use of complementary measures that lack a base of scientific evidence? Do we need to require scientific evidence of efficacy and safety for these measures?" (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

i am not trent, if you think that i am. i am not sure who trent is, currently at Mcmaster uni at a public talk.— Unsigned, by: / talk
Remember: On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you.
Trent is the "founder" of RationalWiki, not sure why that person thought you were him. Christopher (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

We should probably have an article on mindfulness, I'll add it to the to do list. Christopher (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Jews

Perhaps it'd make sense to create two categories for believers in Judaism and ethnic Jews? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 14:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

A comment you made 2 years ago on Category talk:Jews is pretty much my view on the subject only without "alternatively we should categorize people by race" seeing as race doesn't exist in the first place. Christopher (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
My oh my, that talk-page commenter has great arguments and a handsome appearance, if I do say so myself. Sounds like a good idea. Should we create categories for people who have left their religion -- eg, Category:Ex-Jews, Category:Ex-Christians, Category:Ex-Muslims? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 14:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, if there are enough applicable articles. Christopher (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
{{main|Religion survivors}} Scratchchin.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Mario-related terms

But why? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 14:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

What? Christopher (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Here

Join me here --Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

[edit] The X-factor affair

Hello, you seem to have been more involved in the X-factor case, so I thought I'd ask you to give a once-over to my judgment regarding X-factor's edit that I mentioned on his talk-page. If it was anyone else, I'd let it slide. Hertzy (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Where do you think it was copied from? Googling random phrases he added doesn't turn up anything really obvious. Christopher (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
It appears to be copied from the cited document. Oddly enough, the first random phrase I googled pointed me to an online version of it. Here's a link. I think the phrase I googled was about new Zealand, at the end of page 16 of the pdf. Hertzy (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, I'm removing his/her edit now. Christopher (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Play fair

To say that an article that's a mere tissue of lies and bias "contains too many unsourced statements, and needs to be improved" is an understatement. I request that you carefully read the detailed explanation that I have given on the talk page for that article (i.e., the article entitled "Eugene M. McCarthy") and then either take the page down or replace it with the honest version that I provided. Keep in mind that in protecting this malicious drivel, you are taking personal part in what may be actionable slander. As your own notice there on rationalwiki says, "Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats." I have no wish, nor any intent, to sue you, but I do expect you to play fair. (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

I'll just point out that you probably mean libel, not slander. Daev (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Making thinly disguised legal threats will get you banned, I'm going to look through the article in a minute and remove some of the unsourced information. I reverted you because a BoN completely rewriting a page is nearly always vandalism, I don't have time to research every person who has an article I revert an edit on. Christopher (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

So are you now saying that I can't even complain about a slanderous attack on my character and reputation? lol. (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

You mean the 18,000+ character-edit that was returned to the talk page with a bit of extra formatting? -- Onychoprion (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
[EC]@BoN: See the message I just posted on your talk page, don't make legal threats onsite. Christopher (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
@Onychoprion: He was reffering to me saying he shouldn't make legal threats onsite. Christopher (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Libellous. Daev (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
You could be wrong, you could be right. I'm not a lawyer. Don't interact with legal threats though. Christopher (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know you. Are you a fair and honest person who is not slandering me? If so, then I'm definitely not threatening you. However, I do expect you to take this matter seriously and to take prompt action. As they say, justice delayed is justice denied. As a friend of mine pointed out, your page now ranks at the top of the Google search page for the search phrase "Eugene M. McCarthy." How fair is that when your article is filled with venom and lies? How patient do you expect me to be? I'm not saying you created this page, but you are maintaining it and it does damage my reputation. I'm a reasonable person though. I'll give you ample time to check through and make very sure that all falsehoods about me are removed from that article. But I won't wait forever. And please don't complain about how much time this will take you. How much time do you think it is taking me to deal with this dishonest invective that your site has deigned to publish about me? I find all this extremely boring and I'd rather be doing almost anything else. I do, however, have to defend myself. If you're worried about this taking a lot of your time, then please just take the article down so that it's just a blank page. And thereafter, if you want to have a page about me, make very sure that every statement you make about me is correct. That would be fair and take very little of your time. (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

The implication being that you'll sue us if it takes too long. Stop making legal threats now or I will block you. Christopher (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

What? Are you saying you're not fair and honest? As I've said repeatedly, if you are, then you and your organization have nothing to fear from me. (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

I'm only saying that if it takes too long, it would not be fair on your part. After all, after looking at this, it looks as if it's been live on the internet for quite some time, perhaps, as long as three years. I can't say I've noticed it before the other day when my friend pointed it out. But how much longer do you think it would be reasonable for me to put up with such treatment? Think about it from my perspective. How would you feel if you yourself were treated this way? (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

(edit conflict)RationalWiki strives to be as accurate and honest as possible, you saying "I won't wait forever" implies that after a certain amount of time you'll sue RW if your page isn't positive enough. You twisting my words to make it sound like I admitted that RW is dishonest is irrelevant anyway, I'm just some random person on the internet with no connections to RationalWiki or the RationalMedia foundation in any way. Christopher (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Now you are twisting my words. I did not say I would sue you, nor did I mean to imply it. But you're not just some random person. You personally have been protecting and reinstating an article that contains numerous dishonest and malicious statements about me. You are also personally identifiable. We are all responsible for our actions, both morally and under the law. It's not good enough for you to simply say you're a "random person." You have responsibilities. But I'm not threatening you. I'm asking you to think about your actions and responsibilities and, as I've repeatedly said, to make your best effort to play fair. And again, as I've been saying, my expectation, as it is with most people I meet, is that you will in fact play fair. And I myself am trying to reach a fair resolution of this matter. For example, wouldn't you say that the proposal I've already made (to take the page down until it can be factually vetted and cleansed of any ad hominem invective) is a perfectly reasonable compromise? I'm not asking this out of the blue. On the talk page for that article, I've taken great pains to explain at length all the problems that I found with it, both factual and ethical. (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

Sorry if you didn't mean to imply you'd sue RW but that's how it sounded to me. I'm currently removing what I hope are all of the unverifiable and untrue statements from your article, it may take a while and I understand your frustration. I meant I was some random guy on the internet in the sense that I have no connection with the RMF, not that I wasn't involved in this. Christopher (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Actually, I had already noticed that you'd corrected a couple of things. Thanks! And, though perhaps I shouldn't say this, I didn't really expect you to do this immediately. As I say, I think this article has been live for quite some time. So what's a little time more. What I'm looking for, more than speed, is accuracy and fairness. Take any reasonable amount of time. I'll check back later. (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

[edit] Someone trash-talking you

Look at what this idiot is saying about you and RationalWiki (no personal information/dox at the link) Rat Defender (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

That troll isn't very funny; especially when Christopher has recently received a death threat.ClickerClock (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Awesome Award


Awesome Award


Reason: being awesome

ClickerClock (talk) 03:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Personal tools